Trial as an adult

Last updated

Trial as an adult is a situation in which a juvenile offender is tried as if they were an adult, whereby they may receive a longer or more serious sentence than would otherwise be possible if they were charged as a juvenile.

Contents

While there are specific protections that exist for juvenile offenders, (such as suppression of an offender’s name, picture, a closed courtroom, or a record sealing [1] in which case the proceedings are not made public), these protections may be waived.

United States

The first juvenile court in the United States was established in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois. [2] Before this time, it was widely held that children 7 years old and older were capable of criminal intent and were therefore punished as adults. [3] Traditionally, these juvenile courts focused on the offenders instead of the offenses and worked toward a goal of rehabilitation. [4] These courts also arose from a growing belief that instead of being "miniature adults", children and adolescents possess moral and cognitive capabilities that are not quite fully developed. [3]

After a dramatic increase in violent juvenile offenses in the 1980s and 1990s, [5] a greater number of juveniles were transferred from juvenile court to criminal court for their crimes. [6] The reason behind this is an immediate consequence to “reported escalations of juvenile violent crime” and the questioning that certain offenses and violations are far past any rehabilitation or change in behavior. [6] Since the 1970s, some have sought to abolish the juvenile court, arguing that prosecuting juvenile offenders in criminal court offers better protection to society, gives restorative justice for victims, [7] and holds juveniles responsible for their actions. [4] However, others seek to maintain the juvenile justice system because it might be of value in confronting and tackling the more general crimes of children.[ citation needed ]

Criminal court vs. juvenile court

There are several differences between juvenile court and criminal court in the United States. One of the most significant differences is the intent of the two systems; the focus of the juvenile justice system is on rehabilitation and future reintegration, while the goal of the criminal justice system is punishment and deterrence of future crime. In juvenile court rulings, decisions often take psychosocial factors into account along with current offense severity and the youth's offense history. In contrast, in criminal proceedings, the severity of the offense and criminal history weigh most heavily in sentencing outcome. Upon release, those who pass through the juvenile justice system receive parole-like surveillance along with reintegration programs, reflecting the belief that juvenile behavior can be changed. Those released from prison receive surveillance which serves to monitor and report illegal behavior. [3]

Transfer to criminal court

During the 1980s and 1990s murders by juveniles increased dramatically, which resulted in new legislation that allowed for more juveniles to be transferred to criminal court. [5] These changes, many of which took place between 1992 and 1995, included lowering the age of judicial transfer, adding to the list of transferable offenses, and creating automatic transfer laws for certain ages and offenses. [8] In 1994, it was found that the United States transferred roughly 13,000 juveniles to adult courts a year, with approximately 36% of those transfers involving youth who committed violent offenses. [9]

There are four main processes by which juvenile defendants can be transferred to criminal court: [5] [8]

  1. Judicial Waiver: Juvenile court judges have the ability to transfer juveniles to criminal court, usually takes into account age and severity of offense
  2. Prosecutorial Discretion: Prosecutors have the authority to file cases in juvenile court or criminal court jurisdiction
  3. Statutory exclusion: The juvenile's case starts and must be heard in adult court if the juvenile is charged with an "excluded" offense. Most common excluded offenses are murder and rape.
  4. "Once an adult, always an adult" or "Once waived/always waived": State laws that require juveniles to be tried in criminal court if any previous crimes were seen in criminal court

The juvenile transfer processes usually carry a subprocess in them, and the prosecutor has the burden of proving the juvenile is not fit for juvenile court. Juvenile waiver has 3, with "discretionary waiver", which a judge reviews all the factors and decides whether or not to transfer, "presumptive waiver", the burden of proof transfers to the juvenile and must prove themselves amenable to treatment, and "mandatory waiver" where, although the case starts in juvenile court, the juvenile court is only there to verify it has met the mandatory waiver requirements (most common is probable cause), and if met, will be transferred to adult court.

Direct file additionally will have age requirements for certain crimes. For example, in Florida, one must be at least 16 to have any felony direct filed, while minors aged 14–15 cannot be direct filed at all unless the charge is punishable by death or life without parole. Although dependent on the state, usually states will allow a "reverse waiver", where a charge originally filed in adult court can be transferred back to juvenile court if a juvenile files a motion.

Statutory exclusion is implemented very different among the states, and usually have age rules. For example, in one state it may exclude the crime of kidnapping committed by juveniles aged 16 and up regardless if a weapon was used or not, but will only exclude the crime of kidnapping for 15 year olds if they used a deadly weapon, or exclude juveniles of any age if they were convicted of felonies twice in juvenile court, and is charged with another crime.

For "once an adult, always an adult", in some states such as Delaware or California, does not require a conviction for the previous adult prosecuted offense, if charges were dropped, the next charge will be charged in criminal court, although there are restrictions (for example, in California, the current charge must be one that can be transferred to adult court normally), most states do require a conviction in adult court.

Twenty-three states have no minimum age in at least one judicial waiver or statutory exclusion provision allowing for the transfer of juveniles to adult court. In states where a minimum age is specified for all transfer provisions, age 14 is the most common minimum age. [10]

Demographics

In 2003, 2.2 million arrests were made involving individuals under 18, with the most serious offenses most frequently involving larceny-theft, drug-abuse violations, and disorderly conduct. [10] According to 1998 statistics from the Bureau of Justice, [11] which looked at 7,100 transferred juveniles charged with felonies within 40 of the nation's largest urban counties, violent felony offenses made up 63.5% of the charges made against juvenile defendants in criminal court. Other offenses included property offenses (17.7%), drug offenses (15.1%) and public-disorder offenses (3.5%). Of this sample of juveniles, 23% were transferred to criminal court by judicial waiver, 34% by prosecutorial discretion, and 41.6% by statutory exclusion. Within this sample of juveniles, 96% percent were male. A majority of the juvenile defendants were African American (62%). The rest of the sample was made up of Caucasian (20%), Latino (16%) and other (2%). At time of arrest almost 40% of the juveniles were age 17, with 30.7% ages 16–17, 19.2% ages 15–16, 6.8% ages 14–15, and 0.3% less than 14 years of age.

In a study that looked at 1,829 youths, from ten to 17 years of age, it was found that females, non-Hispanic whites, and younger juveniles were less likely to be tried in adult criminal court than males, African Americans, Hispanics, and older youths. Among the juveniles transferred to adult criminal court, 66% had at least one psychiatric disorder and 43% had two or more psychiatric disorders. These prevalence rates are not significantly different from youths processed in juvenile court. Among juveniles who were processed in adult criminal court, those sentenced to adult prison had significantly greater odds of having a disruptive behavior disorder, a substance abuse disorder, or comorbid affective and anxiety disorders. [12]

An estimated 250,000 youth are tried, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year across the United States. [13]

Controversy

Advocates for the abolition of juvenile court

Critics of the juvenile court argue that the definitions of childhood and adolescence that were used to establish the first juvenile courts in America are no longer equivalent to the definitions of childhood and adolescence today. These critics state that the boundary between juvenile and adult is no longer as clear, as children appear to grow up faster, with more exposure to adult ideas, and as adults more often engage in juvenile behaviors and activities. [14] [15]

It is also argued [15] that many juvenile jurisdictions are no longer taking a rehabilitative approach to juvenile delinquents, and are instead becoming more and more punitive, [15] and that because of some of the modifications within the juvenile justice system (e.g. required to waive access to a jury of peers [8] ) these defendants are losing out on chances for better advocacy [14] and they are not receiving all their rights as a trial defendant.

Competence of juveniles as trial defendants

There is much controversy surrounding the idea of trying and sentencing juveniles as adults in criminal court. This debate centers around the cognitive and moral capacities of juveniles.

There have been numerous attempts to conceptualize and organize the abilities needed to be deemed a competent defendant in criminal court. Competency can be defined as the ability to assist counsel and the ability to engage in proficient reasoning and judgment-making. [16] To assist counsel, a defendant must be able to understand trial procedures, understand the charges against him or her, understand his or her rights in court, and must be able to engage in beneficial communication with his or her counsel. To demonstrate proficient reasoning and judgment in court-related matters, a defendant must understand that counsel will provide insight and aid, know when it is beneficial to waive certain rights, and comprehend repercussions of certain options within court proceedings. [17]

General capabilities

It has been found that youths younger than 13 are lacking many of the abilities that older adolescent and adult defendants possess; namely a familiarity with court proceedings, a robust understanding of rights, a comprehension that defense attorneys are on the side of the defendant, and an ability to communicate effectively with counsel. [17]

A 2003 study by Grisso et al. [18] suggested that among a sample of 1,393 community youths (ages 11–17) and young adults (ages 18–24) and detained youth and young adults, those aged 15 and younger are unable to perform as well as older adolescent and young adults as trial defendants. It was found in this study that:

approximately one third of 11- to 13-year-olds and approximately one fifth of 14 to 15 year olds are as impaired in capacities relevant to adjudicative competence as are seriously mentally ill adults who would likely be considered incompetent to stand trial.

A study that looked exclusively at juveniles 16–17 years old who were directly filed to criminal court (i.e. transferred by prosecutorial discretion) found no significant differences in competence between these youth and older criminal defendants. [19]

Regarding juveniles' knowledge about criminal court, it has been found that most adolescent offenders are ignorant of the transfer laws that may force them to be tried and sentenced as an adult, and it is suggested that a previous knowledge of these laws might have deterred them from committing their crime. [20]

It has been shown that most mid-to-late adolescents are close to adults in cognitive abilities; however, they are less likely to use their abilities because of several reasons. First, juveniles have less experience in life. They are less likely to perceive risks and less likely to contemplate how present actions might affect their future situations. [21] [22] The teenage environment also poses several risks to vulnerable individuals. These at-risk adolescents are more often subjected to influences from other troublemaking youth, and opposing these influences has the possibility of resulting in poor outcomes, such as being rejected, suffering ridicule or being physically accosted. [23] Adolescents are also less independent than adults in the decision-making process [22] which could lead to more conforming behavior. [24]

Younger adolescents are also more likely than adults and older adolescents to display compliance behavior with authority figures (e.g. make a plea agreement). [18]

When evaluating a person's maturity of judgment, their responsibility (i.e. ability to act independently and take care of one's self), temperance (i.e. to avoid engaging in impulsive/extreme decision making), and perspective (i.e. the ability to assess a situation from different angles) are measured. [25] It has been found that adolescents are less mature than college students, young adults and adults on the responsibility and perspective factors, with no difference between delinquent and non-delinquent youth. [26] Further, maturity of judgment is a better predictor of total delinquency than age, gender, race, education level, socioeconomic status (SES), and anti-social decision making. [26]

In the cases where juveniles have been deemed incompetent to stand trial, it has been found that these juveniles differ significantly from juveniles deemed competent. Incompetent juveniles are significantly younger than their counterpart competent juveniles, they are more likely to be wards of the state, more likely to be receiving special education services, and more likely to have suffered previous abuse. [27]

Understanding rights

It has been found that juveniles' understanding and appreciation of their Miranda Rights is significantly impaired among those adolescents aged 11–15, [28] [29] [30] with age and IQ being the best predictors of Miranda comprehension. [31] Many adolescent defendants find that Miranda vocabulary and reading levels exceed their understanding, [32] and when studying specific components of Miranda Rights, there are several ideas that juveniles find difficult to recognize. For example, 44% of juveniles think that waiting for the police to ask questions is the same as the right to remain silent and 61% of juveniles believe that one must talk in court. These beliefs show a lack of juveniles' understanding of one's right against self-incrimination. Further, 39% of juveniles think that if one pleads guilty, one still has the ability to try to prove his innocence. [33] Defendants aged 15 and younger are also more likely than older defendants to waive the right to an attorney and to confess during police interrogations. [34] Last, juveniles often misunderstand that they have the right to an attorney before and during a police interrogation, and erroneously believe that attorneys only serve innocent defendants. [31]

Understanding plea-deals

Some research has found that if minors do not have proper representation, their understanding of a plea-deal will be lacking; this puts minors at an increased risk for due-process rights violations. [35]

Attorney-client relationship

Juveniles' appreciation and understanding of attorney-client privileges are also lacking. When comparing juveniles and adults, juveniles are much more likely to refuse to talk to an attorney, even though it is the attorney's duty to help. When juveniles are asked if they trust their attorney, only 6.2% of juveniles related positively to disclosing information to their attorney. [36] Further, juvenile male defendants and juvenile defendants from ethnic minority groups are less likely to trust their attorney or to disclose information about the case to their attorney than female and Caucasian defendants. [34]

Jurors' perception of juvenile defendants

Researchers have found that jurors believe previously abused or intellectually disabled defendants are less receptive to rehabilitation, and that disabled juveniles should be held at less fault than non-disabled juveniles for crimes committed. In a 2009 mock jury study, when looking at a case of a previously maltreated juvenile charged with murder, the juvenile defendant was held at less fault by the jury when she was accused of killing her abuser. [37]

Public opinion of juveniles in criminal court

There are several variables that have an effect on public willingness to transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court. The offender's age and level of offense (ex. use of a weapon) both influence public opinion. The older an offender is and the more serious his crime, the more likely the public is willing to transfer the offender. Neither criminal history nor victim information has been found to influence public willingness to transfer. African-Americans are also more likely than any other race to be targeted for transfer to criminal court. [38]

Another study that looked at public attitudes toward transferring juveniles to adult court found that the seriousness of the crime is the most important factor in public attitudes shifting toward approval of transfer. The two other most important factors include age of offender and the offender's criminal history. However, seriousness of offense and age of offender outweigh whether the juvenile is a 1st time or a repeat offender in attitudes toward transfer. Transferring from juvenile to criminal can make the matter worse and can cause more psychological damage from the isolation and the oppressed feelings of not being able to be redeemed. [39]

Outcomes of juveniles prosecuted in criminal courts

Although the sanctions are more serious in this kind of case than if the juvenile was tried as a child, certain allowances are still made due to the fact the offender is a minor. Recent research suggests that separate and different punishment - by which is meant depending on age as well as the facility and subsequent punishment - that minors may recover whereas older youth may be more likely to reoffend. [40] These include a juvenile offender not being forced to serve time in an adult prison, or with adult prisoners. There was not a minimum age for juveniles to be subjected to the death penalty until Supreme Court decisions in 1989, and 2005. In 1989, in case Thompson v. Oklahoma, the court raised the minimum age to be put to death from 0, to 16. The same year, Stanford v. Kentucky upheld that 16 is old enough to face capital punishment, however in 2005, in case Roper v. Simmons, the age was raised from 16 to 18. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court held in Graham v. Florida (2010) that a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole could not be imposed on juvenile offenders for any crime except for murder, and held in Miller v. Alabama (2012) that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for murder, while it may be still optionally imposed, it must be optional and cannot be mandatorily imposed, unlike adult defendants who may be subjected to mandatory sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release.

Short-term consequences

In 1989, researchers found that juveniles housed in adult facilities are:

  • 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than youth held in juvenile detention centers [41]
  • 2 times more likely to be beaten by staff than youth held in juvenile detention centers [41]
  • 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide than the general adolescent population [42]
  • 7.7 times more likely to commit suicide than adolescents in juvenile detention centers [42]

Additionally, juveniles who witness violence during incarceration, which is more likely in adult facilities, are less likely to be deterred from future crime. [20]

Youth convicted as adults are at a greater risk of assault and death in adult jails and prisons. [43]

Long-term consequences

Juveniles whose cases were seen in criminal court were more likely to reoffend and to reoffend sooner than matched samples of juveniles whose cases were seen in juvenile court. [44] [45] For example, juveniles tried and convicted as adults were found to be 32% more likely to commit another crime in the future than juveniles tried and adjudicated delinquent for similar crimes in the juvenile justice system. [46]

Executions of juveniles

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, 22 people have been executed in the United States for crimes committed during adolescence. [10] [47] However, in 2005 the juvenile death penalty was abolished, and cited as cruel and unusual punishment following the ruling of the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons . [21]

Since 1990, only nine countries have executed offenders aged under 18 years at the time of their crime. These are the People's Republic of China (PRC), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United States and Yemen. [48]

Worldwide

Around the world, each country has its own criteria for punishment of juveniles. [49] However, despite international law, not every country has requirements for the punishment of children.

England and Wales

Juveniles are generally tried in a youth court. If a juvenile is charged with an offence that was committed alongside an adult, then both offenders will be tried in an adult magistrates' court, except if it is necessary in the interests of justice that they both be tried in Crown Court. [50] [51]

Juveniles may also be tried as adults in Crown Court for serious offences including homicide, certain firearms offences, [52] offences where an equivalent adult could go to prison for over 14 years, [53] and situations where the "dangerous offender" provisions of the Sentencing Act 2020 could apply. [54] [55]

Unlike in the Youth Court, [56] trials are open to the public. Media name suppression can be waived at the discretion of the judge, but the young person has no authority in law to insist his/her own name be released. [57]

Germany

Defendants aged 14–17 (juveniles "Jugendliche") and 18–20 ("Heranwachsende") will be tried in a youth court (§ 3 Jugendgerichtsgesetz), and there is no concept of trial as an adult for juveniles.

Defendants aged 18–20 will be tried as juveniles but in public proceedings, and sentenced as either juveniles or adults according to their maturity and the kind of offense, its circumstances or motivations (§ 105 JGG).

The court will involve the Jugendamt which will usually assess the defendants level of maturity (non-binding to the court), be present during trial, and evaluate the need of Jugendamt interventions.

Juveniles cannot be put in prison for less than 6 months nor for more than 10 years. However, there is a movement to allow the indefinite detention of "very dangerous young criminals" after they have served their prison sentences, as it is already allowed for adult prisoners. [58]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Age of criminal responsibility</span> Minimum age at which a child is capable of committing criminal offences

The age of criminal responsibility is the age below which a child is deemed incapable of having committed a criminal offence. In legal terms, it is referred to as a defence/defense of infancy, which is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an "infant" are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. After reaching the initial age, there may be levels of responsibility dictated by age and the type of offense committed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1994 Oregon Ballot Measure 11</span> Referendum on mandatory minimum sentences

Measure 11, also known as "One Strike You're Out", was a citizens' initiative passed in 1994 in the U.S. State of Oregon. This statutory enactment established mandatory minimum sentencing for several crimes. The measure was approved in the November 8, 1994 general election with 788,695 votes in favor, and 412,816 votes against.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juvenile delinquency</span> Illegal behavior by minors

Juvenile delinquency, also known as juvenile offending, is the act of participating in unlawful behavior as a minor or individual younger than the statutory age of majority. These acts would otherwise be considered crimes if the individuals committing them were older. The term delinquent usually refers to juvenile delinquency, and is also generalised to refer to a young person who behaves an unacceptable way.

<i>Juvenile Delinquents Act</i> Canadian statute

The Juvenile Delinquents Act, SC 1908, c 40 was a law passed by the Parliament of Canada to improve its handling of juvenile crime. The act established procedures for the handling of juvenile offenses, including the government assuming control of juvenile offenders. It was revised in 1929 and superseded in 1984 by the Young Offenders Act.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5–4 decision overruled Stanford v. Kentucky, in which the court had upheld execution of offenders at or above age 16, and overturned statutes in 25 states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juvenile court</span> Court to try minors for legal offenses

Juvenile court, also known as young offender's court or children's court, is a tribunal having special authority to pass judgements for crimes committed by children who have not attained the age of majority. In most modern legal systems, children who commit a crime are treated differently from legal adults who have committed the same offense. Juveniles have a lack of capacity for understanding their criminal acts, meaning they also have diminished criminal responsibility compared to their adult counterparts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American juvenile justice system</span> Aspect of American justice system

The American juvenile justice system is the primary system used to handle minors who are convicted of criminal offenses. The system is composed of a federal and many separate state, territorial, and local jurisdictions, with states and the federal government sharing sovereign police power under the common authority of the United States Constitution. The juvenile justice system intervenes in delinquent behavior through police, court, and correctional involvement, with the goal of rehabilitation. Youth and their guardians can face a variety of consequences including probation, community service, youth court, youth incarceration and alternative schooling. The juvenile justice system, similar to the adult system, operates from a belief that intervening early in delinquent behavior will deter adolescents from engaging in criminal behavior as adults.

A presentence investigation report (PSIR) is a legal document that presents the findings of an investigation into the "legal and social background" of a person convicted of a crime before sentencing to determine if there are extenuating circumstances which should influence the severity or leniency of a criminal sentence. The PSIR is a "critical" document prepared by a probation officer via a system of point allocation, so that it may serve as a charging document and exhibit for proving criminal conduct. The PSIR system is widely implemented today.

A diversion program, also known as a pretrial diversion program or pretrial intervention program, in the criminal justice system is a form of pretrial sentencing that helps remedy the behavior leading to the arrest. Administered by the judicial or law enforcement systems, they often allow the offender to avoid conviction and include a rehabilitation program to prevent future criminal acts. Availability and the operation of such systems differ in different countries.

The youth justice system in England and Wales comprises the organs and processes that are used to prosecute, convict and punish persons under 18 years of age who commit criminal offences. The principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young persons.

Juvenile delinquency in the United States refers to crimes committed by children or young people, particularly those under the age of eighteen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Race in the United States criminal justice system</span>

Race in the United States criminal justice system refers to the unique experiences and disparities in the United States in regard to the policing and prosecuting of various races. There have been different outcomes for different racial groups in convicting and sentencing felons in the United States criminal justice system. Although prior arrests and criminal history is also a factor. Experts and analysts have debated the relative importance of different factors that have led to these disparities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in the United States</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in the United States

In the United States, sentencing law varies by jurisdiction. The jurisdictions in the US legal system are federal, state, regional, and county. Each jurisdictional entity has governmental bodies that create common, statutory, and regulatory law, although some legal issues are handled more often at the federal level, while other issues are the domain of the states. Civil rights, immigration, interstate commerce, and constitutional issues are subject to federal jurisdiction. Issues such as domestic relations, which includes domestic violence; marriage and divorce; corporations; property; contracts; and criminal laws are generally governed by states, unless there is federal preemption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Youth incarceration in the United States</span>

The United States incarcerates more of its youth than any other country in the world, through the juvenile courts and the adult criminal justice system, which reflects the larger trends in incarceration practices in the United States. In 2010, approximately 70,800 juveniles were incarcerated in youth detention facilities alone. As of 2006, approximately 500,000 youth were brought to detention centers in a given year. This data does not reflect juveniles tried as adults. As of 2013, around 40% were incarcerated in privatized, for-profit facilities.

A rehabilitation policy within criminology, is one intending to reform criminals rather than punish them and/or segregate them from the greater community.

Raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction in the state of North Carolina has been an ongoing issue in the North Carolina General Assembly. There are currently two pieces of legislation focusing on this issue, Senate Bill 506 and House Bill 632, which seek to raise the age of jurisdiction from 16 to 18. Four members of the North Carolina House of Representatives serve as the primary sponsors and there are twenty-six co-sponsors. Most of U.S. States define an adult at 18 years old; however, North Carolina and New York define a juvenile who has committed a criminal offense as no older than 16, which places 16- and 17-year-olds in a position where they are tried as adults for any offense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gender responsive approach for girls in the juvenile justice system</span>

Gender responsive approach for girls in the juvenile justice system represents an emerging trend in communities and courts throughout the United States, Australia and Latin America, as an increasing number of girls are entering the juvenile justice system. A gender responsive approach within the juvenile justice system emphasizes considering the unique circumstances and needs of females when designing juvenile justice system structures, policies, and procedures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice reform in the United States</span> Reforms seeking to address structural issues in criminal justice systems of the United States

Criminal justice reform seeks to address structural issues in criminal justice systems such as racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and recidivism. Reforms can take place at any point where the criminal justice system intervenes in citizens’ lives, including lawmaking, policing, sentencing and incarceration. Criminal justice reform can also address the collateral consequences of conviction, including disenfranchisement or lack of access to housing or employment, that may restrict the rights of individuals with criminal records.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States</span>

Sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws in the United States are widely accepted, with supporters believing that disclosing the location of sex offenders residence improves the public's ability to guard themselves and their children from sexual victimization. Despite this wide public acceptance, empirical observations do not uniformly support this belief.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juvenile sex offenders in the United States</span>

A juvenile sex crime is defined as a legally proscribed sexual crime committed without consent by a minor under the age of 18. The act involves coercion, manipulation, a power imbalance between the perpetrator and victim, and threats of violence. The sexual offenses that fall under juvenile sex crimes range from non-contact to penetration. The severity of the sexual assault in the crime committed is often the amount of trauma and/or injuries the victim has suffered. Typically within these crimes, female children are the majority demographic of those targeted and the majority of offenders are male. Juvenile sex offenders are different than adult sex offenders in a few ways, as captured by National Incident Based Reporting System: they are more likely to be committed in school, offend in groups and against acquaintances, target young children as victims, and to have a male victim, whereas they are less likely than their adult counterpart to commit rape.

References

  1. ↑ "Legal Terminology Related to Record Clearing and Expungement". www.recordgone.com. Retrieved 2022-05-18.
  2. ↑ Schultz, J. L. (1973). "The cycle of juvenile court history". Crime & Delinquency. 19 (4): 457–476. doi:10.1177/001112877301900402. S2CID   145587838.
  3. 1 2 3 Juvenile justice: A century of change. 1999. National report series. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (PDF)
  4. 1 2 Read "Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice" at NAP.edu. 2001. doi:10.17226/9747. ISBN   978-0-309-06842-0.
  5. 1 2 3 Young, M. C., & Gainsborough, J. (2000). Prosecuting juveniles in adult court: An assessment of trends and consequences.
  6. 1 2 "Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court". ojjdp.ojp.gov. Retrieved 2022-07-17.
  7. ↑ Bazemore, Gordon (1999). "Crime victims, restorative justice and the juvenile court: exploring victim needs and involvement in the response to youth crime". International Review of Victimology. 6 (4): 295–320. doi:10.1177/026975809900600404. S2CID   144646153.
  8. 1 2 3 Torbet, P., Gable, R., Hurst, H., Montgomery, I., Szymanski, L., & Thomas, D. (1996). State responses to serious and violent juvenile crime. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
  9. ↑ Ruddell, R., Mays, G. L., & Giever, D. M. (1998). "TRANSFERRING JUVENILES TO ADULT COURTS. Recent trends and issues in Canada and the United States". Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 49 (3): 1–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6988.1998.tb01481.x .{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. 1 2 3 Snyder, H. N. & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
  11. ↑ Rainville, G. A., & Smith, S. K. (1998). Juvenile felony defendants in criminal court. Bureau of Justice Statistics
  12. ↑ Washburn, J. J., Teplin, L. A., Voss, L. S., Abram, K. M., & McClelland, G. M. (2008). "Psychiatric disorders among detained youths: A comparison of youths processed in juvenile court and criminal court". Psychiatric Services. 59 (9): 965–73. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.59.9.965. PMC   2718561 . PMID   18757588.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ↑ Campaign for Youth Justice, Key Facts: Youth in the Justice System. Washington D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice, 2007. Web. May 2011. CitingWoolard, J.; Odgers, Candice; Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn; Daglis, Hayley (2005). "Juveniles within Adult Correctional Settings: Legal Pathways and Developmental Considerations". International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 4: 1–18. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.173.3620 . doi:10.1080/14999013.2005.10471209. S2CID   7843606.
  14. 1 2 Ainsworth, J. E. (1990). "Re-imagining childhood and reconstructing the legal order: The case for abolishing the juvenile court". North Carolina Law Review: 1083–1133.
  15. 1 2 3 Ainsworth, J. E. (1995). "Youth justice in a unified court: Response to critics of juvenile court abolition". Boston College Law Review. 36: 927–951.
  16. ↑ Bonnie, R. (1992). "The competence of criminal defendants: A theoretical reformulation". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 10 (3): 291–316. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370100303.
  17. 1 2 Grisso, T. (1997). "The competence of adolescents as trial defendants". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 3: 3–32. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.1.3.
  18. 1 2 Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., Lexcen, F., Reppucci, N. D., & Schwartz, R. (2003). "Juveniles' competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents' and adults' capacities as trial defendants". Law and Human Behavior. 27 (4): 333–63. doi:10.1023/a:1024065015717. PMID   12916225. S2CID   724226.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ↑ Poythress, N., Lexcen, F. J., Grisso, T., & Steinberg, L. (2006). "The competence-related abilities of adolescent defendants in criminal court". Law and Human Behavior. 30 (1): 75–92. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9005-4. PMID   16729209. S2CID   36131008.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. 1 2 Redding, R. E., & Fuller, E. J. (2004). "What do juvenile offenders know about being tried as adults? Implications for deterrence". Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 55 (3): 35–44. doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2004.tb00167.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. 1 2 Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). "Adolescent development and the regulation of youth crime". The Future of Children. 18 (2): 15–33. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0011. PMID   21337996. S2CID   18191614.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. 1 2 Scott, E. S., Reppucci, N. D., & Woolard, J. L. (1995). "Evaluating adolescent decision making in legal contexts". Law and Human Behavior. 19 (3): 221–244. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.459.8363 . doi:10.1007/BF01501658. S2CID   145212881.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. ↑ Fagan, J. (2000). Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice. Thomas, & Schwartz, R. G., (Eds). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, ISBN   0226309126.
  24. ↑ Berndt, T. J. (1979). "Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents". Developmental Psychology. 15 (6): 608–616. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.15.6.608.
  25. ↑ Steinberg, L. & Cauffman, E. (1996). "Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making". Law and Human Behavior. 20 (3): 249. doi:10.1007/BF01499023. JSTOR   1393975. S2CID   8733431.
  26. 1 2 Modecki, K. L. (2008). "Addressing gaps in the maturity of judgment literature: Age differences and delinquency". Law and Human Behavior. 32 (1): 78–91. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9087-7. PMID   17546482. S2CID   35978552.
  27. ↑ Baerger, D. R., Griffin, E. F., Lyons, J. S., & Simmons, R. (2003). "Competency to stand trial in preadjudicated and petitioned juvenile defendants". The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 31 (3): 314–20. PMID   14584530.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ↑ Viljoen, J. L., Zapf, P. A., & Roesch, R. (2007). "Adjudicative competence and comprehension of miranda rights in adolescent defendants: A comparison of legal standards". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 25 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1002/bsl.714. PMID   17285585.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ↑ Grisso, T. (1980). "Juveniles' capacities to waive miranda rights: An empirical analysis". California Law Review. 68 (6): 1134–1166. doi:10.2307/3480263. JSTOR   3480263.
  30. ↑ Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles' waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum, ISBN   1468438174.
  31. 1 2 Goldstein, N. E. S., Condie, L. O., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D., & Geier, J. L. (2003). "Juvenile offenders' miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confessions". Assessment. 10 (4): 359–69. doi:10.1177/1073191103259535. PMID   14682482. S2CID   30993886.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. ↑ Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Shuman, D. W., & Blackwood, H. L. (2008). "The comprehensibility and content of juvenile miranda warnings" (PDF). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 14: 63–87. doi:10.1037/a0013102. S2CID   143945181.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  33. ↑ Redlich, A., Silverman, M., & Steiner, H. (2003). "Pre-adjudicative and adjudicative competence in juveniles and young adults". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 21 (3): 393–410. doi:10.1002/bsl.543. PMID   12808697.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. 1 2 Viljoen, J. L., Klaver, J., & Roesch, R. (2005). "Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals". Law and Human Behavior. 29 (3): 253–77. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-3613-2. PMID   15965628. S2CID   25936577.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  35. ↑ Daftary-Kapur, Tarika; Zottoli, Tina M. (October 2014). "A First Look at the Plea Deal Experiences of Juveniles Tried in Adult Court". International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. 13 (4): 323–336. doi:10.1080/14999013.2014.960983. S2CID   144458198.
  36. ↑ Schmidt, M. G., Reppucci, N. D., & Woolard, J. L. (2003). "Effectiveness of participation as a defendant: The attorney-juvenile client relationship". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 21 (2): 175–98. doi:10.1002/bsl.532. PMID   12645044. S2CID   44281808.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  37. ↑ Najdowski, C. J., Bottoms, B. L., & Vargas, M. C. (2009). "Juror's perceptions of juvenile defendants: The influence of intellectual history, abuse history and confession evidence". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 27 (3): 401–30. doi:10.1002/bsl.873. PMID   19391102.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  38. ↑ Feiler, S. M. & Sheley, J. F. (1999). "Legal and racial elements of public willingness to transfer juvenile offenders to adult court". Journal of Criminal Justice. 27: 55–64. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(98)00036-1.
  39. ↑ Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). "Manipulating public opinion about trying juveniles as adults: An experimental study" (PDF). Crime & Delinquency. 56 (4): 487–506. doi:10.1177/0011128708330179. S2CID   145223441.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  40. ↑ Lotti, Giulia (July 2022). "Tough on Young Offenders: Harmful or Helpful?". Journal of Human Resources. 57 (4): 1–36.
  41. 1 2 Fagan, J., Frost, M., & Vivona, T. S. (1989). "Youth in prisons and training schools: Perceptions and consequences of the treatment-custody dichotomy". Juvenile and Family Court Journal. 40: 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.1989.tb00634.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  42. 1 2 Flaherty, M. G. (1980). An assessment of the national incidence of juvenile suicides in adult jails, lockups, and juvenile detention centers. Illinois: The University of Illinois
  43. ↑ Campaign for Youth Justice, "Trying Youth as Adults: Fact Sheet." Act 4 Juvenile Justice, 2009.
  44. ↑ Bishop, D., Frazier, C., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Winner, L. (1996). "The transfer of juveniles to criminal courts: Does it make a difference?". Crime & Delinquency. 42 (2): 171–191. doi:10.1177/0011128796042002001. S2CID   145336089.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  45. ↑ Fagan, J. (1996). "The comparative advantage of juvenile vs. criminal court sanctions on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders" (PDF). Law & Policy. 18 (1–2): 77–114. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.1996.tb00165.x.
  46. ↑ Lanza-Kaduce, et al. "Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court Study: Final Report." Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Prison Policy Initiative, 8 January 2002.
  47. ↑ Juveniles executed in the United States in the modern era. Death penalty information center.
  48. ↑ "Children and the death penalty: Executions worldwide since 1990". Amnesty International. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  49. ↑ "Juvenile Justice in Different Countries Age of Criminal responsibility and Treatment of Juvenile Offenders". HAQ : Centre for Child Rights. 2016-01-12. Retrieved 2022-07-17.
  50. ↑ "Magistrates' Courts Act 1980: Section 24", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 1980 c. 43 (s. 24)
  51. ↑ "Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Section 51A", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 1998 c. 37 (s. 51A)
  52. ↑ "Sentencing Act 2020: Section 311", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 2020 c. 17 (s. 311)
  53. ↑ "Sentencing Act 2020: Section 249", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 2020 c. 17 (s. 249)
  54. ↑ "Sentencing Act 2020: Section 306", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 2020 c. 17 (s. 306)
  55. ↑ David Ormerod; David Perry, eds. (2023). Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2024 (34 ed.). Oxford University Press. D24.19. ISBN   9780198892489.
  56. ↑ "Children and Young Persons Act 1933: Section 47", legislation.gov.uk , The National Archives, 1933 c. 12 (s. 47)
  57. ↑ David Ormerod; David Perry, eds. (2023). Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2024 (34 ed.). Oxford University Press. D24.14-15. ISBN   9780198892489.
  58. ↑ Children’s Rights: Germany
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.