Comparative Juvenile Criminal Law - Functioning of Juvenile Criminal Justice

Functioning of Juvenile Criminal Justice

According to Jean Pierre Rosenczveig (children's judge in a Paris suburb), French juvenile criminal law has six key requirements:

1. The specialization of the magistrate. Indeed, juvenile criminal system has its own intervener: the children judge, the court of assizes of minors, the court of appeal minors’ chamber…
2. Criminal relative responsibility begins at the age of 13.
3. Educative priority, educate rather than punish. Article 2 of the Order of February 2, 1945 imposes an educative placing proposal to minors to whom a detention placing measure was envisaged.
4. Association of the parents. Parents have to be informed of their child’s police custody. Moreover, Article 13 of the same order imposes an examination of the parents before the tribunal’s decision. Moreover, before the juvenile’s police custody, the service of legal protection of youth must be called.
5. Compulsory of the attorney. Juvenile has to receive the aid and be represented by an attorney. If he doesn’t contact one, the jurisdiction has to do it for him.

In the U.S.A., the presence of an attorney is recommended, not compulsory.

In most States, special courts are settled up to trial juveniles, others such as Colorado don’t; but certain crimes allow juvenile delinquents to be tried by superior court (for first degree murderer or gang murderer).

Juveniles also have special protections, in addition of juvenile courts. Those courts are closed to the public, whereas in France, the “huit-clos” is an option. Just like in France, parents or guardians have to be informed and must be present during the police questioning. At least, juveniles’ names are kept confidential when they are accused of a crime. Juveniles’ cases are not heard by a jury trial, but a judge.

At least, American criminal law system has a particular vocabulary for juveniles’ cases. Indeed, juvenile offender doesn’t commit a crime, he commits a delinquent act. And courts use the term delinquent or not delinquent instead of guilty or not guilty, just to show that a minor is different from a criminal.

Juveniles evidently have the same common right as adults’ criminals (12). They are assumed innocent; they are noticed of charges given in advance of any adjudication of delinquency, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and for American juveniles, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

After its arrest, in both countries, minor can be placed in provisory detention (for the French case, that’s a European Convention on Human Rights’ injunction), if the parents are prejudiced and informed. Provisory detention will be done in a juvenile hall, separated of adults’ center.

By the way, in the U.S.A., parents might be liable for the acts of their child if they failed to their parent’s authority, if the minor is involved in a gang offense for example. In the U.S.A., juveniles don’t have the right to bail.

As we can see, American and French procedures are not so different, just because they have a common goal, protect as much as possible minor offender’s interest. Nevertheless, except the detention part (separation with adult and parents awareness), priorities are different. When Americans prefer the confidentiality of the minors, French people put the stress on an accommodated juvenile criminal system.

Both systems are protectful, but not on the same way. In France, an attorney is compulsory; in the U.S.A., there’s no jury.

As aforesaid, the goal of the juvenile justice in France and in the U.S.A is clearly to educate child offenders, rather than punish them, even if some measures can be tough.