Juvenile Justice System And Ideas For Deter Recidivism

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.

Today I want to talk to you about the seriousness of juvenile crime here in our state and the difficulties that the justice department faces when handling underage offenders.

Juvenile Delinquency has increased throughout the years. In 2008 the United States police arrested about 2.11 million juveniles. Juvenile arrest rates had increased in 2005 and again in 2006. Data show increases in some offense categories but declines in most. Most changes being less than 10% in either direction. According to the data arson at 47% is one of the biggest crimes that juveniles commit. Following are robbery at 27%, burglary at 27%, and property crimes at 26%. Juveniles are creating more problems for parents, schools, and communities. In 2007 juvenile courts dealt with a large amount of juvenile delinquents. About 4,600 cases per day were being treated at the courts (Puzzanchera, Charles).

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

Not only this but, “offenders who commit new offenses after court contact are at risk for a variety of poor developmental and life course outcomes, including school failure, out of home placements, occupational marginality, and long-term involvement in criminal activity” (Schwalbe 2004). As seen here, this is a downward spiral. Active reform has never before been at such a demand. As recidivism and juvenile delinquency continues to increase, not only will national crime rates and juvenile prison populations inflate, but the diminishing of an educated, safe, and economically stable society will also be affected regrettably. If juveniles whom continue to commit repeat criminal offenses lack school initiative, family support, and job exposure, than relatively as recidivism and juvenile criminal activity increases, our nation’s standard of living will consequently lower.

This week’s article focuses on the urgent need for juvenile justice reforms. Maryland lawmakers are questioning whether they should withhold $1 million from the juvenile justice system. These inquisitions over budget allocation resulted from the harsh treatments towards juvenile offenders. For instance, some Juveniles are subjected to strip searches and shackles. The new legislation would rid the Department of Juvenile Services from physically restraining young offenders. Furthermore, the uses of physical restraints on juveniles have been proven to be counterintuitive. Cruel punishments such as shackles counter the notion of rehabilitation. Research suggest that Juveniles that undergo harsh treatment tend to develop ruthless behaviors. In Baltimore,

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.

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.

The United States leads the world in the incarceration of young people, there are over 100,000 youth placed in jail each year. Locking up youth has shown very little positive impact on reducing crime. Incarcerating youth have posed greater problems such as expenses, limited education, lack of employment, and effect on juveniles’ mental and physical well-being.

Juvenile Justice is mainly a state and local responsibility, but the Federal government can contribute in a pivotal way. In many cases state and local have a shortage in financial resources, which leads them to seek

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

Juvenile offenders are increasing day by day regardless of the efforts to control the youth crime. It is important to understand the fact that even though the offenders fall in the young age bracket, they are still a part of human species. Human nature responds to violent actions with violent reactions. Violent reactions cause an increase in the violent actions instead of controlling them. However violent reactions may cause a temporary stop in the violent actions which may lead the authorities to believe that they have contained the crime. However, that doesn't stand true as a temporary stop does not result in a permanent solution.

Youth crimes have plummeted since the late 1990’s. “First established in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois, the juvenile court became the unifying entity that led to a juvenile justice system” (cjcj.org). “Today, states are instituting major systemic reforms designed to reduce institutional confinement, close old 19th century era reform schools, and expand community-based interventions” (cjcj.org). It was not till the 18th and 19th century when courts decided to punish and put juveniles in jail sails as well as sate penitentiaries. In the past it wasn’t that many options; “since few other options existed, youth of all ages and genders were often indiscriminately confined with hardened adult criminals and the mentally ill in large overcrowded and decrepit penal institutions” (cjcj.org). It was believed sat the time America poverty and crime rates was high, so many officials had a lot of pressure to find housing and homes for juveniles for this social issue. In 3effort to solve this issue “pioneering penal reformers Thomas Eddy and John Griscom, organized the Society for the Prevention of

subjected to the juvenile justice system, but an alarming number of youths are transferred to

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.