The above descriptions of the core roles of the juvenile court and the probation department illustrate how these agencies hold the key to access to juvenile justice services. In the past, these services focused on youth and developed rehabilitation plans to develop young offenders into productive and law-abiding members of society. However, by maintaining this strict focus on rehabilitation, the system has been criticized for failing to impose responsibility for actions already committed. The idea behind the juvenile court system is that children should be treated with special care. Its authors felt that it was unnecessary and unfair to punish a child for misconduct, preferring rehabilitation instead. To do this, the court works in an informal and paternal manner. The judiciary also has the responsibility and privilege of promoting the development of resources that enable the realization of society`s goals in juvenile justice (Szymanski, Homisak and 1993). Orders/sentences issued by the juvenile court set a precedent for the types of services to be developed and implemented. In addition, the judge can serve as a voice to influence local policy decisions, educate the public about the process and purpose of juvenile justice, and initiate collaborative efforts with other service agencies, private companies and community organizations. The system, particularly juvenile probation, is often accused of giving offenders only a “slap on the wrist” instead of actually administering justice. Juvenile courts are portrayed by critics as a revolving door, with minors often being rearrested for new crimes while still under court-ordered supervision or in treatment programs. The actions and attitudes of the juvenile judge may also have an indirect impact on the policies and procedures under which other relevant agencies operate.
The juvenile court (i.e. a judge, captain or commissioner-designate) must ensure that all trials and decisions are conducted in a fair and impartial manner, that all decisions balance the best interests of the juvenile with the best interests of the victim and the community, and that the constitutional rights of all parties are respected. A juvenile court is a court that hears cases of crimes committed by children or cases involving the health or welfare of children. Every state has a youth system. Juvenile courts and their substantive jurisdiction are established by state laws, and in most jurisdictions juvenile trials are conducted in separate courtrooms as traditional procedures and are presided over by judges who hear only juvenile cases. The public is generally excluded from these procedures in order to protect the privacy of the children concerned. Judges generally adjudicate cases involving juveniles, as few states rarely provide for jury trials for juveniles. In McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional right to a jury trial was granted only to adults. The first juvenile court was founded in Chicago in 1899, and the movement quickly spread around the world.
Juvenile courts now exist in Europe, Latin America, Israel, Iraq, Japan and other countries, although there are differences in structure and procedures. A juvenile judge may, at the discretion of the court, recommend that a juvenile offender be tried as an adult if the offence is particularly violent or serious. Some states may legislate for certain offences that automatically result in minors who commit these crimes being tried as adults. These children are seen as insensitive to the rehabilitation philosophy of the juvenile justice system. Community safety is a common goal, but unlike the adult justice system, the juvenile court system does not recognize punishment as a legitimate goal; Rather, its stated goal is to help youth avoid future crimes and become law-abiding adults. To this end, the juvenile justice system has traditionally protected the confidentiality of juveniles involved in the court. In 1996, 634,100 delinquency cases (36 per cent of all referrals) were placed on formal or informal probation. Probation was the most severe decision in 54% of all cases decided, representing a 58% increase in the number of formal probation cases between 1987 and 1996 (Stahl et al., 1999). Some States have recently taken steps to improve the capacity of juvenile justice to deal effectively with these juveniles, taking into account the principles of the “balanced approach” (Klein, 1997). This philosophy requires that the system pay balanced attention to the need to develop skills, accountability and safety in the community, and requires efforts to return the victim and the community to their pre-crime status as much as possible (Thomas & Torbet, 1997). Jury trials are rarely used in cases involving minors because it would be a costly burden on the criminal justice system and because a jury trial necessarily puts the child and the government in opposite positions. For the same reason, some States do not guarantee children`s advocates.
The adversarial position is best suited to adult defendants, for whom society is more interested in retaliation and incapacity. However, society prefers juvenile defendants to be rehabilitated and believes that they are less guilty of their crimes and are more likely to be rehabilitated than their adult counterparts. To better serve this purpose, juvenile courts are less formal in judicial procedures and rules and generally produce less severe and stigmatizing sentences than those imposed on adult offenders. The judge usually speaks directly to the child, has a better understanding of the child`s mindset and attitude, and has much more discretion in sentencing than a traditional judge. The person most directly responsible for the function of the juvenile courts and the administration of juvenile justice is the juvenile judge (Edwards, 1992). In addition to the traditional judicial function, the juvenile judge has the power to influence the handling of cases well before and after a formal hearing. In many jurisdictions, the juvenile judge is the direct administrator of the juvenile probation service and/or court staff. As such, the juvenile judge may coordinate services between the court and the probation service and also assume responsibility for the tax administration. Juvenile Court, also known as Juvenile Court, a special court that deals with the problems of delinquent, neglected or abused children. The juvenile court fulfills the role of the government as a surrogate parent, and if there is no juvenile court, other courts must take over.
If juvenile probation is the cornerstone of juvenile justice, it is also its “watershed”. Since the first juvenile court statistics were compiled (1929 from 1927 data), probation supervision has been the overwhelming choice of juvenile court judges (Torbet, 1996). Probation is the most common provision for all juvenile sentences for the following reasons: Juvenile Court Juvenile probation emphasizes responsibility Juvenile courts and probation services play a central role in the administration of juvenile justice in the United States. As a result, the policies and programs promoted by these agencies largely define the nation`s response to juvenile delinquency. The broad and decisive role of the Juvenile Court and the Department of Probation clearly demonstrates the importance of ensuring that accountability is a central factor in judicial and probation cases, decision-making, programming and service delivery. The following sections of this bulletin discuss in more detail the role of the juvenile justice and probation systems in the administration of juvenile justice. identifies key elements of programme success, including coherent implementation and evaluation efforts and consideration of the impact of mainstreaming accountability in juvenile justice; and describes effective and accountability-oriented community-based initiatives, including mediation, early intervention, probation and intensive follow-up programs. Juvenile Court The person most directly responsible for the operation of juvenile courts and the administration of juvenile justice is the juvenile judge (Edwards, 1992).
In addition to the traditional judicial function, the juvenile judge has the power to influence the handling of cases well before and after a formal hearing.