United States
The first juvenile court in the United States was established in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois. 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. Traditionally, these juvenile courts focused on the offenders instead of the offenses and worked toward a goal of rehabilitation. 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. After a dramatic increase in violent juvenile offenses in the 1980s and 1990s, a greater number of juveniles were transferred from juvenile court to criminal court for their crimes. 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. There are some whom have sought to abolish the juvenile court since the 1970s, because of the gravity of the crimes. Supporters of the abolition of juvenile court argue that prosecuting juvenile offenders in criminal court offers better protection to society and holds juveniles responsible for their actions. However, there is the other side which seeks to maintain the juvenile justice system because it might be of value in confronting and tackling the more general crimes of children.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 receiveTransfer to criminal court
During the 1980s and 1990s murders by juveniles increased dramatically, which resulted in new legislation that allowed for more juveniles and younger juveniles to be transferred to criminal court. 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.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. 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. There are four main processes by which juvenile defendants can be transferred to criminal court:Young, M. C., & Gainsborough, J. (2000)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. According to 1998 statistics from the Bureau of Justice, 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 oneControversy
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. It is also argued that many juvenile jurisdictions are no longer taking a rehabilitative approach to juvenile delinquents, and are instead becoming more and more punitive, and that because of some of the modifications within the juvenile justice system (e.g. required to waive access to a jury of peers) these defendants are losing out on chances for better advocacy and they are not receiving all their rights as a trial defendant. Other critical beliefs of the juvenile justice system are that the system allows for youth to escape the consequences of their actions. This then leads to further predation of society. It is also believed that children/adolescents understand the implications of violent behavior, and because of this, deserve a more complete punishment.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. 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.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. A 2003 study by Grisso et al. 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. 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. 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. 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. Adolescents are also less independent than adults in the decision-making process which could lead to more conforming behavior. Younger adolescents are also more likely than adults and older adolescents to display compliance behavior with authority figures (e.g. make a plea agreement). When evaluating a person's maturity of judgment, his 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. 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. 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. 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.
Understanding rights
It has been found that juveniles' understanding and appreciation of their= 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 violationsAttorney-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. 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.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.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. 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.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. 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 * 2 times more likely to be beaten by staff than youth held in juvenile detention centers *4.6 times more likely to commit suicide than the general adolescent populationFlaherty, 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 *7.7 times more likely to commit suicide than adolescents in juvenile detention centers Additionally, juveniles who witness violence during incarceration, which is more likely in adult facilities, are less likely to be deterred from future crime. Youth convicted as adults are at a greater risk of assault and death in adult jails and prisons.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. 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.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. 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. Since 1990, only nine countries have executed offenders aged under 18 years at the time of their crime. These are theExtraordinary Circumstances
Worldwide
Around the world, each country has its own criteria for punishment of juveniles. However, despite international law, not every country has requirements for the punishment of children. Some have wondered how to provide justice for minors internationally, but because of the aforementioned above, as well as a lack of research. However, a comparative research study looked at and reviewed the information of four U.S. "juvenile justice specialty journals" to give a bigger clue into how to approach juvenile justice internationally.England and Wales
Juveniles are generally tried in aGermany
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 theSee also
* Capital punishment of juveniles *References
{{reflist, 35em Legal procedure Juvenile justice system