Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Juvenile corrections summary
Juvenile justice system introduction
Juvenile justice system introduction
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There are many challenges with the criminal justice system that are emerging and starting to be more of a problem in our society today. Here are just two problems that are affecting the criminal justice system and why they need to change for our future. I will first discuss youth in the criminal justice system and then cover the inaccuracy of lie detectors. “If things were different I wouldn’t be here, but I don’t have anybody looking out for me. It’s just me.” Seventeen-year-old Martin (older youth in pre-trial detention at the closed custody detention facility) this is just one of the thousands of young people who are affected by the system. This gives us an insight why we need to make alterations to our youth criminal justice system.
Youths
…show more content…
We must ensure the proper treatment is used in an age-appropriate manner. We are looking to better their lives by learning about their emotional, behavioral, and developmental differences that separate youths from adults. A regular occurrence in our society today is that youth become subject to adult Criminal Justice System and drawn into its corrupt issues. The injustice is rooted in the incarceration of youth without parole. The Youth Criminal Justice Act was founded on the belief that young people have the ability and potential to change and grow. Nearly 2,500 people have been denied any opportunity to prove that they have been successfully rehabilitated and are safe to integrate back into society. This is just one issue with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, not only is it affecting our youth but also causing difficulties into adulthood. This highlights errors in the system such as; over the punitive treatment of youth, mandatory minimum sentences and lack of judicial discretion, and inadequate assistance of counsel. Starting with over punitive treatment of youth, young people are wired differently than adults, they do not have the same levels of judgment, decision making, and impulse control. Research shows that these parts of the brain are not fully developed until he or she is in their early twenty’s. Even though these youths are exposed to excessively harsh treatment in …show more content…
There are over 200,000 youths under the age of 18 that are removed from the juvenile justice system and tried as adults each year. Issues with this change are that young people become eligible for mandatory sentencing and life without the possibility of parole when no longer being tried under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Furthermore, youths are at a higher risk of abuse, assault, and death. This is due to the overwhelming punishment that causes these young people to take their lives rather than being tried as an adult. There is no further protection for these young people when being tried as adults.
When a crime is committed, the system decides an appropriate sentence for the offense. However, the increase of mandatory minimum sentencing and lack of judicial discretion have slanted this core value. Denying juries, the ability to deliberate the factors of the case to make an appropriate punishment. This issue of youth criminal justice is especially important in cases of youth that have been sentenced to life without parole. With their ability to change and grow, mandatory minimum sentences are both predominant and problematic throughout the criminal justice
When thinking about youth crime do you envision a country with a high rate of young offenders, gang activity and re-offending? Or do you envision a country with a significant increase of young offenders either being successfully reintegrated into society, or helped by a community when seeking forgiveness for a minor offence that they have committed? Since the passing of Bill C-7 or the Youth Criminal Justice Act on February 4, 2002 by the House of Commons, many significant improvements have been made in Canada’s youth criminal justice system on how to handle and care for young offenders. Some of the reasons why Bill C-7 was passed in Canada was because the bill before it, Young Offenders Act, had many problems and suffered large amounts scrutiny by Canadian Citizens. It’s because of these reasons that Bill C-7 had been revised multiple times before being passed, having previously been called Bill C-68, March of 1999 and Bill C-3, in October 1999. With this all being said, many Canadian citizens are still left to ponder a question of if there is even significant improvement in our Youth Criminal justice system when comparing the Youth Criminal Justice Act to the Young Offenders Act? In my opinion, there are many significant improvements that have been made in the Youth Criminal Justice Act which have aided our justice system. By addressing the weaknesses of the Young Offenders Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act has helped Canada improve in the field of youth criminal justice by implementing better Extrajudicial Measures, ensuring effective reintegration of a young person once released from custody and providing much more clarification on sentencing options.
The inappropriate or unnecessary use of incarceration is “expensive, ineffective, and inhumane,” and initiates a “cycle of juvenile reoffending” (Bala et. al, 2009). A study conducted by Mann (2014) exemplifies this cycle of youth reoffending. The youth interviewed demonstrated that despite a stay in sentenced custody, the threat of future punishment was not enough to deter from future offences. Cook and Roesch (2012) demonstrate that youth have developmental limitations that can impair their involvement in the justice system; for example, not understanding their sentencing options properly or their competence to stand trial. Therefore, deterrence as a justification for youth incarceration is ineffective, as incarceration proves to be not a strong enough deterrent. Alternative methods such as extrajudicial measures and community-based sanctions were considered more effective (Cook & Roesch,
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.
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.
According to the authors of And Justice for Some, between the years 1985 and 1997, the number of juveniles placed in state prison more than doubled (Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2000). While they are separated from the adult population if they were tried in the juvenile courts, when a juvenile is waived to the adult court, they are incarcerated with adult inmates in jails and prisons. In the past years, the courts are moving away from case-specific decisions on waiving juveniles to the criminal courts and are now considering the waiver on offense seriousness. This means that even if a person commits a crime at a very young age, if the offense is seriousness, they face the criminal courts. States try about 200,000 juveniles in adult courts every year because their juvenile courts end at fifteen or sixteen years of age, instead of seventeen; in addition, other states try about 55,000 more juveniles even though they were within the ages for their juvenile jurisdiction (Feld, 2008).
This paper will analyze the different theoretical issues pertaining to the modern juvenile court, determine their origin, and suggest a course of action for resolving these issues to the best extent possible. It is important to note, however, that the juvenile justice system alone cannot ever prevent all juvenile crime, respond perfectly to every situation or treat every suspect fairly. Furthermore, an effective antidote to modern juvenile crime would necessitate far broader action, addressing underlying social structure inequalities that breed poverty and social disorganization.
The overwhelming majority of juveniles are involved in impulsive or risky, even delinquent behaviors during their teenage years. However, the majority go on to become very productive citizens who do not commit crimes. In order for this to continue the government established the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which gives young offenders a chance to better themselves, and. By doing so, the YCJA helps teach youth that their actions are unacceptable and the punishments imposed are lesser then an adult. Through the analysis of their unacceptable actions, lesser punishments and a better future, it is clear that YCJA is highly effective at giving youth a better chance in society.
Vandergoot determines that the reasoning capacity of an adolescent, the ability to make legal decisions, and filter unnecessary information is unclear to a juvenile in the justice system; the vagueness of youth stepping into the courts prevents them from fully participating in the justice system. ( Vandergoot, 2006). As a result of this impreciseness youth encounter Vandergoot concludes a separate justice system allocated for youth to adhere to adolescent needs. Vandergoot discusses the Youth Criminal Justice Act a justice system devised to adhere to youth needs. She summarizes the system that benefits young offenders in contrast to adult offenders.
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 modern teen court concept began in the early 1970’s when a small number of local communities in America began to establish the first Global Youth Justice programs (Peterson, p. 2). In 1994 there were 78 youth court programs in existence. As of March, 2010, there are over 1,050 youth court programs in operation in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Teen courts serve as a “diversion” program used to divert first time offenders away from a lifetime of criminal activity. The primary function of most teen court programs is to determine a fair and restorative sentence or disposition for the youth respondent. Although the primary function of teen courts is to rehabilitate offenders, some may wonder if teen courts are actually beneficial to young offenders.
References Glick, B. (1998) No Time to Play: Youthful Offenders in Adult Correctional Systems. American Correctional Association Wilkerson, I (1996) “Death Sentence at Sixteen Rekindles Debate on Justice for Juveniles.” New York Times, November Butts, J.A. and Snyder, H. (1997) “The Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under the Age of 15,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice) Lefevre, P.S., “Professor Grapples with Execution of Juveniles.” National Catholic Reporter Snyder, A. “Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders” (1997) National Center for Juvenile Justice
When discussing juvenile offenders, there seems to be a distinct divide between how they should be treated in a court of law. Some believe such young citizens should be treated with leniency in court, while others could not agree less. So this raises the question, “Should we treat minors with more leniency than their adult counterparts because of their young, developing minds?” I believe that treating minors with leniency is doing them an insufferable injustice and it is vital that we treat them in equivalence to adults to instill the lesson that no one wrongful actions are inexcusable because of their age. First and foremost, juveniles are commonly thought of as underdeveloped and naive children who are not always aware of the repercussions
Changes in public opinion, as well as in criminal justice legislation, have begun to recognize and reflect the unique circumstances at play in the lives of youth who commit crime. That is, it has become widely recognized that the justice system cannot treat youth offenders with the same response that adult offenders are treated with. Minaker and Hogeveen (2009) support this claim and state that youth require “a qualitatively different response” (p. 249). Two examples that reflect this sentiment are: the notion that youth are biologically and psychologically underdeveloped when compared with adults, and that youth possess a unique combination of risk and need that exacerbates their vulnerability as youth.
Life is precious and we live it only once, however, what we do with it is to our own discretion. Today, we see many young ages decide to live a life of misdeed and become what is known as juvenile criminals, but with these unethical actions come with a consequence and to deal with these unlawful adolescent we have the Juvenile Justice Department. The juvenile justice department is a system used to address and deal with youth that are caught and convicted of crimes. However, when young offenders commit a serious crime or constantly being in trouble with the law, they are waived into Adult court where they will be subject to any punishment. In some cases they are waived into the adult system automatically such as homicide cases. Based on the
The United States incarcerates more juvenile delinquents than any other country in the world. Sending the youth to time behind bars can have either negative or positive impacts on the adolescences life after spending years behind bars. Juveniles as young as 13 years old have been tried as adults. Many of them sentenced to spend life in an adult prison without the possibility of parole. Although the number of juveniles in adult correctional facilities is declining there are still a number of issues juveniles are facing within the system today. The real decision most of us are facing today is whether or not we believe juveniles should be incarcerated in the same facilities as adult offenders.