Juvenile Rehabilitation Research Paper

This assignment states that the current juvenile system focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishing the juveniles. With that in mind, the assumption is that all juveniles can be rehabilitated. The question posed to me is my view on why or why not all juveniles can be rehabilitated? The Webster dictionary defines juvenile’s delinquency as, “A violation of the law or some type of antisocial behavior by a child or young person, and rehabilitation is, “To restore someone to good condition or health.

One of the most debatable topics in today’s justice system is whether or not juveniles should receive waivers to adult court. There are three methods that are used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Juvenile waiver, statutory exclusion, and Concurrent Jurisdiction are the three different methods used to transfer a juvenile to adult court. Statutory exclusion is when the juvenile is transferred immediately to the adult court. Concurrent Jurisdiction is when the juvenile may be tried as an adult and a juvenile at once. Throughout all three methods juvenile waiver is the most common one that is used throughout juvenile courts and used in mostly all states. The only states that do not provide judicial waivers are Nebraska, New York, and New Mexico. When a judge transfers a juvenile to adult court, he or she is denying the protections that the juveniles receive. The judge makes the decision of whether or not the juvenile is tried as an adult. Double Jeapordy laws protect the juvenile from being tried in juvenile court and then adult court because of the fact that a juvenile would be tried twice. Most times 17 or 18 year olds are the youngest age limits that can be waived to adult court, but in some states ages low as 13 or 14 can be waived. It depends on the crime that a juvenile commits on whether or not he or she is transferred to adult court. Once the juvenile is tried as an adult, he or she will be affect in the community for a lifetime versus having his or her records

The U.S made legal history in 1989 when the world’s first juvenile court opened in Chicago (Rank, J.) Since 1990 many states have also adopted the “get tough” approach to juvenile justice as a response to the increasingly violent crimes committed by children.

Today’s heated debate regarding the decision to try juveniles as adults has prompted individuals to construct opinionated and informational articles on the topic. The nation’s troubled youth are protected by groups that believe these offenders deserve rehabilitation and a chance to develop into a productive member of society. However, others believe that those committing certain heinous crimes should be tried as adults as a means to protect public safety, prevent second offenders, and “dispense justice in the form of punishment” (Aliprandini & Michael, 2016). Because these perspectives offer a reasonable and valid argument, juveniles responsible for major crimes

The juvenile justice system has long been in debate over whether its focus should be rehabilitation or punishment. From its birth in the early 20th century, the juvenile justice system has changed its focus from punishment to rehabilitation and back many times. Some say the juvenile justice system should be abolished and juveniles tried as adults, yet studies indicate punishment and imprisonment do not rehabilitate juvenile offenders; therefore, the juvenile justice system should remain

The United States was the only country in the United Nations (UN) to oppose the abolition of the life without parole sentence for juveniles. The US was also the only country in the UN known to sentence juveniles to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, that is until the 2012 Supreme Court Ruling that mandatory life without parole sentencing for juveniles was deemed unconstitutional (Agyepong 83). Life without the possibility of parole for minors is a very controversial and sensitive subject, with overall speculation that such a stance violates the Eighth Amendment by virtue of its nature as cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles. To argue for the claim that minors are not culpable for their actions and that the mandatory life

The United States continues to refuse to ratify it, and, besides Somalia, who has plans to ratify it soon, is the only country in the United Nations who has currently not ratified it (UNICEF, 1989). In the mid 1990’s, a wave of legislation all across the nation known as “Get Tough Laws” was passed after a wave of crime by minors in the early 1990’s in most parts of the country (Law J. , 2009). By 1994, 64% of the total national juvenile court caseload was comprised of delinquency. (Behrman, 1996). In February 20, 2015 councils in the state of Illinois moved to eliminate mandatory sentences of natural life imprisonment for persons convicted of offenses committed before they attain 18 years of age.

In Gail Garingers article Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences, she mentions that “79 young adults have been sentenced to die in prison,” this is an alarming number of youths who made a mistake that they will regret. Sending someone to prison without help will not do anything, it is just takes away their future and life. These juveniles will never have a family of their own, will not be able to see their family everyday, and will know nothing about the world that is going on around them. Garinder also brings up the topic of sentencing a youth to prison without parole, “... decide whether children can be sentenced to life without parole...” If an adult can be sentenced with the same crime for life with parole, why would a kid get life without parole? Especially when a child does not have the full brain capacity as an adult. If a kid commits a crime, everyone thinks they are bad, but what about what is happening to them mentally or in their family for them to have acted out? No one thinks about that. Taking a youths life does not help the situation, it would be more logical to get them a psychologist or rehabilitation for the action that they have

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.

A child has a limited understanding of how the world functions. It is difficult for a child to distinguish right from wrong. Therefore, it would be common sense to try a child, under the age of 18, differently than an adult, with some exceptions being made to frequent offenders and very serious crimes. But that is not the way it is being implemented in the US. There are three ways a youth offender can be transferred from a juvenile court to an adult court in the US. Brink (2004) lists the

Well I think rehabilitation centers have the right idea in trying to better troubled youth, but they still have much more to do. They mainly just try to take the youth off the streets so they don’t commit more crime, but more opportunities such as jobs and other programs can get involved and ensure that instead of these young people committing crimes they are actually doing something productive.

“I used to believe are our future but now I realize that this, sadly isn’t the reality. Through laws that treat kids like adults, the government is throwing away the future of children in this country.” (D. Lee) An estimated 200,000 juveniles are tried as adults. The term juvenile refers to any young person under the age of 18. For most states in the United States, the age of majority is 18. While there are many things that juveniles are unable to do until they reach the age of 18, being charged as an adult for a crime is not amongst those things in some states. Juveniles are not allowed to vote, drink alcohol, or sign a legal contract, yet they can be charged and treated like adults when it comes to them being

Factors such as type of offense, the age of the juvenile offender, and criminal history take

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.

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.