Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Challenges for the juvenile justice system
Challenges for the juvenile justice system
Challenges for the juvenile justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Challenges for the juvenile justice system
The Philosophy of the Juvenile Court – Rehabilitation vs. Public Safety Daniel Vazquez Child Advocacy April 4, 2014 Professor Griffith Two inches thick. Twelve inches long, with a narrow handle. This “fraternity paddle,” as they called it, was used by staff members at the Indiana Boys School used to strike blows on the clothed buttocks of juveniles ages 12 to 18 at the facility. A class action lawsuit was brought against the school seeking injunctive relief not only to stop the corporal punishment, but more importantly to force the school to provide rehabilitative treatment. The Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals held that the juveniles at the facility had “a right to rehabilitative treatment…under the Constitution or Indiana law.” Rehabilitative treatment has not always been seen as a right for juveniles. It hasn’t even been regarded as the best possible course of action for dealing with juveniles. This paper will explore the history of the juvenile system, define what rehabilitation is, and explore the balance between the benefits of rehabilitation and the interest of public safety. A Brief History Treating juveniles as a separate class in the criminal justice system did not exist until the late nineteenth century. Juveniles were grouped with all other violators of law within the nation’s courts. Along with rapid industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and social change that shocked our society came the necessary reforms to the criminal law system that saw things like probation, parole, undetermined sentences, and most importantly for the subject at hand, the juvenile court system. Recognizing the need for different type of solution, states began to adopt “open-ended, ... ... middle of paper ... ...n conclusion, like most things in the law there is no clear answer. There is no one-size-fits all solution for how to treat juvenile offenders. Even that term, “juvenile offender” contains a spectrum that includes the most minor misdemeanor and the most egregious sexual crimes. The Supreme Court has participated in this debate and voiced its approval of treatment and rehabilitation over punishment in the interest of public safety. The court, however, has also left the possibility of the states to hold juveniles to a higher (adult) standard on a case-by-case basis. This seems to me to be the best way to balance the obvious benefits of rehabilitative efforts and the interest of public safety. The best example I could find of a state who balances these two interests well is Oklahoma. The primary statutory goal of the Oklahoma Juvenile Code is to promote public safety.
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.
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.
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
Crime rates across the U.S. for juveniles is at all time high. Juveniles across all demographic have been punished more severely than those of the past. Contributing factors including lower socioeconomic areas such as the Detroit Metropolitan Areas & Chicago. This paper will discuss the apparent issue within the system focusing on juveniles in urban areas.
Mental health treatment among juvenile is a subject that has been ignored by society for far too long. It has always been one of those intricate issues that lead to the argument of whether juveniles should receive proper treatment or imprisoned like any other criminals, and often trialed as adults. Many times, young people are often deprived of proper help (Rosenberg) However, we often overlook the fact that while they are criminals, they are still young, and fact or not, it is a matter of compassion that must be played from our side to help these youth overcome their harsh reality. As such, we do however see signs of sympathy shown towards juvenile. Juvenile health courts give help to youth to youth who have serious mental illness (Rosenberg). It is often asked in general, would mental health treatment cure juvenile criminals? In my opinion, when you look at the background of these young criminals, it is frequently initiated from negligence and feelings of betrayal (Browne and Lynch), of course leading to mental disorder. However, further zooming into their background, it is always proper treatment that saves them from their unfortunate circumstances. Research shows that giving juvenile criminals mental health treatment did not only reduce re-arrests but also further improve their ways of living among the society.
A movement has started in our country to renovate the juvenile justice system. This movement wants to erase any differences between young offenders and adult criminals. Almost all fifty states have changed their juvenile justice laws, allowing more youths to be tried as adults...
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.
Justice has always been the goal of our court system, but it is not always served, especially in cases involving juveniles. The judiciary process has evolved from a system that did not initially consider juveniles, to one where juveniles have their own court proceedings, facilities, and even rules or laws. The juvenile justice system has come a long way, and people have worked very hard in its creation. A juvenile is considered to be an individual, under the age of 18, resembling an adult. However, resembling an adult does not always mean that juveniles will have an adult mindset. Thus, juveniles may need extra attention to help get their lives on track. This paper will analyze various ways involving juveniles and correction facilities and programs.
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.
Throughout the years there has always been one question, what will we do with the juveniles when they entire the justice system? Here is the answer to that, the first juvenile court in the United States was established in Chicago in 1899 over 100 years ago. There have been significant modifications made to the juvenile court system since the late 1960’s due to Supreme Court decisions, federal legislation, and changes in the state legislation. Up until these changes were made, children who broke the law were treated the same as adult criminals. Children as young as seven years old who were accused of wrongdoing were imprisoned with adults. “In the early nineteenth century, the idea of reforming youth offenders took root in the United States & The House of Refuge in New York, which opened in 1824, was the first juvenile house of reform in the United States. This was the first attempt to house juvenile offenders in a separate facility and other States, like Maryland, would soon follow suit” ("History of the Juvenile Justice System," n.d.).
The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.
Many believe that locking away juveniles is the best way to keep society safe but they are wrong. Locking juveniles away does more harm than any good. Expert say that there’s “a decline in juvenile crime, concerns about the cost of adult prisons, and growing understanding that adolescents have a greater potential for rehabilitation than adults do.” There’s no need to spend so much money on juveniles in prisons when
We live in a nation that is based upon the notion of “the land of the free”, and “justice for all”, however, this is far from true. These basic principles that our nation was founded upon have proven themselves to be invalid over the course of history and even in today's society. In our nation, the fight for justice and equality is an ongoing battle, which is why we designed the criminal justice system: as a means to fight this inequality. This system was put forth in order to ensure the justice, order, and safety of our citizens. However, this system, that was designed to serve and protect us was re-established in the year of 1899 during the progressive era. This system became known as juvenile justice and soon altered the definition of justice.
In a world where crime occurs every second of the day on every street, the effort to prevent our youth from witnessing such things has grown nearly impossible. The duty those who are older than juveniles have is to place them in a positive place to grow, away from violence. Since the youth may not recognize right from wrong, someone must do so for them. The juvenile is looked at by the Judicial System almost as the child of the state. By this the state has the best interest for the child and will act in whatever manner necessary to accomplish this. Although the State does understand that juveniles should be treated as if they are less to blame for a crime than an adult, there have been many counts of juvenile cases that raise questions about current laws. When a juvenile commits a crime that would normally see an adult face serious time in prison, the sentencing process falls nowhere in the same category. This is because of the certain rules and regulations for courts in the Juvenile System that limit the juvenile sentencing drastically. Just for the reasoning that a juvenile is a growing human being with an undeveloped brain, does not condone a juvenile to commit gruesome crimes that will conclude in no way near the punishment deserved.