Rehabilitating America 's Youth : A Look At The Concerning Impacts Of The Juvenile Justice System

For starters, children in the juvenile correction system are not rehabilitated for drug addictions or treated for mental health conditions. Being incarcerated does nothing positive for them. These children become stuck in the cycle of arrests and reoffending, in which every time they are brought back to a facility it is now exponentially harder for them to return to be a functioning member of society. In fact, there are kids who have been trapped “in this system for decades” (Mayeux). Obviously juvenile detention policies do not work, or these children would have been reformed and not have been in the same situation for so long. Young adults stuck in this cycle get released and then are immediately back where they started when they break another law, harming the teenager’s future, and endangering public safety (Mayeux). Society, in fact, would benefit from a rehabilitory stance on juvenile crime instead of a punishing one. Juvenile detention intervenes in these at-risk children’s lives in a way that actually turns them into criminals, by imposing stereotypes on them, and treating them like they are dangerous, and not worth fixing. The American perspective on juvenile crime needs to change, because the current program is not benefitting at-risk children, or

Whether a child who has committed a serious crime deserves rehabilitation or harsh punishment has been argued and the Juvenile Justice System is being blamed. Children who deserve real punishment are receiving rehab and children who deserve rehab are receiving harsh punishment. Many children’s lives are getting ruined because of unnecessary harsh punishment. Some juvenile offenders are not learning their lesson. The article “Sentences Show Acknowledge Juveniles’ Maturity, and Immaturity,” by Laurence Steinburg and the article, “Remember the Victims of Juvenile Offenders,” by Jenifer Bishop-Jenkins differ not only in their views of issues surrounding the American juvenile justice system, they differ in quality; however, Steinburg who argues for rehabilitation, clearly presents the best argument using logical reasoning and relevant evidence.

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).

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.

Rehabilitation for at risk teens has been an ongoing issue that runs deep in certain communities. When kids at young ages are exposed to stress and have to cope early on with dysfunction they are denied the opportunity to mature and conditioned to commit thinking errors that perpetuate a young offender into an adult offender. To find ways to break this cycle John Hubner accounts his time on the Giddings State School Capital Offenders Program and how a group of counselors are able to combine many strategies in rehabilitating young offenders who have committed serious crimes. Young people convicted of serious crimes are often transferred to adult prisons that institutionalize young people to prison life only increasing the likely hood of

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).

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

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

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.

There are thousands of children that are caught up in the criminal justice system today. For the vast majority of them it will be revolving door. We find ourselves asking what works in juvenile justice system and that is always everyone’s main concern and unfortunately, the most common answer to that question is we don’t know. There is a single important piece of federal legislation affecting youth in juvenile justice systems across the country and it is the primary vessel through which the federal government sets standards for state and local juvenile justice systems. This piece of legislation provides direct

“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

There have been thousands of juvenile programs which have been developed and undergone comprehensive recidivism analysis by outside auditors over the past thirty years. Despite the good intentions of the late Judge Lindsey and other advocates, the collapse of the rehabilitative model can be attributed to: (1) the sacrifice of public safety, (2) not promoting the welfare of youths in the system, and (3) classifying youths as children in the regulation of crime (Scott & Steinberg, 2008 p. 83). Judge Lindsey and other progressives during much of the twentieth century believed in being parental role models, handling youthful offenders as neglected children whose welfare was of primary concern when the state intervened in response to their criminal conduct. The mantra of progressives and professionals for years has been that there are no wicked children, just inadequate parents or guardians; however, now there are psychiatrists who acknowledge that previous thinking was flawed and that some children, through no fault of the parents or their environment, are simply bad seeds (Appleyard, 2010). This thread will offer a brief synopsis of changes to the law in regards to juveniles due to the changes in theory and reality.

Policies were established to keep young offenders from receiving vast charges, that equal to an adult. The informality of the American judicial system surrounding each of these cases has undergone serious changes within the past five decades. In addition, the juvenile court deals with 1.7 million cases per year. While the government's new found “get tough” program is sustainable, author Terry Maroney of Vanderbilt Law School explains, “Juvenile sentences… shield our youth from the unique dangers of adult facilities and preserve the possibility - however slight it may seem - of rehabilitation”(Maroney). The juvenile system has received multiple views of not being harsh enough to startle young offenders of the severity of their crime.

Currently to deal with juvenile offenders involved in the youth crime, there are two options available. The first option that prevails to a larger extent is known to us as incarceration while the second option that is slowly gaining trends is known to us as rehabilitation programs. This paper focuses on thorough analysis of both these options and the impact that they have on the offenders as well as the society as a whole. The paper also assesses the viability of these options in order to determine which of these will prove to be more effective and beneficial.

This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.