Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effect of juvenile crimes
Effect of juvenile crimes
Rehabilitation v. punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effect of juvenile crimes
Juvenile Delinquency “Applying What You Have Learned” Chapter 13
Hayley Cisper
University of Central Oklahoma
Juvenile court judges encounter tough decisions on how to handle juvenile delinquents. The juvenile court judge holds the fate of the juvenile by determining the best course of action that is in the best interest of the juvenile and families involved. In the specific case of John, many aspects of the case need to be analyzed in order to determine the best solution for him. The juvenile court judge must find a solution that best fits John’s need for treatment and the needs for public protection.
Juveniles make mistakes on a daily bases. Some make more detrimental mistakes than those of their peers. John is a juvenile the age of 14 who made a detrimental mistake when he rapped a girl that lives in his neighborhood. Currently, the
…show more content…
The juvenile system is based on the ideas of treatment and rehabilitation, while the adult system is based on the ideas of punishment. Another issue arises when discussion of waiving cases to the adult system due to juvenile mental capacity. Studies found that the “mental capacity of youth under the age of 16 to stand (adult) trial is far below that of a similarly charged adults” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 365). Therefore, this proves that many juveniles do not understand the consequences of their action and should not be sentenced the same.
The juvenile court judge must always consider the best interest, solution, and needs for the juvenile, as well as the protection of the juvenile. As a juvenile court judge on John’s case, the judge will resolve the case in one of three ways. The best fitting solution is the “findings of fact that the juvenile is delinquent or in need of supervision” (Siegel & Welsh, p. 368). Following this decision, the judge will determine the best need for treatment for
One of the fasting growing juvenile treatment and interventions programs are known as teen courts. Teen courts serve as an alternative juvenile justice, to young offenders. Non-violent, and mostly first time offenders are sentenced by their peers’ in teen courts. Teen courts also serve as juvenile justice diversion programs. Teen courts vary from state to state, and sometimes within the same state. With this program, all parties of the judicial setting are juveniles with the exception of the judge. Each teen court, is designed specifically to meet the needs of the community it serves. Teen courts were created to re-educate offenders throughout the judicial process, create a program with sanctions that will allow the youth not to have a juvenile record, and to also instil a sense of responsibility.
Vito, Gennaro F., and Clifford E. Simonsen. Juvenile justice today. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.
The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now almost as an adult once more.
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
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
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
What is important to understand in terms at the difference between the juvenile and adult system is that there is a level of dependency that is created tween the two and the juvenile system focuses on how to help rather than in prison individuals at such a young age. However, it usually depends on the type of crimes that have been committed and what those crimes me for the families and how they impact of the greater society. The adult system distinguishes between dependence and delinquency mainly because there was a psychological transition that occurs with juveniles that is not always a predictor of a cyclical life of crime. However, if an adult is committed to the justice system there can be a dependency of delinquency and a cycle of crime that is more likely to be sustained at that age and level of cognitive ability then in comparison to a juvenile. The reasoning behind this is important is that is focused on maintaining a level of attention to the needs and capacity abilities of individuals living and working in different types of societies (Zinn et al.,
This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system.
Federal standards define any young offender under the age of eighteen who commits a crime is define as a juvenile delinquent. And the important differences between adults and young people, that a one-size fits all method is not desirable and will not make the situation better. Our justice system also accomplishes an important symbolic function by establishing principles of behavior. It formally defines the right and wrong for citizens and frees them from the responsibility of taking vengeance, thus avoiding the escalation of feuds within communities. The system protects the rights of free citizens by honoring the belief that individual freedom should not be denied without good cause.
In the juvenile drug court a docket with selected delinquency cases are referred to a designated judge. These youth have been identified for having problems with alcohol and/or other drugs. The juvenile drug court judge maintains close oversight of each case through frequent court report updates through the probation officer and the therapist. The judge both services as the team leader and serve as an integral part of a team that comprises representatives from treatment, juvenile justice, social services, school and vocational training programs, law enforcement, probation, the prosecution, and the defense. This team determines how to address the problems of substance abuse and his or her family, which lead the youth into contact with the justice system (Cooper, 1998).
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.
The dilemma of juvenile incarceration is a problem that thankfully has been declining, but still continues to be an ethical issue. The de-incarceration trend has coincided with a decrease in crime. It is hopeful that our nation is changing the approach to the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. It means we know what to do and what is working, now just to follow through and continue the change to creating a juvenile justice system that is truly rehabilitative and gives youth tools to be able to be positive members of
Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capitol crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes. Many people claim that the child did not know any better, or that he was brought up with the conception that this behavior is acceptable. Although there is some truth to these allegations, the reality of this social issue is far more complex. Therefore we ask the question, "Should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults?"
As stated in lecture, there are several necessary policy changes that need to be made to our current juvenile justice system: “1) Maintain leniency 2) Expand treatment 3) Expand initial diagnostic services 4) Continue solid research 5) Sustain adequate funding to programs and 6) Mandate (by la...