American Juvenile Justice System Analysis

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

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.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the belief that juveniles should be rehabilitated from committing crime. It was the belief of the government that juveniles do not posses the cognitive reasoning of adults, therefore should not be punished as adults. The juvenile court was formed in 1899 with the belief that the government needs to play a more active role in the rehabilitation of juveniles. This belief held strong up until the 1980's when President Ronald Reagan took office. The beliefs in juvenile rehabilitation were fading and an alternative was rapidly being put into motion, juvenile incarceration. Juveniles being incarcerated was not

The juvenile justice system is a foundation in society that is granted certain powers and responsibilities. It faces several different tasks, among the most important is maintaining order and preserving constitutional rights. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with committing a crime there are many different factors that will come in to play during the course of his arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation process. This paper examines the Juvenile Justice System’s court process in the State of New Jersey and the State of California.

America’s juvenile justice system has been around for ages and has had problems since its creation. The courts have failed to devise a way to help juveniles and keep them from even entering the justice system. More often than not, juveniles are forgotten and never dealt with until they reach the point where they are either going to be placed within the system or receive some sort of diversion or alternative. This is where the problem exists. There needs to be more communication between the different levels of the juvenile justice system. Particularly between the officers that may arrest these juveniles, the probation officers that deal with them, and of course the judge in the court system. The juvenile court is supposed to have provided due process protections along with care, treatment, and rehabilitation for juveniles while protecting society. Yet, there is still considerable doubt as to whether the juvenile justice network can meet these goals (Cox, Allen & Hanser, 2013).

Within the past decade,nearly every single state has altered its juvenile program in reply to observed increases in serious, persistent, and pugnacious youth crime. These adjustments weaken the power of juvenile courts as legal decisions and statutory adjustments transfer more youths from juvenile courts to criminal courts so that youthful offenders can be sentenced as adults. Corrections to juvenile sentencing regulations perpetuate the punitiveness of sanctions made accessible to juvenile court judges. Supplementary strategies seek to "combine"or merge, juvenile and criminal court power and sentencing power above pugnacious youthful offenders. These "get tough" strategies alter the numbers and varieties of juveniles confined in mature and juvenile correctional abilities and pose fundamental setbacks for administrators in both systems; accelerate the functioning within the procedural integrity amid the juvenile and convict justice systems; and corrode the rationale for a distinct juvenile court.

“The juvenile justice system was first created in the late 1800s to reform United States policies on how to handle youth offenders. Since that time, a number of reforms - aimed at both protecting the "due process of law" rights of youth, and creating an aversion toward jail among the young - have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system, which is a shift from the United States’ original intent (2008,Lawyer Shop.com).” The

To completely understand the current issues surrounding the direction of the juvenile justice system is easy to obtain when one focuses on how the juvenile justice system has changed since its inception. The United States wanted to reform its policies for dealing with juveniles that enter the justice system, so in the late 1800’s was the beginning of a number of reforms. Several reforms focused on protecting the rights of youth, such as through “due process of law”. The United States has shifted from their original intent and purpose for the juvenile justice system to a system more comparable to the adult justice system.

Juvenile Justice System are beneficial to troubled teens. The idea of a teen that is committing crimes is an idea that should be dealt with instead of ignoring and taking the teens to jail for a crime that maybe had some emotional story behind it. The DMC helps the male teens to build their character. Not only does it build character but it also rehabilitates and treats the teens. Specialist are stunned when they found out about this program. Only a few of these programs exist around the country.

The purpose of this paper is to make others aware of the vast inequalities in our justice system, Memphis & Shelby County conclusively. I pose the question, are the current programs effective, or are the politicians and judicial system talking loud, but doing nothing? I gathered this information from Shelby County, TN. After closely reading it, I still was not convinced that the system treats/punishes black youths the same as white.

​In the text, Thomas Bernard examines the cyclical nature of the juvenile justice system (Weisheit & Culbertson, 2000, p. 13-31). The author posits that the implementation of juvenile justice is constantly swinging from one extreme to the other based, largely, on the public’s perception of juvenile crime and punishment at a given time (Weisheit & Culbertson, 2000). Bernard describes the cycle as a four-part process (Weisheit & Culbertson, 2000). First, there is a societal impression that juvenile crime rates are extremely high with too many overly harsh punishment options and few lenient alternatives for less serious offenses. Next, society determines that something must be done to avoid the forced choice (harsh punishment or no punishment) for juvenile offenders. In response to the general feeling that a greater range of punishment severities may be needed, major juvenile justice reforms are implemented, creating a wide range of possible punishments, including more lenient options. Finally, in the fourth step of the process, the public once again feels that juvenile crime is a major problem that needs to be addressed. The renewed public sentiments cause policy makers to—once again—implement harsher punishments for juveniles as a crime reduction attempt.

The modern day Juvenile Justice System (JJS) in the U.S. evolved out of fragmented reform movements throughout the country that began in 1800 and continued into the 1900’s, Progressive Era. Out of the many movements that were occurring in various states, two pioneered approaches took place that could easily be considered the roots of the entire JJS. In 1824 in the state of New York, the New York House of Refuge became the nation’s first reformatory for children. For the first time, there was an alternative to placing young offenders within jails and it did not take long for other states to create their own versions to address growing concerns about incarcerated youth (Einstein Law, 2015). Next, Illinois in 1899 changed the way young offenders interacted with the court with the creation of the nation’s first juvenile court. For the first time the focus shifted from that of criminalization and punishment, to one of social support that provided guidance, care, and kept young offenders from almshouses and penitentiaries. In addition, the Illinois Juvenile Court removed the stigma of labels and afforded protections to the young by creating closed proceedings and using terminology such as petitions of delinquency, dispositions and adjunctions instead of criminal charges, sentences and trials to (Long, 1999). Once the idea of a formalized JJS took hold in the country very little changed until the U.S. Supreme court and Federal Government pass laws that regulated the entire

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.

Juvenile delinquency has been a problem in the United States ever since it has been able to be documented. From 100 years ago to now, the process of juvenile delinquency has changed dramatically; from the way juveniles are tried, to the way that they are released back into society, so that they do not return back to the justice system (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). Saying this, juveniles tend to

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.