Essay on Research Article Analysis: Juveniles in Prison

This study was limited to juveniles who are protected under the law. This research team was required to sign a waiver that the participants would never be identified. Another limitation to the study is the fact that the juveniles might not be aware of the previous incarceration status of their parents.

Once a minor has been transferred and convicted in a California court of criminal jurisdiction, subsequent charges will be filed in adult criminal court (Center for Juvenile & Criminal Justice). The California state legislature has recently modified the juvenile law so that a minor can be transferred from juvenile court to the adult court and tried as adult in specified serious or violent felony cases, even if the minor is as young as 14. In most juvenile crime cases a judge will determine when it is appropriate to make such a transfer, however, in certain serious juvenile criminal cases the prosecutor may directly charge a minor in adult court. (Neubauer, 446)

According to crimevictimsunited.org, Measure 11 passed with a two-thirds majority in November of 1994, and was first implemented on April 1st, 1995. While this bill had good intentions there have been, in my opinion, some serious side effects. Before Measure 11 was in place, a judge could look at each case on a case-by-case level. A judge used to have the ability to look at the circumstances that came with each case, and was able to actually judge each case accordingly. However, since judges must follow Measure 11 to the T, that power has been taken away from them. Also, due to this bill, juveniles ages 15 and up can be sentenced under the guidelines of Measure 11. That means that once a teenager turns 15 and commits one of the Measure 11 crimes he or she can be charged as an adult and get a mandatory minimum sentence regardless of their criminal history and the circumstances involved with their case. In reality, this is a “One Strike and You’re Out” approach, which is only adding to our problems.

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)

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

Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative

Transferring an adolescent offender to adult court is a tight decision. It has far-reaching implications for the adolescent involved and significant symbolic meaning for the justice system. For the adolescent, transferring to the adult system, it holds the possibility of harsher punishment (including physical, sexual, or psychological victimization by other inmates. Also the endurance of developmental costs (Chung, Little, and Steinberg, 2005; Mulvey and Schubert, 2012). For the system, transferring an adolescent to adult court is an unambiguous statement that the criminal justice system will no longer shelter the adolescent, by virtue of his or her acts, from harsh justice. Transfer to adult court indicates that the demand for proportional

Oregon’s Measure 11, was a mandatory minimum sentencing policy passed in 1994, which imposed long mandatory prison terms for sixteen designated violent and sex-related offenses, prohibited “earned time,” and provided for mandatory waiver of youthful offenders to adult court. Merritt, N. Fain, Tuner, S. (2006). This policy had some negative system impacts than had been anticipated by many state and local criminal justice agencies, due largely to the fact that prosecutors exercised the discretion provided them under the law to selectively prosecute cases(pp 5-6). Proponents of the measure felt that it would improve public safety by both deterring future criminal behavior and increasing the length of time that serious felons spend in prison, while opponents believed that it would adversely affect criminal justice system operations and reduce system integrity.

There are several organizations that are concerned about Measure 11 as a social welfare problem specifically the stipulation involving minors. The Campaign for Youth Justice advocates for cases involving children as the perpetrator to stay within juvenile court system instead of being waived to adult court as Measure 11 does for 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds (Mission and Goals, n.d.). This organization has produced reports highlighting a social injustice toward people of color who have been shown to be incarcerated at a higher rate in Oregon from Measure 11 and is one group that is concerned about the statute. Another group concerned with Measure 11’s impact on youth is the Partnership for Safety and Justice which advocates for policies that make the State of Oregon approach people who are convicted a of crime

A deep look into juveniles in adult prisons. Touch bases on several smaller issues that contribute to juveniles being in and effects of adult prisons. The United States Bureau of Prisons handles two hundred and thirty-nine juveniles and their average age is seventeen. Execution of juveniles, The United States is one of only six countries to execute juveniles. There are sixty-eight juveniles sitting on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. Forty-three of those inmates are minorities. People, who are too young to vote, drink alcohol, or drive are held to the same standard of responsibility as adults. In prisons, they argue that the juveniles become targets of older, more hardened criminals. Brian

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

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

It is a common believe that adolescents require a special system thru which be processed because they are “youth who are in a transitional stage of development…young offenders that are neither innocent children nor mature adults…” (Nelson, 2012). Because juveniles are in a process of constant development sociologically, psychologically and physiologically, the juvenile court system focuses on alternative sentences and the creation of programs that will offer them rehabilitation instead of incarceration. However, in cases of extraordinary circumstances, the juvenile system shifts from looking at rehabilitation as a first choice to accountability and punishment (Read, n.d). All levels of society are collectively involved in delinquency

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.

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.