NCJ Number
11063
Date Published
1973
Length
21 pages
Annotation
HISTORY OF JUVENILE COURT AND EMERGING JUVENILE RIGHTS, IN ADDITION TO AN EXAMINATION OF PROBLEMS INHERENT IN JURISDICTION TRANSFER.
Abstract
PRIOR TO THE 1900'S JUVENILES WERE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE IN THE ADULT CRIMINAL COURT. PART I OF JUVENILE LAW AND PROCEDURE EXAMINES THE HISTORY OF THE JUVENILE COURT AND EMERGING JUVENILE RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE JUVENILE COURT AND THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE LEGISLATION WHICH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS CREATION. IN ADDITION, SELECT JUDICIAL DECISIONS WHICH EXTENDED JUVENILE RIGHTS ARE BRIEFLY OUTLINED. IN SPITE OF THE SEPARATION OF JUVENILE AND ADULT CRIMINAL COURTS, THE JUVENILE LAWS RECOGNIZE THAT CERTAIN EXTREME CONDUCT NECESSITATES DIFFERENT HANDLING AND ALLOWS FOR THE TRANSFER OF JUVENILES TO THE REGULAR CRIMINAL COURT. THIS WAIVER TO A COURT OF GENERAL CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IS USUALLY FOR ACTS WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A FELONY IF COMMITTED BY AN ADULT. THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN JURISDICTION TRANSFER ARE THE FOCUS OF PART 2. ALSO CONSIDERED ARE INSANITY AND INCOMPETENCE AS THEY AFFECT SUCH TRANSFERS. THREE IMPORTANT COURT DECISIONS, KENT V. UNITED STATES (1966), IN RE GAULT (1967), AND IN RE WINSHIP (1969), ARE DISCUSSED. KENT DEALT WITH PROCEDURES REQUIRED IN A JUVENILE COURT TO WAIVE JURISDICTION TO A GENERAL CRIMINAL COURT, GAULT INCORPORATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN JUVENILE COURT PROCEEDINGS, AND WINSHIP DEALT WITH THE AMOUNT OF PROOF NECESSARY FOR A FINDING AGAINST A MINOR IN VIOLATION OF THE JUVENILE CODE. IT IS STATED IN CONCLUSION, THAT AS A RESULT OF MINORS RECEIVING RIGHTS MORE NEARLY AKIN TO THOSE GRANTED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, LAW ENFORCEMENT BURDENS ARE INCREASED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED) (SNI ABSTRACT)