Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Negative effects of juvenile justice system
Childhood abuse and juvenile delinquency
Juvenile justice system effects on juveniles
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Negative effects of juvenile justice system
This chapter examines the juvenile justice diversion as an alternative to formal adjudication of juvenile justice and the placement of children, particularly residential placement. Juvenile Diversion is based on the premise that youth exposure to justice may be more harmful than beneficial (Shelden, 1999).
It has been argued that the diversion of low risk, non-violent offenders of minor crimes justice system in the treatment and community-based interventions to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior (Whitehead and Lab, 2001).
The idea of deviation as a process in which problems are solved in the context of crime and official action are defined and managed by other means, with "minimal penetration" in the juvenile justice system.
…show more content…
Forwarding services and referral means implies that young people are removed from the justice system and placed in alternative programs. Lemert (1981) has also argued that the deviation corrects a number of shortcomings in juvenile justice. These include (a) the denial of juveniles of civil rights or fair dealing, (b) delays in the courts, so for inefficiency, (c) the labeling and stigmatization of young people, (d) the failure of the juvenile justice system to reduce recidivism and (e) the failure of communities to take responsibility for solving the problems of …show more content…
Since the establishment of the first juvenile court in Chicago Illinois for over 100 years (Grisso, 199,813) ago, psychologists have continued to show a strong presence in juvenile proceedings and assist the juvenile justice system, as well as young people involved in it. a special court and the justice system for minors, partly in response to the recognition that adolescents, while clearly shows greater cognitive, emotional and behavioral capacities were established than their younger counterparts, do not have many of the skills that adults and relevant to the legal decision making and criminal responsibility (Otto and Borum, 2004) demonstrators. As a result, the juvenile court was to consider the criminal behavior of minors in context of development, with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and decreased attention on the punishment (Zimring, 2000). Since the juvenile court was to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, the dramatic changes in the landscape of juvenile justice in 1966 and 1967, changing forever the denial of constitutional guarantees for minors. In its decisions in Kent v. United States (1966) and In re Gault (1967), the Supreme Court of the United States asked if the ideal rehabilitation of the
Juvenile Justice Reforms in the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2011, from Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Courts: http://www.ojjdp.gov
Vito, Gennaro F., and Clifford E. Simonsen. Juvenile justice today. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.
The Ohio juvenile diversion program began in 1986 and was developed by diversion agents who wanted to help juveniles develop positive self esteem, personal values, interpersonal communication skills, ways to deal with stress and peer pressure, and skills in setting goals (Journal, 1993). Juvenile participants can enter this juvenile diversion program by being mandated by a judge, recommended by a school counselor, through a probation officer, or recommended by a parent. Quite often the choice to enroll a juvenile in this program is selected over placing the juvenile into a detention facility. When enrolling in the Ohio juvenile diversion program the juvenile enrolls in 4-H and completes a project. A club meeting accompanies each session, which enables juveniles to develop leadership skills by conducting a business meeting.
The majority of the juvenile research concludes that serious harm can be done to juveniles simply being referred into the formal juvenile justice process. Police officers should really take into consideration that who they send for the formal process (Kaufman, I. 1979).At times these juveniles are just playing around and doing things that they are not supposed too and when processed they are being mixed with real delinquents and are being influenced by the wrong people which may cause them to tern deviant and later delinquents. A way to stop this police should only take into consideration serious criminal or repeated criminal
A growing number of probation officers, judges, prosecutors as well as other juvenile professionals are advocating for a juvenile justice system which is greatly based on restorative justice. These groups of people have been frustrated by the policy uncertainty between retribution and treatment as well as unrealistic and unclear public expectations. As a primary mission, the balanced approach or policy allows juvenile justice systems together with its agencies to improve in their capacity of protecting the community and ensuring accountability of the system and the offenders . It enables the youths to become productive and competent citizens. This guiding philosophical framework for this policy is restorative justice as it promotes the maximum involvement of the community, victim, and the offender in the justice process. Restorative justice also presents a viable alternative to sanctions as well as interventions that are based on traditional or retributive treatment assumptions. In the policy proposal for restorative justice, the balanced approach mission assists juvenile justice system in becoming more responsive to the needs of the community, victims, and the offenders . Therefore, this paper considers how restorative justice reduces referrals of juveniles to criminal and juvenile justice systems and gives a proposal on the implementation of restorative justice in the community together with a number of recommendations. For instance, preliminary research reveals that application of restorative justice in schools significantly reduces school expulsions, suspensions, and referrals to the criminal justice systems. Restorative justice programs are an alternative for zero-tolerance policies for juveniles or youths .
In the New York Times article, “Safety and Justice Complement Each Other,” by Glenn E. Martin, the author informs, “The Vera Institute for Justice found a 36 percent recidivism rate for individuals who had completed alternative drug programs in New York City, compared with 54 sentenced to prison, jail, probation or time served.” Alternative programs are more likely to inhibit future criminal acts, while incarceration seems to lack long-lasting effects on individuals. In continuance, the author adds that 3 percent of treatment participants were rearrested for violent crimes, while 6 percent of untreated criminals were rearrested for violent crimes. Diversion programs are able to treat one’s motivation for their criminal acts, rather than assuming that illegal habits will go away with time. Instead of sending nonviolent offenders to jail, legislators should consider introducing practical
juvenile justice” (Elrod & Ryder, 2011) is to detour juvenile crimes and not be so easy on
Henggeler, S. & Schoenwald, S. J. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for juvenile offenders and juvenile justice policies that support them. Social policy report, 25 (1), pp. 1--20.
With increased media coverage of violent juvenile behavior, legislators began to pass laws to toughen up on juvenile crime. Many laws made it easier to waive juveniles into adult courts, or even exclude juveniles who had committed serious crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. Furthermore, the sentences to be handed out for offenders were lengthened and made much more severe. As a result, the juvenile courts began to resemble the adult courts. Yet, this movement’s influence began to fade, and by the turn of the century, another shift had occurred. In the current juvenile courts, a balanced approach is emphasized. While the court deals with chronic and dangerous offenders with a heavy hand, needy youth who need help to get back on track are still assisted under the parens patriae philosophy. Restorative justice has come to be the preferred method of today’s juvenile courts. In an overall sense, the modern juvenile court has taken on a paternalistic view similar to parens patriae towards youths who are in need of guidance, while punitively punishing offenders who do not respond to the helping hand extended to
The historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States is one that is focused on forming and separating trying juveniles from adult counterparts. One of the most important aspects is focusing on ensuring that there is a level of fairness and equality with respect to the cognitive abilities and processes of juveniles as it relates to committing crime. Some of the most important case legislation that would strengthen the argument in regard to the development of the juvenile justice system is related to the reform of the justice system during the turn of the 19th century. Many juveniles were unfortunately caught in the crosshairs of being tried as adults and ultimately receiving punishments not in line with their ability to understand their actions or be provided a second chance.
The basis came from Shelden (1999) which states that “youths’ exposure to the justice system may be more harmful than beneficial”. Moreover, It was believed that children who were diverted to community based intervention are less likely involved in future delinquency (Whitehead & Lab, 2001) In the book, Juvenile Delinquency: Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention; It highlighted that diversion is beneficial to the youth, community, and society. Furthermore, It also discussed that diversion fill the gaps of the formal juvenile justice system that diversion effectively reduced the labelling and stigmatization and the rate of recidivism. It also serves a deterrence, a net widening – where youth are given vast number of services rather than the prescribed number of service, and a balanced and restorative justice – where children are made accountable to their actions, to the community and the society as whole. One of the recommendations are to further improve the programs and services given to CICLs. It would also be better if they will be engaged in a community-based intervention. (Redding, et.al,
Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased juvenile delinquency? Simply put, we must create a means of measuring juvenile’s level of risk and in turn, form an effective rehabilitation program that will decrease their risk level for future recidivism.
Diversion is one of the various solutions that benefits offenders to take responsibility for their wrongdoings and prevent them from further administration in the criminal justice system. It is one of the widely used methods in Canada particularly for youths because diversion programs decrease the effect of stigmatization perpetrated by the community members to an extent, which aids them to discover employment opportunities or complete their education in order to secure their future. However, the delinquents who are permitted to partake in diversion programs involve individuals who only committed minor offences such as shoplifting, minor fraud, or consumption of marijuana instead of indictable offences. The existence of diversion programs in
Loeber R., and D.P. Farrington. “Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions.” Thousand Oaks. 1998. First Search. Feb 2007
The juvenile justice system today has many treatment options to choose from. The new and intensive programs, which are tailored to the individual offender, have some promising prospects. There is also hope that specialized programs started at facilities to incarcerate juvenile offenders will improve recidivism.