skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 51722 Find in a Library
Title: TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS - MAIN PAPER (FROM CRIME, LAW AND THE COMMUNITY, 1976 - SEE NCJ-51708)
Author(s): J O MIDGLEY
Corporate Author: Juta and Co, Ltd
South Africa
Date Published: 1976
Page Count: 10
Sponsoring Agency: Juta and Co, Ltd
Capetown, South Africa
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: South Africa
Annotation: THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE MODELS FOR HANDLING JUVENILE OFFENDERS, AS EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES AND SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES, ARE DESCRIBED AND COMPARED TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
Abstract: THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TRACED FROM ITS BEGINNINGS. THE CONTRASTING UNDERLYING CONCEPTS OF FORMAL TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, BUT WITH THE JUDICIAL OFFICER ACTING IN AN INQUISITORIAL ROLE MORE THAN AN ACCUSATORIAL ONE, ARE NOTED. THE TREND TOWARD INFORMAL AND SOMETIMES ARBITRARY PROCEDURES WAS HALTED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN GAULT, WHICH IS CITED AS AN IMPETUS TOWARD USING MORE FORMAL PROCEDURES THAT INSURE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS FOR JUVENILES. SCANDINAVIAN ADMINISTRATIVE WELFARE TRIBUNALS ARE SEEN AS A WELFARE MODEL OF NONCRIMINAL, NONJUDICIAL, HANDLING OF ALL JUVENILE MALADAPTIVE PROBLEMS. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS ARE NOT SET AS OPTIONS FOR JUVENILES, EVEN THOUGH CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR ACCORDING TO LAWS APPLICABLE TO ADULTS MAY BE INVOLVED. THE AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IS 14. IN THE WELFARE APPROACH, THE ACT PRECIPITATING THE INTERVENTION IS OF LESS RELEVANCE THAN THE CHILD'S PERSONALITY NEEDS AND SOCIAL DEPRIVATIONS. IT IS INDICATED THAT BOTH THE WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE MODELS MAKE USE OF DIVERSIONARY STRATEGIES IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP CHILDREN OUT OF EITHER THE JUVENILE COURT OR THE WELFARE TRIBUNAL. THE SOUTH AFRICAN JUVENILE SYSTEM HAS TWO DIVISIONS: A CRIMINAL COURT CONCERNED WITH JUVENILE CRIMINAL ACTS, AND A WELFARE COURT THAT DEALS WITH JUVENILE SOCIAL PROBLEMS. THE CRIMINAL COURT DEALS ONLY WITH CHILDREN WHO COMMIT CRIMINAL OFFENSES, AND THE JUDICIAL OFFICER HAS THE OPTION OF REFERRING A JUVENILE TO THE WELFARE COURT. THE PROCEDURES OF EACH TYPE OF COURT ARE DESCRIBED. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO AGE LIMIT THAT EXCLUDES A CHILD FROM PROCESSING IN JUVENILE CRIMINAL COURT. THE AUTHOR ADVOCATES THE SETTING OF 12 AS THE AGE UNDER WHICH A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS PROHIBITED. (RCB)
Index Term(s): Juvenile codes; Juvenile court diversion; Juvenile court procedures; Juvenile processing; Models; Scandinavia; South Africa; United States of America
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=51722

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.