Separate Juvenile Justice System

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.

The dilemma of whether or not to transfer juveniles to adult court has been a major topic, for many years, in the United States. Since 1899, judges have had the option to transfer juveniles to adult court. The major factor for transferring juveniles to adult court since then has been the seriousness of the offense. That being said, juveniles only make up a small portion of violent crimes in the United States. Only 16 percent of juvenile offenders in 2008 were arrested for violent crimes (Champion,2008). The problem is the determination of whether the crime is serious enough to be waived and transferred to adult court. Almost every state has statutory judicial waiver provisions, which grant juvenile judges the authority to transfer

There many things that the state of Illinois has done that they claim they were the first in the nation ever do, we had the very first skyscraper in the world, we had the first deep dish pizza and we also elected the very first African-American president of the United States. One of the other things at the state of Illinois was first and is we were the first state in the entire nation to have a juvenile court unlike the other first that I mentioned this one seldom ignites a passionate discussion or even impresses many people, the very first juvenile court in America was founded in Cook County in 1909 soon after the rest of Illinois and then the nation implemented very similar courts. These courts were first designed to help wayward use find

During the Progressive Era - a period of industrialization, capitalism, and stratification of the class system - reformers helped establish the juvenile justice system as a way to decrease the rising juvenile crimes while also maintaining the dignity of the ‘uncontaminated’ and therefore deserving youth (Platt, 1977; Peirce, 1869). However, in reality, the complicated nature of working with children and crime have left the juvenile justice system continue to struggle with clarifying and following through with its mission. As social workers, whose mission is to strive for social justice as well as pay “particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty” (NASW, 1996), it is critical that we look more closely at the reasoning behind why we are still unable to define and follow through with what social justice looks like for these youth 200 years later.

The article Changing Juvenile Justice Policy in Response to the US Supreme Court: Implementing Miller v. Alabama by Alesa Liles and Stacy Moak examine the evolution of juvenile justice policy in the United States, by analyzing three important Supreme Court holdings: Roper v. Simmons (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), and Miller v. Alabama (2011). These decisions have transformed the juvenile justice system, by recognizing the inherent differences and needs of juvenile offenders. Liles and Moak (2015) investigate the impact of Miller (2011) on state juvenile justice policies, by examining each state’s legislation regarding mandatory life without parole and similar sentences for juveniles. The authors conclude the article, by proposing

Through the court systems in the United States there is a major distribution of probation between the juvenile court system and the adult court system. More than 70,000 juveniles were incarcerated in youth prisons or detention in 2010. Case studies show that more than 500,000 juveniles are taken to confinement centers every year. Not including the juveniles who by pass the detention center and make their way into the adult court system where they are later tried. Juveniles stand out of any prison that they may be asserted to because most acts are created by those younger than the age of 18 those juveniles are allowed to be trialed under the administration of the juvenile court until age 21. Prison is not a place most juveniles while be able to with stand. So the juvenile judges process a variety of different legal options to incorporate both the safety needs of the juvenile while also dealing with the well-being of the community and the rehabilitant needs of the juvenile. In some cases, the state will even pay jails to not allow juveniles to be accepted into their facilities. Juveniles are adequately still labeled as children no matter how grown they may think of themselves as. The mind of a person does not mature appropriately until that person reaches their premature twenties. An Arkansas study documented that juveniles who were formerly imprisoned for a crime were about 15 time more likely to constrain another crime. Probation has been a more efficient route when dealing

Reforming Juvenile Justice Law is the topic, which handles the treatment of children (under 18) who are in conflict with the Penal Code or vulnerable because they are at odds with the Penal Code and addresses the root causes that have made or offered to children to be in conflict with the law essentially. Today, the court system in this nation is partitioned into two gatherings when looking at juveniles and adults. One is the Adult Criminal Justice System, and the other is the Juvenile Justice System. The wording can be altogether different between the two systems. Case in point; if an adult is captured, they will be liable to a safeguard hearing. On the off chance that a juvenile is captured they should experience a detainment hearing. Adults

Over the past 50 years the Juvenile Justice system has seen many changes to their philosophy and how they handle juvenile matter. Supreme Court cases like In re Gualt, In re Winship, New Jersey v. TLO, Roper v. Simmon have helped shaped the juvenile justice system. Juvenile courts can no longer ignore the constitutional rights of juveniles. Tennessee has 98 juvenile courts, 109 juvenile court judges and 45 magistrates. In 1982, The Juvenile Court Restructure Act amended Tennessee Code Annotated §§37-1-201 through 37-1-214. The purpose of this act is to provide adequate juvenile court services in every county in Tennessee. The Tennessee Code Annotated §37-1-203 states, “general sessions courts shall exercise juvenile court jurisdiction except

According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “was the crime committed” to “why did the child commit the crime”, “how can we help the child”. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. In this paper I am going to discuss the three primary mechanisms of waiver to adult court: judicial waiver

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 victim justice system is divided into the criminal justice system and the child protection system. Although its two different system, they work together to ensure the victims safety. The criminal justice system focuses on the crime itself whereas the child protection system focus on helping the child. After the initial report, a screening is done to see if there is enough information. If there is enough information, the investigation then starts. Child protective service will notify the police if there is any problem. The child might be taken for medical examination and mental health evaluation. To ensure the safety of the child, the investigators can take them into custody. Then the court will decide who to give the parental rights

“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

Since the early 1990s the transfer of Juvenile waiver has been an enormously heavy topic on whether a juvenile is fully culpable of a crime or not. The option of juvenile waiver has been a proceeding ethical argument between the courts and the families of the juvenile. According to Forst and Blomquist (2012), criticism involving the juvenile system began in the 1960s and expanded into the 1970s because of the soaring crime rates. The desire for juvenile waiver began with the interpretation that the System failed because of these crime rates. Although juvenile systems across the nation, controversy surrounds the topic of Juvenile justice. There is a constant search for who is in control of the child that is being held in court.

In Chapter two, it discusses the separation of juveniles from the criminal justice system. It really stood out to me that there were different groups and programs to help separate the youth. Those groups were the Chicago Boy's Court and Youth Counsel Bureau. The Chicago Boy's Court used community service groups such as a Catholic Church agency, a predominantly Protestant agency, a Jewish Social Service, and the Colored Big Brothers. This really helped the youth because they were released into their supervision. It also helped because the groups would evaluate the individual’s behavior over time and report back to the court. If the youth made satisfactory progress then the individual would be released without a record. The Youth Counsel Bureau