You are here

ABD Çocuk Mahkemeleri Sisteminde Bir Asırlık Devrim Kabilinden Değişiklikler

A CENTURY OF REVOLUTIONARY CHANGES IN THE UNITED STATES JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
The fır'st juvenile court in the United States was created in the City of Chicago in 1899. It was revolutionary in the sense that it removed juveniles from the jurisdiction of the adult criminal court and established a court exclusively far children. Originally, the philosophy underlying the early juvenile court was the doctrine of parens patriae, manifested in "the best interests of the child." Accordingly, unlike the adult criminal court, treatment and protection of the child was accorded greater importance than punishment. In order to promote these goals, ali due process rights of juveniles were vvaived, far at least in theory, the juvenile would be protected by a benign and benevolent judge. /'n the 1960's and 1970's, a nutnber of United States Supreme Court rulings essentially reshaped the court process. Known as the due process model, juveniles were given rights essentially comparable to those providing legal protection to adults in the criminal court. Nevertheless, the concept of treatment and protection of the juvenile remained a majör concern of the court. The controlling model of the juvenile court shifted again in the mid-1980s. Consistent with the nationwide movement tovvards more punitive sentencing and due to increases in youngsters' crimes rates, the juvenile courts of the United States similarly shifted to increased sanctions. Similar to the "just deserts model" of the adult courts, the philosophy of the juvenile courts were not only concerned with the "best interests of the child," but now also gave consideration to the "protection of the community". This article will review the creation of juvenile courts, the revolutionary changes vvhich have reshaped the court system, and current practices.
Abstract (Original Language): 
ABD'de ilk çocuk mahkemesi Chicago (Şikago) şehrinde 1989'da ihdas edildi. Sadece çocuklar için bir mahkeme kurulması ve çocukların normal ceza mahkemeleri yargılama alanının dışına çıkarılması bakımlarından bu gelişme devrim niteliğindeydi. Bu makale çocuk mahkemelerinin ihdas edilmesini, mahkeme sistemini tekrar yapılandıran devrim niteliğindeki değişiklikleri ve günümüzdeki uygulamaları yeniden gözden geçirecektir.
1-14

REFERENCES

References: 

Albanese, J,S. (1994), Dealing With Delinquency: The Future of Juvenile Justice,
2nd ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Bartollas, C. (1999), Juvenile Delinquency, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bartollas, C. and Miller, S.J. (2001), Juvenile Justice in America, 3rd ed., Nevv
Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Bovven, J.T. (1925), "The Early Days of the Juvenile Court", The Child, The
Clinic and the Court, N.Y.: Johnson Reprint Corp. Brace, C.L. (1880), The Dangerous Classes of New York and Twenty Years
Among Them, 3rd ed. N.Y.: Wynkoop and Hallenback. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975).
Collier, J. and Barrovvs, E. (1914), The City Where Crime is Play: A Report by
the People's Institute. Nevv York, pp. 14-18. Dressler, D. (1969), Practice and Theory of Probation and Parole (2nd ed.) Nevv
York: Columbia University Press. Dunham, W.H. (1958), "The Juvenile Court: Contradictory Orientations in
Processing Offenders", Cavan (Ed.), Readings in Juvenile Delinquency, Nevv
York: J.P. Lippincott Co. Ernst, R. (1965), "immigrant Life in Nevv York City", 1825-1863. Port
Washington, N.Y.: Ira J. Friedman, Inc. Family Court Act of the State of Nevv York, Section 301.1, N.Y.: Looseleaf
Publications.
Feld, B.C. (1988), "The Juvenile Court Meets the Principle of Offense: Punishment, Treatment, and the Difference it Makes". Boston University Law Review, 68:5, (Nov.) pp.821-915.
Flexner, B. (1910) "The Juvenile Court as a Social Institution", The Survey (Feb).
Folks, H. (1902), The Care of Destitute, Neglected, and Delinquent Children, N.Y.: Macmillan.
Holt, M.I. (1992), The Orphan Trains: Placing Out in America, Lincoln,
Nebraska: The University of Nebraska Press. Illinois Statute 1899, Section 131. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967): Citing Justice Fortas. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change (December 1999), 1999 National Report Series. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), Citing Justice Fortas.
Krisberg, B., and Austin, J. (1978), The Children of Ishmael. Palo Alto, CA:
Mack, J.W. (1925), The Chancery Procedure in the Juvenile Court. The Child, The Clinic and the Court. N.Y.: Nevv Republic.
14
Polis Bilimleri Dergisi
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 203 (1972), Citing Justice Blackmun. Nasavv, D. (1985), Children of the City: At Work and At Play, Garden City, N.Y.:
Anchor Press/Doubleday. Nevv York State Probation Commission for the Year 1917, Eleventh Annual
Report (1918), Albany, N.Y.: J.B. Lyon Co. Platt, A.M. (1977), The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinçuency, 2nd ed.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Riis, J.A. (1997), How The Other Half Lives, Nevv York, N.Y.: Penguin Classics. Schall v. Martin, 104 S.Ct. 2403 (1984).
Siegel and Senna (2000), Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and the Law,
7th ed. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth. Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 109 S. Ct. 2969 (1989).
Tappan, P.W. (1962), "Justice for the child: The Juvenile Court in Transition",
Rosenheim, Margaret Kenny (Ed.), Nevv York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 102 S. Ct. 2687 (1988).
Trojanovvicz, R.C. and Morash, M. (1992), Juvenile Delinauency, Concepts and
Control, 5th ed. Nevv Jersey: Prentice Hail. Whitman, C.S. (1916), 9th Annual, Nevv York State Probation Commission

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com