Main Post: Juvenile delinquency is a problem that affects society as a whole. Understanding Juvenile delinquency is important because it is part of trying to figure out how people in American society should react to it; specifically, in terms of law enforcement officers, their agencies, and State legislators. When deviant behavior becomes "continuous, chronic and widespread it gets perceived as a significant part of the population as threatening to the general well-being of society" (Thompson and Bynum, 2010, p. 44). This is a societal problem that requires attention from various forms of social control. However, a lot of the burden is absorbed by an imperfect Juvenile Justice System. As time has passed, argument has ensued over …show more content…
The functionality of juvenile courts has increasingly become "a system of criminal social control to protect society from young offenders, rather than as a welfare agency to nurture and protect vulnerable children from a wrathful community" (Hickey, 2010). This shift has caused more of a focus on an individual as a criminal in contrast to the innocence of a child. In turn this has created hostility, which has led to more emphasis on social control and incarceration (Hickey, 2010). In addition, the shift has moved juvenile courts further away from a rehabilitative standpoint. The point of rehabilitating juveniles when they are in adolescence is to try to prevent adult criminal behavior. Another problem is that juvenile courts lack resources to provide social welfare for children. This issue was created because of state agencies having the "control over the institutions and programs to which judges send delinquents," rather than juvenile courts having the control (Hickey, 2010, p. 148). The lack of resources by juvenile courts has occurred because the responsibility of providing child welfare does not rest solely with the juvenile courts (Hickey, 2010). The best way to describe this problem is that "providing child welfare is a societal responsibility, not simply a judicial one" (Hickey, 2010, p. 148). Some people support reform of the juvenile court system to re-emphasize its social welfare agency aspect. They suggest that more
The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. They take special care when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat offending and stop any potential bad behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles have the highest tendency to rehabilitate and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system.
The juvenile justice system can be dated back to the late 18th and early 19th century. Youths were confined to jails with mentally ill and hardened criminals because there were no other alternatives for them. Many of these youths were in these institutions for non-violent offenses. During this same time, many American cities had to find a solution to the overwhelming rate of child neglect. Today, there is still much debate about the well-being of youths in the criminal justice system. The juvenile justice system plays an important role in society because it allows youths the opportunity to change their behavior. The current system is effective in providing programs for juveniles in an effort to
Discussed earlier was the idea of rehabilitating youths in reformatories at the House of Refuge, but only youths deemed reformable (Fox, 1996). What about the youth who were not reformable? What about the youth that commit a serious violent offense such as murder, rape, torture, or armed robbery? In the 1980’s during the “get tough” on juvenile crime movement, states passed waiver legislation that allowed for the transfers of youths to adult court (Kupchik, 2003). Not only has there been no significant findings that trying juveniles as adult does not lower the potential for recidivism, but it has not been found to be an effective means of crime control (Fagan, 2008). Although being tried as an adult opened up even more constitutional safeguards than had been provided post-Gault, the transfer of juveniles to adult court went against the moral notion of keeping youths out of court and out of the system (McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., … Stone, G., 2007). How does the juvenile justice system, after years of reform and change get back to being a therapeutic and focused on individualized justice? Is it possible?
The juvenile justice system is imperfect, at best, and part of this stems from the fact that juvenile justice, as a specific, discrete category of crime and punishment is still a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact, the notion of childhood and adolescence as distinct phases of human development is a novel idea that did not truly emerge until the twentieth century, so it is only natural that some elements of the juvenile justice system seem to have been made up they went along. Now, however, after substantial research into juvenile delinquency, it causes, and potential solutions, a much clearer picture of the phenomenon is emerging that will allow parents, teachers, legislators, and law enforcement officials to better reduce juvenile delinquency without imposing unnecessarily harsh restrictions of juveniles. By examining the history of the juvenile justice system alongside more recent research into juvenile delinquency, it will be possible to see how the most effective treatments going forward will likely focus on reducing risk before delinquency occurs and rehabilitating juveniles already in the justice system, as opposed to more punitive measures that mark juveniles as a criminal and thus hinder them for the rest of their lives.
At the end of the 19th Century, the U.S. made legal history when the world's first juvenile court opened in Chicago(Horwitz-Prisco). The court was founded on two basic principles. First, juveniles lacked the maturity to take responsibility for their actions the way adults could. Second, because their character was not yet fully developed, they could be rehabilitated more successfully than adult criminals. More than a century later, these principles remain the benchmarks of juvenile justice in the United States(Horowitz-Prisco).In recent years, however, a growing number of juvenile criminals are being tried as adults. In part this stems from public outrage against children who are committing violent crimes. Many young children in America are
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
It has been almost 171 years since the establishment of America’s first juvenile detention center. Despite the change in culture, developments in psychology, and many years of application, the countries approach to reconciling criminal activity among youth has changed very little. A marginally refitted form of the model of adult incarceration, with a small amount of programming added in, has been the standard for rehabilitating delinquents set forth. It is absurd and ancient standard that has only produced failure at a high cost. The American Juvenile Justice System and its laws are in need of a overhaul to a system
The American Juvenile Justice System is still fairly new. The first juvenile court was established shortly over a century ago in 1899 in Chicago, Illinois. During its formation, the philosophies concerning juvenile justice shifted from a punitive standpoint to a more rehabilitative approach (McCarter, 2011). This was the court’s first attempt to acknowledge the distinctive cognitive and maturity levels between children and adults. Therefore, juvenile courts were meant to function as civil courts instead of criminal courts, placing minimal focus on the offenses committed by juveniles and instead focusing on their
There have been thousands of juvenile programs which have been developed and undergone comprehensive recidivism analysis by outside auditors over the past thirty years. Despite the good intentions of the late Judge Lindsey and other advocates, the collapse of the rehabilitative model can be attributed to: (1) the sacrifice of public safety, (2) not promoting the welfare of youths in the system, and (3) classifying youths as children in the regulation of crime (Scott & Steinberg, 2008 p. 83). Judge Lindsey and other progressives during much of the twentieth century believed in being parental role models, handling youthful offenders as neglected children whose welfare was of primary concern when the state intervened in response to their criminal conduct. The mantra of progressives and professionals for years has been that there are no wicked children, just inadequate parents or guardians; however, now there are psychiatrists who acknowledge that previous thinking was flawed and that some children, through no fault of the parents or their environment, are simply bad seeds (Appleyard, 2010). This thread will offer a brief synopsis of changes to the law in regards to juveniles due to the changes in theory and reality.
The issue of juvenile transfer to criminal court is a very sensitive subject to every individual who care about the young ones in society, because it pertains to our youths who are considered to be “the future.” Many will ask if it is right for us to allow juveniles to be transferred to adult criminal court, and if so under what circumstances. Some believe that the best course of action regarding juvenile offenders is not transferring them to criminal court but rehabilitation – these individuals view punishment as a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching skills, or developing new or more positive
The Juvenile Justice System was created as a separate network from the Criminal Justice System so that juveniles could be treated differently from adults but still be held accountable for their crimes. This system takes more of a rehabilitative approach to help the juvenile offenders rather than to simply punish them because the goal is to keep the youth on the right path and prevent them from becoming lifelong criminals. While the goal remains the same, different states have different laws in place and other methods when it comes to rehabilitation as well as punishment. Punishment for juveniles always sparks debate because many people argue that punishments such as the death penalty and life in prison should not apply to the youth because of their age. Others argue that without this kind of punishment there would be no fear for juveniles in committing serious crimes which would lead to an unfair practice of justice. An unfair practice of justice occurs across the juvenile justice system already in which race, gender, and ethnicity plays a huge role in determining how far into the system a youth goes. Changes have to be made to this system in order for improvement to be seen but it has to start from the beginning where the juveniles first come into contact with the 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
It is a common believe that adolescents require a special system thru which be processed because they are “youth who are in a transitional stage of development…young offenders that are neither innocent children nor mature adults…” (Nelson, 2012). Because juveniles are in a process of constant development sociologically, psychologically and physiologically, the juvenile court system focuses on alternative sentences and the creation of programs that will offer them rehabilitation instead of incarceration. However, in cases of extraordinary circumstances, the juvenile system shifts from looking at rehabilitation as a first choice to accountability and punishment (Read, n.d). All levels of society are collectively involved in delinquency
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.
As stated by Bartol and Bartol “Juvenile delinquency is an imprecise, nebulous, social, clinical, and legal label for a wide variety of law- and norm-violating behavior” (2011, Pg 139). The juvenile delinquency term has come to imply disgrace in today's correctional institution. Our government is up hold to procedures and expected to come with a solution to solving the delinquent problem. An underage offender can be labeled a delinquent for breaking any number of laws, ranging from robbery to running away from home, and especially being involved in school violence. The following situations faced by correction officials when dealing with juvenile delinquents will be examined. Three main areas (child development, punishments, and deterrence