Juvenile (In)Justice: Congressional Attempts to Abrogate the Procedural Rights of Juvenile Defendants

IF 3.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Columbia Law Review Pub Date : 2002-05-01 DOI:10.2307/1123650
J. A. Arteaga
{"title":"Juvenile (In)Justice: Congressional Attempts to Abrogate the Procedural Rights of Juvenile Defendants","authors":"J. A. Arteaga","doi":"10.2307/1123650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The juvenile justice system seeks both to protect society from violent juveniles and to treat juvenile offenders as humanely as possible. Believing that these dual objectives are no longer reconcilable, Congress has sought to implement punitive reforms within the federal juvenile justice system that facilitate prosecuting and incarcerating youths in adult institutions. The most recent example of these efforts, House Bill 1501, sought to reform the procedures governing transfer hearings in federal courts by granting prosecutors the authority to make transfer decisions and shifting the burden of proof during transfer hearings onto juvenile defendants. Such reforms, however, are ill-conceived because they increase the likelihood that youths capable of being rehabilitated will be exposed to the consequences of prosecution in criminal court. Society is better protected when amenable youths remain within the juvenile justice system. Rather than attempting to abrogate the procedural rights of juvenile offenders, Congress should implement additional procedural safeguards to further limit the transfer of amenable youth. Language: en","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/1123650","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1123650","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The juvenile justice system seeks both to protect society from violent juveniles and to treat juvenile offenders as humanely as possible. Believing that these dual objectives are no longer reconcilable, Congress has sought to implement punitive reforms within the federal juvenile justice system that facilitate prosecuting and incarcerating youths in adult institutions. The most recent example of these efforts, House Bill 1501, sought to reform the procedures governing transfer hearings in federal courts by granting prosecutors the authority to make transfer decisions and shifting the burden of proof during transfer hearings onto juvenile defendants. Such reforms, however, are ill-conceived because they increase the likelihood that youths capable of being rehabilitated will be exposed to the consequences of prosecution in criminal court. Society is better protected when amenable youths remain within the juvenile justice system. Rather than attempting to abrogate the procedural rights of juvenile offenders, Congress should implement additional procedural safeguards to further limit the transfer of amenable youth. Language: en
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
少年司法:国会试图废除少年被告的诉讼权利
少年司法制度既要保护社会不受暴力少年的侵害,又要尽可能人道地对待少年犯。国会认为,这两个目标不再是可调和的,因此寻求在联邦少年司法系统中实施惩罚性改革,以便在成人机构中起诉和监禁青少年。这些努力的最新例子是众议院第1501号法案,该法案试图改革联邦法院移送听证会的管理程序,赋予检察官作出移送决定的权力,并将移送听证会期间的举证责任转移给青少年被告。然而,这种改革是考虑不周的,因为它们增加了有能力改过自新的青年在刑事法庭受到起诉的后果的可能性。当顺从的青少年留在少年司法系统中时,社会得到更好的保护。国会不应试图废除少年犯的诉讼权利,而应实施额外的程序保障措施,进一步限制转移符合条件的青少年。语言:在
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Columbia Law Review is one of the world"s leading publications of legal scholarship. Founded in 1901, the Review is an independent nonprofit corporation that produces a law journal edited and published entirely by students at Columbia Law School. It is one of a handful of student-edited law journals in the nation that publish eight issues a year. The Review is the third most widely distributed and cited law review in the country. It receives about 2,000 submissions per year and selects approximately 20-25 manuscripts for publication annually, in addition to student Notes. In 2008, the Review expanded its audience with the launch of Sidebar, an online supplement to the Review.
期刊最新文献
Legal Access to the Global Cloud Criminal Justice, Inc. Separation of Powers Metatheory The Restoration Remedy in Private Law Economic Crises and the Integration of Law and Finance: The Impact of Volatility Spikes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1