Adjudicative Competency

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

At national, state, and local levels, there is increasing recognition of the importance of identifying and responding to the mental health needs of youths in the juvenile justice system, as policymakers and practitioners struggle to find ways to address causes and correlates of juvenile crime and delinquency. The proposed guidelines for mental health assessment provide explicit information about how, why, and when to obtain mental health information on justice youths at each important juncture in processing.

Rehabilitation for at risk teens has been an ongoing issue that runs deep in certain communities. When kids at young ages are exposed to stress and have to cope early on with dysfunction they are denied the opportunity to mature and conditioned to commit thinking errors that perpetuate a young offender into an adult offender. To find ways to break this cycle John Hubner accounts his time on the Giddings State School Capital Offenders Program and how a group of counselors are able to combine many strategies in rehabilitating young offenders who have committed serious crimes. Young people convicted of serious crimes are often transferred to adult prisons that institutionalize young people to prison life only increasing the likely hood of

In the juvenile justice system there are many different areas of need. Many juveniles to this date have struggled in the court system. For example: Competence to stand trial in a juvenile court, psychiatric/mental disorders, sexual abuse/assault, diminished cognitive abilities, and severe learning disabilities (Jones, 2003). The three that this paper will be focusing on are CST, MHS, and sexual abuse/assault (Jones, 2003). Forensic evaluations help not only the courts and attorneys to better advocate for those clients in need but also help to give attorneys a better understanding and communication process with their clients. This is a positive solution for the attorney to be able to do a better job (Jones, 2003).

Juvenile justice settings, especially in Texas, were not designed as sites for comprehensive psychological and psychiatric treatment of adolescents’ mental disorders. On national, state, and local levels there has been a major increase in the interest of mental health needs within the juvenile justice system. Evidence-based research and data has become more available with societies interest into this matter. A continuous struggle with Texas policymakers and officials is identifying and properly treating mentally ill juveniles and keeping them out of the justice system. Acknowledging established data and comparing it to current Texas mandates helps seek recommendations for improvement within all levels and jurisdictions of the Texas juvenile justice system.

As a contrast, there are many differences between the adult and juvenile justice system. These differences consist of the right to a jury, the right to post bail, leniency of evidence, different court proceedings, the right to a public trial, and rehabilitation efforts. As for the purpose of this paper, we will dissect the differences of the two systems. Many appeals have been filed under the notion that a right to a jury should be upheld for juvenile offenders. The courts have voted against this action time and time again. These appeals are made on the assumption that, as noted earlier, adult crimes should be tried as adult crimes. However, the court rules on this matter while keeping the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile courts in mind, as opposed to the more punitive measures. Their desire to see kids treated as kids are defined with their upholding of the law, and pushing rehabilitation to its max. But should rehabilitation be the prime focus when the act is of adult capacity; even in a child’s body? I do not think so. What are the percentages of rehabilitation success with adults for committed capital offenses? How are they going to differ when a child partakes in them? I think there is a

lives around; rehabilitation gives kids 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 (Reaves).” This is another way to look at the situation. When it comes to juvenile’s rehabilitation is a way to help the juvenile fully understand what have gotten them in their certain situation. Also, it’s a way to add onto what they can do to make sure the juvenile doesn’t

In order to properly address mandatory incarceration for chronic juvenile offender’s criminal activities, it is important to begin with psychological assessments and evaluations. Half of our youths have experienced some type of psychological trauma such as depression, PTSD, personality disorders, anxiety, anger issues, or dissociation, just to name a few (Moroz, K. 2009). In order to determine mandatory incarceration, all of these factors must be considered. I will agree with most of our society that is , if they are a danger to society and serious of the crime, they need to be put into detention, where they cannot cause harm but where they can received the right intervention program and mental health treatment for them, it’s the law. The juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate not punish young offenders. Punishment is not the answer in solving their delinquent behavioral patterns.

To examine current treatments, firstly, seeing the re-offenders rate is helpful. Although the re-offenders rate of juvenile offenders are not calculated nationally, according to 2010 Juvenile justice Outcome Evaluation Report (2010) by California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in California, State-level incarceration recidivism rate of minors released in fiscal year 2004 to 2005 is 56.5 percent. 56.5 percent of released juvenile offenders returned to incarceration within 3 years. Also 81.1 percent of minors leased in fiscal 2004 to 2005 were rearrested. 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report (2012) by CDCR shows 25.4 percent of juvenile offenders who released from Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in 2007 to 2008 returned to Division of Adult institutions (DAI). From 2010 to 2012, the rate had decreased more than half. However, in 2010 to 2012, still one of every four juvenile offenders commit a crime again. The expectable recidivism rate can be considered as a large number. The higher

Modernizing Mental Healthcare in The Juvenile Justice System Rhoshunda Ellis Walden University Modernizing Mental Healthcare in The Juvenile Justice System Introduction As a Human Services Professional with a background in criminal justice, this article will focus on accessing and helping juvenile offenders in the United States struggling with mental health disorders. For sentenced juveniles with behavioral problems and concerns of mental health, being included in a juvenile mental health court can provide psychological, behavioral, educational, social, and familial clinical assessments for use in determining best approaches to treating the underlying causes of many delinquent behaviors. Throughout the 1930s, the Chicago School of Psychology recognized treatment for juvenile offenders that focused on the economic and social aspect of the criminal activities of juveniles, (Granello & Hanna, 2003). During this time, juvenile courts were established and designed to yield an alternative form punishment of juvenile offenders in an adult criminal system. Emphasis was being placed on rehabilitation instead of punishment; however, in the mid-1980s punishment of juvenile offenders become the top priority. Because of the severe wave of juvenile during the late 1980s, States used the beginning of the 1990s to revise their juvenile statues that they relied so heavily upon. "Under new laws, certain charges or offenses required legal responses based on the nature of the offense"

Many have argued that competency to stand trial is the “most significant mental health inquiry pursued in the system of criminal law” (Cowden & Mckee). This pillar of the American Legal System assures that those accused of criminal acts must be sufficiently competent to understand and partake in the trial proceedings. The threshold of competence can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it mainly hinges on a series of factors such as cognitive deficits, the presence of a mental illness, and an inability to comprehend or effectively communicate with legal counsel. While this standard was made legal precedent in the 1960s it was only in regards to the adult criminal system; however, in past decades legal reform has allowed for youths to be tried and subjected to the same punishments as adult defendants (Schwartz & Grisso). This legal development brings about a very imperative issue: Should youth offenders be subjected to the same standard of competence as their adult counterparts? Furthermore, since these statutes were developed for determining competency in adults, can they properly recognize the uniqueness of the youth population?

The National Registry for Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP), which is preserved by the United States’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), provide a list of all evidence-based practices that are beneficial for youth offenders (SAMHSA, 2017). Per SAMHSA (2017), between 50-70 percent of the youth in the juvenile justice system, have a mental disorder and up to 60 percent have been diagnosed with a substance use disorder (SAMHSA, 2017). Of those youth with dual diagnosis, approximately 30 percent have lost the ability to function as a result of their disorder (SAMHSA, 2017). Therefore, to determine the best treatment plan for youth offenders, evidence-based practices focus on the importance of

In most states, public safety and whether or not the needs of the juvenile defendant will

Finally, literature on the juvenile justice system often focuses on program implementation and effectiveness at addressing rehabilitation, as well as diversion techniques within the system (Greenwood, 2008). This review audits these problems in detail and establishes them within the bigger struggle in the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate youth offenders.

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in 1899 as a part of the Juvenile Court Act. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than adults. In all but three states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her eighteenth birthday is considered a juvenile offender. Now more than ever, states and countries have begun to question the reliability of the juvenile court. Some believe the juvenile court system should be abolished because of its insufficient gain to the community. Others believe children are not fully capable to understand the degree of their actions and the consequences that come from them and believe that juvenile courts are a necessity in the court system.