The juvenile court system is an alternative structure that deals with underage offenders accused of committing criminal acts or delinquents. The system uses the same structure as the regular court processes. Still, it has several inherent differences with the normal courts regarding arrest procedures, petitions, detainment, hearings, adjudication, placement, probation, or reentry. All these are different because the fundamental presumption is that underage offenders are different from adults and require special treatment. The juvenile court system is modern. Before 1600, the USA did not consider juveniles as offenders. However, after 1600, the church, parents or guardians, and the community addressed juvenile crimes. Nonetheless, in 1899, a federal decree allowed every state to develop an independent juvenile court system. That went on until 1967, when the Supreme Court came up with a harmonized system using a procedure based on basic human rights. The procedures ad structures resemble the normal adults' court system, but the juveniles get some form of "special" treatment and are kept away from the adults. However, the system provides harsher sentences based on the crime and has provisions for transferring juvenile offenders to the adult court system if the crime meets a certain threshold. In the juvenile justice system, the disposition process changes depending on the crime. For instance, the disposition can be either formal or informal. In most cases, if the court finds a juvenile to be delinquent, the next step involves making a disposition. Suppose the disposition is informal, the court orders for informal supervision. Informal supervision is loose, and it only applies to petty crimes. The formal disposition is more robust and involves the court assigning a community supervisor or a professional in juvenile-related matters. In more extreme cases, the juvenile may be sent into a facility that deals with juvenile delinquents. Such facilities are correctional, and juveniles spend their sentences in these facilities and get released either after the stipulated sentence is complete or on parole. The juveniles whose crimes exceed these options' threshold are transferred to the adult justice system but placed under supervision on a probationary basis and physical seclusion from the adult offenders. As mentioned earlier, juveniles whose crime or offense exceeds the juvenile system's threshold are moved to the adult system in a process called diversion. Diversion is an intricate process requiring expansive legal groundwork because the US Constitution has many safeguards protecting underage persons. Most of these processes take very long, and sometimes the underage offender gets to 18 before the prosecution exploits all the remedies. Diversion channels the young offenders away from the justice system regardless of the harm they can cause to the offender. White (2019) contends that the safeguards in law make it easier and safer for juvenile trials outside the formal system, especially for minor acts. However, Ehrmann, Hyland & Puzzanchera (2019) agree that the diversion is a remedy to the overburdened juvenile system. As long as the judges and jury are, the juvenile offender still gets a lenient sentence and channeled back to the juvenile correctional institution. The more severe offenders completely channel forward into the adult justice system. The state or the local jurisdiction is required by law to provide proper treatment to all offenders. Nonetheless, the same law demands a higher standard for juvenile offenders. For instance, after the arrest, the local jurisdiction must provide a safe and secure detention facility that will hold the facility before the juvenile offender is presented in court. After adjudication, the juvenile must be facilitated to and from the informal disposition venue if the sentence is not punitive. If the punishment is punitive, the law demands that the juvenile must get access to education, recreation, assessments, medical attention, counseling, and all other forms of intervention accessible by underage persons in normal circumstances. The law intends a situation where the juvenile's well-being remains when in custody and when serving time. A trial in juvenile justice is almost similar to that of the adult system. Still, the main difference is that it takes a more remarkable account of the juvenile's safety and privacy. Additionally, juvenile offenders are not accepted in front of a jury, but instead, a judge adjudicates their cases. Only the juveniles from the diversion programs face a jury. Even then, the court setup is tweaked to enhance privacy in line with the stipulated right and privileges accorded to underage offenders. In most juvenile rulings, the judge's role in determining if the juvenile is delinquent, and after that determination, the judge gives a delinquency ruling known as "sustaining the petition" (Ehrmann, Hyland & Puzzanchera, 2019). The major drawback is that the principle of "speedy trial does not cover juveniles," Therefore, it may take longer for them to be presented to a judge. The loophole delays justice and keeps them in secure detention for longer and hence the reason many offenders opt for diversion, which ultimately guarantees a speedy trial. As already mentioned, the juvenile justice court process does not follow the usual court rules. For instance, victims of a juvenile crime cannot approach a court directly and, therefore, cannot bring the charges now or even through an attorney. Instead, when a juvenile commits a crime that a state's law presumes wrong, then the county attorney comes forward and represents the state by filing a petition against the juvenile offender. That sets in motion a trial where the juvenile is then charged with a crime. In delinquencies, the juvenile may be issued with a citation or ticket, which requires him or her to appear in front of a judge. The juvenile justice system's whole point is rehabilitation and treatment of juvenile offenders as opposed to "punishing" as it is with the adult system. In that case, the juvenile system's rules and regulations divert juveniles from the criminal justice system. In most cases, the procedures and processes move faster because they are exempted from the jury. Judges are implored to deliver adjudications much quicker and pave the way for rehabilitation. The court process from pre-trial hearing in juvenile cases must occur in the county where the crime was committed, and disposition must be in the county of residence. The justice system believes that underage offenders require much more care and protection compared to adult offenders. During arraignment in court, the juvenile offender is entitled to an attorney. In some cases, the judge can take them into disposition immediately or in the future, depending on the crime. For instance, in petty crimes such as brawls, the judge only requires the state to prove that it took place, and the offender may either be placed into formal or informal disposition. The juvenile court system grapples with plenty of challenges that are mostly structural. First, this system's goal is to ensure that offenders get justice and rehabilitation without disrupting their lives. In that case, the laws make every effort towards sending these young offenders to rehabilitation and correctional centers and not jails. The challenge here then becomes that of leniency. The light punishments rendered by the court system undermine behavioral change intention and, hence, make the juvenile delinquents the future adult offenders. The modern diversion program pushes the threshold for channeling the juveniles to adult court complicated and ends undermining these courts' intention even further. In the juvenile court system, the judge can accelerate the trial by channeling a young offender's case to an adult court. The process is known as a waiver. After a waiver, the juvenile is tried as an adult, all the protections offered to children by the law are dropped, and it is no longer a juvenile proceeding. Almost every state in the USA allows for the juvenile waiver. In law, there are discretionary, presumptive, and mandatory waivers. The judge judges all of these waivers, but in most cases, in the compulsory and presumptive waivers, the judge has little or no leeway in changing the verdict. Different states have different rules in the waiver process, but in most cases, waivers are only applicable if the offender is accused of first-degree murder, firearm violation, and drug distribution and possession. In some states, despite these requirements, they have laws that only allow waivers for offenders aged 17 and above, but some states allow waivers for offenders above ages 13 or 14 (Ehrmann, Hyland & Puzzanchera, 2019). Judges are permitted by law to make a ruling in case a waiver is contested and but in case of a mandatory waiver, the state laws compel judges to allow the channeling of the case to an adult court system (White, 2019). The waiver process is very pertinent in the US justice system. Before it was included in the law, the courts had no option but to postpone juveniles who had committed capital offenses. Delays in such cases had adverse implications because critical evidence and key witnesses would be lost. Instead, with the waiver process, the prosecution can apply for a waiver and have the case channeled upwards, and that means that justice can be delivered in time and without the safeguards of the juvenile system. On the other hand, cases from the waiver process are subject to a speedy trial, which improves justice delivery, unlike the juvenile system cases. Furthermore, a juvenile offender with charges of a capital offense such as murder, firearm misuse, and drug-related crimes gets justice because they appear in front of a jury, unlike in the lower system where adjudication is solely left to the judge. Consequently, I acknowledge that the waiver process is an ideal addition to the juvenile court system. In any justice system, the goal is to ensure that justice is delivered immediately. The waiver process guarantees that justice delivered in the adult court system is ideal for some crimes. The juvenile system only limits the judge to rehabilitation, which is not suitable for some crimes. Furthermore, the adult court system moves faster and delivers adjudication much earlier than the juvenile courts. Henceforth, the waiver process is fundamental and acts as a critical addition to the juvenile court system. Conclusively, the waiver process is flawless mainly because it allows for the channeling of juvenile cases to the adult courts while at the same time allowing room for legal contestation. In this case, the process is ideal and workable. However, the waiver process must be shielded from abuse and therefore requires harmonization. In some states, the process is easy, and that may be a loophole for minors to be tried in the adult court system without proper grounds. It means that the process should be more complex, and the contestation rules must be more precise. For instance, the issue of the age limit must be clearly stated in the law.
References
Ehrmann, S., Hyland, N., & Puzzanchera, C. M. (2019). Girls in the juvenile justice system . US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
White, C. (2019). Treatment services in the juvenile justice system: Examining the use and funding of services by youth on probation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 17 (1), 62-87.
