Juvenile Probation Officer Cases

When a juvenile commits a crime, many suggest that they are placed in a detention center for the crime committed. Placing juvenile offenders on probation has proved to be a more disciplined procedure rather than placing him or her in an institution. People’s view of juvenile offenders’ placement on probation feel that it does not deter crime. Placing juvenile offenders on probation rather than sending them to a juvenile detention center is a more effective way of working with juveniles and preventing future crimes. Juveniles placed in a detention center with adults are at risk to commit other offenses. Juvenile probation officers provide counseling services, may assign the juvenile offender community service hours, make sure that the probationer has no contact with the victim, and maintain close contact with their probationers to make sure that they are staying out of trouble. Placing juveniles on probation reduces the rates of juvenile delinquents committing future crimes. While juveniles are on probation their officer will monitor the probationer closely making sure that he or she abides by the contract made between both. If violated, there will be consequences to follow. Placing juveniles on probation not only allows the juvenile to remain within their community, but also when completing community service hours within their community they are learning to become responsible for their crime and are working to pay off their debt.

There are several steps to the criminal justice system, one of them is Probation; a program where the offender’s freedom is limited; usually they have a curfew, and have limits on the things they do. Probations Officers are a huge factor in getting the juvenile offender back on the right track following their sentence. One of the problems with probation is that rather than helping the offenders, sometimes it can hurt them. Some scholars argue that the officers do not take the juveniles, specifically females, seriously when it comes to referring them to receive mental health treatment. In contrast, other scholars argue that Probation Officers are the key to connecting the offenders with mental health care. I will begin by talking about how the gender of the juvenile contributes to the unjust treatment of juveniles on probation, then I will talk about probation officers as “the problem,” and lastly I will talk about a solution. I will conclude by stating my research question and making some contributions as to what can be done to build a stronger relationship between the offenders and the probation officers.

My chosen career path is to become a Juvenile probation officer. Juvenile probation officers work with youths that have been placed on probation and or have been court order to attend an alternative consequence school to continue their education. Most juvenile probation officers work with youths at a particular stage of their probation process, for an example supervision or investigation. This paper will cover information on the juvenile justice system and my career choice by touching bases with my interviewee a Juvenile Probation Officer Shelvin McGill the agency he is employed with as well as its clientele, I will also speak on the job description and responsibilities, his theory-of-use, and briefly touch on why he chooses this line of work, and his educational background.

Juvenile Probation Officers have the authority of a Peace Officer when handling any probationer in the state of Arizona. When dealing with a juvenile on probation, a Probation Officer has the power to arrest with only reasonable suspicion. A Probation Officer also has the right to search a probationer without a warrant. All of these authorities of a Police Officer are honored to a Probation Officer when encountering a

As described by Kelly Peterson juvenile probation officers work with high risk teens along with their peers, family, work, school and involved activities. People like Kelly do there best to try and keep juveniles out of the adult system and further criminal systems. Over the course of Kelly’s visit she talked about many things some main points being; Her caseload and how she manages it, the main kinds of cases she deals with, and the court experience of people in the juvenile system.

America’s juvenile justice system has been around for ages and has had problems since its creation. The courts have failed to devise a way to help juveniles and keep them from even entering the justice system. More often than not, juveniles are forgotten and never dealt with until they reach the point where they are either going to be placed within the system or receive some sort of diversion or alternative. This is where the problem exists. There needs to be more communication between the different levels of the juvenile justice system. Particularly between the officers that may arrest these juveniles, the probation officers that deal with them, and of course the judge in the court system. The juvenile court is supposed to have provided due process protections along with care, treatment, and rehabilitation for juveniles while protecting society. Yet, there is still considerable doubt as to whether the juvenile justice network can meet these goals (Cox, Allen & Hanser, 2013).

Studies have conducted that those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) are wrongly treated in juvenile justice systems. In this article, written by Kristi Holsinger and Jessica P. Hodge, these two authors go into great detail on the ways the LGBT community is wrongly treated within the juvenile justice system and analyze an interview that examines the challenges for the staff and for the women, as well as how to support those who are members of the LGBT community.

The Juvenile Court authorities must weigh the interests of public security with the needs of wayward youth when making determinations in regards to the most suitable program(s) and the level of circumscription necessitated. There have been thousands of juvenile programs which have been developed and undergone comprehensive recidivism analysis by outside auditors over the past thirty years. Objectives require balance in selecting correctional options that meet individual offender needs to contribute to crime reduction and prevent recidivism. Incarceration is necessary to incapacitate violent offenders; however, there are better alternatives for non-violent offenders who are not career criminals. Programs of incarceration for low offense juvenile

Researchers conducted a national study of how the juvenile court judge weighs the pertinent Kent criteria. This criterion is based on the potential risk to the community, the maturity of character and amenability to intervention. The purpose of this study is three fold, first to test the juvenile court judges' beliefs regarding the mechanics of how juveniles are transferred, second to examine the judges' beliefs about the usefulness of data presented of them and third determined how juvenile judges' weigh pertinent psychological concepts linked to transfer cases when making a decision. There were four hypothesis based on previous research and theory, one would be juvenile judges' prefer case by case sorting and second juvenile court judges would find information on the Kent concepts useful to their decision and want the Kent information in the form of a psychological report. The third hypothesis is weighing the concepts; juveniles who scored high on dangerousness and sophistication- maturity, but low on amenability to treatment would most likely be transferred to adult court and fourth youths scoring low on the dangerousness and sophistication- maturity but high on the amenability to treatment would most likely retain in juvenile court.

One risk is a recurring theme over the various modules that have been covered during this course, which is the developmental difference between juveniles and adults. Juvenile’s brain, mental capacity, emotional capacity, etc… is not fully developed during adolescence. This immaturity among these different development features leads to juvenile offenders not being as culpable and not being competent enough to stand trial in the adult criminal justice system(Lecture). Another risk with transferring youth is the increase of criminality among juveniles that are introduced to the adult criminal justice system. As the adult system is more focused on punishing the offender for the crime committed the juvenile justice system is more focused on the individual and correcting their behavior to rehabilitate that individual(McGowan et.al., 2007). A third risk is the effectiveness of transferring juvenile offenders to the adult system. Those juveniles that get transferred are more likely to continue to reoffend and get re arrested on violent crime charges (McGowan et.al,

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is clearly an effective bill. Since the introduction of YCJA, crime for youth has been decreasing at a rapid rate. (Show graph) In this graph you can see that since the start of the bill (which was introduced in 2003) there has been a huge dip in “Total youth court cases”. Following that statistic the other categories have notably been decrease along with it. How do they achieve this? The YCJA guides youth. Instead of just tossing them like they are some criminal that serve their time and head off, the bill provides things like counselling and community service to teach them their wrong doing and send them off as useful citizens that's shouldn't be coming in and out of prison constantly. Witout a doubt this would

The decision to transfer a youth 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 under what circumstances transfer should be allowed. 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 attitude and beliefs. While others believe that if they are old enough to do the crime, they should accept the court’s punishment. Over the years several young offenders have had their cases tried

Although based on the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile justice process works differently. Juveniles can end up in court by way of arrest, truancy or for curfew violations or running away. A youth may also be referred to the juvenile court system by school officials or a parent or guardian for being continuously disobedient. The juvenile justice process involves several different steps including intake, detention, adjudication, disposition and aftercare following release from a juvenile correctional facility. In this paper we will breakdown the numerous steps involved in the juvenile justice process as well as compared some

My career I have chosen is a juvenile probation officer. A JPO or juvenile probation officer looks after youth who have been found guilty or convicted of a crime or been placed under protective supervision. JPO’s work very close to schools, law enforcement, and families. They also must make sure their clients are in compliance with the legal system. This field interest me because I love the legal system. Also, I love being able to help young people better themselves so that society can see the good in them. There are kids who turn to violence because that is all they know. I feel as though I could be the one to make them change for the better.

The field of probation is staffed by dedicated individuals who believe that young persons who break the law can change their behavior in favor of law-abiding activities. Probation departments cannot, however, limit their intake of probationers like private providers or State training schools, which routinely operate over capacity and often have caps on admissions. In that sense, probation is the “catch basin” of the juvenile justice system and is being confronted with increasing and, as indicated below, more dangerous