Analysis Of Juvenile Justice Programs

Children that are born into poverty and less than desirable conditions are more times than not, destined to become involved in the juvenile justice system. This may be due the child’s destructive behaviors or for placement out of concern for the child’s safety and well-being. Neglect and abuse is more prevalent in disadvantaged environments and causes sometimes-irreversible emotional problems. For whatever reason the child enters the system, we know that it is not a place for youth to grow, be nurtured and become productive members of society.

Placing a juvenile in a detention center early in the court process increases the risk that youths will be found to be delinquent and damage their prospects for future success. A majority of the youths that are placed in these facilities pose little or no threat to the public and essentially do not need to be there. This portion of the juvenile court process is detrimental to the future and mental aspects of a youth’s life. We desperately need to change the way that we handle the juvenile court system because we are only reinforcing the delinquent behavior that these youths have been exposed to. We need to focus on the rehabilitation and prevention efforts for these youths not the punishment aspect and until then (insert a better ending).

Juvenile delinquency is an ever growing issue in the United States, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “In 2012, there were 3,941 arrests for every 100,000 youths ages 10 through 17 in the United States” (OJJDP, 2014). The way juveniles are treated in the criminal justice system is very different than the way adults are. In 1899, in Cook County, Illinois, the first juvenile justice system in the country was founded. This established an alternative way of dealing with offenders whom are inherently different, in the way they think and commit crimes, than those of adult age. There are a few distinct differences between the juvenile and adult criminal system, but the biggest difference is the

Juvenile delinquency is a controversial topic that this country has been trying to improve on for many years. In the YouTube video “America’s Juvenile Injustice System” Marsha Levick discusses the exact injustices that are occurring in our justice system. She provides examples of those who have gone through the system and did not receive their justice. This video is a Ted Talk done in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and was created with the intent to inform its intended audience about how the juvenile justice system came to be and how much further it still needs to go in order to give justice to all the juveniles who go through it.

It has been one hundred years since the creation of the juvenile court in the United States. The court and the juvenile justice system has made some positive changes in the lives of millions of young people lives over the course or those years, within the last thirteen years there has been some daunting challenges in the system.

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

Juvenile institutions and programs have changed over time. There are also juvenile programs that necessarily do not punish juvenile’s delinquents but instead help modify their behavior to avoid recidivism. Certain treatments and methods regarding how to deal with these dangerous young offenders were fixed and improved to make these institutions and programs more effective in changing the lives of these young

The juvenile justice system has long been in debate over whether its focus should be rehabilitation or punishment. From its birth in the early 20th century, the juvenile justice system has changed its focus from punishment to rehabilitation and back many times. Some say the juvenile justice system should be abolished and juveniles tried as adults, yet studies indicate punishment and imprisonment do not rehabilitate juvenile offenders; therefore, the juvenile justice system should remain

“The effects of the juvenile justice programs are “profound and crippling,” setting youth back instead of helping them.” (Just Learning: The Imperative to Transform Juvenile Justice Systems into Effective Educational Systems) These centers do much more harm than good when it comes to the children staying in these facilities. The “education” that these centers are giving

According to Ruddell and Thomas (2009), in 2006 it was estimated that there was 93,000 juveniles in either a detention center or juvenile correctional facility; however, the arrest rates have decreased at least by 2,000 since 1993. Many juveniles on release are reoffending quickly since most of them have been locked up throughout their developmental years and their brain did not get the right cognitive development it needed to help make the right decision. Many different states and correctional institutions have started their own different programs to help decrease recidivism rate in juveniles. Two programs that will be examined further are the Capital Offender Group that was implemented by Giddings State School in Texas, and the Juvenile Cognitive Intervention Program that was implemented by the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased

“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

Juvenile justice has proved to be as imprudent as it is practical. Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that as early as 1825, there was a significant push to establish a separate juvenile justice system focused on rehabilitation and treatment. The procedure continued to stay focused on the rehabilitation of a person, even though financial support and assets sustained to hold back its achievement. In reaction to rising juvenile crime rates in the 1980s’, more corrective laws were approved (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). In the 1990s, the United States legal system took further steps regarding transfer provisions that lowered the threshold at which juveniles could be tried in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Furthermore, laws were enacted that allowed prosecutors and judges more discretion in their sentencing options; and confidentiality standards, which made juvenile court proceedings and records more available to the public (Snyder and Sickmund 1999), were reduced.

It may seem shocking that America has one of the highest crime rates per capita compared to other similar industrialized nations. Over the years, there have been many discussions and efforts in order to reduce this problem. Perhaps one of the more sensitive issues when discussing crime in America is the problem of juvenile crime. Recently, juveniles make up 3% of all felonies committed each year and 6% of all violent crimes (criminamerica.net). These statistics have troubled politicians for decades as they have worked to find a solution. Starting in 1994 the Clinton administration started putting stricter punishment on juvenile offenders, but it was quickly realized that this harsh punishment may not be the best solution. Various studies and programs put into action have shown that early prevention in a child’s life is much more effective and more cost efficient in reducing crime. Because of these efforts, juvenile crime has reduced 68% since the violent boom of the 1990s. In light of these discoveries, it is important for states to focus on these results in order to reduce crime.