An Analysis of the Juvenile Justice System Research Paper

An Analysis of the Juvenile Justice System - Research Paper object lessonBecause many commonalities are shared by the juvenile and adult nefarious jurist systems, it is often easy to confuse the overall stopping points and mechanisms which drive them. The most nonable contrast between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal justice system is the fact that the juvenile justice system has it its core the goal and desire to rehabilitate the offender rather than merely punish him/her for the crime. Because of the varying degrees of compatibility and comparison between the two systems, this analysis will examine Supreme apostrophize rulings in order to show a pattern of differentiation and evolution of juvenile justice over time. 1 In re Winship 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970) The firstborn result in question is case 397 U.S. 358 (In re Winship). The case revolved around a 12 year old who was charged with stealing silver from a womans purse inside a store. Although the defendant was seen running from the scene, the Supreme Court determined that the preponderance of evidence alone was not sufficient to convict the juvenile of the crime instead, the court ruling upheld that juvenile justice cases must be held to the same rigor that traditional criminal justice cases are in that it must be proved beyond rational doubt that the accused was guilty. ... need not operate under the same standards of justice that applied to adult courts because the juvenile justice system was intended to save rather than to punish. Rather, the Supreme Court sided with the defense and ruled that proof beyond reasonable doubt as well as the existence of a preponderance of evidence was necessary to adjudicate cases within the juvenile justice system. To an extent, this case just restricted the existing juvenile justice system. Prior to this precedent, the juvenile justice system was not beholden to many of the guiding standards that affected traditional criminal cases. As a result, the juvenile justice system encouraged an judicial atmosphere of make it up as you go along. Unfortunately, this type of military position did not lend itself to the appropriate dispensation of justice. Judges were taking liberties with the notion that they were responsible for saving the accused youth thereby encouraging the judges to err on the side of caution when handing down sentences in the hopes that they might reform an errant youth. Although the Supreme Court upheld the right of the juvenile justice courts to correct the youth as well as punish them, the constraints of how the judges were to go about correcting the youth was significantly altered. 2 McKeiver v. Pennsylvania 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976 (1971) In much the same vein, 403 U.S. 528 worked to make further delineations of due process within the juvenile justice system. The case regarded a 16 year old boy who was charged with robbery, larceny, and the receipt of stolen property. The case hinged upon the fact that the youth was only provided with a few moments to meet with his attorney prior to going before the judge. Because of the overall lack of legal defense preparedness, the