Juvenile Mediation Cases

Day, S. (2014). Runaway Man: A Journey Back to Hope. New York: Library of Congress.

In today’s society the youth generation seems to be facing some problems that there is no solution for. Juveniles are participating in many wrongdoing activities that they are not being held accountable for. I see many gray areas when it comes to the juveniles justice system and I strongly believe there should be changes made in order to help these juveniles be deterred from such behavior so they do not continue down a path that can affect the rest of their lives.

Juvenile courts were initially intended for the trial of minors for small crimes such as theft and trespassing, but within the last 30 years, violent juvenile crime has seen a major influx (Juvenile Arrest). According to Barry Feld, Juvenile justice systems can no longer handle the cases that are being brought to them because they surpass the sentencing of the juvenile system. Thus, his argument is that juvenile systems should be abolished because reforms within the system have allowed for more lenient sentencing and reconciliation of sentences. Doing away with juvenile courts would “assure greater procedural regularity in the determination of guilt” and eliminate the immense amount of subjectivity involved (Feld). Although this may assist in assigning guilt among juvenile offenders in more serious crimes, it may be slightly extreme to try minors in criminal court for petty offences. Feld addresses the apparent problem of subjectivity and trying minors in criminal court would help diminish that bias, yet he only considers the application of more serious crimes that would have mandatory sentences of five years or more, not both the serious crimes and the approach to smaller-scale crimes. Although he remains somewhat blind to part of the overall argument, the information provided is well researched and knowledgeable. Feld himself is also highly

A Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a study in 40 of the nation’s largest urban communities. “It was found that an estimated 7,100 juvenile defendants were charged with felonies in adult criminal court in 1998. Of these 40 county criminal courts, juveniles were 64% more likely than adults to be charged with a violent felony. These juvenile defendants were generally treated as serious offenders, as 52% did not receive pretrial release, 63% were convicted of a felony, and 43% of those convicted received a prison sentence. States have expanded the mechanisms by which juveniles can be charged in criminal courts. In 1998, statutory exclusion was the most common method (42%) used to charge juveniles defendants compared to the more traditional use of juvenile waiver (24%). In the 40 counties in 1998, 62% of the juvenile felony defendants were black, 20% were white, 16% were Hispanic, and almost 2% were of another race” (“Bureau of Justice Statistics”).As time goes on, crime rates of youths

Teenagers are not perfect, and their irrational behavior can lead to poor decisions that could potentially be dangerous and unlawful. A debate has now occurred for many years that deals with the issue of sentencing teens that have committed serious crimes such as murder and robbery. Many people argue that if juveniles commit these crimes that their punishment should be equal to an adults punishment for serious crimes, but juveniles shouldn’t have to worry about their lives getting ruined. Most juveniles and teenagers do not have enough maturity to survive in the adult prison system, and recent brain development research shows us that teenagers brains are not even close to being finished developing. Therefore, teenagers and youth under the age of eighteen should

There are differences between a juvenile court and criminal court in the United States. The focus of the juvenile justice system is on rehabilitation, in hope of deterring the minor away from a life of crime so they will not commit a crime again as an adult. In contrast, the criminal justice system focuses on the punishment and often bases the sentencing outcome on the criminal history of the youth. In a study conducted, Butler (2011) showed that the participants’ experience with adult jails and prisons show that those facilities may instill fear but are otherwise emotionally—and often physically—dangerous for youth. Many of the adult prisoners, who were minors when they enter the adult institution, felt they were forced to “grow

The first point of criticism against victim participation in restorative justice processes arises from scepticism about an apology to the victim as a way of dealing with criminal matters. The perception sometimes exists as to it simply being a way to get away with the crime.106 Members of the public should thus be educated to understand that restorative justice is more than a mere saying sorry, but in the context of victim offender mediation or family group conferences it rather affords the victim the opportunity to confront the child offender with the real and human cost of his or her criminal actions. Another concern deals with the possible secondary victimisation of the victim in the case where the offender pretends

There are many children in the world who are being put behind bars and detained for alleged wrongdoing without protections they are entitled to. Throughout the world, children are charged and sentenced for actions that should not be considered as adult crimes. Here in the United States, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is age 12. Law enforcement officials and those in the juvenile justice system nationwide tend to mistreat underage individuals by trying cases while working through the lens of an adult. Unfair punishments are still handed down domestically, which is in violation of Supreme Court law. The following articles specifically address the idea that juvenile justice is unethical. In the article, “Juvenile Justice & Adolescent

Many people have disregarded the fact that children too can commit despicable crimes; crimes that not even adults would think about committing. Juveniles have had their era in in being able to manipulating courts to give them a lighter sentences for their so-called “mistakes”. These juveniles have made puerile excuses to try and exonerate their actions by blaming their impulses, rather than taking accountability for them. Juveniles should be tried as adults due to being aware of their crimes and having an intention to kill, however, brain development and maturity can play a role into the reason why teens kill. With being tried as an adult juveniles should be granted the opportunity of freedom pending on their rehabilitation status and if requirements

JDAI involves families as whole when juveniles are going through the court process, and they also include them in any future plans for the juvenile. JDAI has even used parents who have had kids that were involved in the court system to work as mentors for other people going through the same process (Casey, 2015). In the program that I am involved with, we not only provide counseling for the juveniles, but for the whole family as well. One of JDAI’s methods is to get as many people involved in making the juvenile justice system better suited to help these young offenders.

The federal government’s “War on Crime” by the Johnson administration in the 60s made way for tougher law enforcement and surveillance (Hinton, 2015). However, with this came the separation of children and adults in the criminal justice system; then the separation of juvenile delinquents from status offenders. As mentioned, status offenders are different from juvenile delinquents because they had broken rules which apply to only children. Meanwhile, juvenile delinquents are youths under the age of 18, who committed offenses that would be punishable to adults as well. By the late 1960s, there became a growing concern that juveniles involved in the court-based status-offense system, were not getting their best interests met (Shubik & Kendall, 2007). This can be seen in the growing number of court-involved status offenders who were being detained and placed outside of their homes for noncriminal behavior (Shubik & Kendall, 2007). Following multiple studies and research, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice recommended that the juvenile court be the agency of last resort and that community-based organizations, not penal institutions, should be responsible for these youths (Shubik & Kendall, 2007; Farrington,

For generations, the argument whether juveniles should be waived to adult courts or not has been a prevalent one in our society. Some agree that waiving the juveniles to adult courts will reduce their recidivism rate, due to the harsh sentences and a lifelong record next to their name. However, in light of the argument these individuals fail to consider that the level of maturity of the juvenile is not the same as an adult. The cognitive development of the juvenile is still in process when they are underage, causing them to act impulsively without thinking about the consequences of their actions. In this paper, I will provide information as to why waiving juveniles to adult courts only causes their recidivism rate to increase rather

Those in favor of trying juveniles as adults believe that it deters and minimizes crimes being committing by all minors. That trying juveniles as adults will bring the greatest good to the most amount of people. According to an article posted by the American Bar Association by Nicole Scialabba, “the increase in laws that allow more juveniles to be prosecuted in adult court rather than juvenile court was intended to serve as a deterrent for rising youth violent crime.” It is no secret that youth commit crimes in our society. In 2014, law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made an estimated 1 million arrests of persons under age 18 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention). It is debated that juveniles are committing more serious and violent crimes because the youth think they can get off easy and take advantage of the system put in place. Those in favor of youth offenders being tried as adults believe that as juveniles are punished to the full extent of the law, future youth offender will think twice before committing a criminal act. In support of this, seventy-five percent of the transferred juveniles interviewed by Redding and Fuller (2004) felt that their experiences in the adult criminal justice system had taught them the serious consequences of committing crimes. As one juvenile explained, “[Being tried as an adult] showed me it’s not a game anymore. Before, I thought that since I’m a juvenile I could do just about anything and just get 6 months if I got

Thesis Statement: Children, as innocents and infantile, are unconsciously doing unwanted acts that may violate our laws, therefore insufficient guidance from family, environmental factors syndicates, poverty and problem on education, which are the main rationales for their involvement on crimes should be given corresponding solution by the government.

In an age where juvenile crime has escalated from simple truancy to more serious crimes such as mass school shootings some would agree it is time to abolish juvenile courts or modify the system at the very least. Because of the seriousness of juvenile crime in this day and age, most states have already lowered the age limit for juvenile court jurisdiction from 17 years and are prosecuting more children as adults depending of the seriousness of the crime. Some criminal justice and child welfare scholars argue that younger children do not have the mental capability or experience to weigh the consequence of committing a crime and much less understand the implications of a criminal record in their future. Furthermore, they note that most juveniles grow out of criminal behavior as they mature out of the system and in