The Supreme Court of the United States of America in 2012 ruled that juveniles couldn’t be tried as juveniles and be sentenced to life without the possibility of bail, no matter how harsh the nature of the crime committed. Justice Elena Kagan argues that juveniles who commit crimes typically have a rough upbringing or unfortunate circumstances which cannot be controlled by the juvenile. She argues that if they are serving a life in prison without a chance of parole, it causes damage to them psychologically due to the lack of experiences. They will miss the most important moments in life that define who they are as an individual. Elena Kagan thought to believe that juveniles and their cases should be going to court with the consideration of age, immaturity, impetuosity, and behavioral circumstances. Approximately 2,500 juveniles have been charged with life in prison without the possibility of parole as adults before the Supreme Court ruling in 2012.
In America’s society, there are an estimated 1.2 million violent crimes committed every year. Adults are not the only individuals that are committing violent crimes. Juveniles are estimated to be involved in twenty-five percent of all violent crimes. Along with these crimes comes the decision on whether these juveniles should be tried as minors or adults, which has created an immense controversy around the United States. Certain juveniles are tried as adults because they must be held accountable for their actions, it brings justice to their victims, and because those individuals have a moral sense.
The juvenile court system is a fixture of the justice system with many moving parts. Each component and member of the court system are essential in carrying out their common goal. By helping operate a complex system built to rehabilitate juveniles, these people, and the programs they run, prevent juveniles from reoffending, benefit them, and help them towards the path of becoming a productive member of society.
Discrimination in police agencies is a big problem in this country. This discrimination comes in different forms and names. The three mains types are Institutionalized discrimination, Contextual discrimination, and Individual acts of discrimination. These patterns of discrimination can occur because that’s the way it has always has been done or because of the situation. Ethnic groups pose problems for police agencies including language barriers and their prior contacts with law enforcement. Gang involvement and the location a person lives can also lead to discrimination. Illegal immigrants pose a different type of problem for law enforcement. Because they do not want to be deported, most times they
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
Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30). This reflection paper will first address the advantages of using retributive justice approach in three court-cases. Second, it will discuss the disadvantages of using retributive justice approaches by analyzing the three court-cases listed above. Third, it will elaborate on ways that the system could have used restorative justice processes in the cases, as well as present potential outcomes that could have been reached if restoration justice was taken into consideration.
Within the judicial and criminal justice systems, restorative justice is seen as a forward moving process in regards to the way in which the sentencing of offenders is handled (Britto & Reimund, 2013). Restorative justice works to focus on the needs of both the victim and the offender but incorporates the community as well as those who support both the victim and offender (Britto & Reimund, 2013). The approach of restorative justice in not simply a means by which society responds to and reduces crime but instead, provides an equivalently valuable social response to crime (Dancig-Rosenberg and Galt, 2013). Furthermore, the restorative approach places emphasis on the personal and relational harms which were caused by the crime while creating space for dialogue concerning the actual damage, whether directly or
There have been many times over the years where a child commits a crime and they either get the punishment of a child or they get the punishment of an adult depending on their age, or depending on what the crime they committed was. If you send a child to adult prison it is a lot more harsh than juve so they have to be kept from the other inmates because it is too dangerous for them to be around them. The children transferred to criminal court were less likely to commit the same crime than those who went through the juvenile system. The children who re offended offended sooner and more often than the children who were tried in the juvenile court. In some states if the child is convicted in criminal court they can plead insanity and get out of the of the sentence they would be facing.
This type of justice system is designed very differently when compared with the retributive justice system. The restorative justice system endeavours to bring the victim and the offender together and allow them to speak with each other in the hopes to support the healing process. It will enable the victims to express themselves to the offender and lets the offender apologize and express their feelings to the victim. The restorative justice system often offers the victims of crime closure. The system encourages both parties to reveal themselves to each other and develop a solution for the future to satisfy both parties involved. A study done by Criminal justice inspection Northern Ireland found the rate of recidivism went down when young offenders were diverted into restorative justice furthermore study concludes that people were often quite pleased with the outcome of the restorative justice(Restorative Justice Council,
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
The juvenile system was designed a long time ago to try and rehabilitate also to reform juveniles that committed crimes. In some cases, juveniles today have evolved to many more adult crimes. Many of these crimes have come on the form of raping’s and murders. The original
110). According to the author, the aim of restorative justice is to heal communities from an incident where people were harmed and, ideally, help prevent the same thing from happening again. I believe that, there is going to be a higher possibility of crime reduction in schools and in different neighborhood if victims and offenders mediate a restitution agreement to the satisfaction of each other. In conjunction to this, if the government can be more committed in supporting these approaches, I believe that there will be a massive drop in crime
Nathaniel Abraham is 11 years old and got the world questioning. Nathaniel had acted with murder. The action was displayed in Michigan of 1997. By then, a law in Michigan was created explaining, “a child of any age may be tried as an adult for severe crimes.” This law shows the fair, just process of criminal action towards all, not just the older. Many think otherwise, but in reality and fairness, anyone, especially with proven murder should certainly be tried as an adult.
Can you imagine waking up behind closed walls and bars? Waking up to see your inmate who is a 45-year-old bank robber and you are a 14-year-old minor who made a big mistake. This is why minors who have committed crimes should not be treated the same as adults. Some reasons are because the consequences given to minors in adult court would impact a minor’s life in a negative way. If a minor is tried through a juvenile court, they have a greater chance of rehabilitation.
Batley (2005) stated that restorative justice is about restoring, healing and re- integrating victims, offenders, as well as the society and also preventing further harm. In this assignment, I will be discussing approaches to restorative justice and illustrating their advantages and disadvantages to offending. I will also provide the applications of these five approaches of restorative justice which are retributive approach, utilitarian deterrence approach, rehabilitation approach, restitution approach and restorative approach in the given case study. I will then explain my preferred approach to justice through identifying a personal belief or value that underpins my choice.