About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

3 J. Contemp. L. 349 (1976-1977)
Juveniles Tried as Adults: Waiver of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction

handle is hein.journals/jcontemlaw3 and id is 355 raw text is: JUVENILES TRIED AS ADULTS: WAIVER OF JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION Sandra N. Peuler* The underlying philosophy of the juvenile court system has, since its inception, contemplated compassionate rehabilitation rather than criminal sanctions for juvenile offenders. The adoption of the parens patriae doctrine demanded a systematic differentiation from the strict formality of adult criminal court procedures. This distinction is exem- plified by the Uniform Juvenile Court Act which enumerates possibili- ties for the special treatment of juveniles. Included in the Act are recommendations that the child remain with his family under court supervision; that temporary custody be transferred to an individual or agency qualified to provide appropriate care for the child; that the youth be placed on probation under court supervision; or that the child be placed in an institution or facility designated for delinquent youth.I Many feel that in spite of its humanitarian goals and philosophy, what really emerged from the first juvenile court act in 1899 was a loss of procedural and individual rights. Begun with a view toward the interests of the child, this procedural informality became a breeding ground for arbitrariness and lack of due process.2 In 1966 the United States Supreme Court recognized that one area in need of reform was juvenile court waiver of jurisdiction proceedings whereby juvenile defendants were remanded to the criminal court to stand trial as adults. In Kent v. United States,3 the Court found that these proceedings were frequently arbitrary decisions, based solely on the discretion of the juvenile court judge. The Court in Kent purported to set guidelines for the waiver procedure, but ten years later it is not clear that these have been followed. The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of Kent on juvenile court waiver proceedings and determine the appropriate factors to be considered by the court prior to waiver. * J.D. 1977, University of Utah College of Law. Formerly, Intern, 2d District Juvenile Court, Utah, 1976-77. 1 UNIFORM JUVENILE COURT Acr §§ 30, 31. State acts are often more specific. See, e.g., UTAH CODE ANN. § 55-10-100 (1965), which provides in addition to dispositions set out in the Uniform Act that the juvenile court: may place the child on a ranch or camp for care and for work; may place the child in a work program, or in a hospital when special psychiatric or physical care is necessary; may place the child in a foster home, or in a facility for short term treatment; or may make any other orders as are in the best interest of the child or public. I See, e.g., Ex parte Smith, 326 P.2d 835 (Okla. Crim. 1958). 3 383 U.S. 541 (1966). 349

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most