Category: Law 2955

A great concern is growing regarding crimes committed by young people. The matter of that concern might be based on juveniles reasons for crimes, as this might be the main reason why juveniles are treated differently. Accordingly different states are putting different limits on when juvenile criminals might be treated like adults.

38 states, the District of Columbia and federal codes establish the maximum age for juvenile treatment in juvenile courts is 17.

• Eight states this age is 16
• In four other states this age is 15

The main two points are:

In serious felonies, the victims do not care what is the age of the offender.

The punishments connection to the felony, rather than to the jurisdiction and age.

Characteristics:

Legal Definition: A juvenile delinquent is anyone who has broken a criminal law of any state of federal jurisdiction.

Non legal Definition:

• Sociology  a person who not only commits a crime, but also who is labeled by the way society reacts to it.
• Psychology  an act of delinquency combined with the way the juvenile criminal thinks about it.
• Psychiatry  an act of delinquency with emphasis on emotional tones and attitudes involved in any mental pathology.

Petty offenses- alcohol, drug related crimes, shoplifting and vandalism.

1. Rarely result in arrests
2. Represent as much as 90% of juvenile delinquent acts.
3.  Serious crimes  murder, rape, assault and robbery
4. The most publicized 5 % to 10 % of all juvenile arrests 15% to 20% of all serious delinquent acts.
5. Causes of Juvenile Crimes

Major risk factors:

• Low income and poor housing
• Deteriorated environment
• Impulsiveness and hyperactivity
• Low intelligence and low school attainment
• Poor parental supervision

Family disruption

Common characteristics off offenders:

• 91% suffered emotional , physical , sexual abuse, or traumatic loss
• 29% suffered sexual abuse
• 40% endured physical abuse
• 57% experienced bereavement or loss of contact with parent, relative, or friend

Juvenile Court Systems vs. Adult Court Systems

The Juvenile court systems main goal is rehabilitation, and thus the least restrictive alternative is considered in courts. Different types of juvenile court hearings result in dismissal, a fine, probation, treatment programs and institutionalization

In juvenile cases the respondent is beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike adult cases where the respondent is questioned whether he is guilty or not. There are factors influence the decision which kind of treatment to prefer for juvenile offenders:

• Costs of incarceration
• Overcrowding
• Evidences of few gains from ignoring treatment and rehabilitation

The trends are seen moving toward tougher decision for juvenile offenders, which might prove that rehabilitation solutions are ineffective or the crimes became more violent. Treating Juveniles as Adults Offenders treated like adults are found to receive harsher sentences than the ones retained in the juvenile system.

Regardless of the system in which juveniles were tried the sentences were mostly identical. Processing juveniles as adults does not deter them from reoffending, but in contrary increases recidivism.

It should be concluded that the desired effect is not reached within such system.

Treating Juveniles as Juveniles

The established juvenile court system almost 100 years ago had the goal of encouraging rehabilitation and diverting young offenders from the destructive punishments of criminal courts.

A study regarding juvenile interventions such as multisystemic therapy found that the multisystemic therapy reduced recidivism, the participants had better family relations, and they were significantly less likely to be rearrested.

Forces Driving the Treatment of Juveniles as Adults

The forces driving the transfer of juveniles to adult courts might be influenced by the following:

• Expectations of greater accountability and lengthier sentences.
• Effective punishment and lower recidivism rates
• The perception that juvenile courts are more lenient and ineffective
• Possible influence of media publishing the most outrages cases of juvenile felonies

Prevention

1. Looking at the adult system, the emphasis on outcomes proved its ineffectiveness 67 % of inmates released from state prisons in 1994 committed at least one serious new crime within three years.
2. Different interventions including infants, preschoolers and elementary school children reduced risk factors for delinquency.

Anti-social behavior of juveniles can be reduced by putting them in groups of pro-social young people can positively affect the first, without negatively affecting the latter.

Recommendations

1. Establishing federal laws regarding the maximum age of accountability as juveniles
2. Reforming the juvenile systems to include differentiation of punishment
3. Eliminating the transfer of juveniles into adult courts
4. Working on treating serious felonies of juveniles with separation from adult criminal facilities
5. Emphasis of prevention and causes of juvenile crimes rather than outcome

Conclusion

• Juveniles should be separated from adults
• The arguments for abolishing juvenile courts are not convincing and insufficient
• The possibility of change for criminals should never be abandoned
• Serious crimes should be punished with equal conditions regardless of jurisdictions
• Emphasizing the role the preventive measures

References

Does treating kids like adults make a difference? (2008). Public Broadcasting Service.

BUTTERFIELD, F. Prison Boom Has Not Deterred Crime, Report Suggests. 

Calderon, M. (2006). A Reflective Comparison of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System v. the Adult Criminal Justice System. Web.

Flowers, R. B. (2002). Kids who commit adult crimes : serious criminality by juvenile offenders. New York: Haworth Pastoral Press.

McCord, J., Widom, C. S., Crowell, N. A., & National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Law and Justice. (2001). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

The customary criminal justice framework aims at achieving public wellbeing. For quite a long time, it has relentlessly held to the thought that extreme felony includes a strict detainment arrangement. Nonetheless, it serves to introduce social issues, such as prison overcrowding. Lack of places in jails is probably the biggest problem that is being discussed by jail frameworks today. Impoverished jail conditions caused by a massive flow of new prisoners lead to the low personal satisfaction that deteriorates detainees medical care, food, protection, and essential living facilities. Thus, it is essential to consider other means of punishment for minors and mentally ill convicts and shorten the length of stay for unproblematic prisoners.

The behavior of those who commit non-severe crimes and are underage needs to be corrected through less cruel penalties, other than jail. According to statistical data, almost 5,000 youth are held in offices for adult prisoners (Walsh, 2015). Settling minor offenses outside of criminal court with casual or therapeutic arrangements forestalls the framework, getting stalled pointlessly. Simultaneously, social approach interests can guarantee that those confronting criminal court have better admittance to legitimate guide before their preliminaries. Those with peaceful or non-genuine violations can receive their punishment elsewhere. Habitually, those sorts of detainees are in an ideal situation with non-custodial sentences or sentences that do not entirely happen in jail, such as releases, network administration, house capture, and asylums.

Additionally, psychologically unstable criminals and illicit drug users are regularly positioned in jail as a default. It is advised to place them in facilities that would treat them and decrease recidivism (Siegel & Worrall, 2018). The jurisdiction system needs to help these convicts instead of tormenting them in prisons. Most detainment facilities are unprepared to address people who have a mental disorder and worsen these prisoners situation. A few states are currently rebuilding the state foundation to guarantee that disciplines suit the wrongdoings by lessening the least sentences for first-time drug guilty parties and expanding sentences for drug dealers (Siegel & Worrall, 2018). Hence, authority offices could reduce detainees numbers and diminish the probability of re-offenses by consulting and treating psychologically sick people and substance abusers in rehabilitation centers.

Judges regularly force sentences including fines, compensation, and administrative service for offense violations, for example, intruding, sauntering, and untidy lead as a choice to imprison. The court can condemn the criminal to pay a fine, pay compensation to the person in question, and work a certain number of administration hours. Compensation includes paying the casualty for any monetary misfortunes continued as the aftereffect of a crime. For example, the US jurisdiction system demands to pay the expense of supplanting property, clinical or guiding expenses, and lost wages due to missed work for small misdemeanors (Walsh, 2015). Another good alternative to jail is to condemn a litigant to unaided or managed probation. This typically includes a conceded or suspended sentence, and these sentences are accessible in both crime and offense cases. Therefore, alternative methods such as community service, fines, and probation can reduce the prisoners number in jails.

In conclusion, it is necessary to lower the number of criminals entering jails to promote a fair court system and improve the prisons life conditions. One alternative to prisons is to restrict the number of juveniles in jails whose crimes are considered minor. It is crucial to correct their behavior instead of sentencing. The court also should focus on sending people with mental and drug addiction problems to rehabilitation centers. Finally, imposing compensation and fines, mandatory service, and probation are useful alternatives to imprisonment. The United States seems to be effective in condemning payments for minor offenses instead of jailing.

References

Siegel, L.J. & Worrall, J. (2018). Introduction to Criminal Justice (16^th ed.). EBSCO Publishing.

Walsh, J. P. (2015). The culture of urban control: Jail overcrowding in the crime control era. Lexington Books.

Facts

Kelo v. New London City, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a court case chosen by the United States High Court concerning the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one title holder to another to enhance economic development. The allegation emanated from the conviction by Connecticut town in London, of confidentially owned actual property with the intention that it could be utilized as part of a complete redevelopment plot. This guaranteed 3,169 new occupations and $1.2 million per year in tax takings.

New London, a town in Connecticut, used its prominent domain power to seize individual property to put on the market for individual developers. The city stated that building up the land would generate jobs and boost tax revenues. Kelo Susette and the other people whose assets were seized filed a suit for New London in the state quad. The owners of the property claimed that the city went against the Fifth Amendments clause of takings. This assured that the authority would not take individual property for communal use without fair compensation.

In particular, the property owners claimed that taking personal property to put up for sale to personal developers was not civic use. The Connecticut high court governed New London. The city, in the end, agreed to move Sussete Kelos quarters to a new site and to pay considerable extra compensation to other property holders. The developer was not able to receive financing and, therefore, had to leave the redevelopment plan. The land was left empty (Scheb, 2007).

Issue

Does a city contravene the Fifth Amendments Clause of takings if the city seized personal property and trades it for personal development, with the anticipations that the development will assist the citys poor economy?

Law

The Court is interpreting the US constitution Amendment Clause specifically the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.

Holding

The quad held in a 5-4 verdict that the overall benefits the people got from economic expansion met the requirements of the redevelopment plans. This was termed as a permissible communal use as indicated by the Takings Section of the Fifth Alteration. The taking of assets by the government from one individual owner to offer it to another with efforts to enhance economic development comprises of a tolerable public use as in the Fifth Amendment. This has been affirmed by the High Court of Connecticut. The states high court held that the use of prominent domain for financial development did not go against the public use sections of the state and national constitutions. It held that if an economic plan generates new jobs, raises tax and other city returns, and rejuvenates a poor urban area, then the plan meets the requirements needed for it to be recognized as a public use. The court also controlled the government designation of its prominent realm power to a personal entity.

In a 5-4 view presented by Justice Stevens John Paul, the majority supported that the towns taking of personal property to trade for personal and confidential development met the requirements as a public use contained in the significance of the takings section. The city was not getting hold of the land merely to benefit a specific group of individuals, but was going after an economic development strategy. Such validations for land takings according to the majority claims should be offered deference. The takings here met the requirements for public use even though the land was not to be utilized by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not need factual, public utilization as public purpose (Ackerman & Dynkowski, 2006).

References

Ackerman, T. A., & Dynkowski, W. D. (2006). Current condemnation law: takings, compensation and benefits. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

Scheb, J. M. (2007). American constitutional law: civil rights and liberties. Princeton: Cengage learning.