The Reasons Behind the Transfer of Juvenile Offenders to Adult Courts - Coursework Example

? Juvenile justice module 5 writing Task: This chapter has highlighted some of the reasons behind the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult courts. The magnitude of offenses committed by some of the juveniles, for instance, fails to offer them the merit endowed to juveniles whose cases are conducted in juvenile courts. The transfer of such youths is beneficial to themselves as they are in a position to learn about the seriousness of their mistakes, therefore, trying to avoid them since they become aware of the repercussions (Elrod and Ryder 216). Moreover, such an action is beneficial to the society; as these youths do not have the freedom to walk about freely in their communities. Finally, these transfers benefit the system, as it is intricate to handle some cases committed by juveniles, while in juvenile courts. In case of a transfer, youths become adults legally and face similar treatment to that for adults. After a careful examination of the reasons behind such transfers, I strongly support this practice (Elrod and Ryder 217). Currently, three main mechanisms are applicable for transfer of a juvenile to an adult court. As depicted in this source, the first mechanism is the judicial waiver, which has been in application since ancient epochs. A number of elements distinguish it from other mechanisms. For instance, the examination of the likely reasons for the juvenile to have committed the crime is among the basic elements. Secondly, it becomes necessary to consider the threats of such a youth to the society (Elrod and Ryder 218). Moreover, it considers the system to which the juvenile court system can effectively handle such a case. In a scenario, whereby the case is so serious, a careful evaluation of how the adult court can handle such a case becomes a point of focus. The other mechanism known as the legislative waiver has been in use, in various states of America. This mechanism forms its decision on the age, along with the offense criterion of the juvenile. The third and final mechanism is the prosecutorial waiver. This is different from the other two mechanisms as it permits a concurrent jurisdiction in the two dissimilar court systems. Similarly, both the age together with the offense criterion demand cautious considerations. Kent vs. US and Breed vs. Jones impacts the waivers transfer in a negative way as it prohibits the double trial that the waiver transfer supports. In the determination of the suitability of any of the transfer mechanism, it is suitable to examine the two different court systems. After establishing which one is appropriate, the transfer process starts (Elrod and Ryder 224). A number of problems arise in case of transferring juveniles to an adult court for trial. The decision to transfer these youths can bring adverse consequences to the youths. Prosecution of these youths in open criminal courts exposes them to criminals known to have committed serious offenses than them. Eventually, they may resort into learning how to commit similar crimes. Additionally, erosion of their civil rights is a problem allied to such a transfer. In various scenarios, such a transfer fails to curb the increasing rate of recidivism, therefore, the deterioration of the security of community’s security. It would be crucial to transfer only those cases that the juvenile court cannot address with efficacy. If I were a judge, the state would have to prove to me that the juvenile court would find it intricate to handle such a case, together with the effectiveness of the needed superior court (Elrod and Ryder 220). Sources have revealed that a number of states have adopted separate programs within the adult correctional centers. Florida and South Carolina are the two states that have established different facilities for housing juvenile inmates. The age range is the key determinant of which youth ought to be housed in such facilities. In the above-mentioned states, the two age ranges are between 18 and 21, or 18 and 25. I also support the idea of housing them in different facilities thus avoiding cases of mistreatment (Elrod and Ryder 236). Current sources have revealed a rise in the fraction of cases processed in the juvenile court system. For instance, the number of cases processed in such courts in 2005 was 1.6 million. The research has shown that the drug law violation, public order offense, and property offense cases are among those dealt with in a juvenile court. The graphs show an increase, along with a decline in the number of cases directed to juvenile courts for processing (Elrod and Ryder 249). It is notable that, in each state, government has ensured the existence of a court to handle crimes committed by juvenile offenders. Judges who are responsible for handling this category of criminals must have specialized in juvenile, together with domestic relation issues. The state of Massachusetts has made some innovations through the formation of a statewide juvenile court, which lies under the trial court. It has its chief justice and many divisions across the state. I would also implement such an idea, as it would bring such services closer to the people (Elrod and Ryder 250). The prosecuting attorney in juvenile court performs the task of enforcing the law across the county, district, as well as the local government (Elrod and Ryder 264). The police conduct investigations about the crime performed by a juvenile. Afterwards, the prosecuting attorney reviews such investigations, therefore, issuing delinquent charges. A prosecuting attorney undertakes a key role of determining which cases ought to go to court. Additionally, they also determine their charges, along with those to be waived to adult courts. Alternatively, a defense attorney represents his/her clients by ensuring reduced chances of rights violation. The defense attorney defends the client regardless of the intensity of the crime committed. For a successful outcome, it becomes profound to establish a rapport between the attorney and the client (Elrod and Ryder 265). Adjudication hearing places juveniles at the same level with the adults. The juvenile court under formal proceedings can charge the juvenile with a sentence that has adverse effects to the family (Elrod and Ryder 267). Conversely, the disposition hearing is the main feature that differentiates the criminal court from that for juvenile offenders. This hearing aims to assist the youth, as well as their communities. The sanction is performed in favor of the youth thus enhancing their growth. In case of an adjudication hearing, youths are denied some of their rights (Elrod and Ryder 268). In case I was a judge, I would ask for all the information that would enlighten me about all the offenses committed by the juvenile. The seriousness of the offense would significantly influence my decision. Work cited Elrod, Preston, and Ryder, Scott. Juvenile justice: a social, historical and legal perspective. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011. Print. Read More