Should Juveniles be waived to adult court Philosophy 14 Nov 98 Should juveniles be waived to adult court. There has been tension between teens (pre-teens) and adults for thousands of years, and the question how to deal with the youth of a culture, in a punishment sense, has been with us for just as long. Socrates, for example, stated that "children show little respect for there elders." Since Socrates time largely due to the spread of guns and drugs, younger and younger children are committing violent crimes. Children that have special needs or have committed a criminal act have been subject to state protection since, 1838. The first juvenile court was established in Chicago in 1890. The assumption, that was made at that time, was that the criminal justice system should work to help youngsters, not to humiliate or punish them. Along with the creation of the juvenile justice system went the creation of "status offenses", these are offenses that if committed by an adult, would not be considered an offense. In the 1950's and 60's many laws were passed to protect the rights of children, in a court of law. The major decisions of this time were: Kent v. United States, In re Gault, and In re Winship. Since the time that these laws were enacted, the number of juveniles committing violent offenses has risen dramatically. There are two distinct schools of thought in this argument: side A believes that a persons age should not prevent that person from feeling the full effect of the adult court system, while side B feels that you simply cannot apply the same rules to juvenile offenders that you do to adults. I will first present side A's case then B's and finally end with my own opinion. Many states have begun enacting new laws about the transfer of juveniles, that are more harsh on juveniles. Minnesota, for example, has a new law that states a 16 or 17 year old person that has been charged with a violent offense has to prove to court why they sh...
