Juvenile Justice Reforms

There were several decisions made by the Supreme Court that formalized courts for juveniles, making them more like criminal courts. Formal hearings were required, juveniles who faced confinement were given the right to receive a notice of the charges being held against them, and also came along the right to be represented by an attorney. In the 1980’s the public noticed that juvenile crimes were rising and that the system was not effective. Soon states began implementing disciplinary laws, some which included a mandatory sentencing and automatically being sent to adult court for certain crimes committed.

The Juvenile Justice System was established in 1899 when the first documented court hearing took place in Cook County, Illinois. This type of court system was designed to discipline, treat, and rehabilitate children under the legal age of eighteen, who are caught and/or convicted of committing crimes against society. Since its creation, many have argued for and against having two separate but parallel court systems. This essay will discuss the basic arguments in favor of and in opposition to the retention of the juvenile justice system.

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.

Juvenile courts have become more and more like adult justice system (more of a call for punitive punishment)

Unfortunately, juvenile delinquency continued to increase, spiking in the late 1980s and early 1990s. While news headlines touted the juvenile delinquency epidemic, the public became fascinated with the rise of the “juvenile super-predator.” In 1992, frustrated lawmakers, who were determined to end the rise in juvenile delinquency, amended the JJDPA to include USC §5667f. This subsection provided funding for state-operated

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;

One hundred years ago, the Illinois legislature enacted the Illinois Juvenile Court Act (1899 Ill. Laws 132 et seq.), creating the first separate juvenile court. The policy debates raging around the country in this centennial year(1899), however, make it uncertain whether the traditional juvenile court will prevail. Early in the 19th century, juveniles were tried along with adults in criminal courts. In common law, children under

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

Illinois was the first state to have a separate court system for juveniles. The court act stated that a person under the age of 16 was considered a minor. It also meant that when they would do something bad, they would be delinquents, not criminals. Being a delinquent is nowhere near as bad as being a criminal, so it would not follow them around all of their lives. From there, the delinquent had their own court of law.

“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

This paper takes a brief look at the history and evolution of the juvenile justice system in the United States. In recent years there has been an increase of juvenile cases being transferred into the adult court system. This paper will also look at that process and the consequences of that trend.

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.

The juvenile justice system is always changing and developing new ideas. The first example of a change or development can be the status offense reform. The basis of this are they are trying to keep the non-delinquent kids form the juvenile justice system. Some examples of status offenses are skipping school, or running away – offenses that are not illegal for adults. These offenses can lead to possibly detention, which might do very little to rehabilitate or change the issues that juvenile has. How this can all change is to bring these troubled kids to community based services to make them learn that it is possible to change and become a better person. Some other examples of changes or developments in our juvenile justice system (that I won’t go into detail about) are the quality of aftercare and how the system is trying to reduce racial-ethnic discrepancies and making it fairer for everyone (models for change).

The rising viewpoint of the child savers was that of parens patriae which said that the state had an assenting duty to get involved and care for the less fortunate kids. In 1899, the first court devoted to hearing cases with juvenile delinquents was developed by the Illinois Legislature. The procedures in the juvenile court were much different from those of the criminal courts. The child would be accused of a crime they committed, but they were offered help, treatment, and direction (Myers, 2008). Juvenile hearings were held in private and the juvenile’s records were kept sealed to avoid the disgrace of a criminal conviction. Since the juvenile courts rejected punishment, they were allowed to have jurisdiction on things adult courts did not consider crimes. These offenses could be anything including truancy, disobedience, bad language, immorality, and vagrancy. Under parens patriae, the juvenile court was allowed to use wide range discretion to resolve the troubles of juvenile offenders and rejected the official procedures of the adult

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.