No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The right to a public jury trial: A need for today's juvenile court
... Proponents for granting media access to juvenile proceedings assert that open proceedings prevent abuses of the judicial process (Kresnak, 2003;Oestreicher, Jr., 2001;Pollack, 2010;Trasen, 1995), increase accountability of violent and incorrigible juvenile offenders (Black & Blum, 1996;Greenebaum, 1993;Martin, 1995;Oddo, 1998;Sanborn, Jr., 1993), inform the public about those "who may pose a threat to the safety of the community," and allow them the opportunity to "express their moral outrage" for the crime (Siddiky, 2011, p. 229). Increased access also promotes full disclosure and accurate reporting by the media, greater accountability by court officials and personnel, better public education of the nature and extent of juvenile crime, and grants victims greater access and participation in the process (Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 2000;Webb, 2008). ...
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been invoked as the basis for the grant of media access to adult trials. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has not determined that the First Amendment right of public access similarly applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings, juvenile courts are faced with the issue of balancing the juvenile's privacy rights with the media's right to access information. This article undertakes research on media access to juvenile delinquency proceedings, including, the standards, limits, and conditions for such access through analyzing decisions of United States federal and state courts.
... The U.S. Supreme Court has never been asked to rule on a right to speedy trial for juveniles. However, the Gault Court was careful to characterize juvenile court proceedings as being accountable only to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and specifically not within the purview of the Sixth Amendment (Sanborn, 1993:232). Furthermore, during the 1970s and 1980s, the Court continued its attempts to resuscitate the parens patriae philosophy of juvenile justice (see, for example, Schall v. Martin, 1984). ...
Results from a project funded by the National Institute of Justice. As juvenile and family courts work to improve the timeliness of their services and sanctions, and to share what they learn with others, they need better information about the causes and consequences of delay, sound methods for controlling unwanted delay, and flexible techniques for tracking case processing time. Chapin Hall worked in collaboration with the National Center for Juvenile Justice to analyze recent patterns in delinquency case processing time and review the methods used by juvenile courts to monitor and improve their timeliness.
It is through timely case processing that the juvenile court is better primed to achieve its goals, whether these goals pertain to crime-control, treatment, legal or restorative justice, or some combination thereof. Drawing a random sample of cases (N=394) from a large Midwestern juvenile court filed between 2012 and 2016, the present study identifies factors that influence timeliness in the juvenile court. Controlling for diagnostic evaluations, failure to appear, offense severity, prior involvement, and judge idiosyncrasies, statistically significant relationships were observed between timely case processing and factors measuring caseload, judge placements, lawyer placements, pleading guilty, detention, and method of filing.
What strategy should be implemented to achieve better results with less serious juvenile offenses? Should such offenders be formally processed through the system or diverted away from the juvenile justice system? This entry examines the juvenile case processing system as a whole, describing each of the key stages at which a juvenile offender moves along. Then, evidence from a systematic review of research on the effects of formal processing is summarized. This review indicates that traditional processing has an overall negative impact, encouraging further delinquency. The entry goes on to discuss labeling, a popular theory about why processing has a negative impact.
Between 1900 and 2000 an unprecedented effort to use state regulation to guarantee health, opportunity, and security to America's children failed to reach its goals. This account of the period reveals that the achievements envisioned were extremely ambitious and reflected entrenched, but self-contradictory, values as well as Americans' inconsistent expectations of government. Based on extensive research, the volume analyzes the period's public policies that affected children's welfare, work, education, and health.
This paper is the second part of an investigation made with the purpose of reviewing the scope of the right of juveniles to be judged by a specialized system in criminal cases in comparison with the prosecution of crimes committed by adults. The project established that there are special standards developed in the subject in international human rights law and also attempted to identify their use in national legislations in several countries. In this context, the specific goal of the paper is to analyze how this right has been introduced and the way in which High Courts have developed their contents in the case law in four countries that have been very influential in the design of the new Chilean juvenile system: Costa Rica, Germany, Spain and The United States of America. For that purpose the paper focuses its analysis in two main axes: strengthening of due process guarantees and aspects of procedural structure. The paper identifies several legal tools developed in the comparative law that allow fulfilling the rights of the juveniles to be judged by a specialized system.
Originally, juvenile courts were designed to promote only the best interests of the child. Developments within the last three decades, however, have suggested that there are other interests represented in juvenile court proceedings. In this study, one hundred juvenile court workers (judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, probation officers) from three juvenile courts (urban, suburban, rural) were interviewed to determine the extent to which the child's interests are promoted in the contemporary juvenile court. The data suggest that a number of other interests currently rival the youth's for primacy in decisions reached in juvenile court.
Despite 30 years of expanding procedural rights for juveniles, young offenders have not been provided with a constitutional right to a speedy trial. Yet concerns about timeliness are often equally pressing in the juvenile court. This study examines the timing of juvenile justice by analyzing delinquency case processing in nearly 400 jurisdictions. One fourth of all cases required 90 days or more to reach disposition—the maximum recommended by national standards. Processing time varied according to jurisdiction size, the rate of formal adjudications, and other characteristics of juvenile court caseloads.
Changes in Arkansas's juvenile laws resulting from the school shootings in Jonesboro impacted two separate issues of the juvenile court process. The first law changed aspects of transfer provisions for processing juveniles as adults. Secondly, the law created new provisions allowing blended sentencing for juveniles who commit certain enumerated offenses. Both provisions are examined in this article. The authors examine the impact those changes had on the types and numbers of cases handled by the court and argue that the framework provided by Arkansas's Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction law illustrates a legislative response to juvenile violence that supports the concept of parens patriae and promotes the original purpose for which juvenile courts were created while balancing concerns for public safety.
This Article proposes that litigants in family violence proceedings have an option of a jury trial in limited circumstances. Drawing upon procedural justice research, I conclude that a jury option in the fact-finding stage of civil order of protection cases and child abuse and neglect cases will enhance litigants' sense of justice and faith in the court system. In turn, providing a jury option in such proceedings may increase compliance with orders, and ultimately, permanency and stability for families and children.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.