Juvenile Justice System's Courts and Corrections

Placing a juvenile in a detention center early in the court process increases the risk that youths will be found to be delinquent and damage their prospects for future success. A majority of the youths that are placed in these facilities pose little or no threat to the public and essentially do not need to be there. This portion of the juvenile court process is detrimental to the future and mental aspects of a youth’s life. We desperately need to change the way that we handle the juvenile court system because we are only reinforcing the delinquent behavior that these youths have been exposed to. We need to focus on the rehabilitation and prevention efforts for these youths not the punishment aspect and until then (insert a better ending).

Juvenile delinquency is a controversial topic that this country has been trying to improve on for many years. In the YouTube video “America’s Juvenile Injustice System” Marsha Levick discusses the exact injustices that are occurring in our justice system. She provides examples of those who have gone through the system and did not receive their justice. This video is a Ted Talk done in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and was created with the intent to inform its intended audience about how the juvenile justice system came to be and how much further it still needs to go in order to give justice to all the juveniles who go through it.

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.

Terry, VanderWaal, McBride, and Holly, discussed the impact of substance abuse within the juvenile justice system. They discussed treatment programs and services that are currently available. Improved substance abuse interventions have the potential to reduce recidivism amongst juveniles. Funding is needed to improve substance abuse treatment centers. Funding for program development requiring collaborative applications may provide valuable incentives for the development of successful juvenile justice collaborations. (Terry, VanderWaal, McBride, & Holly, 2000). Tsui discusses the shortcomings of utilizing detention as the primary method of dealing with the juvenile justice system. Tsui focused on the city of Chicago, and examined the present state of the juvenile justice system by identifying possible barriers and solutions to integrating restorative justice practices in a system primarily focused on detention. (Tsui, 2014).

I advocate for a revision of the juvenile justice system that truly promotes social justice. The ideal detention facility I propose for delinquent juveniles more so resembles the practices and concepts the Missouri Division of Youth Services provides. This system does not bar children in cells. It does not force them to wear dehumanizing uniforms, they are provided with sufficient and well-trained mental health professionals. They are provided with anger management programs. It is devoted to “offer a demanding, carefully crafted, multilayered treatment experience, designed to challenge troubled teens and to help them

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)

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

Juvenile delinquency has become a controversial issue within the Criminal Justice system. In the United States, juvenile delinquency refers to disruptive and criminal behavior committed by an individual under the age of 18. In many states, a minor at the age of 16 to 17 ½ can be tried as an adult. Once the individual reaches adulthood, the disruptive and criminal behavior is recognized as a crime. However, the criminal justice system has divided juvenile delinquency into two general types of categories that has brought upon controversial issues of inequality and corruption. Yet, putting young individuals in juvenile detentions facilities seems to open the door for them to commit more crimes in the future. Therefore, under certain circumstances juveniles should be tried as an adult.

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 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.

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

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.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the belief that children are different from adults; therefore, the justice system and corrections sanctions for juveniles should acknowledge the differences. “Rising juvenile crime rates during the 1970s and 1980s spurred state legislatures across the country to exclude or transfer a significant share of offenders under the age of eighteen to the jurisdiction of the criminal court” (Fagan, 2008). The acknowledgement of these differences should be the bases for a proper juvenile justice system. The examination of the juvenile justice’s systems history, trends, and causation theories will provide an insight into the future of the juvenile justice system.

It may seem shocking that America has one of the highest crime rates per capita compared to other similar industrialized nations. Over the years, there have been many discussions and efforts in order to reduce this problem. Perhaps one of the more sensitive issues when discussing crime in America is the problem of juvenile crime. Recently, juveniles make up 3% of all felonies committed each year and 6% of all violent crimes (criminamerica.net). These statistics have troubled politicians for decades as they have worked to find a solution. Starting in 1994 the Clinton administration started putting stricter punishment on juvenile offenders, but it was quickly realized that this harsh punishment may not be the best solution. Various studies and programs put into action have shown that early prevention in a child’s life is much more effective and more cost efficient in reducing crime. Because of these efforts, juvenile crime has reduced 68% since the violent boom of the 1990s. In light of these discoveries, it is important for states to focus on these results in order to reduce crime.