The Different Changes in the Juvenile Justice System

The Evolution of the Juvenile Justice System

The juvenile court system is implied to resolve court cases that include people that are under the age of eighteen-years-old. Started at the start of the 19th century, the system is over one hundred years old. When the system began, there was an emphasis that the law ought to draw the line in between juveniles as well as grownups. It was assumed that adults can figure out the wrongfulness of their activities; hence, the establishment of the adolescent justice system. Under the regulation, infants were called kids listed below the age of seven, and also they might not know whether their acts were wrong. Such children could not be found guilty of felony under the legislation (Drowns et al, 2000).

Children under the age of fourteen years were presumed to understand the wrongfulness of their acts; hence, were dealt with as grownups. There were exceptions in the law as such children that did not appear to recognize what they did were still treated as babies. Later on in the 19th century, one more milestone was after that made in the background of the adolescent justice system as the manner in which juveniles were treated started to change. Those that were promoting reforms in the justice system thought that unique centers were required to manage juveniles who got on the wrong side of the legislation (Empey et alia, 1982).

Around 1899, a major milestone in the adolescent system was reached as Cook County in Illinois opened the first adolescent court. Before the opening of the court for the juveniles, Chicago as well as New York were noted as the very first two cities in the United States to separate adolescent transgressors from grown-up offenders. The adolescent court had a theory that suggested the recovery of the adolescent transgressors rather than penalizing them. The state functioned as parent to the juvenile with mental and physical handicaps. Under the court system, the best interest of the child was followed to establish how the kid could become a productive member of the society. The doctrine of "parens patrie," therefore, smooth means for the rehab program in the history of the adolescent justice system (Tamilia, 2009).

In the advancement of the juvenile court system, the structure has actually continued to be basically the like it did numerous years back. What has remained to evolve is the fashion in which the rights of the juveniles are analyzed even as they function their means through the court system. An example of such evolution was witnessed in 1963 when the U.S Supreme Court learnt that every citizen, including the adolescent, had the right to have an attorney in criminal procedures. Due to the case, the structure of the juvenile court changed, providing space to a juvenile attorney, who is in charge of responding to concerns that an adolescent may have. The lawyer likewise represents the juvenile civil liberties in a court area (Tamilia, 2009).

Another substantial example in the development of the juvenile justice system in mentioned in 1966 when the U.S Supreme Court made a ruling that a juvenile was entitled to a court session when his attorney can access all his records and in which the court supplies a written record, mentioning all the reasons for the bind over to the adult system. At first, juveniles were encountering bindover depending upon the severity of their instance. In 1967, the U.S Supreme Court worked out the adolescent civil liberties. The Supreme Court made a ruling that the juvenile had the very same trial legal rights as grownups if could bring about their imprisonment (Tamilia, 2009).

Today, the states are known to set up significant systemic reforms that are designed to lower institutional confinement amongst the juveniles. The juvenile court system has been made more reliable as reform schools with suitable centers have actually been built. Community-based interventions have additionally been increased to transform the lives as well as systems in the adolescent court history.

References

• Drowns, R. W., Hess, K. M., Hess, K. M., & Hess, K. M. (2000). Juvenile justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Empey, L. T., Stafford, M. C., & Hay, C. H. (1982). American delinquency: Its meaning and construction. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
• Tamilia, P. (2009). Toward a More Credible Juvenile Justice System in the United States. Juvenile Justice, 27(2), 3-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.1976.tb01115.x

Cite this page