Juvenile responsibility

Recriminalization of juvenile courts gives the State the option and the opportunity to respond to violent juvenile crimes through waiver legislation which transfers jurisdiction from juvenile courts to criminal courts (Singer 1996). It serves to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 for murder cases and 14 for other classified violent offenses. Recriminalization attempts to satisfy social justice demands to see serious juvenile delinquents litigated in public, criminal courts without any baby effect of government parens patriae.

The American juvenile justice Traditional juvenile justice focused to serve on the best interest of the child where juveniles are not treated the same as adults. The justice system functions much like a parent which is the concept of parens patriae. The concept of the justice system acting as a parent is the cornerstone of criminal justice, in its meaning and in its form in reality. Why do young people turn to delinquency?

The evolving structure of the parental guidance and court family-juvenile interventions on parent’s discipline limitations served as the framework of the alarming rise of juvenile delinquency as the opportunities presents itself. Human thinking and behavior are shaped or learned habits followed by the internalization of societal rules and expectations by which its resulting behavior is simply the product and understanding of how minds work. A question of what shapes what?

Humanity in itself is designed to self destruct if we are to interpret on how social systems behave. Young people interpret what they perceived from their own experience within the context of their culture. Juvenile courts involves specific practices, programs and processes which deals on how to best address the needs of the offender just as parents were supposed to act in the best interest of their children which is the best interest of young people who had committed crimes.

The court’s idea is on what will help the juvenile most rather than those that directly deals on the severity of the crime that was committed. Juvenile responsibility The potentially alarming development of the population of youth offenders and the kind of crimes that they are presently involved may not afford the juvenile court any tremendous laxity in the individualization of its legislative function to punish offenders otherwise it will defeat the sole purpose of being a social justice system.

Justice, which in the part of the moral system of the society, means to effect legal practices and theories that will create corresponding punishment on juvenile serious violent offenses and brutal acts of juvenile violence. Government’s responses are the primary cause of the failure of the youth justices system that gave them the confidence of being treated like a child with no recourse on institutional alternatives and capital punishments.

Juvenile offenders grows at a threatening rate because of the knowledge and the confidence that juvenile courts will always seek what is best for their person ignoring the severity of the crime that was committed. If the court continues to act like it is a parent then it better get the babies out of their biological parents homes while still at their infancy stage so courts could truly perform the child rearing and witnessing stage of the child for their individual upbringing. Discipline warrants close relationships and emotions by which juvenile courts apparently do not have.

Base on the matters of duplicating parental duties and responsibilities, the court cannot perform its functions well without the aid of foster parents. We all know that a child under the care of foster parents do not fully develop their emotions as they have a lot of issues to deal with within themselves and of their lives. It is but nature’s call and a natural course of man to seek what is their own original biological intensive emotional interconnection. What we are trying to deliver here is the fact that juvenile courts cannot play what Mother Nature has not given them.