The article “Juvenile Delinquency” reflects on juvenile courts as tribunals that pass judgments for crimes that are committed by children and adolescents. According to this article, the author reveals that the state set age of criminal culpability is 18 years. It adds that the state law governs the juvenile law, which most states require to have a juvenile code.
This article further outlines that the transfer of juveniles into adult courts takes place when a juvenile court relinquishes its jurisdiction. It is also evident that the state statues create juvenile courts and provide methods for handling juvenile delinquency. This has led to the upholding of courts, which extends the state police power to enhance safety and children’s welfare. In matters that concern juvenile justice, there is the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1972, whose purpose is to assist local communities and states in provision of crime preventive services (Bishop, Leiber, & Johnson, 2010). This prevents the youth from the danger of becoming delinquent as well as trains individuals in occupations that relate to such areas which offer them technical skills in field. In matters concerning juvenile delinquency, there is also the doctrine of parents who give authority to state to legislate for custody, care, protection, and children maintenance within its jurisdiction.
The author relates the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act to juvenile delinquency where they perceive any act as a crime when committed by persons under the age of 18 years. This Act sets rules which require the state laws to comply with when handling punishments and juvenile courts procedures (Bishop, Leiber, & Johnson, 2010).
This article terms juvenile delinquency as youth crime where juveniles participate in illegal behavior. The author adds that legal systems prescribe procedures like courts and juvenile detention centers that assist to handle juveniles. In relation to juvenile delinquency, the author
reveals that individuals under the age of 18 years can be tried as adults in courts. For instance, the provision of law at issue separates juvenile delinquency into three categories. These include crimes that are committed by minors, delinquency, and the justice system. According to the author, there are two types of offenders among the adolescents. First one is the repeat offender that begins to reveal their aggressive behavior from childhood to adulthood. The second type is the age offender who commits crimes from the juvenile level but stops doing it during the adolescent stage (Bishop, Leiber, & Johnson 2010).
The law at issue expects the juvenile courts to account for the illegal behaviors of the citizens in their childhood. This helps to determine whether the juveniles will limit the act of engaging in crimes at juvenile stage or will persist with the offensive behavior to the adult level. Based on the case facts, the juvenile courts check on predictors of juvenile crime by assessing if the child committed the crime due to peer pressure or parent neglect. In this case, the legal tests that the court applies include rehabilitating the guilty juveniles for a given period of time to mould them into productive members of the society. These legal tests will ensure that children perform various educative tasks and also go through counseling to assist change their illegal behaviors.
Analyzing the juvenile court cases, it seems logical when the author articulates his perception on justice by claiming that prevention measures play a pivotal role in reducing juvenile delinquency. This is because the author advocates for prevention that involves aspects such as youth mentoring, education support, and family counseling, which protects children and adolescents from committing unlawful behaviors (Bishop, Leiber, & Johnson, 2010).