Remote Session for Thursday, 6/22 at noon.
Harry Lawanorder is a State Representative working on new legislation concerning juveniles. He is a firm believer that in order to stop offenders from committing more crimes, the only answer is transferring more juveniles to adult court. He is absolutely convinced that by doing so, juveniles will 'get the message' and juvenile crime will lessen. He has asked for your opinion
since you are now becoming a juvenile justice expert.
1. After reading chapter 14, particularly about transferring juveniles to adult court, what advice would you give to the representative about his vision for lessening juvenile crime? Make sure you sure you give him the total picture?
2. What is your view of this practice? Include a quote from the text that supports your view.
posted by ProfessorQuinnCCP @ 1:22 PM
10 Comments:
Becoming a juvenile justice expert,I too would be firm with today's juveniles.When committing very serious crimes (such as murder)I think that juveniles need to be waived to adult court, in away i have two different opinions because although I'm not not all up for the death penalty(in any situation)I do think that every one should be able to stand what they do.In addition to reading chapter 14 I believe that when the juveniles are tranferred onto adult court that it should fit there crime(unlike the sentence In the Gerald Gault case)there should be reasonable evidence that placed the juveniles onto adult court.
My view of this practice would be deterrence "the more severe,certain, and swift the punishment its deterrent effect will be"(72),so by tranferring juvenile to adult court I would hope that this then sends a message to the juveniles showing how severe things can get.
There are three types of waiver procedures for juvenile.
1) " Concurrent jurisdiction. In about 15 states, the prosecutor has the discretion of filing charges for certain offenses in either juvenile or crimimal court " (436).
2)" Statutory exclusinon policies. In about 29 states, certain offenses are automatically excluded from juvenile court. These offenses can be minor, such as traffic violations, or serious such as murder or rape. Statutoy exclusion accounts for the largest number of juvenile tried as adults " ( 436).
3)" Judicial waiver. In the waiver ( or bindover or removal) of juvenile cases the criminal court, a learning is held before a juvenile court judge, who then decides whether jurisdiction should be waived and the case transferred to criminal court. All but four states) (Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Mexico, and New York)offer provision for juvenile waivers " ( 436).
Advantages " some have argued that the increased use of waiver can help get violent offenders off the streets and should be mandatory fo juveniles committing serious violent crimes " (440).
2) " kids are most likely to be transferred to criminal court if they have injured some one with a weapon or if they have a long juvenile court record " (440).
3) " Clearly, many waived juveniles might be considered serious offenders " (440).
4) " Some cases involving serious offenses, he argues, require a court " (440).
5) " Although the charge against a child may be considered serious in juvenile court, the adult criminal court will not find it so; consequently, a child may have a better chance for dismissal of the charges or acquittal after a jury trial " (440).
Disadvantages, no evidence that stop juvenile crime.
1) " There is little evidence that strict waiver policies can lower rates " ( 437).
2) " These children may be incarcerated under conditions so extreme, and in institutions where they may be physically and sexually exploited, that they will become permently damaged " ( 438).
3) " Once they are released waived juveniles have a higher recidivism rate than those kept in juvenile court " ( 439).
4) " Some research shows that many waived youths were no more dangerous than youths who remain in juvenile courts " ( 440).
I agree with Mr Harry Lawanorder. For example, concurrent jurisdiction support more juvenile go to adult court because the prosecutor can choose to put juvenile in adult court. Moreover " some cases involving serious offenses, he argues, require a court " ( 440).
Statutory exclusion policies support Mr Harry Lawanorder legislation. I agree with statutory exclusion because serious crime such as rape and murder show that the kid think as in adult. On the other hand, traffic violaions have their own special court such as traffic court. When kid trial as in adult they should put them in a special section of the jail that just keep juveniles. Furthermore, I will advice Mr Harry Lawanorder to make a special jail for the juvenile trial as adults.
1) After reading chapter 14 titled "Juvenile Court Process: Pretrial, Trial, and Sentencing", the advice that I would give the representative is that transferring juveniles to adult court would decrease their chances from being rehabilitated or treated for the crimes that they committed. A juvenile should only be transferred to juvenile court if the juvenile has committed murder or has done harm to another individual. If the juvenile has pleaded guilty and then has been transferred to adult court for a crime other than murder, their sentence or punishment will be greater than it would be if they were sentenced in juvenile court. This becomes a problem because labeling the child as a delinquent increases negative behavior towards the child. The method that I would give to lessen juvenile crime is to not be so quick to waiver a juvenile into adult court, 1) ask the juvenile why they have committed the crime and then from there determine if the juvenile needs help or needs to be held in a correctional facility away from society. 2) Another way to lessen juvenile crime is to not put first time juveniles in correctional facilities with chronic offenders because they to have an influence on juvenile crime.
2) My viewpoint about this practice is "Parens Patriae", allowing the court to legally interfere into families to help the children. Preventing crime starts at home. I would focus on the help for the juvenile because part of the reason the juvenile is committing crimes is the environment that he or she lives in at home, the neighborhood, and the performance that he or she gives in school. Then if the juvenile becomes a chronic offender than specific deterrence is necessary to help put a stop to juvenile crimes increasing.
I can understand why Harry Lawanorder is a firm believer that in order to stop offenders from committing more crimes, the only answer is transferring more juveniles to adult court. I don’t agree completely to his opinion, because before juvenile courts were established children who committed crimes were punished as if they were adults. Juvenile Courts were designed for the best interest of the child, and give juvenile minor offenders a second chance to correct their behavior and learn from their mistakes. Depending on the age, I believe if the child is 16 years or older and committed a serious crime they should be waived to the adult courts. At this age they should know what is good behavior and bad behavior and understand the consequences of both. On page 451, the book states that most juvenile experts oppose the waiver to adult courts, because it doesn’t give the children an option to rehabilitate. Only the serious juvenile cases should be forward to adult court. According to chapter 14, personnel limitations, and divergent programs are more successful ways to control delinquency.
I would start by telling Mr. Lawanorder that by transferring youths to adult court could in most cases do more harm than good. First of all, while studying to become a Juvenile Justice expert I learned early on that labeling a child can have some serious consequences that could carry over into a childs adulthood. In waiving these children to an adult court, you would be in fact labeling them as in adult offender which could later effect the child in several areas in his/her life such as: education, employment, social life and any other positive opportunities that may arise.
The whole purpose of the juvenile system is to help rehabilitate children in the hopes of them being able to live productive lives and stay away from crime. However, this rehabilitation can not take place in a criminal court because they are not created for rehabilitation, they are created for punishment.
If children are incarcerated in criminal court they could be put in situations that in the long run could cause serious permanent damage, mentally and physically. They could be forced to live in unlivable extreme conditions, it's possible that could be violated sexual by inmates, taken advantage of or bullied by inmates and in some cases they can even be violated by correctional officers. I would then point out 1 strong fact to Mr. Lawanorder. If a child was living at home under extreme conditions and was being abused sexually or otherwise, there would be no hesitation in removing the child from the home and letting paren patriae take effect in an effort to protect the child. So, why then would be so quick to put a child into a situation where under in other circumstance you would remove him from the situation. After all, no matter what his/her crime is he/she is still a child and children need to be protected no matter what.
My view is the same as those juvenile justice experts metioned on page 437. "Most juvenile justice experts oppose the waiver because it clashes with the rehabilitation ideal." I am all for the rehabilitation of children. Although I know these children are old enough to know right from wrong, I still don't believe they understand the consequences of what might happen for committing crimes. However, shoving them into adult courts as adult offenders is in my opinion the wrong way to deal with it. When that happens it says to me that the law believes that "it's NOT okay if the families of these children abuse them, but it IS okay to let a bunch of strangers abuse them because they deserve it."
The state rep has a good point in changing some juveniles to adult court. I would ask the rep. for statistics stating that the correlations between putting delinquence in adult court, and crime rate going down has any significance. To throw children in adult court just to put a bandage on juvenile crime is not the way to handle that.I think repeated offenders should be handled that way since they take advantage of the law. Page 464 list some corrections that would work well for some and others would be detered from crime. House arrest is a good starting point. The rep has to come up with something to base his allegations on, not just putting every problem in one bag. Adults are adults children are children thats the way the law sees them, regardless of the crime. If we put every child in an adult court for every crime they committed the court would be filled with young soon to be old criminals.
Part 2 in the transfer to the adult court a study of juveniles waived to criminal court in the nation's 40 largest counties found that 7100 juvenile felony defendants wre adjudicated in adult criminal court. Three Procedures, Concurrent juridistion, Statutory exclusion policies, and, Judical wavier.1. the discretion is in the prosecutors favor.2.Some of the offenses can be kept off the record because of being a juvenile, 3.The judge has the deciding say on whether to prosecute or or go to criminal court.All states has different procedures on whether to wavier or not.Some states go by age some states doesent care what age you are. Pennsyvania is on of those states that you can be tried as a n adult for murder is committed. Criminalization is what is being call for putting children in adult courts. I think its just another way of special deterrance for juvenile defenders.
1. What advice would you give to the representative about his vision for lessening juvenile crime? Make sure you sure you give him the total picture?
Mr. Lawanorder’s belief that there is only one answer shows that he sees no gray area in the resolution of this issue. Several researches have shown that the strict waiver policies that Mr. Lawanorder believes in do not necessarily reform the juveniles that subject to them. As a matter of fact statistics have even shown that once released from prison, “waived juveniles have a higher recidivism rate that those kept in juvenile court.” My advice to Mr. Lawanorder would be to follow more research and statistics results instead of assuming that strict waiver policies will always work. Because the fact is that they (strict waiver policies) don’t always work and sometimes could create more problems than solutions. He should ask himself if there are still other alternatives. We know that juvenile courts and detention center aren’t perfect and are sometimes lenient, but is there a chance of separating the juveniles by the severity of their crimes without treating them like adults?
2. What is your view of this practice?
When thinking of this issue, I believe that we need to take into consideration those gray areas such as the fact that young people are not adults and do not think like adults. They are not as mature and are more easily influenced. I believe that the fact that they are susceptible to change is used more in the juvenile courts and detention centers where the focus is more on rehabilitation than punishment. I do not believe that young people would receive the attention that they need if they were convicted through the criminal court system; a fact the probably accounts for the higher recidivism rate.
I also don’t believe that the juveniles should be placed in the same institutions as adults because that increases their vulnerability. As Redding shows, “children may be incarcerated under conditions so extreme and institutions where they may be physically and sexually exploited that they will be permanently damaged.” Such abuse can have detrimental effects on anybody especially young people. I believe that the only juveniles that should be transferred to adult courts are those that just so incorrigible that the juvenile court systems have absolutely failed with them and there is always a recurrence of the same criminal behavior.
1.I agree with State Reprsentative Harry Lawanorder, for I am also a firm believer in stopping offenders from committing more crimes. I also believe if a juvenile don't do an adult crime, then the juvenile shouldn't do adult time.Juveniles who commit murder,rape and/or robbery, then the juvenile should stay in the facility until 18 then transfered to adult court. I don't think juveniles should be waivered into adult court until after their 18 birthday and no earlier. Waiver can create lond term harm."Waiver children may be stigmatized by a conviction in the criminal court."
2.My views on this practice is to try to help juvenile delinquent become responsible adults by their 21 birthday."While it is true that some juveniles offenders commit crimes that deserve punishment, and that rehabilitation programs will not be effective with all juveniles, the fact remains that most kids who remain in the juvenile justice system do not become adult offenders."Giving juveniles harsh penalties will not give other juveniles the message, but only teach other juveniles how to cover up for their crimes.Neighborhoods need programs for the children and parents need parenting classes.Children need better schools instead of the government putting money into building more prisons.
I agree with Harry's views 100%. I believe that adult court is the only way a juvenile will see the difference between the seriousness of punishement. Of course, because he/she is under 18, the crime will be less offensive. But because it is less offensive does not mean the crime should happen over and over again hoping that they will recieve the same punishement and thats it. If I was in the same position to convict a juvenile, I would put them in juvenile court for a while first and then transfer them out to adult court and allow them to finish the majority of their sentence over there. Thay way, the juvenile will eventually realize prison sentences depending on age is not the same. "Rehabilitation programs will not be effective with all juveniles". This statement is somewhat true. In a way, it conflicts with the incarceration process. In constrast, it still does not mean that it is okay for a juvenile to commit a crime to result in a lesser sentence.
Post a Comment
<< Home