Juvenile Justice Reform :: essays research papers

THESIS STATEMENT The Great and General flirt of Massachusetts has erredin reforming the fresh rightness system by implementing policies andprocedures that provide harm pueriles and place society at risk.     On July 23, 1995, an intruder viciously attacked and stabbed Janet bolt down approximately 100 times in her Somerville home. The revoltingDowning murder and ensuing arrest of Edward OBrien Jr., a 15-year-oldjuvenile whom prosecutors say move the heinous crime, sentshockwaves through the state. When Somerville District Court Judge capital of MinnesotaP. Hefferman ruled that the Commonwealth try Mr. OBrien as a juvenile,those shockwaves grew in intensity, and the citizens of Massachusetts, ply up with increasing youth violence and perceptions of an ineffectivejuvenile arbiter system, demanded the enactment of tough new laws todeal with repeat and violent juvenile offenders. The Great and GeneralCourt of Massachusetts headed these demands for reform of th e juvenilejustice system and enacted legislation that, among other things,abolishes the foot race de novo system in the juvenile courts, requires thetrial of juveniles charged with murder, manslaughter, aggravated rape,forcible rape of a child, kidnaping, sharpshoot with intent to rob ormurder and armed burglary in magnanimous court and permits prosecutors to opento the public juvenile legal proceeding when they seek an braggy sentence. Although proponents tout these measures as a sagacious solution for thevexatious enigma of juvenile delinquency, abolishing the trial de novosystem, providing for automatic adult trials and opening juvenileproceedings to the public when prosecutors seek an adult sentence worksto the detriment, not the benefit, of juveniles and society. Therefore,the insurance policy makers of Massachusetts should repeal most sections of theJuvenile Justice Reform effect and develop other policies to deal with therising problem of juvenile crime.I. A SINGLE TR IAL SYSTEM PREVENTS COURTS FROM PROVIDING RAPID ASSISTANCETO JUVENILES IN NEED, DOES petty(a) TO SERVE JUDICIAL ECONOMY AND PLACES ASIMILAR BURDEN AS THE DE NOVO SYSTEM ON VICTIMS AND WITNESSES.     Proponents of a single trial system for juveniles deliberate that the trialde novo system wastes judicial resources by giving defendants a scrapbite at the apple and traumatizes victims and witnesses by forcing themto testify at ii proceedings. However, these proponents fail toacknowledge that the de novo system allows judges to quickly providejuveniles with the reconstructive help they need. The proponents,unsurprisingly, also fail to acknowledge that a single trial system mayplace a greater burden on judicial resources and a similar burden onvictims and witnesses.     The de novo system benefits juveniles by encouraging bench trials,which frequently result in the swift face of rehabilitative