Juvenile Court

Starting from the early 20th century, the Juvenile Court system was merely a starting concept that was utilized to “rehabilitate” youth offenders, the philosophy prior to be that parents, primarily fathers were to enforce rules and behaviors with their children. Juveniles’ ranging from seven to fourteen were permissible to be held for their actions if there was evidence they knew their actions and youth older were too punished as seen fit by parents or a government entity. There was no court system to allow for a hearing to be granted for minors.
Today’s Juvenile Court systems vary on this process with rehabilitation being the primary focus. Past beliefs were that adjudicated youth were not able to be rehabilitated and were confined with other adult men and women thus creating overcrowding and thought to “merely make them worse” (Meyer & Grant, 2003, p. 492). “House of Refuge” centers were established to house youth that were thought-out to be unruly. Juveniles could be committed by either a parent “the doctrine parents partite (the State as Parent)” (Meyer & Grant, 2003, p. 492) or the government. Juvenile courts are involved in more than strictly delinquency in minors. All matters involving youth such as adoption, truancy, and such are a concern with the Juvenile Court system. Cases involving juveniles can be presented via police officers, school personnel, and others. It is then decided through the court system whether a youth will be sent through the system based on crime severity, criminal act number and so on. Some cases even go as far as the adult system. When asked my opinion of whether or not the Juvenile system should differ from the adult, I would say it depends. Each case is different. I feel as though it should depend on the crime severity and evidence presented for the crime.
Juvenile Court is similar to a second chance when troubled minors have made a mistake lawfully. It gives juveniles a chance to correct their ways and become