The Corruption Of The State 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).

With the escalation of murders and rapes committed by minors as seen in recent years the people are looking for the right answer. Public concern over the effectiveness of the juvenile courts when dealing with these offenders has brought about change in the justice system. (Stolba, 2001). The courts now, are quicker to transfer a juveniles’ case to adult court than when the juvenile system was first formed. There stands a conflict of interests within the two court systems. Juvenile courts are to protect the rights of youths determined incapable of adult decisions. The primary concern is that the youth be rehabilitated and not become a repeat offender. Thus, protecting the child from incarceration with adult criminals and any possible future victims. The concerns of the adult court is to make sure the convicted offender pays for their crime and that the victim gets justice. Rehabilitation is not a primary concer of the adult justice system.

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.

Over 1/3 of the 11,000 index crime arrests were juveniles under the age of 16.

There have been many studies conducted that examine ways in which the juvenile justice system responds to female offenders. Historically juvenile female offenders have been treated under status offense jurisdiction (Zahn et al., 2010, p. 10). United States Courts would exercise the principle of “parens patriae” to place the female in detention as a form of punishment for misbehavior (Sherman, 2012, pp. 1589-1590). This principle also remains prevalent as it pertains to how the juvenile justice system currently responds to juvenile female offenders.

With this message directed towards juveniles, as well as the likely chance that juveniles whom are transferred to the adult criminal court system will result in some type of incarceration, this may lead to a deterrence of violent or misbehaved actions committed by juveniles in an attempt to avoid these prosecutions. These statements conducted by Urbina and White (2009), are statements to consider on the issue of a juveniles transfer to adult criminal court. Although there are strong facts to support this type of transfer for juveniles, Urbina and White (2009) also found that this might not be the best option in some cases. There have been studies that showed juveniles whom were transferred to the adult criminal court system and sent to adult jails were more likely to re-offend and with more serious crimes than did their juvenile counterparts (Urbina & White, 2009). With this study that was conducted, it adds doubt to the fact that juveniles should be transferred to the adult criminal court system. Although, at times, this may be the best option for serious and violent repeated offenders, it is not likely that this process will have a positive affect on the juvenile or the community. Urbina and White (2009) continue to lack strong argumentative evidence to show the exact times that transferring a juvenile to the adult criminal court system is the

This book’s main proposal is that there is a blatant contradiction in the way that the juvenile justice system is carried out. Throughout the book, Feld proposes that as a result of this contradiction, the modern juvenile justice system fails in every way possible to establish justice for youthful offenders, provide them with any rehabilitation, or provides any preventative measures that were originally the purpose of the system. What originally constituted the juvenile justice system no longer is supported through its processes, but the ideas that helped form the original system are still somewhat maintained. The idea of childhood during the progressive era, in short, say that there is a definite distinction between kids and adults, and that kids deserved special treatment when it came to dealing with offenses. Kids did not deserve as much blame as adults do because they are not yet totally in control of their actions, and thus to preserve and protect troubled children’s futures, kids

The juvenile justice system exists to separate the youth from the adults that are imprisoned. The separation exists because of the different levels of maturity that are present between the two age groups. These young offenders are not arrested for the reason of punishment; they are arrested to be rehabilitated so they do not become habitual offenders later on in life. It gives them the opportunity to see what life will be like for them if they are to be adult offenders. With that being said, there are some instances where these young adults are to be tried as an adult offender with an adult punishment. Throughout most of history, young offenders were tried by the same courts as those that tried adults and were subject to the same sanction which does include execution and incarceration. (Masters, p 450, 2013) There are some places that truly believe that young criminals shouldn’t be treated like adults, such as in England. There is a law in affect called the “infancy defense” which says that children under the age of 7 are not to be tried as adults because they haven’t yet formed criminal intent. A child that was between the ages of 7 and 14 could be prosecuted but only if the prosecutor could prove that the child knew what they were doing was wrong. (Lectric Law Library, 2003) Lawmakers and social scientists found that those who were found guilty

Juveniles committing crimes is not a new issued being introduced to society; actually, it has been an issue for centuries. However, the big question is, should juveniles be tried in adult courts? Before answering, take into consideration every possible scenario that could have led them to commit the crime. For instance, were they the leader in the act? Did they participate in the crime? Was the juvenile even aware of what was taking place? Were they peer pressured? Did they have any other choice at the time? There are so many other questions we could consider when making a decision here.

When thinking of reforming the juvenile justice system one has to think; what can we do to make this better for everyone involve? There are some programs that can be implemented when trying to make a change in the juvenile system. The main thing is getting parents or the guardian more involved in the child’s whereabouts. Secondly the community where the youth will have a place to go and have something more constructive to do to keep them out of trouble. Law enforcement can get involved in giving ride along and having visits to the local jails or prisons from the youth to talk to some of the inmates. Crime in life isn’t racist at all it has a no age limit, no certain gender and no social status for most of those whom decide to partake in a criminal activity. From the beginning juveniles have been an issue with law enforcement, the question has always arisen of whom will take control without cruel and unusual punishment and assist with the rehabilitation and prevention future crime actions.

This article discussed diversion programs, which helps adolescents who have been arrested for first-time misdemeanors. These diversion programs use group counseling as a mandatory component of sentencing demonstrates initial success in reducing recidivism rates in national outcome studies. The goal of these diversion programs is to keep adolescents out of the juvenile justice system whenever possible (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010). These diversion programs divert adolescents from entering the juvenile justice system and offer alternatives to formal disciplinary action (Chantoe & Manton, 2014).

It is obvious that police officers are using their jobs as law enforcers to obtain illegal items and are shamefully betraying their police departments. The policemen who were involved in this drug smuggle were veterans. When people think of veterans, whether it be a veteran of war or a veteran of a police department, we think of someone who has devoted many years, served and been loyal to the service. People have admiration for veterans and recognize them for being committed to the service as well as being faithful to every year they have been involved in it. Now the four veteran police officers from Chicago will be spending time in prison instead of adding more years to the service of policing. Those years that the veteran police officers were dedicated to the policing is now history, they could have helped lower crime rates in Chicago, but instead they are facing prison time.

The juvenile justice system is similar to the criminal justice system. This system is where juveniles are processed, and may be arrested after referrals for juvenile delinquency. Juvenile justice is very different in every state and can be very similar as well because every system has limited jurisdiction and that most focus on the offenders and not their offenses. Therefore, there are 51 juvenile justice systems in the United States. The United States has the juvenile justice system because children are very different than adults – in that they can be better receptive for change and also being easier to rehabilitate. Moreover, the main goal of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation (Juvenile Law Center). The juvenile justice system is made up of police, courts, corrections, probation and parole services, as well as community-based programs to name a few (book).

However, the transfer laws do not lower the juvenile crime rates. For example, in New York a law that sent violent juvenile offenders to criminal courts did not have an effect on violent juvenile crime. Serious crimes presented before the adult criminal court included murder, assault, burglary, rape and arson. In other cases, young offenders become aware of the consequences once tried in the adult courts. When committing the crimes, they think that they will receive light punishments imposed by juvenile courts but when referred to adult courts, the youth tend to become more responsible. Therefore, prior knowledge of resultant punishment plays role in crime reduction among the youths. Subjecting the young offenders to face adult courts brings to their attention the seriousness of the matter at hand (Jeff, page 8).

On the other hand, the advocates of the juvenile system believe that because children are not fully mentally or physically developed, they are not therefore accountable for their actions in the same way as adults (Ainsworth, 1995, p.932-933). Juvenile criminality for them is “youthful illness” brought about by external forces like environment or impoverished living conditions. Donna Bishop, an advocate of the juvenile justice system, encourages states to give these juveniles “room to reform.” She believes that a policy that is designed to discard youth in the middle of the transition to adulthood is uncharacteristic of a fair government (Bishop, 2000, p. 159). Supporters of this kind of reform program for juveniles are not amenable to the transfer to adult court