Meaning of Professionalism and Why Healthcare Providers Are Held to Higher Standard of Accountability

Criminal Justice brass Kimberly Cruse Kaplan University October 14, 2012 CJ150 Juvenile Delinquency The current new-made evaluator form (JJS) has evolved everyplace the past century with numerous differences that distinguish it from the criminal justice system (CJS). Juvenile justice proponents argued that the young person posses diminished responsibility as rise up as legal understanding. The earliest chat up started in Chicago, in 1899. A century later, in that location has been considerable debate on the goals as swell as the legal procedures for handling teen offenders.The most intriguing incredulity is whether to treat upstart offenders divers(prenominal)ly than full-grown offenders. This debate draws numerous opinions from citizens, insurance policy makers, and specialists (Edwards, 2008). Initially, the establishment of the JJS targeted individualized justice, and it cogitateed on reformation of youthful offenders. However, although there were some other out standing mitigations, the begyard superseded with its emphasis on c ar and rehabilitation of the teenage offenders.Consequently, the proponents upheld the youth responsible for their unlawful behavior. In addition, they asserted that fraternity needed protection through an informal justice system (IJS). This would focus on the suitable treatment and childrens interests. Moreover, this approach is still applicable and effective for numerous juvenile offenders whose crimes state offenses and property offenses to drug offenses. Sources ready revealed that a number of states permit adopted separate programs within the adult correctional centers.Florida and South Carolina are the two states that have established different facilities for housing juvenile inmates. The climb on range is the key determinant of which youth ought to be housed in such(prenominal) facilities. In the above-mentioned states, the two age ranges are between 18 and 21, or 18 and 25. I confusablely support t he idea of housing them in different facilities thus avoiding lessons of mistreatment (Elrod &type A Ryder, 2011). Current sources have revealed a rise in the fr natural action of cases affect in the juvenile court system.For instance, the number of cases processed in such courts in 2005 was 1. 6 million. The research has headn that the drug law violation, public do offense, and property offense cases are among those dealt with in a juvenile court. The graphs show an increase, along with a decline in the number of cases directed to juvenile courts for processing (Elrod & antiophthalmic factor Ryder, 2011). It is notable that, in each state, government has ensured the organism of a court to handle crimes committed by juvenile offenders.Judges who are responsible for handling this category of criminals must have specialized in juvenile, unitedly with domestic relation issues. The state of Massachusetts has made round innovations through the formation of a statewide juvenile cour t, which lies under the exertion court. It has its chief justice and many divisions across the state. I would also action such an idea, as it would bring such services closer to the great deal (Elrod & Ryder, 2011). There are numerous reasons behind the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult courts.The magnitude of offenses committed by some of the juveniles, for instance, fails to offer them the virtuousness endowed to juveniles whose cases are conducted in juvenile courts. The transfer of such youths is honorable to themselves as they are in a position to learn nigh the seriousness of their mistakes, therefore, trying to avoid them since they become aware of the repercussions. Moreover, such an action is beneficial to the society as these youths do not have the granting immunity to walk about freely in their communities.Finally, these transfers benefit the system, as it is involved to handle some cases committed by juveniles, while in juvenile courts. In case of a tran sfer, youths become adults legally and face similar treatment to that for adults. After a careful examination of the reasons behind such transfers, I strongly support this practice. Currently, three main mechanisms are applicable for transfer of a juvenile to an adult court. As depicted in this source, the first mechanism is the judicial waiver, which has been in application since ancient epochs. A number of elements distinguish it from other mechanisms.For instance, the examination of the likely reasons for the juvenile to have committed the crime is among the basic elements. Secondly, it becomes necessary to consider the threats of such a youth to the society (Elrod and Ryder, 2011). Moreover, it considers the system to which the juvenile court system smoke effectively handle such a case. In a scenario, whereby the case is so serious, a careful evaluation of how the adult court fanny handle such a case becomes a point of focus. The other mechanism known as the legislative waiver has been in use, in various states of America.This mechanism forms its decision on the age, along with the offense measuring stick of the juvenile. The third and final mechanism is the prosecutorial waiver. This is different from the other two mechanisms as it permits a concurrent jurisdiction in the two dissimilar court systems. Similarly, both the age together with the offense criterion demand on the lookout considerations. A number of chores arise in case of transferring juveniles to an adult court for trial. The decision to transfer these youths can bring adverse consequences to the youths.Prosecution of these youths in ease up criminal courts exposes them to criminals known to have committed serious offenses than them. Eventually, they may repair into learning how to commit similar crimes. Additionally, erosion of their civil rights is a problem allied to such a transfer. In various scenarios, such a transfer fails to curb the increasing rate of recidivism, therefore, the d eterioration of the security of friendships security. It would be crucial to transfer only those cases that the juvenile court cannot address with efficacy.If I was a judge, the state would have to prove to me that the juvenile court would find it intricate to handle such a case, together with the effectiveness of the needed superior court (Elrod and Ryder, 2011). References Edwards, J. (2008). Introduction to the juvenile justice system. Raleigh, NC lulu. com publishers Elrod, P. & Ryder. (2011). Juvenile justice a social, historical, and legal perspective. Sunbury, MA Jones &Bartlett learning publishers. Siegel, L. J. (2011). Juvenile delinquency The core (4th ed. ). Mason Cengage development/Wadsworth.