The Juvenile Transfer Process

The decision to try a juvenile as an adult varies drastically across the globe as each country or state has its own set of laws and principles regarding the approach taken to juveniles in the court system that differ from those of other countries (Juvenile Vs Adult). In countries like India and France, there are sometimes entirely separate courts (France’s being called Juvenile Assize) and certain amendments that allow for those aged 16-18 who have committed “heinous” offenses to be tried as adults (Singhl). Places such as Iran and the Middle East try everyone as though they are the same, so minors can receive equal trials and sentences as adults (Mostafaei). Considering there is a range of policy and court differences, and for the purposes

Discuss and describe the process in which juvenile cases can be transferred to adult courts. Transfers, waivers, and certifications are all a formal procedures of moving a juvenile to adult court for trial instead of allowing them to remain in juvenile court. By moving a juvenile to adult court, it is then possible for harsher punishments to be imposed, for just deserts and severe punishments for violent offenders, fairness in administering punishments suitable because of one’s actions, a deterrent to decrease juvenile violence, less leniency compared to the juvenile court system, and a way for juveniles to accept responsibility for their actions. The process of transferring juvenile cases to adult courts is done through several different

From an administrative and monetary perspective, there are very little differences between the juvenile and adult justice systems thus, combining the two would allow for the pooling of resources, streamlining of procedures and elimination of redundancies. In addition, assuming that some of the practice carries over from the juvenile system to that of the adult, offenders from both could benefit from the sealing of records and the use of closed proceedings; we could eliminate stigmas. Nevertheless, combining the two does nothing more than feed the criminality of the young. There is a distinct difference between the adult offender and the juvenile offender; the developing mind. The young may be impulsive and reckless which contributes to

The case of People v. Smith in the Supreme Court of Michigan was a landmark case for the state. With the court determining its holdings on the lower trial courts sentencing guidelines and practices concerning the use of juvenile criminal records in adult criminal cases (People v. Smith, 437 Mich. 293 (1991)). The State of Michigan did file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan concerning the decision by the Lower Court of Appeals in the case of Ricky Smith. The lower court did uphold the conviction of Smith, but did overturn his sentence and remanded him to a new sentencing hearing. The court viewed the use of his juvenile criminal record to violate Michigan state law.

This week, I was able to attend court each day I was present in the office. Tuesday, I observed Bond Hearings. During this process, the judge asks the defendants various questions while taking their guilty plea, such as their highest grade completed, age, ability to read and write, were the under the influence of any illegal substances, the charges presented against them and if they were satisfied with the representation of their attorney. One of the common themes with most defendants is that they did not complete high school, which in my opinion directly correlates the probability of committing and crime with education. There was also an individual who originally was going to be sentenced under the first offenders act, but after the judge gave the discloser that he could be sentenced up to ten years if he did not comply with the terms and conditions given by the court, he decided that he did not want to take the first offenders act.

There have been several courts in many states that have lowered the ages at which youths could be tried in adult criminal courts and expanded the ranges of young offenders that are subject to adult adjudication and punishment; at the same time, the severity of the penalties available to the juvenile court increased (Grisso, 2003). With the current legal developments have raised an important issue of developmental capacities needed to participate effectively in their trials (Grisso, 2003). Although courts and legislatures in some states have determined that youths adjudicated in juvenile and criminal courts must be competent, but there has been little recognition that youths in criminal court may not meet these standards due to developmental

During early history, juvenile offenders we're treated the same as adults. Juveniles would be arrested, taking into custody and imprisoned in the equivalent facilities as adults. Back then punishments we’re the go, as for now, we have rehabilitation and treatments. “parens patriae” also known as the State, was established, they believed it would resolved the offenses being committed by juveniles. Parens patriae gave the state the right to make decisions for the child in replace of their parents.

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. For as long as juveniles have existed, so has the need for discipline.

Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.

Currently, in America, there is a debate about whether or not juveniles should be tried as adults. When it comes to trying teens in court as adults. Some say stop trying them as adults and try them as juveniles, others say they must be tried as adults when they commit adult crimes. I believe that teens should be held accountable for their actions and tried as adults. If minors who commit violent crimes were tried as adults and punished the same way as adults are, the number of violent crimes committed by the youths of our generation would decline dramatically.