JUVENILE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Juvenile Constitutional Rights

Juvenile Constitutional Rights

Introduction

The courts are the central institution in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile courts deal with three general types of offenses: delinquency, status and dependency offenses. Delinquency offenses are acts committed by a juvenile that if committed by an adult would be a violation of criminal law. They include crimes against the person and property, crimes against the public order, and drug-related crimes. Status offenses include acts that are offenses, only when they are committed by a juvenile, such as running away from home, truancy, non-governability of the juvenile and underage liquor and tobacco law violations. A dependency offense involves neglecting and providing inadequate supervision of minors by parents or guardians, child abuse and maintaining improper conditions in the home.

The rehabilitative mission of the juvenile courts exists for three reasons. First, juveniles depend on adults for care and supervision. Second, juveniles are still developing intellectually and emotionally. Third, juveniles are less capable than adults for comprehending the due process issues surrounding adjudication. Therefore, juvenile courts attempt to recognize those differences and treat juveniles accordingly, generally adopting a rehabilitative approach, at least in sentencing.

Discussion

Factors Considered in the Wavier Process

Since1992, more than forty-one states have limited juvenile courts' jurisdiction over serious, violent, and chronic offenders. In most, states, the maximum age of the juveniles allowed in juvenile court is set by statue. In approximately thirty-five states, juveniles are defined as those individuals who are below the age of eighteen; in ten states, the limit is sixteen; and in three states, the limit is fifteen. However, some states are beginning to respond to pressure to lower the age limit in order to try older juveniles in adult criminal court (Bishop, 2000).

One widespread tactic for dealing with violent youthful offenders is to transfer or waive them to adult court. In view of one commentator, this response to youth violence provides a safety valve that permits the expiatory sacrifice of some youths, quiets political and public clamor, and enables legislators to avoid otherwise irresistible pressures to lower the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction. As of 1994, every state allowed for transfer of juveniles to adult criminal court. In some states, juveniles or their parents can request a transfer; however, that is usually not waiver, and judicial wavier. States use either one or all the methods by creating different combinations (Siegel & Tracy, 2008).

Judicial waiver is the most common method of transfer. Consistent with the individualistic approach of approach of early juvenile courts, a judge holds a hearing to determine whether the offender should be transferred into adult court, considering factors such as the youth's amenability to rehabilitation and previous contacts with the juvenile court system. Judicial wavier has become increasingly common; from 1988 to 1997, the number of cases judicially waved grew by 25 percent. Judicial transfer hearings are factually based adversarial proceedings with counsel present that delve in to the juvenile's individual situation. For that reason, many commentators favor this method over statutory and prosecutorial ...