Answer

Juvenile Justice Systems and Processes

Morris: Juvenile Court in Session Summary

Morris is presented in Juvenile Court on a bench warrant for failing to appear at a previous court hearing. According to Morris, he failed to attend the hearing since he suspected that he was to get shipped to a placement facility in Arizona. During his time in Indiana’s Lake County Juvenile Justice Complex, he opens regarding his concerns and seems to be willing to change his life for the best. Observing the court session, Morris informs his attorney how he will reassure the judge that he will not be seen in the court again if he is permitted to go home. He further describes his anger issues and denies involvement in gangs. The judge believes that Morris can receive assistance from the system. As a result, she declares him a ward of the court and places him in a residential treatment setting. According to Belenko et al. (2017), this case is on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals. The evidence and the attorney’s allegations raise various issues concerning the police department and the Juvenile Court officials. Despite elevating issues about the competence of custodial and therapy departments and systems, some of which are composed in the constitutional provision, the case presents significant hurdles to the police and Juvenile Court officials’ procedure upon a juvenile’s apprehension speculated of severe crimes.

The Role and Key Parameters of the Juvenile Justice System

The Juvenile Justice System’s prime purpose, besides maintaining community safety, includes skill development, rehabilitation, habilitation, overseeing treatment needs, and successful reintegration of youth in society. Even so, the Juvenile Justice System, as a process, incorporates four steps when apprehending a juvenile. These stages include admission, adjudication, disposition, and post-adjudication analysis. Admission incorporates the filing of the police’s juvenile appeal, declaring unconstitutional conduct by the youth. Adjudication is described as the hearing process for youths. Adjudicatory hearings are comparable to an adult trial, but with some exceptions. Myers (2018) indicates that a dispositional hearing, comparable to an adult sentencing hearing, occurs to determine the action of the court’s judgment upon the juvenile. According to Feld (2018), judges have various disposition options, including probation, outright release, or confinement to a secure setting.

The Functions of Juvenile vs. Adult Courts

The Juvenile Court is designed within the scope of its legal authority to protect and care for neglected and dependent children. This court system was developed to protect the interest and enforce responsible adults’ obligations. The Juvenile Court’s main functions are to endorse correction, re-education, redirection, and rehabilitation of the delinquent juvenile. Although acting as a socialized court, the Juvenile Court recognizes and safeguards the rights of those presented to it by law and the constitution (Robinson & Kurlychek, 2019). On the other hand, the adult court’s functions are assuring that suspected criminals receive fair trials and determine the innocence or guilt of the accused (Chernoff, 2018). The objectives of the adult court are comparable to Juvenile courts. However, the adult court’s goal is to punish while the juvenile court is rehabilitated.

Court’s Philosophy of Juvenile Used in Morris Case

The predominant philosophy of the juvenile system used in Morris’s case is that youths who commit crimes can learn from their mistakes. Hirsch et al. (2018) indicate that depending on the teens’ crime, the Juvenile Courts can choose to put them in a rehabilitating setting as in Morris’s case.

How Law Enforcement and the Courts Should have Interacted with Morris

When considering juvenile and adult crime, there are differences and similarities in how the court functions. For instance, the court prosecutes adults for perpetrating offenses while juveniles are prosecuted for perpetrating delinquent acts. According to Myers (2018), when the reprehensible deeds are severe violations such as killing and rape, the court system may choose to judge the youth as an adult (Robinson & Kurlychek, 2019). Observing the case, Morris was interrogated for long hours, which is considered unconstitutional. Moreover, the judge should consider the reason as to why Morris failed to attend the previous hearing.

Rights and Confidentiality Protections for Juveniles and Adults

While adults’ hearing is open to the public, a juvenile’s hearing is closed to increase confidentiality. Observing the case study, Morris was granted this right, given that his interrogations and hearings were conducted in closed surroundings. According to Myers (2018), this philosophy of open and closed hearings furthers the court’s inclination to rehabilitate youths by keeping their actions from being disclosed to public record.

Additional Factors that Officers and the Court Must Consider for Morris

The two factors that the courts handling Morris’s case should consider include allowing Morris to undergo psychological tests and expungement. Expungement is described as removing the crimes committed from the offender’s records (Chernoff, 2018). Policies for expungement of a juvenile record are considered more lenient than those for expunging adult files.