Ramifications of the Juvenile Justice WaiverRamifications of the Juvenile Justice WaiverSocial workers in the court room play an major role in helping to decide whether or not a child should be charged as an adult for committing a crime while a minor. A minor being sent to juvenile court does not necessarily mean that the minor will be tried as an juvenile. It is also the responsibility of the court to determine if the minor should stay in juvenile court of be moved into adult criminal court. A social work assigned to the minor as well as the defense attorney, prosecutor, and judge will argue in court to decide the minors fate. This social policy that is used in the court system is known as the Juvenile Justice Waiver.
The Juvenile Justice Waiver is the practice of transferring jurisdiction over a juvenile from juvenile or family court to adult criminal court( Siegel & Welsh, 323). Once waived, the juvenile is treated in the same manner as an adult. The juvenile can be held in an adult jail and, if found guilty, is subject to the same penalties as an adult.
Juvenile waiver provisions have a tremendous impact on a young persons life. Prosecution in criminal court exposes juveniles to the same penalties as adults. They may face a life or death sentence, incarceration in State prison, and a permanent criminal record. Juveniles adjudicated in juvenile proceedings, on the other hand, generally must be released at age 18, receive rehabilitative treatment in a juvenile facility, and may be permitted to have their juvenile records expunged
One of the ideas behind creating the juvenile court system was that children were unlike adults, they can be easily helped if they were turning delinquent. Children in the juvenile court would not be found guilty and be considered convicts like adults, they were be adjudicated delinquent and helped to get back on to the right path. These adjudicated children would not be branded convicts and would not be considered part of the criminal justice system, they would have no criminal record. However, not all children would get this opportunity for help once courts started using the juvenile justice waiver to waive serious juvenile offenses and other juvenile offenders that were found to be seriously delinquent into adult criminal court.
By labeling these juveniles that are waived into adult criminal court as convicts instead of juvenile delinquents, it can seriously impair the child’s future aspects, such as college and employment (Siegel & Welsh, 323). This labeling is the cause for higher recidivism rates among these youthful offenders. Due to the lack of opportunities available to them, since they have little to no chance of going to college or getting a job, they will continue with there crime. This labeling theory creates a social problem. These children who are labeled convicts become repressed through prejudice. Colleges do not want convicts attending their schools and employers do not want convicts working for them. Also children that are trying to be delinquent to get more attention are getting exactly what they are looking for by being waived into adult criminal court. These children need help as the child that they are not the adult that they are trying to be (Kornblum & Julian, 13).
Popular history suggests that in the past children were all handled as adults. However the fact is that children that were in trouble with the law were handled much differently than adults. Before juvenile courts came to be children were handled in accordance with the “Common Law Principle of Responsibility”. Children that were younger than seven years of age were thought to be incapable of having any criminal intent and they could not be sanctioned as criminals. Children that were between that ages of seven and fourteen were considered to be possibly capable of having criminal intent and could possibly be sanctioned as criminals. Those children that were over the age of fourteen were treated as adults and were subject to all criminal sanctions (Blomberg and Lucken, 83). Commonly today we find that the age of fourteen in the “Common Law Principle of Responsibility” would be equivalent to the age of eighteen.
In some states there are similarity to this historical “Common Law Principle of Responsibility”. As to be expected, states have different laws regarding matters of juveniles. Many states vary when determining whether or not a children should be tried as an adult or what the minimum or maximum ages courts must follow or what crimes they are allowed try are. Taking Illinois for example, the set age required by law for a children to be transferred into adult court is seventeen. However, in Illinois there is a major exception to this rule. State law changes the minimum age to fifteen when crimes of murder of the first degree, aggravated sexual assault, armed robbery, robbery with possession of a firearm, and use of weapons on school grounds are committed (Carp, Stidham,
, p. 43-45). In an effort to understand the significance of this law in Illinois, let me summarize the basic principles: 1) States, as an entity, take their laws into their own hands so that, although the statute may be changed by state law, it is not binding upon them. This is not true in the United States, where the common law is similar to that in the United Kingdom where in 1885 the first attempt was made to adopt an English law in regard to juvenile law.[13] 3) State leaders are entitled to be accountable for any laws passed, enacted, or enforced through their own state law. This should mean that their political leaders should be accountable for what is done in their state through their legislative leadership (e.g., a legislator, judge, council, etc.), or a private individual acting in their capacity as state official.4) This law applies to all citizens regardless of what sex or sex, or what race, gender and socioeconomic class they are and any other social characteristic they are held to. State leadership is responsible for the decision-making process and any changes that may occur are up to them under all state legislative processes. When a law, statute or other decision-making statement is passed by state Congress and is passed by the legislatures by majority vote or by the Governor, those who voted have the responsibility to consider the specific legal decision that occurred in a particular particular case, and to determine if those decision-making statements will have a bearing upon the law or statutes that apply.5) Such decisions are made on behalf of the legislature in a public body (e.g., a Governor, Council, Council-Tribunal, etc.) rather than by elected representatives in the state legislative assembly. If a state legislator wishes to act as law-maker, then he or she must first determine the legal position of the legislature. Then he or she must issue the statement. However, if a representative passes and the law-making statements are not heard by the legislature then the representative cannot go on-going to give legislative advice that would be deemed necessary on its own. States, however, have generally recognized this constitutional principle when interpreting their laws. In an effort to understand the meaning of this principle the law-making statements that are to be considered in determining the rights of a child under the law-making policies are considered to be legal decisions that have not been ratified or approved by the legislature. The fact that there is a clear distinction between the legal decisions that are to be made by legislators and the decisions that are made by state leaders makes them highly relevant. Therefore, to understand the fundamental difference between legislative and legal decisions, let me summarize the following principles: 6) Legislators do not have responsibilities of final decisions which are made by legislators. Legislators are not responsible but do have the obligation to determine the validity of any legislative decisions that are made by their state leaders before they are issued. To interpret these decisions properly, state leaders should seek to determine the legal authority of those decisions that are being made at the time of making that decision by deciding