Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:21 pm
Time: 12:21 pm
Results for juvenile law
4 results foundAuthor: Henrichson, Christian Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Raising the Age of Juvenile Jurisdiction in North Carolina Summary: North Carolina is one of two states that process any offense committed by 16- and 17-year-olds in the adult justice system. Vera' Cost-Benefit Analysis Unit worked with the state's Youth Accountability Planning Task Force to assess the costs and benefits of transferring 16- and 17-year-olds charged with misdemeanors and low-level, nonviolent felony offenses to the juvenile justice system. This report presents the results and the methodology of the cost-benefit analysis. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 24, 2011 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3185/CBA-of-Raising-Age-Juvenile-Jurisdiction-NC-final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3185/CBA-of-Raising-Age-Juvenile-Jurisdiction-NC-final.pdf Shelf Number: 120877 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisJuvenile CourtsJuvenile LawJuvenile Offenders (North Carolina)Waiver (of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction) |
Author: Kuper, Sarah Title: An Immature Step Backward for New Zealand's Youth Justice System? A Discussion of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Summary: This paper examines the age of criminal responsibility in New Zealand's youth justice system focusing primarily on the serious youth offender. Recent amendments to New Zealand's youth justice legislation -- the Chidlren Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, the prevalence of serious youth crime in New Zealand and the politicised nature of the debate surrounding it makes this a pressing issue. Children who commit serious offences pose a peculiar challenge to every criminal justice system. Children may commit adult crimes, but their immaturity and lack of understanding mean that they cannot be dealt with as small adults. This paper will provide the basis for an informed and principled critique of the current amendment to the age of criminal responsibility. Recent international, scientific and behavioural evidence will be summarised and linked to the discussion of the amendment. It will suggest how the system can work towards mitigating the affects of this legislation, suggesting that by increasing the jurisdiction to include 17 year olds, proving the Youth Court with the powers of the Family Court and having a qualitatively different approach towards youth at sentencing will provide for tangible reductions in offending and will protect the rights of these vulnerable serious child offenders. Details: Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago, School of Law, 2010. 87p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 11, 2011 at: http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/oylr/2010/Sarah_Kuper.pdf Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/oylr/2010/Sarah_Kuper.pdf Shelf Number: 120977 Keywords: Age of Criminal ResponsibilityJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile LawJuvenile Offenders (New Zealand)Serious Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Skelton, Ann Title: The Criminal Capacity of Children in South Africa: International Developments & Considerations for a Review Summary: The purpose of the research is to give an overview of the different debates and international developments on the establishment of a minimum age of criminal capacity and the doli incapax presumptions with a view to assist the South African Parliament in its legally mandated review of the minimum age of criminal capacity. The facts and findings in this research report may also be used as a basis for starting a debate on questions such as what the minimum age should be, and whether the current legal presumptions should be retained or discarded. Details: Bellville, South Africa: The Child Justice Alliance, c/o The Children’s Rights Project, Community Law Centre (University of the Western Cape), 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 31, 2011 at: http://www.communitylawcentre.org.za/clc-projects/childrens-rights/other-publications/criminalcapacity_SA.pdf Year: 2011 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.communitylawcentre.org.za/clc-projects/childrens-rights/other-publications/criminalcapacity_SA.pdf Shelf Number: 123184 Keywords: Age of ResponsibilityJuvenile Justice (South Africa)Juvenile LawJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Maryland. Administrative Office of the Courts Title: A Registry of Juvenile Court Program Initiatives Summary: Through its 1969 enactment of the revised Juvenile Causes Subtitle, the Maryland General Assembly intended to create a separate system of courts, procedure and method of treatment for juveniles that is civil in nature, rather than criminal. The underlying concept of juvenile law is the protection of the juvenile, so that when judges make dispositions in juvenile cases, they consider the child's need for protection or rehabilitation, not the child's guilt. Juvenile law does not contemplate the punishment of children where they are found to be delinquent, instead it attempts to correct and rehabilitate them. The Judiciary has responded to the spirit and latitude of the unique nature of juvenile proceedings as legislated. Within the courtroom judges have adapted national models of problem solving courts to respond to local issues. Juvenile drug courts and family recovery courts specifically address the substance abuse of delinquent youth and parents who have had their children removed from their care as a result of their misuse of controlled substances. The models listed in this registry range widely among counties, but share the core values of treatment and of accountability to the Court. Intensive monitoring of these participants by the assigned judge results in a relationship that research has demonstrated plays a key role in the participant's recovery. Further, the Maryland Courts have supported the extended use of alternative dispute resolution methods in delinquency, child in need of assistance and termination of parental rights cases. Youthful offenders who are confronted by their victims in a structured Community Conference, a restorative justice model, are more likely to pay restitution and less likely to re-offend. Mediation of post adoption contact agreements between biological and adoptive parents lessens the trauma to all parties, lowers the number of contested termination of parental rights cases and reduces the time to achieve permanency. This Registry of Juvenile Court Program Initiatives demonstrates many collaborative, innovative and effective strategies that are based on national models and implemented throughout the state. These joint efforts demonstrate understanding by the judicial, legislative and executive leadership in Maryland that juveniles are unique, requiring judges to extend law and justice beyond the courtroom to achieve the ultimate safety and welfare of youth and the community. The registry is the first compilation of these programs and marks the beginning of a comprehensive review and analysis of court-based and court-referred programs in the juvenile delinquency arena. The Department of Family Administration will begin compiling and evaluating available data on these programs with the hope of learning which programs are effective and warrant further investment and expansion. The sensitivity, significance and separateness of juvenile proceedings is underscored by the legislative amendments added in 2001, which require the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals to approve the circuit administrative judge's juvenile assignment selection. The amendments further state that juvenile judges possess a personal interest in and experience with children, as well as the desire and temperament to address problems likely to come before the juvenile court. The rotation of judges through juvenile court was also modified to specifically state that juvenile judges are not subject to automatic rotation, presumably precluding assignment of judges better suited to other matters while preserving the ability of effective judges to remain longer than a minimum term. The General Assembly's recognition that youth charged with delinquent acts (crimes if committed by adults) require unique proceedings and consequences was echoed by the United States Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons. Relying largely on psychological and scientific evidence the Court held that execution for a crime committed by a juvenile under the age of 18 is cruel and unusual punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment. The Court considered three differences between juveniles and adults in reaching these conclusions: 1) comparative immaturity and irresponsibility, 2) increased vulnerability and susceptibility to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressures, and 3) a juvenile's character being less formed than an adult's, with personality traits that are more transitory and less fixed. Historically, the executive agencies have been responsible for programming for families and children involved with juvenile court. However, the Judiciary has recognized that families with increasingly complex problems are appearing in their courtroom. For example, child neglect can be a result of parental substance abuse, delinquent youth often have learning difficulties that lead to spiraling truancy and dropout rates, and abused children committed to the Department of Social Services sometimes "cross over" to the delinquency system and are in need of mental health treatment. Details: Baltimore: Maryland Judiciary, 2013. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 24, 2015 at: http://www.courts.state.md.us/family/publications/programregistry20130325.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.md.us/family/publications/programregistry20130325.pdf Shelf Number: 137315 Keywords: Juvenile CourtsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile LawJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Treatment Programs |