Crime and Youth Care Facility

Reform struggles began in the 1960’s and it had changed the appearance of the juvenile justice system. New York passed legislation in 1962 which made a family court system. This court system took on the responsibility for all concerns which involves family life and heavy concentration on delinquent and neglected youths. The PINS (person in need of supervision) and CHINS (children in need of supervision) were also created by legislation which contains issues like truancy. When utilizing these labels it sets jurisdiction over youth, juvenile courts extended their roles as social agencies. The 1960’s and 70’s the juvenile justice system was changed when it released cycles of decisions that established the right of juveniles to receive due process of law as mentioned above. The goals of were to a) remove youths from incarceration at adult prisons, b) eliminate incarceration of delinquents and status offenders. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act provide 100,000 police officers and billions of dollars for prisons and prevention programs for adults and youth offenders, (Siegel, L.J., & Welsh, B. C., 2012). The juvenile justice system today maneuvers jurisdiction over delinquents and status offender. The delinquent youth fall under jurisdictional age limit which is different from state to state and the condition of act committed in violation of penal code. Status offenders are defined as youths in need of supervision.

The act’s framers were concerned with the framework of the juvenile justice system. Believing that they could restrain juvenile delinquency through prevention rather than punishment, they increased the quality of the juvenile justice system. Policy specified that, “kids should be treated as kids” (Ravenell, 2002). However, rising crime rates throughout the late 1970s and 1980s lead to disillusionment with the system. The public became concerned that juvenile justice policy was too lenient. Practitioners scrambled to enact harsher penalties in an effort to slow the rising juvenile crime rates. The new policies restricted lenient punishment such as probation and lead to an increase in incarceration rates (Meade & Steiner, 2010).

A “Yes” vote for this measure meant that various changes have been made to the juvenile and adult criminal law. Among the more significant changes is the requirement that more juvenile offenders are to be tried in adult court; it requires that certain juvenile offenders be held in local or state correctional facilities; increases penalties for gang-related crimes;

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

The California Youth Authority which is now known as the California Division of Juvenile Justice has gone through years of criticism. This institution is part of the division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that offers several programs such as education, training, and treatment for California’s most serious youth offenders. The California Youth Authority became the go to alternative for the increasing rate of juvenile offenders that committed the most heinous crimes. This institution first opened in 1943 as a reform school, and today it functions similar to adult state prisons. Since that time over thousands of inmates were incarcerated inside of the California Youth Authority. In March of 2000, proposition

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 United States continues to refuse to ratify it, and, besides Somalia, who has plans to ratify it soon, is the only country in the United Nations who has currently not ratified it (UNICEF, 1989). In the mid 1990’s, a wave of legislation all across the nation known as “Get Tough Laws” was passed after a wave of crime by minors in the early 1990’s in most parts of the country (Law J. , 2009). By 1994, 64% of the total national juvenile court caseload was comprised of delinquency. (Behrman, 1996). In February 20, 2015 councils in the state of Illinois moved to eliminate mandatory sentences of natural life imprisonment for persons convicted of offenses committed before they attain 18 years of age.

Removed the minimum age _ currently 14 _ for trying as adults kids who commit the most serious crimes like murder, rape and armed robbery.

Did you know, that in the United States alone, Over 200,000 children are charged and imprisoned every year as adults? Early in the 20th century, most states established juvenile courts to rehabilitate and not just punish youthful offenders. The system was designed for children to have a second chance at their lives. “A separate juvenile-justice system, which sought to rehabilitate and not just punish children, was part of a movement by progressives to create a legally defined adolescence through the passage of child-labor and compulsory education laws and the creation of parks and open spaces.”(How to reduce crime Pg 1) Although the view on juveniles committing brutal crimes is nearly inconceivable, it is not a solution to give juveniles adult consequences because the effects of the adult system on juveniles are not effective.

When thinking of reforming the juvenile justice system one has to think; what can we do to make this better for everyone involve? There are some programs that can be implemented when trying to make a change in the juvenile system. The main thing is getting parents or the guardian more involved in the child’s whereabouts. Secondly the community where the youth will have a place to go and have something more constructive to do to keep them out of trouble. Law enforcement can get involved in giving ride along and having visits to the local jails or prisons from the youth to talk to some of the inmates. Crime in life isn’t racist at all it has a no age limit, no certain gender and no social status for most of those whom decide to partake in a criminal activity. From the beginning juveniles have been an issue with law enforcement, the question has always arisen of whom will take control without cruel and unusual punishment and assist with the rehabilitation and prevention future crime actions.

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.

By law adolescents are not able to vote, purchase tobacco or alcohol, join the armed forces, or sign a legal contract. Children are not permitted the same rights and responsibilities as adults because the law recognizes their inability to make adult decisions. The law acknowledges that children are unable to handle the consequences that come along with the rights that adults have. By allowing them to be charged as adults is holding them to a double standard. Telling them that they are not old enough to enjoy the same luxuries as adults, but they can experience the same punishment as adults if they commit a crime. The law acknowledged the inability of children to make decisions but still allows them to suffer the same consequences as adults. Research demonstrates that transferring children from juvenile court to adult court does not decrease recidivism, and in fact actually increases crime. Instead of the child learning their mistake they are more likely to repeat it. Juvenile detention centers have programs that help reconstruct young minds and help them realize where they went wrong. Prison does not offer this same opportunity. (Estudillo, Mary Onelia)

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.

Every process has room for improvement, but the juvenile justice system can be altered by adding in possible solutions of what can be done to help this problem in American society. About 100 years ago, juveniles were always tried as adults. Now, that the government has altered the system for the better, the government knows that trying juveniles as adults is not always justified. It depends on the crime, but the majority of the time, juveniles are often always tried as juveniles, based solely on their age. Not only that has changed; the process of juvenile justice has changed as well to better help the juveniles in the system. The rights of juveniles in the system have changed so that the children can improve their lives once they are out of the system. Even though the process has changed and the rights have improved for the juveniles, there are still many improvements to be made. Studies show that recidivism rates are in fact going down, but the rate can always be better so that juveniles do not return to a life of crime.

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.