Should Juveniles Be Charged as Adults in Criminal Cases Research Paper

Should Juveniles Be Charged as Adults in Criminal Cases - Research Paper Example Transfer mechanisms may vary according to where the responsibility for the transfer decision making lies and the provisions for this fall into three categories: a judicial waiver, concurrent jurisdiction, and statutory exclusion. In a judicial waiver, the juvenile court judge has the power to relinquish the juvenile court’s right and move the case to an adult criminal court. In a concurrent jurisdiction however, the original jurisdiction for certain cases is shared by both the criminal court and the juvenile court and the prosecution has the discretion to decide in which courts to file the cases in. In statutory exclusion, a state statute excludes certain juvenile offenders from the jurisdiction of a juvenile court and the cases against them come from criminal courts. Because of the increasing crime rates, as well as the more dangerous crimes being committed by juveniles, more pressure is being exerted not only by prosecutors and but also by the general public to charge these youths as adults as opposed to their being processed through the juvenile justice system. Virtually every juvenile offender with a past criminal history or is notorious for violent crime, is tried an adult court (Buffalo News, 1994). Rhodes, K (2008) states that while structures are present in all states to try and discipline juveniles in ways that are distinctive from adults, crimes such as rape and homicide are controversial because it is not easy to determine whether juveniles merit a less punitive treatment from that of adults. It is understandable that some people would seek to have the juvenile offenders receive a harsher punishment for their crimes especially considering the high number of crimes being committed by juveniles. The juvenile justice system has been reformed so much to an extent that they are almost indistinguishable from the adult justice system. The question that we have to consider is whether all these reforms have been of any benefit to the society or not. Th ese harsh laws which have been put in place to curb juvenile crime have been proven not to work over the years and have instead treated this age group unfairly and inhumanely, not achieving the safer society which was the purpose for their being enacted (Crime Control Digest, 2004). It has been proven that juveniles who have been prosecuted through the adult system serve shorter sentences and their experiences in adult prisons teaches them to become even more dangerous criminals once they are released. Furthermore, counseling, which is crucial in helping the juveniles in the transition to life beyond prison, is denied them in adult prisons and it has been observed that many juveniles have a hard time adjusting to life once they are released back into society. This is due to the fact that while youths in the juvenile system undergo programs to reform them, those in the adult system learn to become hardened criminals, hence the increasing likelihood their going back to crime in societ y once they are released. While the juvenile system hides the criminal records of youths who have gone through it, the adult system does not and the adult criminal records of convicted juveniles keep them from getting jobs or being admitted to some schools and this leads them towards committing new crimes in order to make money for survival. Once these youths are stuck with criminal records, they tend to be permanently stigmatized and are allowed few opportunities to regain

The Relevance of Victim's Volunary to a Charge of Rape Essay

The Relevance of Victim's Volunary to a Charge of Rape - Essay Example The Act replaced the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and all its amendments. The said Act saw the evolution of the definition of rape – the actus reus – from its original definition in the Sexual Offences Act 1956 which was â€Å"unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman† to â€Å"penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person without their consent.† The inclusion of the anus and mouth as body parts renders it now legally possible for a male to be raped, but the retention of the word â€Å"penile† limits the defendant in a charge of rape to only male. The charge of â€Å"assault by penetration† is used to cover circumstances wherein objects other than a penis are forcibly inserted into the aforementioned orifices, and exacts the same penalty as rape. The next issue is the â€Å"mens rea† or the guilty mind – this means that the person accused of committing the crime knew that he was committing the crime. In the conte xt of rape, it means he knew that he did not secure the victim or the complainant’s consent when he proceeded with having sexual congress with her. In the past, UK law relied upon the â€Å"mistaken belief clause† which was in the case Morgan4 in 1976. Here, the accused men were informed by the husband that his wife would struggle and say ‘no’, but they should just continue because she was in truth enjoying it. Whilst they were eventually convicted anyway, the case set a troubling precedent: if there was an honest belief engendered in a man’s mind that a woman consented to sex, even if that belief is unreasonable, the requirement of men rea is unsatisfied and therefore the rape charge will not prosper. Westmarland (2004: 7) provides a succinct summary of the definition of rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to wit: The... The research looks at the feminist critique of the rape law, as it is framed. Feminists who have called for the reform of rape law have demonstrated that â€Å"the law of rape historically has regulated competing male interests in controlling sexual access to females, rather than protecting women’s interest in controlling their own bodies and sexuality†. This is a fascinating proposition, and jibes with the conflict theory of criminal justice, which looks as criminal laws as having an agenda supportive of a dominant class. In the case of rape, the dominant class might be the male gender. This paper proceeds to look into the whole issue surrounding involuntary intoxication, which goes into the heart of the notion of consent. Whilst there are differing opinions as to whether or consent is a state of mind, or it is an action, either way, alcohol ingestion makes consent problematic. If consent is a state of mind, alcohol at a certain level addles and distorts the mind in a state of inebriation. If consent is an action, alcohol has behaviour-altering effects and can impair speech and physical movement in such a manner that consent becomes ambiguous. To use the definition given by Cowan, â€Å"to be in a state of intoxication means that one’s mental and physical capacities are substantially altered from one’s ‘sober’ state, through the ingestion of intoxicating substances. To better understand the situation at hand, researchers look at the two important cases of R v. Dougal and R v. Bree.