Misplaced Pages

#644355

41-516: The court was a court of first instance . Its judicial duties were mainly to settle criminal cases and to resolve civil litigation as well as bankruptcy . The administration and registration tasks of the court included death registration, issuing certain certificates, performing duties of a notary public , and officiating civil wedding ceremonies. Cases from this court were heard by a combination of professional judges and lay judges . This district court (originally named Søndre Helgeland District Court

82-435: A Juvenile Review Board (JRB). These committees can present a resolution that does not result in a juvenile criminal record. However, there are qualifying circumstances for a case to be accepted for review, such as the type of offense (often must be minor in nature) and prior court involvement (many JRBs only accept first-time offenses). Juvenile court sentences may range from: Mandatory minimum sentences found their way into

123-504: A collegial panel within the criminal trial divisions or handled by designated personnel. The higher people's courts may establish collegial panels for juvenile criminal cases within the criminal trial divisions. In his 1997 book "No Matter How Loud I Shout," which delves into the Los Angeles Juvenile Courts, Edward Humes made a case for radical reform within juvenile court systems. He contended that

164-780: A boy does not justify a kangaroo court ." However, most juvenile proceedings are held without a jury as McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) decided that minors do not have the same rights in this regard as adults. In some jurisdictions, in addition to delinquent cases, juvenile court hears cases involving child custody , child support , and visitation as well as cases where children are alleged to be abused or neglected . Procedures in juvenile court, for juveniles charged with delinquent acts (acts that would be crimes if committed by adults) or status offenses (offenses that can only be committed by minors, such as running away from home, curfew violations and truancy) are typically less formal than proceedings in adult courts. Proceedings may be closed to

205-413: A crime in adult court will thereafter always be tried in adult court, regardless of the seriousness of the offense. There is no uniform national age from which a child is accountable in the juvenile court system; this varies between states. States vary in relation to the age at which a child may be subject to juvenile court proceedings for delinquent behavior. Most states do not specify a minimum age as

246-527: A formidable challenge that the United Nations has endeavored to address, not only within Sierra Leone but also in other afflicted nations globally. Although the rules governing juvenile court vary significantly from state to state, the broad goal of U.S. juvenile courts is to provide a remedial or rehabilitative alternative to the adult criminal justice system. Although not always met, the ideal

287-617: A heightened sense of respect, alongside a concerted effort towards rehabilitation and reintegration, acknowledging the tender age at which many child soldiers are coerced into conflict. The Secretary General has characterized the utilization of such tribunals as presenting a "moral dilemma". Child soldiers often find themselves embroiled in armed conflict due to pervasive structural or systemic threats in their environments. Nevertheless, they bear responsibility for perpetrating numerous violent and egregious acts. This dual role as both victims of oppressive regimes and perpetrators of atrocities presents

328-472: A juvenile court to a district court must be voluntary and knowing. The U.S. Supreme Court held, in the case of In re Gault (1967), that children accused in a juvenile delinquency proceeding have the rights to due process, counsel, and against self-incrimination, essentially the Miranda rights. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Abe Fortas wrote, "Under our Constitution, the condition of being

369-496: A matter of law. Of states that set a minimum age, for status offenses : And for delinquency: All states have laws that allow, and at times require, young offenders to be prosecuted or sentenced as adults for more serious offenses. In Kent v. United States (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that a juvenile must be afforded due process rights, specifically that a waiver of jurisdiction from

410-525: A more "child-friendly justice". Despite all the changes made by the United Nations, the rules in practice are less clear cut. Changes in a broad context cause issues of implementation locally, and international crimes committed by youth are causing additional questions regarding the benefit of separate proceedings for juveniles. Issues of juvenile justice have gained global prominence in various cultural contexts. As globalization has progressed in recent centuries, questions about justice, particularly concerning

451-416: A more restorative approach, particularly concerning juvenile offenders. Canada has long embraced a restorative model and continues to enhance its practices aimed at integrating youthful offenders into society, with a focus on preventing recidivism and fostering their positive contribution to communities. Similarly, Austria has launched initiatives to implement victim-offender mediation programs, geared towards

SECTION 10

#1732790838645

492-421: A restorative form of justice. New Zealand has undergone significant systemic restructuring, drawing from the long-standing practices of its indigenous Māori population. Their approach emphasizes family-centric solutions aimed at reducing youth incarceration rates. Globally, there is a growing trend of leveraging traditional values to positively influence juvenile court systems. In the realm of international law,

533-581: A separate court system for youths and juvenile delinquents. They argue that societal perceptions of youth and adolescence are evolving, necessitating corresponding changes in the legal system. Childhood today differs significantly from historical norms, prompting some to question the necessity of a distinct juvenile court system and age deferment policies. Globally, the United Nations has spearheaded reforms in juvenile courts and juvenile justice. Measures have been introduced to safeguard children's rights , particularly regarding punishment guidelines. There has been

574-571: A shift towards less punitive approaches, with the UN General Assembly proposing measures to protect children and young people from harsh or degrading punishment. However, many Western countries have faced criticism for failing to implement these policies effectively or differentiate between youth and adult offenders in legal proceedings or sentencing. The United Nations advocates for less severe punishment for youths and emphasizes community-based support programs over punitive measures. In

615-581: Is a tribunal having special authority to pass judgements for crimes committed by children who have not attained the age of majority . In most modern legal systems, children who commit a crime are treated differently from legal adults who have committed the same offense. Juveniles have a lack of capacity for understanding their criminal acts, meaning they also have diminished criminal responsibility compared to their adult counterparts. Industrialized countries differ in whether juveniles should be charged as adults for serious crimes or considered separately. Since

656-652: Is not committed exclusively to another court. The United States district courts are the trial courts of general jurisdiction of the federal judiciary ; each state has a system establishing trial courts of general jurisdiction, such as the circuit courts in Florida, the superior courts in California, and the New York Supreme Court in New York state. Most trial courts are courts of record , where

697-601: Is primarily an appellate court, but has original jurisdiction in cases involving a diplomatic official or a state. Because different U.S. states apply different names to their courts, it is often not evident whether a court has general or limited jurisdiction or indeed is a trial court at all. For instance, the Maine District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, but the Nevada District Courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Likewise,

738-403: Is to put a juvenile offender on the correct path to be a law-abiding adult. Rules for jurisdiction of a juvenile court depend upon the state. In most states, juvenile court jurisdiction continues through the age of eighteen, but in some states it may end at age seventeen or younger. Some states, such as Arizona, have recently adopted extended jurisdiction policies, where jurisdiction remains under

779-811: The Delaware Court of Common Pleas is a court of limited jurisdiction, but the Pennsylvania Courts of Common Pleas are courts of general jurisdiction. Similarly, the California Superior Courts are trial courts of general jurisdiction, but the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is an appellate court, and the New Jersey Superior Court is both. Juvenile court Juvenile court , also known as young offender's court or children's court ,

820-527: The United States Tax Court in the federal judiciary) or by other means, such as small claims courts in many states for civil cases with a low amount in controversy . Other trials do not take place in courts at all, but in quasi-judicial bodies or in administrative agencies with adjudicatory power created by statute to make binding determinations with simplified procedural practices, such as arbitration . The United States Supreme Court

861-484: The 1970s, minors have been increasingly tried as adults in response to "increases in violent juvenile crime". Young offenders may still not be charged as adults. Serious offenses, such as murder or rape, can be prosecuted through adult court in England. However, as of 2007, no United States data reported any exact numbers of juvenile offenders prosecuted as adults. In contrast, countries such as Australia and Japan are in

SECTION 20

#1732790838645

902-465: The age of 18, although the legal threshold for adulthood varies by jurisdiction. Juvenile court operates distinctively from adult courts, lacking jurisdiction over cases where minors face charges as adults. While the proceedings within juvenile court may not always adhere to an adversarial format, minors are afforded the right to legal representation by counsel. Additionally, parental figures, social workers, and probation officers may play integral roles in

943-399: The authority of the presiding juvenile court system through the adjudicated delinquent juvenile's nineteenth year of age. At times, a juvenile offender who is initially charged in juvenile court will be waived to adult court, meaning that the offender may be tried and sentenced in the same manner as an adult. "Once an adult, always an adult" provisions state that juveniles who are convicted of

984-446: The authority to hear testimony or take evidence, but instead rule solely on matters of law. In the trial court, evidence and testimony are admitted under the rules of evidence established by applicable procedural law and determinations called findings of fact are made based on the evidence. The court, presided over by one or more judges , makes findings of law based upon the applicable law. In most common law jurisdictions,

1025-462: The authority to issue supervision and protection orders for individuals aged 18 or younger. As of the end of 2022, a total of 2,181 juvenile courts have been established nationwide. The intermediate people's courts and grassroots people's courts in China may establish juvenile criminal trial divisions. In areas where the conditions are not yet in place, juvenile criminal cases may be heard by

1066-492: The child. Juvenile court is multifaceted, addressing both delinquency—pertaining to criminal acts committed by minors—and dependency, encompassing scenarios where non-parental guardianship is required for the minor's welfare. In the realm of juvenile justice, two predominant models are typically considered: restorative justice and criminal justice . In the United States, there is an observable shift towards embracing

1107-425: The current system often fails to effectively rehabilitate many young offenders, instead sending them to adult court prematurely or neglecting them altogether without adequate counseling, support, or accountability. Statistics show that while 57% of first-time juvenile offenders never reoffend, 27% commit one or two more crimes, and 16% commit four or more offenses. Critics in the United States argue against maintaining

1148-468: The early stages of developing and implementing youth-focused justice initiatives positive youth justice as a deferment from adult court. Globally, the United Nations has encouraged nations to reform their systems to fit with a model in which "entire society [must] ensure the harmonious development of adolescence" despite the delinquent behavior that may be causing issues. The hope was to create

1189-416: The juvenile justice system in the late 1970s out of concern that some juveniles were committing very serious criminal offenses. Mandatory minimum sentences might be imposed in juvenile court for some very serious crimes, such as homicide, and apply to juveniles in the same manner as adults if the juvenile is waived to adult court. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the use of mandatory life sentences without

1230-470: The mid-1900s, the UN promoted "informalism," advocating for diversion and alternatives to formal criminal proceedings for minors, making the justice system more child-friendly. More recently, the restorative justice model has gained traction as a more effective means of processing and reintegrating youth offenders into society. However, challenges in implementing restorative justice arise from cultural differences and

1271-515: The model's applicability across diverse social contexts. Critics caution against the global adoption of juvenile court reforms, highlighting the limitations of applying uniform solutions to diverse social contexts. For instance, the experiences of Moroccan youth and other ethnic minorities or migrant groups in the Netherlands illustrate the challenges of addressing local social problems through generic, broad-spectrum solutions. Juvenile courts in

Alstahaug District Court - Misplaced Pages Continue

1312-473: The new Helgeland District Court . This Norwegian government -related article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Court of first instance A trial court or court of first instance is a court having original jurisdiction , in which trials take place. Appeals from the decisions of trial courts are usually heard by higher courts with the power of appellate review ( appellate courts ). Most appellate courts do not have

1353-439: The possibility of parole for juvenile offenders is unconstitutional. As part of China's ongoing legal reforms aimed at aiding juvenile offenders in reintegrating into society more effectively and swiftly, juvenile courts have been established with an emphasis on education. A distinctive feature of these juvenile courts is that trials often take the form of roundtable meetings, reducing the number of irrelevant personnel involved in

1394-433: The proceedings, aiming to achieve positive outcomes and prevent recidivism. However, in cases involving serious or repeated offenses, juvenile offenders may face incarceration, potentially leading to transfer to a state correctional facility upon reaching legal adulthood. In situations where parental neglect or inability to control the minor is evident, the court may explore placement in foster care, assuming guardianship over

1435-438: The proceedings. This aims to alleviate the psychological burden of guilt on juvenile offenders and facilitate their smoother and quicker reintegration into society. Within the 23 provinces of China, except for cases involving homicide, offenses committed by individuals under the age of 16, or children (if there are no individuals over the age of 16 charged in the case), are adjudicated by juvenile courts. Juvenile courts also have

1476-588: The prosecution of children for crimes against the state stands as a contentious and multifaceted issue, particularly concerning child soldiers. A proposed remedy to this complex dilemma involves the establishment of specialized juvenile courts aimed at adjudicating cases involving minors accused of international crimes. Notably, in regions like Sierra Leone , there exists a strong societal demand for holding perpetrators fully accountable, regardless of their age or social circumstances. When juveniles are referred to these specialized courts, they receive treatment imbued with

1517-536: The protection of children's rights within juvenile courts, have come to the forefront. Global policies on this matter have garnered wider acceptance, and there has been a general cultural shift towards treating child offenders in accordance with this trend. Juvenile court, a specialized division within the judicial system, is tasked with adjudicating cases involving underage defendants who face charges ranging from criminal offenses to neglect, or are deemed to be beyond parental control. Typically, these defendants are under

1558-437: The public, and a juvenile offender's name may be kept out of the public record. In an American juvenile court, it is possible to avoid placing formal charges. Factors that may affect a court's treatment of a juvenile offender and the disposition of the case include: Along with these seven, four "unofficial" factors can sway an official: In Connecticut, a referral can be made to a non-court associated committee referred to as

1599-552: The record of the presentation of evidence is created and must be maintained or transmitted to the appellate court. The record of the trial court is certified by the clerk of the trial court and transmitted to the appellate body. Not all cases are heard in trial courts of general jurisdiction. A trial court of limited jurisdiction is authorized to hear only specified types of cases. Trial courts of limited jurisdiction may be limited in subject-matter jurisdiction (such as juvenile , probate , and family courts in many U.S. states, or

1640-410: The trial court often sits with a jury and one judge; in such jury trials , the jury acts as trier of fact . In some cases, the judge or judges act as triers of both fact and law, by either statute, custom, or agreement of the parties; this is referred to as a bench trial . In the United States, a trial court of general jurisdiction is authorized to hear some type of civil or criminal case that

1681-516: Was established in 1859 when the geographical jurisdiction of the old Helgeland District Court was divided into two: Søndre Helgeland District Court in the south and Nordre Helgeland District Court in the north. On 11 July 1919, the southern part of the jurisdictional area was separated to become the Brønnøy District Court . On 26 April 2021, the court was merged with the Brønnøy District Court and Rana District Court to create

Alstahaug District Court - Misplaced Pages Continue

#644355