More handpicked essays just for you.
Juvenile recidivism after rehabilitation
Juvenile justice system research paper
Criminal juvenile justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Prison system can help juveniles turn their lives around; rehabilitation gives juveniles a second chance. Successful rehabilitation, many argue, is better for society in the long run than releasing someone who 's spent their entire young adult life in general Prison population. A young person released from juvenile Prison is far less likely to commit a crime than someone coming out of an adult facility. Children do not have the intellectual or moral capacity to understand the consequences of their actions; similarly, they lack the same capacity to be trial defendants. Children shouldn 't be able to get deadly weapons in the first place. Adults who provide juveniles with guns used in violent crimes should be held at least as accountable …show more content…
Once reserved for the "worst" juveniles—those with lengthy records charged with the most serious offenses—waiver is being used more and more frequently to transfer juveniles who are accused of committing lesser offenses or who have little or no prior record. Numerous studies show that property offenders outnumber violent offenders among juveniles transferred into the adult system. Furthermore, as many as 25% of waived juveniles are first-time offenders. In addition to discretionary judicial waivers, some jurisdictions now allow for prosecutorial waivers in which the prosecutors themselves have the power to send certain youths directly to adult court without a judicial hearing on the issue. The decision to exercise this option is unreviewable and final. In contrast, a judicial waiver in which the judge decides to waive juvenile court jurisdiction can, at least in theory, be appealed. As a practical matter, however, the judge 's ruling is final, since an appeal can seldom be heard before the offender "ages out" of the juvenile court system. In recent years, many jurisdictions have passed mandatory waiver statutes that require the automatic transfer of certain juveniles into the adult system. Typically, these mandatory legislative waivers apply to youths charged with serious or violent felonies. In some states, these waivers automatically transfer accused juveniles over a certain age to adult court. (Ainsworth,
Many people say that the systems first priority should be to protect the public from the juvenile criminals that are a danger to others. Once the juveniles enter the system there is however, arguments on what should be done with them. Especially for those deemed too dangerous to be released back to their parents. Some want them locked away for as long as possible without rehabilitation, thinking that it will halt their criminal actions. One way to do this they argue would be to send them into an adult court. This has been a large way to reform the juvenile system, by lowering the age limits. I believe in certain cases this is the best method for unforgiving juveniles convicted of murder, as in the case of Ronald Duncan, who got away with a much lesser sentence due to his age. However another juvenile, Geri Vance, was old enough to be sent into the adult court, which caused him t...
A juvenile waiver is when a judge abandons the protections that juvenile courts provide, and transfers a case from juvenile court to adult court. “Usually, juvenile cases that are subject to waiver involve more serious crimes or minors who have been in trouble before” (Michon, n.d., para. 1). There are currently three main types of waivers. First, judicial waiver is the one most common and widely used. Typically, a judge will make the decision of whether a judicial waiver to adult court is required. Judicial waivers include examining the juvenile’s age, offense, maturity level, and relationship with parents, to name a few (OJJDP, 1997). Second, prosecutorial discretion waivers states, “Jurisdiction for certain cases is
Furthermore, the “law and order” model was produced after a strong reaction between conservatives and liberal policies advocated by the national crime commissions. The conservative model originated in efforts to reexamine fundamental assumptions of the adult criminal justice system by a series of special study groups that began with the American Friends Service Committee publication “Struggle for Justice.” The committee’s desire to improve the predicament of prison inmates led to a report in 1971 that suggested that indeterminate sentencing and decisions about parole were conflicting and that they allowed biased judgment and improper criteria to control the timeframe served by inmates. Unfortunately, these motives for rejecting indeterminate
The focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, rather than to imprison and punish like the systems adult counterpart. According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. This has lead to the development of a separate justice system for juveniles that was initially designed to assist troubled juveniles providing them with protection, treatment, and guidance. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “how can we help the child”, “why did the child commit the crime” to “was the crime committed”. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. The prerequisites for transfer to adult court are the duty to protect the public from violent youths, serious crime, and the lack of rehabilitation chance from the juvenile court. According to Flesch (2004) many jurisdictions handle the issue of serious juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. Charging a juvenile as an adult is done by a method which is called waiver to adult court. This waiver allows adult criminal court to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles and handle the juvenile’s case as an adult’s case would be tried. According to Flesch (2004) a juvenile is both tried and if convicted of the crime the juvenile will be sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived from the juvenile court. Waiver to adult court initially was viewe...
The process of transferring juveniles to adult courts has shown no effects on decreasing recidivism or a deterrent outcome. Waiver as it is known has three means by which a juvenile can be transferred to an adult court. Judicial waiver offenses, statutory exclusions, and concurrent jurisdiction are the three methods in which a waiver can occur. This research will describe each one of these methods with detail. It will also provide statistical facts showing why waiver can be a very debatable topic within the juvenile criminal justice system. In its totality it will discuss the arguments for and against waiver.
Heinous crimes are considered brutal and common among adults who commit these crimes, but among children with a young age, it is something that is now being counted for an adult trial and punishable with life sentencing. Although some people agree with this decision being made by judges, It is my foremost belief that juveniles don’t deserve to be given life sentencing without being given a chance at rehabilitation. If this goes on there’s no point in even having a juvenile system if children are not being rehabilitated and just being sent off to prison for the rest of their lives and having no chance getting an education or future. Gail Garinger’s article “ juveniles Don’t deserve Life sentence”, written March 14, 2012 and published by New york Times, mentions that “ Nationwide, 79 adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison-a sentence not imposed on children anywhere else in the world. These children were told that they could never change and that no one cared what became of them. They were denied access to education and rehabilitation programs and left without help or hope”. I myself know what it’s like to be in a situation like that, and i also know that people are capable of changing even children when they are young and still growing.
Prisons are institutionalized systems that hold people hostage against their will. Many believe that these institutions are fundamental to keep balance within society. Although prison systems are meant to seclude troubled individuals, it should go beyond just containing criminals. The judicial system is responsible for correcting and eliminating future delinquent behavior before they can be effectively situated back into society. In saying this, the court system does not implement these actions within prison systems, failing to fulfil the goals and the function of the prison overall. The U.S elots millions of dollars toward funding for our correctional system, but are unable to reform the basic natural rights and maltreatment within the prison system.
One in three teen delinquents are sexually assaulted by staff members during their time in juvie. Even in the place that is supposed to oppose crime takes part in it. Juvenile Detention Centers are supposed to help minors get on the right track for the rest of their life ahead of them. In 2003 The Prison Rape Elimination Act [PREA] was passed to help prevent and protect against prison rape. Though that was passed it still goes on and the superiors of the inmates are still getting away with it.
In today’s society, we often find people who have a bias against the correctional system. We find these people to have no credible source besides the information the media proposes, third party information, or if they themselves have been locked up. Whether we sit and listen to them preach about the corruptness is up to us.
For those juveniles deemed dangerous, or those that have committed a serious crime, a different process would follow their initial contact with the court. This involves the removal of the offender from the juvenile system, to be transferred to the adult criminal court. These offenders are adjudicated as an adult if certain factors are present. The waiver to the adult court is often a critical step in receiving a harsh sentence for juveniles. Two Supreme Court cases have addressed the issue of juvenile waivers and transfers, Kent v. United States and Breed v. Jones. The two cases resulted in specific requirements for transfer hearings, including a) a legitimate transfer hearing b) sufficient notice to family and defense attorney c) right to counsel d) a statement regarding reason for the transfer. However, the waiver of juveniles is often criticized by experts for various reasons. "Minors are likely to be looked upon as special persons by prosecutors, probation officers, and judges in the criminal courts. They are younger than the main population of defendants before the criminal courts…while a minor may be looked upon as a hardened criminal in the juvenile court, (s)he may be viewed as a mere innocent youngster in criminal court." (Abadinsky 72). Some research has shown that the transfer of juveniles is a waste of both time and money. Why? Because the offender often receives the same treatment or senten...
Several studies conducted to determine impacts of transfers of cases from juvenile courts to adult criminal courts for trial and potential sentencing indicate higher recidivism rates among the offenders. This is because of the notion the youth possess on the strictness on the adult courts. They believe trials on these courts end up in harsh punishment for offenders. In a way, adult punishments scare youth away from committing major crimes. However, studies show that short term punishments imposed on young offenders in adult courts propagates the offenders to commit even more crimes that are serious after their sentence terminates. This results from interactions with other crimes bearer behind bars who are convicted for far much worse crimes than they are. In addition the young offenders continued to commit crimes at a higher rate and more often than earlier on (Shari, page 1).
An ethical problem that exists in the field of criminal justice is the incarceration of juveniles. While juvenile incarceration has been decreasing over the past decade, it is still an ethical dilemma that many criminal justice professionals will come across. Juveniles’ brains are not fully developed, incarceration is used when not appropriate to fit the problem, and some populations are over-represented in the criminal justice system.
People support sending juveniles to adult prisons for many reasons. One reason is that it is the job of the courts to help protect society. Once a troubled juvenile is sent to an adult prison, they are out of the way of society. Hopefully when they re-enter, the punishments they received will be imprinted in their brain and stop them from performing any wrong again. Another reason people think that disturbed youth cannot be saved is that punishment will not save them from themselves and they just need to be locked up forever. It is thought to be true that juveniles who are sent to jail will not commit the same crime again or even any crimes at all. All the reasons and opinions that say that juveniles should be sent to adult prisons for their heinous crimes seem logical. Despite this, they are not. There are more rational reasons why adolescents should be sent to their own private penitentiary.
for youngsters who have a long history of convictions for less serious felonies for which the juvenile court disposition has not been effective” (qtd. in Katel).
Yet, that beginning provided the foundation for how our Nation deals with juvenile offenders. A century ago, “the focus of the juvenile justice system was on the juvenile offender—rather than the offense—and that remains largely true today” (Martin, 2005). The juvenile court system is based on “the principle that youth are developmentally different from adults and more amenable to intervention” (Martin, 2005). At its best, the juvenile court “balances rehabilitation and treatment with appropriate sanctions—including incarceration, when necessary” (Martin,