NCJ Number
106516
Date Published
1986
Length
13 pages
Annotation
England's experience in trying to provide alternatives to the formal adjudication of juvenile delinquents while protecting their rights is described, with emphasis on the relationship of this experience to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice adopted in 1985.
Abstract
This experience may suggest some of the problems that developing nations will experience as they undergo rapid modernization. England has set the age of criminal responsibility at 10. Juvenile crime in general and drug abuse in particular have increased in recent years. Both research and experience show that some juvenile delinquency is normal to growing up, and it is important that society not overreact to juvenile crime. Thus, efforts are focusing on keeping children away from formal involvement in the criminal justice process. Thus, police are given much discretion and commonly caution young offenders. Police also conduct meetings between offenders and victims to work out reparations. Magistrates and lay justices handle more formal proceedings. However, concern exists regarding the qualifications of lay justices and the use of orders for care or supervision by the state. Juveniles' rights are receiving increasing attention, and the Criminal Justice Act of 1982 has placed limits on the use of care orders. The United Nations Rules have set forth important principles that should be considered in dealing with juveniles. The need to further the well-being of the youth and the family and to use existing and traditional structures as much as possible are important principles stated in the first rule. Other rules deal with impartiality, status offenders, the presumption of innocence, investigation and prosecution, and adjudication and disposition. However, neither the rules nor practice have resolved the dilemma of defining the balance between justice and welfare. 30 notes.