First, it may seem arbitrary, but there has not always been a juvenile justice system, or juvenile court system within the United States of America, or around the world for that matter. Rather, before a system that was dedicated to juveniles was created, youth were treated as adults and were in fact sentenced to lengthy prison sentences. Even worse, these juveniles were not kept separate in a youth facility, or even in separate cell blocks. The juveniles that were convicted of crimes served their sentenced right next to adult offenders that had been charged with minor crimes, ranging all the way to serious and heinous crimes. We can thank reformists in the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s for understanding that there was a duty to bring the …show more content…
Nonetheless, this idea of treatment, supervision, and rehabilitation was understood to be morally acceptable. This was a satisfactory alternative for minors, due to one major belief, the belief that juveniles were not culpable at this age for their actions. Therefore, they did not belong in an adult prison or an adult court, rather there was a specialized court system created that included individualized treatments and reduced sentences, all at the carefulness of a judge. By the year 1940, all fifty states had adopted a juvenile court system based off of a tremendous need they saw early on, now this need has developed into further juvenile treatments such as drug court (Gaudio, …show more content…
Therefore, to explain, drug courts came into existence in the 1990’s when there was an excessive amount of juveniles and adults being arrested for drug-related offenses. The system was recycling these drug offenders through the criminal justice system since there was not a type of system or policy in place to assist these offenders from re-offending. So, juvenile drug courts were based on the adult drug court system. Juveniles were also being affected by the epidemic of drugs throughout the county, and in response over four hundred and fifty juvenile drug courts were established to aid the youth. These juvenile drug courts intervened at the correct time, and while these programs are often times a voluntary program, youth are more susceptible to this alternative rather than a criminal sanction. Juvenile drug court policy generally involves a system that is divided into phases for the participants to follow. These phases are normally around three months long, and there are either three or four phases to complete. The final purpose of this policy is to be able to dismiss the juvenile’s charges, to reduce the sentence, or possibly suspend the sentence if they successfully complete their program. However, to successfully complete juvenile drug court is not as easy as it sounds (Stein, Homan, & DeBerard,
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.
Harrell’s essay also introduces other facets of drug courts to be researched in an effort to understand inconsistences in drug court practices from jurisdictions across the country. In particular, Harrell notes that eligibility, treatment availability, and court practices vary significantly from one drug court to the next. He brings light to the possible correlation between drug court practices and recidivism, and the importance of understanding which court practices contribute positively toward successful program
“The nation 's first drug court was established in Florida in 1989, and there are now more than 2,500 operating nationwide” (Rankinf and Teegardin). From that moment in 1989, America’s judicial system decided to re-evaluate how the courts had been approaching drug addiction and crime. Instead
This quote by Edward Humes sums it up the best, “The fundamental question Juvenile Court was designed to ask - What's the best way to deal with this individual kid? - is often lost in the process, replaced by a point system that opens the door, or locks it, depending on the qualities of the crime, not the child.” (No Matter How Loud I shout, 1996, p. 325). The courts need to focus on what is best for the child and finding punishment that fits the child not the crime.
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.
Juvenile court is a special court that deals with under age defendants that are charged with crimes, who are neglected, or out of their parent’s control. The average age of the Defendants are younger than 18, but juvenile court doesn’t have jurisdiction in cases in which a minor is charged as an adult. The procedure of juvenile court is to involve parents or social workers and probation officers in order to achieve positive results and prevent minors from future crimes. However, serious crimes and repeated offenses can result in the juvenile offender being sentenced to a prison, with a transfer to a state prison when they reach adulthood. According to the film “Prison States”, Christel Tribble’s was a 15-year-old from Kentucky who was diagnosed
Drug courts were first established in Miami in 1989 and have continued to grow today. Over the past twenty-four years, drug courts have provided a treatment-orientated approach to help defendants with drug-related crimes. The constant interaction of the drug court provides the needed structure for participants to maintain their involvement in the program. Understanding the overall goals of the drug court and the outcomes of participants in the drug court program are the key factors in measuring the success of the drug courts.
What is Drug Court? According to Siegel (2013), drug courts are courts designed for non-violent offenders with substance abuse problems who require integrated sanctions and services such as mandatory drug testing, substance abuse treatment, supervised release, and parole. These courts are designed to help reduce housing nonviolent offenders with violent inmates. Drug courts work on a non-adversarial, coact approach.
Although putting juveniles into institutions, for many juvenile offenders occurred in the first decades of the 1900s, extensive use of probation for juveniles existed as well. As it does today, probation gave a middle ground nature for judges connecting release and placement in an institution. By 1927, trial programs for juvenile offenders existed in approximately every state. In the 1940s and 1950s, reformers attempted to improve the conditions found in most juvenile institutions. Alternatives to institutions emerged, such as forestry and probation camps. These camps provided a prearranged setting for male juvenile offenders, while emphasizing learning and occupational skills. Though, the efficiency of these options as alternatives to incarceration was dubious since they were not obtainable to the worst offenders. Yet, these changes marked the start of formal, community-based instruction that would turn out to be more extensive in following decades.
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 juvenile 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
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...
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
Youth and juvenile crime is a common and serious issue in current society, and people, especially parents and educators, are pretty worried about the trend of this problem. According to Bala and Roberts, around 17% of criminals were youths, compared to 8% of Canadian population ranging between 12 to 18 years of age between 2003 and 2004 (2006, p37). As a big federal country, Canada has taken a series of actions since 1908. So far, there are three justice acts in the history of Canadian juvenile justice system, the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the 1982 Young Offenders Act, and the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act. In Canada, the judicial system and the principle of these laws have been debated for a long time. This paper will discuss how these three laws were defined and why one was replaced by another.
The Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899 was the first juvenile court established in the United States (Locked Up…). The juvenile court was created to handle the offenders on the basis on their rather than their crime. In the 1980’s and 90’s many states passed laws to try teens as adults (Should Juveniles…). The court system served to the minors under the age of sixteen. The courts didn’t typically support disciplinary actions. The people in charge did everything in their power to not have the victim spend time in a juvenile detention center or better yet prison. Remedial sentences were the most common types of discipline (Locked Up…).
Although there are two different justice systems, juvenile and adult, it has not always been that way. Our founding fathers read the Commentaries on the Laws of England, by William Blackstone who was an English lawyer (americanbar.org). They also admired the commentaries; therefore they began to apply them to our country. For instance, in the commentaries William defined a criminal, capable of committing a crime, as someone who had an understanding and has intent of the committing the crime and the act of committing the crime. As a result, America would make those who underst...