Our nation’s focus on crime has made a gradual shift away from drugs to what many perceive to be the major
problem facing our criminal justice system today: juvenile crime, especially violent crime. Terms such as
“superpredator” have been used to describe a class of violent juvenile offenders who prey on society.
Depending on the severity of the crime and the age of the juvenile, many states allow prosecutors the flexibility
of transferring juveniles to the adult court system. Respond to the following questions, and support your
positions using credible research:
Research 3 state- or federal-level court cases regarding the transfer of juveniles to the adult court system.
Address the following in 1,250–1,750 words:
For each case, briefly describe the details of the case and the court’s decision.
Generally speaking, how do courts and their decisions impact criminal justice policy decisions? Explain.
How have your selected court cases (and similar cases) and their rulings impacted public policy decisions
regarding juveniles in the criminal justice system? Explain in detail.
What significant challenges do correctional officials face in housing juveniles who have been tried and
convicted as adults? Explain.
What selection criteria are used in making a determination as to whether to transfer a juvenile case to the
criminal court? Explain.
Do you believe that waiver of 13- and 14-year-olds from juvenile to adult court, in general, is a good idea? Why
or why not? Explain.
ekker cites a number of cases where the African Commission found violations of the right to non-discrimination; the right to life and integrity of the person; the right to dignity and freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; the right to have their cause heard, including an appeal to competent authorities and the rights to asylum; expulsion without due process as well as the prohibition against the mass expulsion of non-nationals contained in the African Charter . A couple of these have implication on the principle of non-refoulement we discuss next. Refoulement and Removal Like the right to asylum, the Inter-American system also defines refoulement and removal in human rights terms, with American Convention on Human Rights being ‘the only broad-based human rights treaty that expressly prohibits refoulement to a risk of human rights abuse’ in its Article 22(8). In paragraph 151 of the Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v Plurinational State of Bolivia , the Inter-American Court on Human Rights stated that ‘under the inter-American system, the principle of non-refoulement is broader in meaning and scope and, owing to the complementarity that exists in the application of international refugee law and international human rights law, the prohibition of refoulement constitutes the cornerstone of the international protection of refugees or asylees and of those requesting asylum. This principle is also a customary norm of international law, and is enhanced in the inter-American system by the recognition of the right to seek and to receive asylum.’ The Inter-American Commission further holds that a State will be responsible if it removes a person to another territory where there exists a real risk that Article I of ADHR will be violated. Similarly, the African Commission has interpreted Article 5 of the African Charter as protecting individuals from being returned to a State where they are likely to be subjected to ‘torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment’, with both frameworks ensuring that in the case of asylum seekers, human rights guarantees are afforded to them ‘whether the asylum claim is to >GET ANSWER