From Children to Citizens: Volume II: The Role of the Juvenile Court

Constitutional Rights in Juvenile Cases

---

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online From Children to Citizens: Volume II: The Role of the Juvenile Court file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with From Children to Citizens: Volume II: The Role of the Juvenile Court book. Happy reading From Children to Citizens: Volume II: The Role of the Juvenile Court Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF From Children to Citizens: Volume II: The Role of the Juvenile Court at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF From Children to Citizens: Volume II: The Role of the Juvenile Court Pocket Guide.

Status offenders who did not comply with treatment ordered by the court could become criminal delinquents by virtue of being charged with criminal contempt of court. Young people who might formerly have been processed through the juvenile justice system for status offenses may now be institutionalized in other facilities, such as private mental health and drug and alcohol treatment facilities.

Very little is known about the number of youngsters confined to such institutions, the length of their institutionalization, or the conditions of their confinement. Concern over housing juveniles with adult criminals led to other requirements under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults in detention and correctional facilities and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups were mandated.

In , the act was amended to require states to address disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles. At the same time the federal agenda and the voices of reformers were calling for deinstitutionalization procedures and more prevention, the states seemed to be moving in the opposite direction Schwartz, Between and , lawmakers in nearly half the states enacted some form of tougher legislation with regard to handling serious and chronic juvenile offenders.

In a handful of states, provisions included making it easier to prosecute juveniles in adult court by lowering the age of judicial waiver three states ; excluding certain offenses from juvenile court juris-. The impact of these reforms was an increase in the detention rate on any given day by more than 50 percent between and In response to public concern over crime, in particular violent crime, committed by children and adolescents, almost all states now have made these kinds of changes to the laws governing their juvenile justice systems since the early s.

These changes are described following a description of the current juvenile justice system processes. Juvenile justice systems vary greatly by jurisdiction.

The organization of courts, case processing procedures, and juvenile corrections facilities are determined by state law. Most juvenile courts have jurisdiction over criminal delinquency, abuse and neglect, and status offense delinquency cases. Criminal delinquency cases are those in which a child has committed an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult. Status offense delinquency cases are acts that would be legal for an adult, but are not allowed for juveniles, such as truancy, running away, incorrigibility i. Some courts also have responsibility for other types of cases involving children, such as dependency, termination of parental rights, juvenile traffic cases, adoption, child support, emancipation, and consent cases e.

Before any court processes come into play, a juvenile must be referred to the court. Referrals may be made by the police, parents, schools, social service agencies, probation officers, and victims. Law enforcement agencies account for the vast majority—86 percent in —of delinquency referrals Stahl et al. They have a great deal of contact with youthful offenders and at-risk youth, perhaps more than any other officials do in the justice system. Most of these contacts are undocumented and of low visibility Goldstein, ; only a fraction reach the attention of juvenile court judges or youth detention authorities.

An analysis by panel member Steven Schlossman of Los Angeles juvenile court from to found that 63 percent of referrals were from police. There is scant empirical data on police encounters with juveniles Black and Reiss, ; Lundman et al. A study by Sealock and Simpson , based on an analysis of Philadelphia birth cohort data in which police contacts with juveniles from through were recorded, is one of the few that deals with juveniles ' encounters with police. To further understand the nature of police interactions with juveniles, the panel commissioned an analysis by Worden and Myers of the data involving juveniles from the Project on Policing Neighborhoods, a multimethod study of police patrols in two cities Indianapolis, Indiana, and St.

Petersburg, Florida. The study involved systematic social observations of patrol officers in the field by trained observers who accompanied officers during their entire work shifts. Observations were based on spatial and temporal sampling, with shifts representing all times of the day and all days of the week. Data were gathered during summer in Indianapolis and summer in St. Observers recorded more than 7, encounters involving approximately 12, citizens. Of these encounters, involved one or more citizens a total of who appeared to be under 18 years of age and who were treated by the police as suspected offenders.

Consistent with past research, most of the encounters involved incidents of relatively low seriousness; 55 percent were for public disorder e. Less than one-tenth of the encounters concerned violent crimes. It appears that police may be initiating more of the encounters than in the past. Worden and Myers reported that previous research primarily conducted in the s and s found that the majority of police encounters with juveniles resulted from a request from a victim or complainant, and only one-quarter to one-third of encounters were initiated by the police themselves. In the study, half of the encounters with juveniles were initiated by the police.

B.Iraqi law

This finding may indicate an increase in proactive policing, although direct comparisons with past research are hindered by differences in measurement and sampling. The existence of a juvenile curfew in Indianapolis gave police in that city authority to stop juveniles after hours and contributed to a high percentage 61 compared with 37 percent in St.

Petersburg of their encounters with juveniles being police-initiated. Worden and Myers found that only 13 percent of the encounters ended with the arrest of the juvenile s. Table shows the frequency with which each disposition in these encounters was the most authoritative that the police took. The categories are listed from least. As the table shows, dispositions were similarly distributed in police encounters with adults.

Worden and Myers analyzed factors that affected the likelihood of arrest in juvenile encounters with police. Arrests were significantly more likely when there was strong evidence against a suspect and when the offense was a serious one. The likelihood of arrest more than doubled when a juvenile showed disrespect for the police officer.

Possession of a weapon also increased the likelihood of arrest. Female juveniles were significantly less likely to be arrested, independent of other factors, including seriousness of offense. Once a juvenile is taken into custody, it appears as if police are less likely now to deal informally with him or her than in the past. About 22 percent of juveniles taken into custody by police were handled informally within the department and released in , compared with 45 percent in Federal Bureau of Investigation, ; 69 percent of juveniles taken into police custody in ended up in juvenile court and 7 percent in criminal adult court.

Although there are many differences among juvenile courts in case processing, there are stages that they all must go through: intake, petitioning, adjudication, and disposition. Figure provides a simplified view of case flow through the juvenile justice system. Cases that are referred to the court are screened through an intake process, in which charges are delineated.

In some systems, this process is done within the. Information on the Worden and Myers analysis of differences by race appears in Chapter 6. Source: Adapted from Snyder and Sickmund The intake screening determines whether a case should not be filed because of insufficient evidence, resolved by diversion to a program or specified set of conditions, or should proceed to formal processing in the juvenile court i.

Depending on state law, a decision to waive a case to criminal court may also be made at intake processing. If a case proceeds to formal handling, a petition is filed and the case is scheduled for an adjudicatory hearing in the juvenile court, or the case may be waived to criminal court. At the adjudicatory hearing, which establishes the facts of the case similar to a trial in criminal court , the juvenile may be judged to be delinquent similar to a finding of guilty in criminal court and scheduled for a disposition hearing; the juvenile may be found not guilty, and the case may be dismissed; or the case may be continued in contemplation of dismissal.

In the latter event, the juvenile may be asked to take some action prior to the final decision being made, such as paying restitution or receiving treatment. If a juvenile has been. Dispositions include commitment to an institution, placement in a group or foster home or other residential facility, probation, referral to an outside agency or treatment program, imposition of a fine, community service, or restitution.

At any point during the process, some juveniles may be held in a secure detention facility.

In , juveniles were detained in 18 percent of criminal delinquency cases processed by the juvenile courts Snyder and Sickmund, Juvenile courts also vary by the extent of services for which they are responsible. Some courts oversee only the adjudication process, while others provide a full array of preadjudication and postdisposition services.

In over half the states, juvenile courts administer their own probation services, and many are responsible for detention and intake as well Torbet, Some researchers have expressed concerns regarding certain juvenile justice procedures. As mentioned previously, the lack of a right to a jury trial may have consequences for the outcome of a trial.

Also at issue is legal representation for juveniles. As in adult court, juveniles have the right to be represented by an attorney. The majority of states, however, allow juveniles to decide independently to waive their rights to an attorney without having had legal counsel prior to the decision U.

PA DHS - Juvenile Justice Services

General Accounting Office, b. Studies from to found that the majority of juveniles were not represented by an attorney, including the majority of youths who received out-of-home placement Feld, Rates of representation varied between urban and rural jurisdictions, and among states and within states U. Also of possible concern are the quality and impact of attorney representation. Some studies suggest that there are grounds for concern about the effectiveness of defense counsel in juvenile trials, possibly because of inexperience and large caseloads Feld, Studies also indicate that presence of counsel in juvenile courts is related to differences in pretrial detention, sentencing, and case-processing practices Feld, One study U.

General Accounting Office, b found that, in general, while unrepresented juveniles were as likely as represented juveniles to be adjudicated as delinquents, they were less likely to receive out-of-home placement for certain crimes than juveniles with attorneys.

Looking for other ways to read this?

Juvenile courts processed nearly 1. Figures and show how criminal and status delinquency cases, respectively, were handled by the courts in , the most recent year for which data are available. A total of 56 percent of the criminal delinquency cases that were referred to juvenile courts in were formally handled by the court petitioned ; that is, these cases appeared on the official court calendar in response to the filing of a petition, complaint, or other legal instrument.

Over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the percentage of cases from 47 percent in to 56 percent in handled formally for all juveniles, regardless of age, race, or gender. Criminal delinquency cases involving older juveniles, males, and blacks, however, are more likely to be petitioned than those involving younger juveniles, females, and whites or other races, respectively Stahl et al. Arguably, formal handling of cases can be considered more punitive than release or diversion to other systems. Therefore, the increase in formal handling of juveniles who come into contact with the police or who are referred to juvenile court may be interpreted as a system that is becoming more punitive.

Diversion covers a wide range of interventions that are alternatives to initial or continued formal processing in the system Kammer et al. The idea behind diversion is that processing through the juvenile justice system may do more harm than good for some offenders Lundman, First offenders or minor offenders may be diverted to an intervention at intake processing or prior to formal adjudication. Juveniles may be diverted from detention while awaiting adjudication and disposition.

After adjudication, minors may be diverted from incarceration by being placed on probation or given some other sanction or intervention.

Source: Stahl et al. A true diversion program takes only juveniles who would ordinarily be involved in the juvenile justice system and places them in an alternative program. The array of interventions covered under the term diversion makes it difficult to generalize about them or their effects. Some researchers have found significantly lower recidivism rates among diverted juveniles than among controls who received normal juvenile justice system processing e. For an overview of studies discussed in this section, see Table Other research has found no difference in recidivism rates between juveniles diverted from the juvenile justice system and those who remained in it Rausch, ; Rojek and Erickson, or more recidivism among diverted juveniles Brown.

Individual, parent, and family counseling, referrals to other services as needed. Diversion without treatment; diversion with referral to community agency various treatments. Average of 2 days diverted not treatment ; average of 88 days diverted with referral. No differences in arrests of self-reported delinquency between diverted with or without referral; no differences in arrests among diverted groups and comparison groups of samples drawn of arrested status offenders before diversion program was implemented.

Mediation group had lower recidivism and less serious subsequent offenses than comparison, although not statistically significant. Mediation victims more satisfied than comparisons with process; no difference in satisfaction of offenders with justice system treatment. Mediation offenders more likely to complete their restitution than comparisons.

• Take My Love
• Ultraviolet Spectroscopy and UV Lasers
• Quantum-Statistical Models of Hot Dense Matter: Methods for Computation Opacity and Equation of State (Progress in Mathematical Physics)
• Software Architectures, Components, and Applications: Third International Conference on Quality of Software Architectures, QoSA 2007, Medford, MA, USA, July 11-23, 2007, Revised Selected Papers
• Surface Ice Rescue
• Study Skills for Health and Social Care Students (SAGE Study Skills)