:JUDICIAL WAIVERS: Part 1: Judicial waivers have come a long way since the beginning of their creation and acceptance into our criminal justice system and possibly have become more brutal than they were before in certain senses. Starting back in England a child over the age of 8 could be tried as an adult for any crime, whether it be a serious or non-serious crime. Those children under the age of 8 could not be tried for any crime because they were just not old enough to be competent enough to understand what they were doing. That if anything, the parents were more responsible for the child’s actions than the actual child themselves. To me this seems like a very far stretch, kids who are 8 years have barely just learned how to multiply and divide, how they can be tried as a n adult for a crime? Another thing that is fascinating is the fact that until the decision for Roper v. Simmons was made in 2005, ANY child under the age of 18 could receive the death penalty for their crime, only after this case was the law made that no one under the age of 18 could be given the death penalty. This is really quite insane to think about, that a child who is 12 or 13, or even younger could have received the death penalty for their crime all the way up until 2005, though it isn’t unexpected. People were not as well educated about the child’s mind as they are today and had a better chance of making misjudgements than they can today, where we can look to facts in studies if we have doubts. In 1900 the first juvenile court was established and a man by the name of John Augustus started the first “parole” sentences for juveniles when he would take these children into his home and feed and make them work so as to rehabilitate them into functioning members of society. This also around the time when we can see the first judicial waivers being used to send more serious juvenile offenders to adult court. Waivers have come a long way since their creation in the early 1900s, and the continue to evolve every day and become more complex and better for our society. This lecture video was very informative on the regulations for juveniles being charged as adults. Some interesting facts that stood out to me was the fact that more males are most likely to get waived. Also, when the juvenile is getting charged with their first adult offense then the sentence is going to be shorter than if it were an actual adult. One thing that was something I agree with in this video was the High Scope program that he discussed. I believe that giving the children a chance to better their education and become a more knowledge individual is going to help them change their choices in life. Waiving them into adult jail isn’t going to better the child as much as giving them a second chance at making a change in their lives for the better. He explained that sending them to jail is going to give them the environment which will teach them more ways to be a better criminal and be surrounded by negative people who could influence them and stir them into the wrong direction. He made a very good point about how it is going to be a better investment overall to put these kids into preventative programs because if they wave them to jail then they are creating a worse criminal. gh_blackhawks123, Pack123, Sunshine123, SomethingProfound123, UofM123
It is crazy to think that kids starting at 8 years old could be tried and sentenced to their crimes thats unbelievable. Now in our lovely broke state I believe the age is 13 and up for a minor to be tried and sentenced into the Justice system. One big thing to help that be 13 instead of 8 like in England was we today do know a lot about the mind child and adult thanks to all the wonderful technical advances we have had in the past 50 years it has made us I believe a more well educated and well versed nation. NDIrish123.
I agree with you guys, sometimes the reason why they go to prison is horrible. They sometimes they need a second chance because maybe they will better themselves and become a better person. When kids become focus, and want to change they will. All they need is the support for it, you can’t expect somebody to get there self’s together in prison and they are around more bad people. but sometimes kids are not willing to change and those are the kids that should not be able to get a second chance. The kids that think it’s cool to go to jail are the bad ones and need to be doing time in prison. The high scope is the best program, I do agree with that. You’ll actually get to see their real personality and see that what they might have done to get in there was actually a mistake. Babyblue123
:JUDICIAL WAIVERS: Part 2: How are juveniles supposed to learn to become a better human in jail surrounded by adults who have made poor choices as well. I completely agree with the High Scope program and believe it is an effective way to get these children on the right path in life. I find that all preventive programs are what is going to make a difference in how juveniles behave. This could possibly be a good idea for children who are in a bad environment at home and whose parents could be influencing them as well. Watching this video with Rob Dawalt and listening to his lecture on waiving juveniles to adult court was very educating to say the least. The main thing that caught my eye and tested my knowledge or lack of was the part of him talking about how the state of Florida shifted the waiver process to the prosecutors. This means that the prosecutors are the ones who decide whether the juvenile gets waived through to adult court or not. This also eliminates a juvenile judge, Juveniles will not see a juvenile judge at all during this process. A lot of the times there is injustice because they get no treatment or rehabilitation. The only I guess good thing from this is that most of the time the sentencing for these first time offenders per say, coming through the adult system get a lesser sentence for their crimes than they would if they would had committed the crime as an adult or had already been through the adult court system. The other part of Rob Dewalt's lecture that I found very interesting was the history part at the beginning. I would definitely have to agree that at a very young age, that such as 8, is to young of an age for children to completely and fully understand what is going on. If you have ever been around young children you know that they will pretty much do anything that an adult is trying to get them to do. Not all the time is this a good thing. Children that young have not grasped the concept of right and wrong yet. A very interesting point also was when he was talking about LWOP, life without parole and life sentences. Especially how some serious criminal offenders get life and could be out in 14 years while someone who has committed an armed robbery serves 25 years. In my opinion these types of conditions make you think about how the different crimes are handled across the board and how unfair some of the punishments can be. It also makes you want to do some research to see what the difference in sentences are for every state and how much they vary. gh_blackhawks123, Pack123, Sunshine123, SomethingProfound123, UofM123
:JUDICIAL WAIVERS: Part 3: To start off the video, Dawalt explains that at one time, there was no juvenile court; therefore, everyone was tried in adult court. However, there was a law that stated you could not be tried in adult court if you were under the age of 8-years-old. This was the case because they determined that if you were under 8, you did not grasp the difference between right and wrong; that you had no understanding what was correct and incorrect as it pertains to criminal acts. In Roper vs Simmons, it was determined that if you are under the age of 18, you are not developed enough to make good decisions as an adult, therefore cannot get the death penalty. I agree that the death penalty should not be considered for someone who is under the age of 18, even though they made the decision to commit the crime. They still have a lot of development ahead of them, and a lot of rehabilitation to seek in order to better themselves. I do not think that should be taken away due to the penalty of death. There was another decision after the Roper vs Simmons case that stated that to get LWOP (life without parole,) which means you are locked up with no chance of rehabilitation and no second chance. A good point that Dawalt had that I did not know, is that life does not actually necessarily mean life. He said it is equal to 14 years, if the prisoner behaves throughout his time of being locked up. This is very interesting, because he said that it is possible that someone who got a life sentence for contributing to a murder may get out after 14 years, but someone who committed armed robbery may be stuck in prison for 25 years, which brings up a lot of complaints and issues or morality. Curiously, I wonder why the conviction for murder is far less than that of armed robbery. That to me doesn’t make any sense but there has to be a reason right? After all, they were just kids. Why should murder only take up a little bit of their time but something like armed robbery could mean they could never associate with the public. Armed robbery is bad, yes, but at least with armed robbery there is the chance that no one is meant to die. Murder takes lives from people and frankly, they should have to pay more of the due than just a small portion of their life. One human life is not equivalent to another but that isn’t the point. If life is taken, they should have to give up a portion of their life in return. gh_blackhawks123, Pack123, Sunshine123, SomethingProfound123, UofM123
I also agree that someone under the age of eighteen should not be considered for the death penalty, unless the crime that was committed by that child was so heinous and disturbing such as killing their parents or something along those lines, then yes I believe they would then deserve to be considered for the death penalty. I was also surprised to find that life in prison is not literally life in prison. A person could be handed that sentence, but still get out in as little as fourteen years. Gymlife123.
Hearing that in all the states half of the children who were under the age of twelve had their cases waived to adult court is ridiculous. I know that when I was younger I did some stupid stuff and we all have to learn from these mistakes, but sending them to adult court is not the way that we are going to make them learn. If we want to teach them a lesson we need to give them an opportunity if it is only their first offense. Now if these juveniles did some type of violent crime towards another individual, then I can see the case possibly being waived to adult court. We do not need to destroy the child's life if they did some crime that may not be as bad as we think and we do not need to public thinking the justice system is always going to be against them. Illini123
:JUDICIAL WAIVERS: Part 1: Judicial waivers have come a long way since the beginning of their creation and acceptance into our criminal justice system and possibly have become more brutal than they were before in certain senses. Starting back in England a child over the age of 8 could be tried as an adult for any crime, whether it be a serious or non-serious crime. Those children under the age of 8 could not be tried for any crime because they were just not old enough to be competent enough to understand what they were doing. That if anything, the parents were more responsible for the child’s actions than the actual child themselves. To me this seems like a very far stretch, kids who are 8 years have barely just learned how to multiply and divide, how they can be tried as a n adult for a crime? Another thing that is fascinating is the fact that until the decision for Roper v. Simmons was made in 2005, ANY child under the age of 18 could receive the death penalty for their crime, only after this case was the law made that no one under the age of 18 could be given the death penalty. This is really quite insane to think about, that a child who is 12 or 13, or even younger could have received the death penalty for their crime all the way up until 2005, though it isn’t unexpected. People were not as well educated about the child’s mind as they are today and had a better chance of making misjudgements than they can today, where we can look to facts in studies if we have doubts. In 1900 the first juvenile court was established and a man by the name of John Augustus started the first “parole” sentences for juveniles when he would take these children into his home and feed and make them work so as to rehabilitate them into functioning members of society. This also around the time when we can see the first judicial waivers being used to send more serious juvenile offenders to adult court. Waivers have come a long way since their creation in the early 1900s, and the continue to evolve every day and become more complex and better for our society. This lecture video was very informative on the regulations for juveniles being charged as adults. Some interesting facts that stood out to me was the fact that more males are most likely to get waived. Also, when the juvenile is getting charged with their first adult offense then the sentence is going to be shorter than if it were an actual adult. One thing that was something I agree with in this video was the High Scope program that he discussed. I believe that giving the children a chance to better their education and become a more knowledge individual is going to help them change their choices in life. Waiving them into adult jail isn’t going to better the child as much as giving them a second chance at making a change in their lives for the better. He explained that sending them to jail is going to give them the environment which will teach them more ways to be a better criminal and be surrounded by negative people who could influence them and stir them into the wrong direction. He made a very good point about how it is going to be a better investment overall to put these kids into preventative programs because if they wave them to jail then they are creating a worse criminal. gh_blackhawks123, Pack123, Sunshine123, SomethingProfound123, UofM123
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy to think that kids starting at 8 years old could be tried and sentenced to their crimes thats unbelievable. Now in our lovely broke state I believe the age is 13 and up for a minor to be tried and sentenced into the Justice system. One big thing to help that be 13 instead of 8 like in England was we today do know a lot about the mind child and adult thanks to all the wonderful technical advances we have had in the past 50 years it has made us I believe a more well educated and well versed nation. NDIrish123.
DeleteI agree with you guys, sometimes the reason why they go to prison is horrible. They sometimes they need a second chance because maybe they will better themselves and become a better person. When kids become focus, and want to change they will. All they need is the support for it, you can’t expect somebody to get there self’s together in prison and they are around more bad people. but sometimes kids are not willing to change and those are the kids that should not be able to get a second chance. The kids that think it’s cool to go to jail are the bad ones and need to be doing time in prison. The high scope is the best program, I do agree with that. You’ll actually get to see their real personality and see that what they might have done to get in there was actually a mistake. Babyblue123
Delete:JUDICIAL WAIVERS: Part 2: How are juveniles supposed to learn to become a better human in jail surrounded by adults who have made poor choices as well. I completely agree with the High Scope program and believe it is an effective way to get these children on the right path in life. I find that all preventive programs are what is going to make a difference in how juveniles behave. This could possibly be a good idea for children who are in a bad environment at home and whose parents could be influencing them as well. Watching this video with Rob Dawalt and listening to his lecture on waiving juveniles to adult court was very educating to say the least. The main thing that caught my eye and tested my knowledge or lack of was the part of him talking about how the state of Florida shifted the waiver process to the prosecutors. This means that the prosecutors are the ones who decide whether the juvenile gets waived through to adult court or not. This also eliminates a juvenile judge, Juveniles will not see a juvenile judge at all during this process. A lot of the times there is injustice because they get no treatment or rehabilitation. The only I guess good thing from this is that most of the time the sentencing for these first time offenders per say, coming through the adult system get a lesser sentence for their crimes than they would if they would had committed the crime as an adult or had already been through the adult court system. The other part of Rob Dewalt's lecture that I found very interesting was the history part at the beginning. I would definitely have to agree that at a very young age, that such as 8, is to young of an age for children to completely and fully understand what is going on. If you have ever been around young children you know that they will pretty much do anything that an adult is trying to get them to do. Not all the time is this a good thing. Children that young have not grasped the concept of right and wrong yet. A very interesting point also was when he was talking about LWOP, life without parole and life sentences. Especially how some serious criminal offenders get life and could be out in 14 years while someone who has committed an armed robbery serves 25 years. In my opinion these types of conditions make you think about how the different crimes are handled across the board and how unfair some of the punishments can be. It also makes you want to do some research to see what the difference in sentences are for every state and how much they vary. gh_blackhawks123, Pack123, Sunshine123, SomethingProfound123, UofM123
ReplyDelete:JUDICIAL WAIVERS: Part 3: To start off the video, Dawalt explains that at one time, there was no juvenile court; therefore, everyone was tried in adult court. However, there was a law that stated you could not be tried in adult court if you were under the age of 8-years-old. This was the case because they determined that if you were under 8, you did not grasp the difference between right and wrong; that you had no understanding what was correct and incorrect as it pertains to criminal acts. In Roper vs Simmons, it was determined that if you are under the age of 18, you are not developed enough to make good decisions as an adult, therefore cannot get the death penalty. I agree that the death penalty should not be considered for someone who is under the age of 18, even though they made the decision to commit the crime. They still have a lot of development ahead of them, and a lot of rehabilitation to seek in order to better themselves. I do not think that should be taken away due to the penalty of death. There was another decision after the Roper vs Simmons case that stated that to get LWOP (life without parole,) which means you are locked up with no chance of rehabilitation and no second chance. A good point that Dawalt had that I did not know, is that life does not actually necessarily mean life. He said it is equal to 14 years, if the prisoner behaves throughout his time of being locked up. This is very interesting, because he said that it is possible that someone who got a life sentence for contributing to a murder may get out after 14 years, but someone who committed armed robbery may be stuck in prison for 25 years, which brings up a lot of complaints and issues or morality. Curiously, I wonder why the conviction for murder is far less than that of armed robbery. That to me doesn’t make any sense but there has to be a reason right? After all, they were just kids. Why should murder only take up a little bit of their time but something like armed robbery could mean they could never associate with the public. Armed robbery is bad, yes, but at least with armed robbery there is the chance that no one is meant to die. Murder takes lives from people and frankly, they should have to pay more of the due than just a small portion of their life. One human life is not equivalent to another but that isn’t the point. If life is taken, they should have to give up a portion of their life in return. gh_blackhawks123, Pack123, Sunshine123, SomethingProfound123, UofM123
ReplyDeleteI also agree that someone under the age of eighteen should not be considered for the death penalty, unless the crime that was committed by that child was so heinous and disturbing such as killing their parents or something along those lines, then yes I believe they would then deserve to be considered for the death penalty. I was also surprised to find that life in prison is not literally life in prison. A person could be handed that sentence, but still get out in as little as fourteen years. Gymlife123.
DeleteHearing that in all the states half of the children who were under the age of twelve had their cases waived to adult court is ridiculous. I know that when I was younger I did some stupid stuff and we all have to learn from these mistakes, but sending them to adult court is not the way that we are going to make them learn. If we want to teach them a lesson we need to give them an opportunity if it is only their first offense. Now if these juveniles did some type of violent crime towards another individual, then I can see the case possibly being waived to adult court. We do not need to destroy the child's life if they did some crime that may not be as bad as we think and we do not need to public thinking the justice system is always going to be against them.
DeleteIllini123