Cjs 240 Intro to Juvenile Justice the Juvenile Justice System's Need to Focus on Rehabilitation

With the escalation of murders and rapes committed by minors as seen in recent years the people are looking for the right answer. Public concern over the effectiveness of the juvenile courts when dealing with these offenders has brought about change in the justice system. (Stolba, 2001). The courts now, are quicker to transfer a juveniles’ case to adult court than when the juvenile system was first formed. There stands a conflict of interests within the two court systems. Juvenile courts are to protect the rights of youths determined incapable of adult decisions. The primary concern is that the youth be rehabilitated and not become a repeat offender. Thus, protecting the child from incarceration with adult criminals and any possible future victims. The concerns of the adult court is to make sure the convicted offender pays for their crime and that the victim gets justice. Rehabilitation is not a primary concer of the adult justice system.

Bartollas & Miller (2008) states that the future of the juvenile justice system faces a variety of challenges, the population of juveniles under the age of eighteen will increase between 2000 and 2025, about one half of the 1% per year. By 2050, it is estimated that the juvenile population will be 36% larger that it was in 2000. Given this population growth of juveniles in the years to come, it looks like the juvenile justice system will have greater demands placed on it.

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

In the United States, over 90,000 juveniles are incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities. To house 90,000 juveniles, majority non-violent offenders, it costs the states roughly 5.7 billion dollars annually. “With states facing serious budgetary constraints, it is an opportune time or policymakers to consider ways to reduce juvenile justice spending that won’t compromise public safety.” In the effort to reduce juvenile justice costs, community-based programs known as pretrial diversion programs were implemented. Pretrial diversion programs did not only reduce funding costs, but benefited the juvenile as well. Pretrial diversion programs main objective is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, which ultimately led to lower recidivism rates and safer communities. As a result of the benefits to all parties involved, today’s juvenile judicial system offers more juveniles the opportunity to attend these diversion programs; rather than proceed through traditional criminal justice processes. (Justice Policy Institution)

The United States juvenile justice court was based on the English parens patriae adopted in the United States as part of the legal tradition of England. But the efforts of the state to rehabilitate juvenile offenders with institutional treatment with the houses of refuge and reformatories failed. Today, the United States has 51 different juvenile court systems; the laws and statutes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Thus, each state’s approach to handle the youth offenders is responsible for how the youth offenders will experience the justice system. Both the past and the present approaches to deal with juvenile offenders have shaped today’s juvenile justice system.

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

Juvenile corrections encompasses the portions of the criminal justice system that deal with juvenile offenders. Many of these facilities and programs seem to mirror jails and prisons, but juvenile corrections are not meant for long term sentences. Sometimes sentences for juveniles are only several weeks long. Juvenile corrections also have a strong focus on rehabilitation because studies have shown that juvenile offenders are more prone to rehabilitation than adult offenders. These programs and services were aimed to help to teach

Our current juvenile court system began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The ultimate goal of having a separate court system for juveniles is to rehabilitate young offenders rather than punish them. The court also hopes to deter young offenders from preforming further delinquent behavior. Unlike the adult court system, juveniles do not have the right to a public trial by jury. Instead, they undergo an adjudication hearing where the judge rules whether the juvenile is a delinquent. Since this separation, several studies have been conducted to weigh the benefits and costs; such as effectiveness, efficiency, and cost of resources, of having two court systems. Is the United States juvenile court appropriate or should it be abolished? Abolishing the juvenile court system would mean juveniles and adults would both undergo the same criminal justice system. Rothstein states in his research that juvenile courts are a cost-effective way to handle less serious offenses by children (as cited in Acker, Hendrix, and Hogan, and Kordzek, 2001, p. 200). On the other hand, Robert Dawson (1990) argues that there are not enough legal differences between juvenile and adult courts for there to be a need for a separation, concluding that overlap between both systems is so great that having a juvenile court is unnecessary. Supporting this argument, Barry Feld (1997) calls the two systems “duplicative” (p 69).

Within this paper the writer will be discuss the public policy on Juvenile Justice Reform. Within the paper the writer will describe the issue, tell if the policy a regulatory or legislative-initiated policy, and who initiated the issue or policy. Also the writer will discuss is there a constitutional issue, and how will the issue or policy affect the community, the accused, and the victims and a conclusion at the end of the paper.

Currently to deal with juvenile offenders involved in the youth crime, there are two options available. The first option that prevails to a larger extent is known to us as incarceration while the second option that is slowly gaining trends is known to us as rehabilitation programs. This paper focuses on thorough analysis of both these options and the impact that they have on the offenders as well as the society as a whole. The paper also assesses the viability of these options in order to determine which of these will prove to be more effective and beneficial.

The juvenile justice system is similar to the criminal justice system. This system is where juveniles are processed, and may be arrested after referrals for juvenile delinquency. Juvenile justice is very different in every state and can be very similar as well because every system has limited jurisdiction and that most focus on the offenders and not their offenses. Therefore, there are 51 juvenile justice systems in the United States. The United States has the juvenile justice system because children are very different than adults – in that they can be better receptive for change and also being easier to rehabilitate. Moreover, the main goal of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation (Juvenile Law Center). The juvenile justice system is made up of police, courts, corrections, probation and parole services, as well as community-based programs to name a few (book).

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 article offers a compelling argument for the treatment of juvenile offenders, approaching the subject with a perspective centered in economics. Since state tax revenues are used to detain criminals, this investment can be better spent on rehabilitative treatments, as it will save the state money in the future by decreasing recidivism. Therefore, this study supports other research in echoing the potential of rehabilitative measures to aid juveniles.

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.