Juvenile Justice System | Case Study

Running head: JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
In the case of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971), the Supreme Court amalgamated
multiple cases of juvenile justice to discourse the entitlement to the trial by the judge in the court
of the juvenile. The opinion of the majority held that the adolescents do not have entitlement to a
process of trial by judge in pursuance to the sixth as well as fourteenth amendments.
In the year 1968, Joseph Mckeiver, who was sixteen years old, was accused of the
offense of larceny, robbery as well as receiving stolen items. Then after a year, Edward Terry,
who is fifteen years old, encounter accusations of battery and assault on law enforcement officer
and conspiracy. In each of the cases, it had been appealed by the attorney trial proceeding, but
the same was repudiated. The jury, in both cases, observed the boys are criminals.Mckeiver was
positioned on the probation in addition to that Terry was committed to the juvenile development
center. The Supreme Court in Pennsylvania united the cases and heard the appeal on the ground
of violation of the sixth amendment. The Supreme Court, in the case of Pennysylvania observed
that entitlement to trial by the judge must not be expanded to the juveniles. The assembly of 40
youths in North Carolina who aged about 11 to 15 encounter charges connected the school
protest.
The legal issues that are encountered by the juvenile are denial of constitutional entitled
to a trial by judges under fourteenth and sixth amendments in the proceedings of delinquency
(Emerson, 2017). It has been held by Gault youth probable harm of entitlement that is the
ultimate impact of being adjudicated the delinquent is adequately equivalent to the criminal

2JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
sentencing to necessitate hearing that facilitates the requirements of fair treatment and due
procedure. The same can be accomplished by giving the juveniles constitutional safeguards that
are considered too essential and necessary to guarantee the consistent hearing devoid of
displacing determined the benefit of juvenile structure. It is held by the court that liberty to
hearing on the problem of shifting to the adult court, there must be an entitlement to the
meaningful counsel that counsel should have entrance to social records regarded by the juvenile
court in addition to that juvenile law court should facilitate the statement of reason concerning
transfer with an order of waiver. Some examiners have articulated issues concerning procedures
of juvenile justice (Gilman, Hill & Hawkins, 2015). The deficit of the entitlement to the judge
trial might have an impact on the result of the trial. The issues also involve the legal
representation of adolescents as the procedure followed in the adult court; the adolescent has the
liberty to be signified by the attorney.
In the juvenile justice structure, the criminals who are youth are generally entertained by
the separate court, which is reserved for the minor. They are directed especially by the
correctional facilities which are sustained for the minors. However, in some instances, the minor
can be entertaining as an adult. The juveniles are usually entertained as an adult in the adult court
structure due to the brutality of the offense that is committed (Cauffman et al., 2016). The
transfer of the proceedings to the adult court can put an adverse impact on alleged. It is
significant to evaluate the consequence of juveniles who pass by the adult court structure to
identify that if they are dissuaded from the future offense. It was contemplated by the University
of California, in the School of Law Juvenile Justice Project that reconsider the outcome of the
juvenile cases that are put on trial in the adult court. It has been observed that there had been no
deterrent impact on the juveniles who are prosecuted in the adult law court in addition to that in

3JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
many nations, the rate of recidivism has actually enhanced. Statistics that accumulated from the
15 nation exposed that the juveniles who are prosecuted in the adult court of law as well as
discharged from state custodial were re-detained 82 percent of the time; on the contrary, the
adults’ corresponding person were re-detained 16 percent less.
The distinct juvenile justice structure was formulated in the country of the United States
with the aim of distracting the youth offenders from the disparaging penalty of the criminal court
as well as persuade rehabilitation that is grounded on the juvenile need of the individual. This
structured focus on the adolescent or child as the individual who is in requirement of support not
due to the conduct which drives him to the court of law (Miller & Applegate, 2015).
In the adult court of law, the defendant is accused by the application of document termed
as compliant on the other hand, in the juvenile court, the adolescent is accused with document
termed as Petition. In the juvenile case, the child did not get the opportunity of trial, unlike adult
court. In adult court, if the accused is proved to be guilty, he will be sentenced for determination
of punishment; on the other hand, in the juvenile court of law, there exist disposition to identify
as to what must happen to the adolescent (Aalsma et al., 2016). The structure of juvenile court
concentrates on the optimum interest of youth and put endeavor for confirming that they will be
put to the rehabilitation before they attain the age of majority. They put more focus on therapy,
treatment, education of the child rather than that of just penalty. In the adult court of law, thee
are legal conception that especially offered by the prosecutor, for instance, continuance for
discharge or stay off the adjudicatory proceedings—both of the legal conception permits who si
accused of offense from getting convicted. Nevertheless, in the juvenile court of law, the judge
may dispose of the case by continuance for discharge or holding of the adjudication in either

4JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
method, even in the case, the prosecuting counsel does not approve (Redlich & Bonventre,
2015).
The procedure of adjudication by which the adolescent is shifted to the adult court of law
this procedure is termed as a waiver. The youth cases that are qualified for the particular
procedure generally have to be a minimum of 16 years old. In the various nation, they might
consider the youth who are 13 years of age and are eligible to be shifted to the adult court of law
grounding on the severity of the offense or in the case where the youth is repetitive criminal. The
determinants that inclined the court in approving the waiver in case the juvenile is accused of a
severe offense in addition to that the youth had a long previous criminal record. The other
determinants if the youth is older, in case the juvenile pass through the process of rehabilitation
and the same did not function properly or in case the youth services or the social worker have
been engaged for the longer duration (Gase et al., 2016). One method of shifting the juvenile to
the adult court of law is by request of the prosecutor, and the prosecutor has to establish the
probable reason, and on that, it is rest upon the discretion of the judge to permit or not rest on the
background of youth, court record in addition to that their desire to get treatment in the juvenile
structure (Vaughn et al., 2015). The benefit of shifting to the adult court is the liberty to the jury
trial. In this case, the transfer did not take place as the functioning of an adult court defeat the
determination of sustaining a separate court structure.
The creation of juvenile court acknowledged that the child who is committing crimes is
diverse from that of adults as they are considered to be less blameworthy and have a greater
possibility to change. In the contemporary period, the juvenile justice structure still preserves
rehabilitation as the fundamental aim and detaches itself from the criminal justice structure in a
significant manner.

5JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
References
Aalsma, M. C., Lau, K. S., Perkins, A. J., Schwartz, K., Tu, W., Wiehe, S. E., ... & Rosenman,
M. B. (2016). Mortality of youth offenders along a continuum of justice system
involvement. American journal of preventive medicine, 50(3), 303-310.
Cauffman, E., Skeem, J., Dmitrieva, J., & Cavanagh, C. (2016). Comparing the stability of
psychopathy scores in adolescents versus adults: How often is “fledgling psychopathy”
misdiagnosed?. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 77.
Emerson, R. M. (2017). Judging delinquents. Transaction Publishers.

6JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Gase, L. N., Schooley, T., DeFosset, A., Stoll, M. A., & Kuo, T. (2016). The impact of Teen
Courts on youth outcomes: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review, 1(1), 51-
67.
Gilman, A. B., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2015). When is a youth’s debt to society paid?
Examining the long-term consequences of juvenile incarceration for adult
functioning. Journal of developmental and life-course criminology, 1(1), 33-47.
Miller, R. N., & Applegate, B. K. (2015). Adult crime, adult time? Benchmarking public views
on punishing serious juvenile felons. Criminal Justice Review, 40(2), 151-168.
Redlich, A. D., & Bonventre, C. L. (2015). Content and comprehensibility of juvenile and adult
tender-of-plea forms: Implications for knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty
pleas. Law and Human Behavior, 39(2), 162.
Vaughn, M. G., Salas-Wright, C. P., DeLisi, M., Maynard, B. R., & Boutwell, B. (2015).
Prevalence and correlates of psychiatric disorders among former juvenile detainees in the
United States. Comprehensive psychiatry, 59, 107-116.