Arizona Youth Assessment System Case Study

The purpose of sentencing is to ensure youth are held accountable for their actions focusing on a rehabilitation and re-integration approach, while ensuring youth are given an appropriate consequence. There are many differences to sentencing a youth than an adult. A young person lacks the maturity of an adult, and the youth justice system must reflect that fact. Some differences include accountability and level of maturity, rehabilitation and reintegration are strongly emphasized, increased protection on procedures, and the intervention is implemented in a timely

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

Transferring an adolescent offender to adult court is a tight decision. It has far-reaching implications for the adolescent involved and significant symbolic meaning for the justice system. For the adolescent, transferring to the adult system, it holds the possibility of harsher punishment (including physical, sexual, or psychological victimization by other inmates. Also the endurance of developmental costs (Chung, Little, and Steinberg, 2005; Mulvey and Schubert, 2012). For the system, transferring an adolescent to adult court is an unambiguous statement that the criminal justice system will no longer shelter the adolescent, by virtue of his or her acts, from harsh justice. Transfer to adult court indicates that the demand for proportional

73).” He believes the juvenile court has shifted away from the idea of rehabilitation and protection of youth to more punitive measures found in the adult system, and believes youths should be incorporated into the adult system and that their “youthfulness” be seen as a mitigating factor at the time of sentencing. He proposed a sliding scale for youthful offenders in the adult system would save time and money, due to the fact both systems, regardless of terminology, are quite similar in terms of their orientation and how they deal with offenders (Feld,

As was shown above, prevention/intervention modalities have been effectively initiated for children as young as three to four years of age in an effort to address the issues and possibilities for juvenile delinquency. Effective treatment of juveniles in the system comes with specific responsibilities to be considered meaningful and significant. Juvenile treatments should reduce recidivism, have well-described procedures in treatment, have well-defined training protocols for therapists, monitoring procedures for treatment and proven evidence of long-term outcomes (Heilbrun, 2005). Delinquency prevention programs are not designed with the intention of excluding juvenile justice personnel. Many types of delinquency prevention programs, especially those that focus on adolescents, involve juvenile justice personnel such as the police (Siegel & Welsh p. 401). Often, for the purposes of funding, effective programs should also have a documented cost/benefit analysis attached to its program characteristics (2005). Following are two examples of treatment modalities that have proven effective in working with juvenile

Within the Juvenile system no one really takes the time to systematically track the statistics concerning the changes that need to be made within the system to deter juvenile offenders. The system tends to move slowly when it involves change because it can be costly. So, with many budget cuts happening we will need to tackle the problem, by first looking at the number of juveniles that are committing crimes and at what rate. Then we need to find out what type of programs we can put in place to deter juvenile type offense and keep them down. Once we can analyze the

Probation in juvenile justice has a very specific role. The first important thing to keep in mind is the underlying reasons for crimes committed by youth and the importance of distinguishing this from the reasons why adults would engage in criminal activity (King County, 2012). As such, the Juvenile Probation Office regards accountability as important when young people like John commit crimes, but it is also important to prevent further delinquent activity. Hence, the Office considers incarceration or institutionalization only as a last resort

In most situations, once a juvenile has been accused of a crime, the individual appears in court and the case is heard by a judge. The judge will determine the sentence the juvenile has to complete. According to the NCCP, most juveniles receive punishment, such as community service of probation (Kihl 10). When the youth face the possibility of incarceration in an adult prison, juveniles will less likely receive any rehabilitative or therapeutic services in the facility. The youth who are charged with most serious and violent crimes are more likely to tried as adults and more likely to be sent and sentenced to an adult prison, Juveniles that minor offenses, such as, theft or burglary, are more likely to be sent to a juvenile center. Because

When transfer to adult court juveniles’ procedural rights may increase in adult courts, but would have multiple drawbacks for a youth. Once the juvenile has transferred in criminal court, the juvenile can be sentenced to longer punishments, lose the right to vote and received educational funding by the government and will have a criminal record that can be used against him if he commits another crime. Therefore, this juvenile is being subjected to the three strikes sentencing structure. Juveniles are also victimized in the adult penal setting in which waivers have been known to increase more crimes by the youth. Juvenile retained in the juvenile system are not more likely to reoffend than those waived youths will reoffend more quickly and more often, than those

Juveniles offenders demonstrate higher rates of substance abuse indifference to non-offending juveniles. Recidivism increases more often with substance abuse and mirrors a deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system. The likelihood that a youthful offender will have extensive interaction with the system is in part due to drugs and alcohol use. Substance abuse has also produced rebellious behavior in juveniles. More serious offenses are linked with severe substance abuse and increase the rates of offending.

The evaluation of success for the purpose of justice is worth seeing the adolescent’s age to be no longer considered a juvenile. Has society dealt with the crime correctly or does the cost for said decision outweigh the punishment the juvenile deserves? Is this the right direction? The struggling issue the legal system is navigating through leads into a decision pointing the said juvenile in the right direction by guidance and education or destroying the juvenile by matching a harsher punishment to a particular crime. In order to make the appropriate decision, a list of “pros” and “cons” would be able to offer some assistance. The “pro” side for a juvenile court system is direction and guidance. This court system sees the lack of maturity and discretion of this youth. This should give cause of seeing the youth as “different” than an adult and should be held less blameworthy for the crime committed. This court’s main objective is to handle the youth through policed courses and correctional involvement for the purpose of rehabilitation. The court focuses on the “age” instead of the “crime.” Transferring to the adult courts, the purpose is to bring harsher sentences for the crime committed as well as the slim chance of “getting off” the hook by attending counseling or other step-process program. Adult courts also see the victims and their families need relief for the crime committed against them. Adult courts do offer the juvenile the majority

AZYAS is a risk assessment tool for the juvenile and for the protection of the community. It assists the Juvenile Probation Officer in making appropriate recommendations to the court and in deciding the correct path of supervision. The degree of negative history involved might show the necessity of a harsher sentence and/or more strict terms of probation. For example, if AZYAS shows that the youth in question has a history of violence, substance abuse, of associating with anti-social peers with substance abuse, I would conclude that there is a strong reason to recommend that the juvenile not be allowed to associate with those peers involved in anti-social behavior. Further recommendations to the court would reflect the need for more

place for someone not yet an adult; after all, prison is a place where many believe to be hell.Abolition of the juvenile court would not require that all young offenders be sent to adult prison. Many states already operate separate correctional facilities for young adults (under age 21, under 23, etc.). There is not enough reason to suggest that juvenile should not belongto the adult court system; after all, the division is just a waste of money and time on thestate’s part. The use of juvenile courts in Arizona was ended by the “Stop Juvenile CrimeInitiative” and was endorsed by 63% of Arizona voters. According to a NBC New-WallStreet Journal poll, two thirds of Americans think juveniles under the age of 13 who commitmurder should

The juvenile justice system in America has been suffered several stages and changes in the process of administration of justice to juvenile offender, today as result of this changes exist an application of the law to the juvenile offender with individual justice and an adequate rehabilitation that is fundamental to the system (DC: National Juvenile Red de justice, 2012)

The juvenile justice system is designed to correct and change the behavior of juvenile offenders. Change in behavior is an indication the system is working. If there is no change, the system is deemed ineffective and a team of juvenile justice consultants are called in to make corrections. In reality, this team is composed of four state officials whose sole purpose is to develop a proposal to present to the state legislature for recommendations of adjustments to the juvenile justice system. This team of consultants is creating these