A Case for an Intergrated Criminal Court and Against an Independent Research Paper

A Case for an Intergrated Criminal Court and Against an Independent insubstantial Justice System - Research Paper ensampleThey dispute that there are important differences between the development of adults and young individuals or that rehabilitation system different from sentencing and persuade legislators to sustain the differences between offenders and antisocial or deviants. Some stress psychological insufficiency or physical helplessness. Others argue that youthful woos safeguard young lawbreakers from further corrective criminal justness rules. Yet, there are those who argue that juvenile courts furnish the sole opportunity in which to take into news report all the official and legal issues, such as abuse, neglect, felony, and dependency, which impinge on families and children (Corriero, 2006). Finally, advocates of an independent juvenile umpire system call upon the contingency argument of Progressives (Feld, 1999) in spite of the procedural defects and evident impove rishment of juvenile courts, criminal courts represent more unpleasant locations to try and sentence juvenile delinquents. Juvenile courts try to compound criminal social control and social welfare in a single organization and inevitably perform both poorly due to the innate conflict in both functions. In contrast, a juvenile adaptation of an adult criminal justice system is a body devoid of each justification (Culbertson, 2000). Since there are already existing criminal courts, with no social welfare basis, a juvenile adaptation of an adult criminal justice system would only be unnecessary. The Arguments for an Independent Juvenile Court and Against an Integrated Criminal Court An independent juvenile justice system needs a more defined, refined justification than crude punishment versus rehabilitation arguments. In fact hardly every observable differences are present between these two functions. However, if it is recognized that juvenile courts penalize young delinquents, we i ndeed take the responsibility of granting them criminal procedural protections since the condition of being a boy does not discharge a kangaroo court (Barkan & Bryjak, 2010, 520). It has been argued by the McKeiver Court that obliging procedural similarity with adults would terminate the juvenile court trial, yet took for granted the fact that refusing to do so reinforced bias and injustice (Feld, 1999). To perceive and potbelly with equally positioned criminals differently, to sentence young offenders for the sake of rehabilitation, and to strip them of essential protections cultivate a kind of injustice that frustrates any attempts towards reform. The present juvenile court does not offer justice or rehabilitation and cannot be reformed. The other policy alternatives are to pattern juvenile courts to the adult criminal justice system or vice versa (Roberts, 2004). Regardless if young delinquents are tried in an integrated criminal court or in an independent court, we should ree valuate fundamental principles and deal with procedural and substantive matters. Substantive justice issues establish forming and executing a doctrinal basis, such as shortened temper, psychological immaturity, weak disposition, or cut conscience, to sentence juvenile delinquents dissimilarly, and more mildly, than adult criminals or suspects (Myers, 2005). Procedural justice