Juvenile Recidivism

Recidivism of Juvenile Transfers and Community Programs
Over the past years, scholars and courts have studied the recidivism of young offenders whom have been convicted as adults. As prosecutions of young offenders continue to increase within the adult court system, many argue whether programs are being used properly to reintroduce repeat offenders back into society. Loughran, put the juvenile process in perspective with his statement, “theoretical intent of broader transfer provisions was clear (sufficient retribution for serious criminal behavior, deterrence through strengthened sanctioning and penalties), there has been only limited definitive empirical evidence regarding the effects of the transfer on the future
Juvenile courts arose as explicit attempt to control and regulate, and govern the intercity juveniles, whom engaged criminal activities. Between 1970’s and 1980’s every state legislature amended its juvenile code to facilitate the transfer and prosecution of juveniles in adult criminal courts. (Allen 2002) Juvenile regulations were revamped in the late 90’s during that time frame 68 percent of juvenile court cases were transferred as adult prosecutions. Landmark cases such, as Kent v. United States introduced new regulations, that stated every juvenile must first have a wavier hearing, including the right to be represented by an attorney during the hearing. Also, alternative treatments and programs were developed to the best interest of the child. Merrill and Frater suggested, “The making of laws creating juvenile courts and detention homes which place offending children apart from the criminal group has been co-incident with the growth of erroneous idea that social relations are the one absolute factor in the development of character.” (Brown, pg.363). Community programs and parental involvement with delinquent juvenile can steer them way from criminal circles. An absent parent as well as the environment play a huge role in the juvenile decision making in criminal circumstances. Although it’s the parent’s duty to rear their children, juvenile courts must provide the correct
United States provided juveniles with laws that’s they didn’t have before ruling. Kent v. United States, the court held that juvenile could not transferred from juvenile court to adult court without first having a waiver hearing, including the right to be represented by an attorney at hearing. The ruling resulted that juveniles be granted the due process before allowing transfer. Other important cases such, as Stanford v. Kentucky and Gault v Arizona, also incorporated new polices. Stanford ruling was that young offenders’ sentences be protected by the 8th Amendment, the reasoning was convicting juveniles under the age of 18 to the death penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Gault v. Arizona held that juvenile held with criminal charges have four basic rights, minor has the right to advance written notice, right to counsel and the right to confront and question witness, the last the right to protect against self-incrimination. All these case laws helped ensure that children be granted “Due Process” as adult