Parens Patriae In The Juvenile Justice System

These two concepts come into conflict because the idea of due process is based on the idea that individual rights must be upheld while the concept of parens patriae is a much more patriarchal vision that does not pay attention to rights. Under the concept of parens patriae, the state takes over the role of the parent. It does what it thinks is best for the juvenile offender rather than trying hard to ensure that the offender’s rights are not violated. This is much more like what happens in a family where parents do what they think is best rather than trying to worry about the rights of the child. This is in distinct conflict with the idea of due process. Under this system the juvenile courts must be much more legalistic and formal. They

Each state and the District of Columbia has its own laws that govern its juvenile justice system. How juvenile courts operate may vary from county to county and municipality to municipality within a state. The federal government has jurisdiction over a small number of juveniles, such as those who commit crimes on Indian reservations or in national parks, and it has its own laws to govern juveniles within its system. States that receive money under the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act must meet certain requirements, such as not housing juveniles with adults in detention or incarceration facilities, but it is state law that governs the structure of juvenile courts and juvenile corrections facilities. When this report refers to the juvenile justice system, it is referring to a generic framework that is more or less representative of what happens in any given state.

The due process model concentrates less on the speed and determination of a case and more on the well ordered examination of individual due process rights given to the criminal respondent. As you find out about these models, it would be very helpful to get comfortable with the criminal equity handle, or the stream of a case through the criminal equity

Notwithstanding, in light of the fact that a litigant is sentenced (discovered blameworthy) in a criminal trial, the individual does not consequently go to jail. Jail sentences depend on elements, for example, the seriousness of the wrongdoing and the litigant 's past criminal conduct. It is more probable that the due procedure model would apply to a litigant accused of a genuine wrongdoing, conceivably prompting to a sentence of numerous years in jail, instead of a respondent accused of a moderately minor first offense that would likely outcome in a sentence of probation or short jail time. The due process model is more appropriate for dealing with drug related behaviors.

There are contrasts amongst youth and grown-ups, and our equity framework ought to consider these distinctions. Youth are commonly less develop, less created, and have a more prominent ability to develop and change than grown-ups. States have built up isolated courts for adolescents that are vastly different from the grown-up court frameworks. This detachment gives adolescent courts greater adaptability to allot suitable outcomes and make administrations and assets, intended for harried youth accessible it likewise takes into account more prominent inclusion of family and group in the equity