scholarly journals CONTENT AND FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN THE FIELD OF JUVENILE JUSTICE

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-18
Author(s):  
Mykola Veselov ◽  
◽  
Olena Bulhakova ◽  
Daria Volkova ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
A Minor

Today, the principle of «presumption of innocence» is recognized at the international and national levels as one of the basic principles of criminal proceedings. The object of this study is public relations in a specific area of children's rights – juvenile justice. The purpose of the article is to clarify the content and features of the implementation of certain aspects of the principle of «presumption of innocence» in the field of juvenile justice. The presumption of innocence is interpreted and used quite ambiguously, which is of interest to the study. To achieve this goal, general scientific and special methods of scientific research were used. The solution of the outlined tasks of the research was carried out taking into account the practice and position of understanding the content of this principle by the European Court of Human Rights. It is established that ensuring the presumption of innocence as a priority basis for the formation and implementation of child-friendly justice in Ukraine requires effective implementation in all judicial and extrajudicial or administrative cases, execution of court decisions with the participation of children. It is proved that the implementation of this principle in the juvenile justice system concerns not only the provision of procedural rights of a minor as a participant in criminal or administrative proceedings, but also other personal, social and cultural rights and freedoms of the child, the implementation or observance of which may be violated. It is emphasized that the content of the principle of presumption of innocence, as well as its actual implementation should always be correlated with the principle of ensuring the best interests of the child regardless of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other beliefs, national, ethnic or social origin, property the condition of the children themselves or their families or any other circumstances.

Female Status Offenders and Justice Reforms: An International Perspective

1982 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Hancock ◽  
Meda Chesney-Lind
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Court System ◽  
Status Offenders ◽  
Delinquent Girls

Females are treated differently from males in the juvenile justice system. While the majority of males appear in juvenile court on charges of illegal behaviour, most females appear on “status offence” grounds, that is, for behaviour that only juveniles under a particular age can be brought to police or court attention. Females charged on moral or status offences are treated more harshly than males. However, when they are charged with illegal behaviour, females are treated more leniently which is appropriate, since delinquent girls are generally involved in less serious criminal behaviour than boys. In principle, the juvenile court was set up to protect juveniles and, by giving wide powers of discretion to law enforcers, to facilitate decisions in young offenders' best interests. In practice, particular categories of youth are treated more harshly than others. Evidence indicates that those females appearing on status offence charges (often from socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds) are discriminated against on the basis of their sexual behaviour. This paper describes the present situation and outlines the failures of attempts at legislative changes in the definition and processing of juvenile status offenders in the United States and Australia. These examples show that the double standard of juvenile justice is international; not simply an artifact of one nation's court system. Treating status offence problems within a criminal justice system has destructive and damaging effects which may only intensify the problems from which such youth are ostensibly being protected.

scholarly journals Proportionality of response to criminally illegal behavior of minors

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (16) ◽  
pp. 84-98
Author(s):  
Liliia Yuriivna Timofeyeva
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Educational Impact ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
Juvenile Sentencing ◽  
The One

Modern international standards indicate that the basis of criminal law policy to prevent juvenile delinquency should be a child-friendly juvenile justice system. This system focuses on the application of alternative and non-criminal sanctions (warning, reprimand, restitution and compensation). Based on international standards of juvenile justice, we can note their focus on ensuring the best interests of the child, the predominance of sanctions and measures that may have an educational impact, compensation for damages, creating conditions for reconciliation of victims and offenders and eliminating the consequences of crime, ensuring a meaningful life of a teenager in society. Juvenile sentencing is more loyal approach and shown in comparison with adults with regard to property penalties (if the minor has income or property) (parts 1, 3 of Article 99 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), reduced limits of punishment (parts 1, 2 of Article 100, 101, part 1 Article 102 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), restriction of using of imprisonment depending on the gravity of the crime and the characteristics of the juvenile. It is established that in addition to ensuring the best interests of the child and the use of as many non-punitive measures as possible against juvenile, it is also necessary to pay attention to other circumstances of the case. In particular, a balance must be struck between the best interests of the juvenile and a proportionate response to his or her behavior. In particular, it is necessary to take into account the repeated commission of criminal offenses, as well as the one-time application of incentive rules to juvenile. And pay attention to alternatives to imprisonment that may be more effective. In particular, mediation and rehabilitation practices can be more effective.

Legalism versus Welfarism in Israel's Juvenile Justice System

1981 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Sebba
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Appropriate Treatment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
A Minor

In its landmark decisionIn re Gault(1967), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a minor brought before the juvenile court was in principle entitled to the guarantees of due process available to adult defendants in criminal trials. That momentous decision sparked off a debate which has continued ever since in academic and policy-making circles, both on the national and international levels. In essence, the controversy relates to the question of the nature of social control measures to be adopted by the legal system to deal with errant juveniles. Should these be essentially criminal and punitive in character, or are they better considered as welfare proceedings, the essential purpose of which is to determine the appropriate treatment? Thus, the legal, or punitive, model of juvenile justice may be juxtaposed to the welfare or treatment (or even “therapeutic”) model.

Racial Determinants of the Judicial Transfer Decision: Prosecuting Violent Youth in Criminal Court

1987 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Fagan ◽  
Martin Forst ◽  
T. Scott Vivona
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Racial Differences ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Violent Offenders ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Minority Adolescents ◽  
Capital Crimes

In the past decade, juvenile justice policy has shifted from “the best interests of the child” to approaches blending punishment and rehabilitation. The result has been efforts to narrow juvenile justice system jurisdiction, especially for violent, serious, and chronic offenders. Judicial transfer is the most widely applied mechanism to remove juvenile offenders to criminal jurisdiction. Transferred youth, particularly violent offenders, often receive lengthy prison sentences. A disproportionate share of male, minority adolescents are arrested for serious and violent crime. Thus, the harsh consequences of transfer, compounded by racial disparities in both juvenile and criminal justice processes have major implications for serious juvenile offenders considered for transfer. Transfer as a juvenile court disposition has received little scholarly attention, and racial determinants of transfer have yet to be analyzed. This study examines racial differences in judicial transfer decisions for chronically violent delinquents in four urban juvenile courts. Though minority youth were transferred more often, race was not predictive of transfer in multivariate models combining offense and offender characteristics. Rather, offense characteristics and defendant's age at the time of the offense are the strongest contributors to the transfer decision. Murder, in particular, is a determinant of transfer. The results suggest that juvenile court judges have adopted implicit policies to reserve transfer for older violent offenders, especially those charged with capital crimes.

Juvenile Courts

Criminology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Ethnic Disparities ◽  
Developmental Differences ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Treatment Programs ◽  
Juvenile Courts

The juvenile court has moved through phases and evolved in numerous ways since originating in 1899. During the Progressive Era, the juvenile court was seen as a social welfare reform and began to establish youth institutions. The due process revolution followed, after a series of significant case decisions established due process rights and equal projection to children. The “Get Tough” phase of the juvenile justice system in the 1980s and 1990s targeted punitive sentencing, rather than rehabilitative sentencing. More recently, the juvenile court evolved to recognize the neurological and developmental differences between youth and adults. This rationale supports the need for a separate court from the adult criminal system, with the goal of early diversion and treatment for youth. Children are more amendable to treatment and rehabilitation, and they should be considered less responsible and less culpable as compared to adults. Children who commit crimes typically will be treated less punitively than adults who commit the same crime. Modern juvenile courts generally seek to address the specific needs of youth in a developmentally appropriate manner, while also maintaining public safety. Adolescence in itself exemplifies a phase of impulsivity, vulnerability, risky behavior, and the testing of boundaries. These aspects of adolescence are widely accepted today and better understood due to neuroscientific research on adolescent development. The multiple stages of the juvenile justice process involve a variety of decision-makers who have the power and discretion to determine a child’s future. The courtroom workgroup makes decisions to divert youth from the system, incarcerate juveniles in a placement facility, or mandate treatment programs. Other systems, such as child welfare, schools, families, and health, can be involved in the juvenile court process as well. In recent decades, juvenile courts have moved away from popular punitive approaches of the latter 20th century and toward more evidence-based rehabilitative strategies. Contemporary juvenile courts seek to serve the best interests of children and youth, but also the community and victims. Moreover, juvenile court jurisdiction, based on minimum and maximum ages and definitions of criminal responsibility, varies across states. Similarly, juvenile transfer laws vary from state to state, and jurisdictional boundaries are currently a popular area of reform. In the aftermath of decreasing juvenile crime rates, many states are considering systemic reforms to remove youth from adult prisons, minimize youth confinement, and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing.

scholarly journals ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE DRAFT LAW OF UKRAINE "ON ENSURING THE SECURITY OF PARTICIPANTS IN CRIMINAL JUDICIARY AND OTHER PERSONS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE"

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 143-148
Author(s):  
Olha Babenko ◽  
◽  
Mykola Repan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
National Agency ◽  
Positive Side ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
High Level ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Protection Of Participants

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Draft Law "On Ensuring the Safety of Participants in Criminal Proceedings and Other Persons in the Interests of Justice". The system of current legislation in the field of security of persons involved in criminal proceedings is outdated and does not provide the necessary conditions for the proper administration of justice. It is established that the current legislation in the field of protection of participants in criminal proceedings is unreformed, has many gaps and is ineffective. It was stated that participants in criminal proceedings (witnesses and victims) who are in real danger often refuse to testify and cooperate with the investigator, as they believe that the state cannot protect them from the unlawful influence of persons involved in criminal proceedings. As a result of the refusal of witnesses and victims to testify and cooperate with the investigation, the perpetrators remain unpunished. On the positive side of the draft law is the proposal to establish a new specially authorized body - the National Agency for Security of Criminal Proceedings, as in the event of a high level of threat to certain participants in criminal proceedings, their rights and freedoms, life and health must be preserved. It was found that the Draft Law does not provide for the specifics of ensuring the safety of juvenile participants in criminal proceedings, which significantly violates the rights of this vulnerable category of persons. Based on the understanding of the list of persons entitled to the application of security measures proposed in Part 1 of Art. 6 of the draft Law, it can be understood that the legislator provided for the possibility of taking under the protection of a minor, in one form or another, but unfortunately bypassed the attention of their parents and legal representatives. In view of the above and taking into account the concept of "best interests of the child", it is proposed to expand the list of persons subject to protection and add a legal representative of a minor. There have also been a number of other proposals to improve the situation of juveniles who are being protected by the state for giving incriminating testimony. It is concluded that the bill needs to improve and maximize its efficiency and effectiveness of its rules.

scholarly journals RESTORATIVE JUSTICE DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK / Restorative Justice In Juvenile Justice System

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 319
Author(s):  
Randy Pradityo
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
The Will ◽  
The Law

Anak sebagai generasi penerus bangsa sudah selayaknya mendapatkan perhatian khusus. Hal tersebut bertujuan dalam rangka pembinaan anak untuk mewujudkan sumber daya manusia yang berkualitas. Maka dari itu, diperlukan pula sarana dan prasarana hukum yang mengantisipasi segala permasalahan yang timbul. Sarana hukum ini bertujuan untuk mengantisipasi stigma atau cap jahat yang ditimbulkan ketika anak berhadapan dengan hukum, sekaligus memulihkan dan memasyarakatkan kembali anak tersebut. Salah satu solusinya adalah dengan mengalihkan atau menempatkan pelaku tindak pidana anak keluar dari sistem peradilan pidana serta memberikan alternatif bagi penyelesaian dengan pendekatan keadilan demi kepentingan terbaik bagi anak, yang kemudian dikenal dengan pendekatan restorative justice. Restorative justice yang merupakan implementasi konsep dari diversi telah dirumuskan dalam sistem peradilan pidana anak, namun sistem yang baik haruslah diiringi dengan suatu sikap yang dijiwai kehendak untuk memandang dan berkeyakinan bahwa dunia ini selalu menjadi lebih baik. Selain itu, hendaknya prinsip the best interest of the children selalu diutamakan ketika menangani anak yang berhadapan dengan hukum. Children as the nation's next generation is already deserve special attention. It aims in order to develop the child to realize the quality of human resources. Therefore, it is also necessary legal infrastructure to anticipate any problems that arise. The legal means to anticipate stigma or stamp evil inflicted when the child against the law, as well as restoring and re-socialize the child. One solution is to divert or placing the offender children out of the criminal justice system as well as providing an alternative to the settlement with justice approach in the best interests of the child, who was then known as restorative justice approach. Restorative justice which is the implementation of the concept of diversion has been formulated in the juvenile justice system, but a good system must be accompanied by an attitude which is imbued with the will to perceive and believe that this world is always getting better. In addition, should the principle of the best interest of the children always come first when dealing with children in conflict with the law.

scholarly journals ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL ENSURE OF “THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” IN THE FIELD OF JUNIOR JUSTICE

2020 ◽  
pp. 49-56
Author(s):  
Mykola Veselov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Social Needs ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Social Characteristics ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Definition Of

Today, the concept of “best interests of the child” is recognized as one of the guiding principles of ensuring the rights of children in all spheres of social relations. The object of this study is social relations in juvenile justice as a specific area of children’s rights. The aim of the article is to clarify the meaning of the concept of “best interests of the child” as well as to define the features of administrative and legal provision of this principle in the field of juvenile justice. To achieve this goal, general scientific and special methods of scientific research are used. The author argues that the definition of “best interests of the child” in the field of juvenile justice should only be generally oriented to guaranteeing child’s vital and social needs as a participant in jurisdictional proceedings, taking into account his or her age, biological and social characteristics. Under any circumstances, the list of such interests cannot be exhaustive. In view of the public-service nature of administrative and legal relations, an important role in the current and future ensure of the best interests of the child in any type of jurisdictional proceedings belongs to the administrative and legal means. The priority of attention to administrative and legal means in ensuring the best interests of the child in the field of juvenile justice is due to the wide range and relative universality of administrative and legal regulation, which allows to meet the procedural needs of children within purely jurisdictional proceedings as well as to facilitate other organizational and legal issues of social protection of children.

scholarly journals The Development of Four Leading Principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Vietnam´s Juvenile Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Duc Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Rights Of The Child ◽  
Survival And Development ◽  
Procedural Code

The paper sheds light on the latest development of four CRC principles in the administration of Vietnam’s juvenile justice after the recent amendment of the Penal Code and Criminal Procedural Code of Vietnam. It also assesses the compatibility of the Vietnamese juvenile justice system compared to international standards elaborated by the CRC Committee. At the same time, certain issues are raised regarding the implementation of such principles in practice. Finally, concluding remarks will be provided together with recommendations on how to develop the juvenile justice system in Vietnam.Keywords: Vietnam’s juvenile justice; Children’s rights; CRC leading principles; juvenile offenders; the rights of the child; non-discrimination; best interests of the child; children’s right to life; survival and development; children’s right to be heard. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document