Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reforming the juvenile justice system
Child welfare policies from the past
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There is ongoing debate as to what should be done with juvenile courts. Should juvenile courts be abolished or just reformed? There are a number of reasons offered for each viewpoint, and the ultimate goal is trying to figure out which option would be most beneficial for juveniles. Juvenile delinquency is a continuous problem in the United States. It is also considered an issue that all of society needs to take part in trying to solve or at least diminish. Despite the number of social controls that can aid in dealing with delinquency much of the burden is placed on the juvenile justice system. It is well understood that the juvenile courts have a lot of imperfections. These imperfections are what caused the calls for reform or abolishment. There are a number of recommendations that Barry C. Feld offered that could serve as reforms. Some of his recommendations pertain to rehabilitation, welfare, resources and rights. Despite these recommendations Feld still prefers abolishment or more specifically creating an integrated system. Before discussing whether abolishment or reform is a better option it is important to address the recommendations Feld suggested as areas of the juvenile court system that need reform.
One of the most important recommendations made by Feld is returning to the rehabilitative premise of juvenile courts. The juvenile court system was originally created to emphasize rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. In addition, the courts were meant to provide a way of protecting children from the harshness of the adult court, which emphasized obtaining guilt and punishing the individual (Hickey, 2010). The dichotomies of “treatment-punishment” and “child-adult” have been skewed and have resulted in a ch...
... middle of paper ...
...se the adult courts are as capable of dealing with juveniles. Ultimately, there is no need to reform an imperfect juvenile court system that is not serving the purpose it was meant to achieve. By integrating the juvenile courts with adult criminal court juveniles will have a greater chance of receiving the justice they have been waiting to obtain from the current juvenile system.
References
Fortas, J. (1967). Opinion of the Court SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: 387 U.S. 1 In re Gault. Retrieved August 12, 2010, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0387_0001_ZO.html
Hickey, T. J. (2010). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Kelly, C.T., Unit 3: Slideshow, University of Everest Online, 8 August 2010.
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.
Criminology. The. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print. The. Shakur, Sanyika.
Schmalleger, Frank. Criminology: A Brief Introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., Publishing as Prentice Hall., 2011.
Hickey, T. J. (2010). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
White, R. & Haynes, F. (1996) Crime and Criminology: an introduction. Oxford University Press UK.
The problem of dealing with juvenile justice has plagued are country for years, since the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899. Prior to that development, delinquent juveniles had to be processed through the adult justic3e system which gave much harsher penalties. By 1945, separate juvenile courts existed in every single state. Similar to the adult system, all through most of the 20th century, the juvenile justice system was based upon a medical/rehabilitative representation. The new challenges of the juvenile court were to examine, analyze, and recommend treatment for offenders, not to deliver judgment fault or fix responsibility. The court ran under the policy of “parens patriae” that intended that the state would step in and act as a parent on behalf of a disobedient juvenile. Actions were informal and a juvenile court judge had a vast sum of discretion in the nature of juvenile cases, much like the discretion afforded judges in adult unlawful settings until the 1970s. In line with the early juvenile court’s attitude of shielding youth, juvenile offenders’ position was often in reformatories or instruction schools that were intended, in speculation, to keep them away from the terrible influences of society and to encourage self-control through accurate structure and very unsympathetic discipline. Opposing to the fundamental theory, all through the first part of the century, the places that housed juveniles were frequently unsafe and unhealthy places where the state warehoused delinquent, deserted, and deserted children for unclear periods. Ordinary tribulations included lack of medical care, therapy programs, and even sometimes food. Some very poor circumstances continue even today.
Moyer, I. (2001). Criminology. Traditional and Non Traditional Voices and Themes. United States: Sage Publications.
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 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 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.
During one of our class sessions we discussed the different areas within the criminal justice system. The topic of courts and sentencing specifically of juveniles was mentioned. As we get to know the inside students we learn some of their backstory of how they ended up at Joseph Harp Correctional Facility, many of them had their first contact with the criminal justice system as a juvenile. Several of the inside students expressed animosity toward the courts when it came to sentencing of juveniles. They thought that some of the ways juveniles are sentenced is too harsh.
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.
If so many offenders who are non-violent are being transferred in order to be treated as adults, what are their chances of rehabilitation? The answer is they don’t have any because they were not even allowed the opportunity. How can a juvenile offender be expected to improve when the decision to charge them as an adult is an option that could easily be taken even if the offense committed is not the serious act the transfer process is meant to combat? In the 1997 article, Justice for Children: How Do We Get There?, the argument is that … “the juvenile court will not survive if it takes on the challenge and the ‘heat’ of attempting to deal with older children who commit serious crimes” … (Geraghty, p. 199). That insinuates that transferring juveniles who have committed serious enough crimes is in the best interest of the juvenile court system, not the juveniles who are at risk of being locked up. However, transferring a child to adult court is basically saying that the individual is any beyond help the juvenile court can provide and does deserve to be given the chances at possibly improving and being rehabilitated. How can the title of juvenile justice system be claimed by a court system that is not serving the children who just happen to be the very reason for its
Juveniles can be transferred to the adult court through the judicial waiver on a case-by-case basis. The decision is usually made at the prosecution ‘s request and follows by a transfer hearing. The other popular transfer mechanisms dating from the 1970s are the automatic transfer and prosecutorial discretion. For automatic transfer, juveniles who are accused of serious crimes are inevitably moved up to adult court. For prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors make the decision to file charges in adult court. There is no doubt that juveniles should be punished for their actions, but the punishment should take into consideration that young adults are capable to change such as community-based rehabilitation programs. In addition, the mind of the
The juvenile court is, unfortunately, funded on false premises. Its purpose is to shield youths from their consequences of their own actions. A crime is a crime, no matter what. Kids are not shielded from the world like they use to be, they know what is right and what is wrong. The Juvenile court also fails to deter violence among the delinquents. The current juvenile crime problem, requires that we punish the current delinquents in order to deter the next generation from becoming offenders (Houghton Mifflin