Special Juvenile Justice System

Reform struggles began in the 1960’s and it had changed the appearance of the juvenile justice system. New York passed legislation in 1962 which made a family court system. This court system took on the responsibility for all concerns which involves family life and heavy concentration on delinquent and neglected youths. The PINS (person in need of supervision) and CHINS (children in need of supervision) were also created by legislation which contains issues like truancy. When utilizing these labels it sets jurisdiction over youth, juvenile courts extended their roles as social agencies. The 1960’s and 70’s the juvenile justice system was changed when it released cycles of decisions that established the right of juveniles to receive due process of law as mentioned above. The goals of were to a) remove youths from incarceration at adult prisons, b) eliminate incarceration of delinquents and status offenders. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act provide 100,000 police officers and billions of dollars for prisons and prevention programs for adults and youth offenders, (Siegel, L.J., & Welsh, B. C., 2012). The juvenile justice system today maneuvers jurisdiction over delinquents and status offender. The delinquent youth fall under jurisdictional age limit which is different from state to state and the condition of act committed in violation of penal code. Status offenders are defined as youths in need of supervision.

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

Juvenile probation officers today have the duty to make several decisions about the case managements cases on their juvenile offender’s clients on a daily basis. The following studies shows the officer’s perceptions of young clients that are repeating violations before carrying out of a risk/needs assessment self-reported, and case management after the proposal of risk/ need assessment by the officer. Juvenile probation officers give the impression to be making service recommendations and placement judgements equal with youth risk levels, regardless of if they claimed to use risk /needs assessment tool while making their decisions. Implications for the use of risk assessments in juvenile probation will be discussed in this paper. Boot camp

In chapter 5 of Corrections in America, the author explains what probation is by outlining its history, describing its conditions and the ways it can be revoked. Another objective of this chapter is to make sure the reader understands how probation targets criminogenic risk factors and the use of economic sanctions.

Probation officer decision-making strategies will also be examined. Next, the impact of race, ethnicity, and gender will be explored. Finally cultural competence will be studied.

The changes that are made towards the sentencing laws have damaged rather than rebuild the probation system. For instance, producing an exploited of managing the system properly consequential which is lacking in quality control especially keeping track of the criminals. Encouraging alterations made on sentencing laws are defective and correspondingly clarifying opponents. Targeting the audience which is law enforcement, the workers for the probation system, county and including the city administrative personnel. From my perspective I believe that certain professionals should be based on their job responsibilities, law involvement with political affiliations, and the individuals that they are surrounded by.

If probation and parole were abolished completely it would have negative reproductions of the likes most could not comprehend. In saying that, I am referring to the massive overcrowding of the prison system as a whole, which the current population is more than most facilities or agencies can manage. Notwithstanding, the cost to house more inmates, build new facilities or maintain existing ones, and increase staff, would be taxing on any jurisdictions budget. Nevertheless, there are valid arguments being made on both sides of the issue and I am of the opinion that there is always room for improvement.

You succinctly described the end goals for the department of probation. As you note, much like the overwhelming number of Americans currently incarcerated, the probation system is also seeing an influx of offenders and not enough trained probation officers or resources. “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19, English Standard Version). At the core of probation is not only supervision but also for probation officers to adequately create reintegration plans. Without the training or resources, probation cannot possibly lessen recidivism rates.

In reality, juvenile courts have not always been around. In the past someone as young as eight years old could be prosecuted as an adult. Though if the person was seven years old or younger they were “incapable of criminal intent.” (Neubauer 445) Eventually at the end of the nineteenth century, the parens patriae doctrine came about. This doctrine states that if the parents are not succeeding in raising their children correctly, the state has the capability and right to step in and intercede. A child constantly breaking laws is definite grounds for the state to step in. This parens patriae

On August 25, 2014, I commenced my internship at the United States Probation Office in El Paso, Texas. During my internship, I was exposed to both sides of what a United States Probation Officer does; first I experienced presentence investigation and then supervision. My exposure within the presentence investigation side included my presence during interviews with defendants, District Court hearings, and Magistrate Court hearings. Further, I assisted in the preparation of presentence reports which included the defendant’s identifying data, his/her offense conduct, criminal history, offender characteristics, and the sentencing options. I investigated relevant facts about defendants, assess those facts in light of the purpose of sentencing, applied the appropriate guidelines, statutes, and rules to the available facts. Additionally, I assisted in organizing files by obtaining proper documents officers need to complete their investigations. Moreover, I assisted in identifying all appropriate guidelines as stated in the United States Sentencing Guideline Manual and calculated the defendant’s offense level and criminal history category. Also I completed collateral requests to different districts regarding a defendant’s prior criminal conduct for the purpose of scoring his/her criminal history. By actively conducting investigative work, it allowed me to become familiar with the documents that officers utilized when completing investigations. Such documents include; NCIC,

The probation officer role is significantly important and recognizably distinguish because they have to seek accurate information that is impartial, acquired in a timely manner, and complied in a comprehensive report court review. The report should be suffice so the determination of sentencing is impartial and to aid in corrections and community corrections officials in managing offenders under their supervision. Officers must adhere to the time-frames set by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or under local rules established by the court. To further note, the recommended defendant sent to the probation officer; the presentence investigation begins immediately and does not desist unless otherwise told by a higher operating authority. Officers receptive to the information provided by all parties is suggestive, but must be very punctilious in not accepting all party’s opinions. Preferably, in how they view the person or situation at

To begin with, accordingly to (Schmalleger, 2014) text, one similarity and one objective, effectiveness and efficiency of probation, parole and immediate sanctions consist of the followings: First, probation is defined as “a sentence served while under supervision in the community. Like other sentencing options, probation is a court-ordered sanction. The effectiveness of probation is that the national is 1,845 for every 100.000 residents. About 65% of the 2.3 million adults discharged from probation in 2010 successfully met the conditions of their supervision. Approximately 16% of those discharged from supervision, however, were incarnated because a rule violation or because they committed a new offense. Another 3% absconded, and 13% had their probation sentences revoked without being ordered to serve time.

The last problem, they face is safety. Probation and Parole officers are often required to work in high crime areas. As a result, officers must carry firearms to

In the article “Technical revocations of probation in one jurisdiction: Uncovering the hidden realities”, focused on the increase of technical revocations. There was a case study conducted to compare offenders who violated their conditions and offenders who completed their conditions. Methods included that, “Many probation officials have attempted to reduce revocation rates by implementing strategies thought to be effective at increasing successful completions of supervision. Cognitive-behavioral programs, substance abuse treatment based on the risk-needs-responsivity model” (Stevens, Oyewoke, O, Hipolito, 2014. P.2). The research considered all types of data including demographic, probation offense and criminal history. After the study of all three factors, the conclusion was that there was no

This leads to a salient point. The concept of probation changed after the 1960s. The focus changed from offender based to triaging the existing organization practices. The intentional goal with probation was to rehabilitate the criminal. This goal changed sometime during “get tough” policies, higher drug crimes and budget constraints on prisons and probation officer case loads. With rising populations and increasing offender rates, the correctional system has not kept abreast in terms of facilities and correctional