Juvenile Justice Reform :: essays research papers

THESIS STATEMENT The Great and General motor hotel of Massachusetts has erredin reforming the teenaged rightness system by implementing policies andprocedures that leave behind harm youthfuls and place society at risk.On July 23, 1995, an intruder savagely attacked and stabbed Janettoss off approximately 100 times in her Somerville home. The revoltingDowning murder and ensuing arrest of Edward OBrien Jr., a 15-year-oldjuvenile whom prosecutors say affiliated the heinous crime, sentshockwaves through the state. When Somerville District Court Judge capital of MinnesotaP. Hefferman ruled that the Commonwealth try Mr. OBrien as a juvenile,those shockwaves grew in intensity, and the citizens of Massachusetts,federal official up with increasing youth violence and perceptions of an ineffectivejuvenile umpire system, demanded the enactment of tough new laws todeal with repeat and violent juvenile offenders. The Great and GeneralCourt of Massachusetts headed these demands for reform of the juvenilejustice system and enacted legislation that, among other things,abolishes the test de novo system in the juvenile courts, requires thetrial of juveniles charged with murder, manslaughter, aggravated rape,forcible rape of a child, kidnaping, profane with intent to rob ormurder and armed burglary in cock-a-hoop court and permits prosecutors to opento the public juvenile proceedings when they seek an large(p) sentence. Although proponents tout these measures as a sagacious solution for thevexatious job of juvenile delinquency, abolishing the trial de novosystem, providing for automatic adult trials and opening juvenileproceedings to the public when prosecutors seek an adult sentence worksto the detriment, not the benefit, of juveniles and society. Therefore,the polity makers of Massachusetts should repeal most sections of theJuvenile Justice Reform human action and develop other policies to deal with therising problem of juvenile crime.I. A SINGLE TRIAL SYSTEM PR EVENTS COURTS FROM PROVIDING RAPID ASSISTANCETO JUVENILES IN NEED, DOES diminished TO SERVE JUDICIAL ECONOMY AND PLACES ASIMILAR BURDEN AS THE DE NOVO SYSTEM ON VICTIMS AND WITNESSES.Proponents of a single trial system for juveniles betoken that the trialde novo system wastes judicial resources by giving defendants a secantbite at the apple and traumatizes victims and witnesses by forcing themto testify at dickens proceedings. However, these proponents fail toacknowledge that the de novo system allows judges to quickly providejuveniles with the rehabilitative help they need. The proponents,unsurprisingly, also fail to acknowledge that a single trial system mayplace a greater burden on judicial resources and a similar burden onvictims and witnesses.The de novo system benefits juveniles by encouraging bench trials,which frequently result in the swift disposition of rehabilitative