Well that's true in the UK too Carol a juvenile would not normally be dealt with in an adult court but in a Youth/juvenile court without the media, or jury of peers

The law states that reports of a case at a Youth Court must not contain any particulars which could lead to the identification of any child or young person involved in the case as a defendant or witness.
In particular it bans the names, addresses or names of schools and the use of any photograph of the young person.
However, the Crime Sentences Act 1997 gives a Youth Court the power to lift the ban on identifying a young person when he is convicted if the magistrates believe it would be in the public interest


The two boys who killed James Bulger however, went on public trial in an adult court in 1993

Venables and Thompson were required to sit in a raised dock, separated from their parents "with the formal panoply of the adult criminal trial involving judge and counsel in wigs and gowns"
The fact that it is unlikely that the boys understood points of law which arose or the "evidential intricacies" has never been disputed.

At the time of the conviction there was international criticism of the English practice of trying juveniles in adult courts in some instances

A 'senior Tory spokesman' said in response to this criticism

"The British judicial system is more than capable of making a reasoned decision on which kind of court juveniles are tried in.
This was a particularly heinous crime which gravely offended public sensitivity.
The decision to hear this case in an adult court reflected therefore the severity of the case."