The Juvenile Justice System Is Not Reflective Of Their National Population

The juvenile justice system is a foundation in society that is granted certain powers and responsibilities. It faces several different tasks, among the most important is maintaining order and preserving constitutional rights. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with committing a crime there are many different factors that will come in to play during the course of his arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation process. This paper examines the Juvenile Justice System’s court process in the State of New Jersey and the State of California.

The Juvenile Justice System was established in 1899 when the first documented court hearing took place in Cook County, Illinois. This type of court system was designed to discipline, treat, and rehabilitate children under the legal age of eighteen, who are caught and/or convicted of committing crimes against society. Since its creation, many have argued for and against having two separate but parallel court systems. This essay will discuss the basic arguments in favor of and in opposition to the retention of the juvenile 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.

Evidence-based studies imply that youth of color are being placed in detention at a higher rate all throughout juvenile justice system not only in Kentucky but, nationwide. Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in juvenile justice alludes to youth of color being place into the system at a greater rate than their Caucasian counterparts. All races break the law at about the same rate; however, youth of color are arrested, charged and institutionalized at a higher percentage than Caucasians for similar offenses. African-Americans made up 16 percent of all youth in the United States, but constituted 28 percent of youth arrests, 30 percent of referrals to juvenile court, 37 percent of detained youth, 34 percent of youth formally processed by juvenile court, 30 percent of youth adjudicated delinquent, 35 percent of youth judicially waived to criminal court, 38 percent of youth in residential placement, and 58 percent of youth sent to state adult prisons. (Grieshop et al 2009)

One hundred years ago, the Illinois legislature enacted the Illinois Juvenile Court Act (1899 Ill. Laws 132 et seq.), creating the first separate juvenile court. The policy debates raging around the country in this centennial year(1899), however, make it uncertain whether the traditional juvenile court will prevail. Early in the 19th century, juveniles were tried along with adults in criminal courts. In common law, children under

The movement to separate children from adults in the court system can be traced back to English common law, just like most of America’s criminal justice system. English lawyer William Blackstone had a significant influence on the separation of Juvenile and adult courts. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, that was first published in the late 1760’s, was widely read and well-regarded by the founders of America (History of Juvenile Justice). In Blackstone’s book, he identified individuals who were considered incapable of committing crimes (History of Juvenile Justice). Two requirement needed to be met in order for someone to commit a crime. First, the individual had to have a “vicious will”, or the intent to commit a crime (History of Juvenile Justice). Second, the individual had to commit the crime. Blackstone then when on to state that one group of people who were unable to commit a crime were called “infants” (History of Juvenile Justice). These people where not literality infant or babies, but people too young to understand their actions, and therefore lacked the “vicious will” needed to commit a crime. At

The overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system is well established. Statistics show that African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans make up a combined one-third of the United States population, yet they account for over two-thirds of the population in juvenile facilities across the country (Armour & Hammond, 2009). This phenomenon can be explained using the differential offending hypothesis or the differential selection hypothesis. The differential offending hypothesis suggests that different outcomes for certain groups are directly related to their behavior, rather than the potential bias in the juvenile justice system (Tillyer & Engel, 2012). In other words, people of minority commit

Minority youth are disproportionately represented throughout juvenile justice systems in nearly every state in the nation. Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in juvenile justice occurs when minority youth come into contact with the system at a higher rate than their white counterparts. African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans comprise a combined one-third of the nation's youth population. Yet they account for over two-thirds of the youth in secure juvenile facilities (Armour & Hammond, 2009).

The juvenile justice system is a foundation in society that is granted certain powers and responsibilities. It faces several different tasks, among the most important is maintaining order and preserving constitutional rights. When a juvenile is arrested and charged with committing a crime there are many different factors that will come in to play during the course of his arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing, and rehabilitation process. This paper examines the Juvenile Justice System’s court process in the State of New Jersey and the State of California.

“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

In the early nineteenth century juveniles were treated the same as adults when it came to the legal system. We did not have separate courts or jails for juveniles and they would often receive the same punishments as adults that had committed crimes. “At the beginning of the

Our current juvenile court system began in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The ultimate goal of having a separate court system for juveniles is to rehabilitate young offenders rather than punish them. The court also hopes to deter young offenders from preforming further delinquent behavior. Unlike the adult court system, juveniles do not have the right to a public trial by jury. Instead, they undergo an adjudication hearing where the judge rules whether the juvenile is a delinquent. Since this separation, several studies have been conducted to weigh the benefits and costs; such as effectiveness, efficiency, and cost of resources, of having two court systems. Is the United States juvenile court appropriate or should it be abolished? Abolishing the juvenile court system would mean juveniles and adults would both undergo the same criminal justice system. Rothstein states in his research that juvenile courts are a cost-effective way to handle less serious offenses by children (as cited in Acker, Hendrix, and Hogan, and Kordzek, 2001, p. 200). On the other hand, Robert Dawson (1990) argues that there are not enough legal differences between juvenile and adult courts for there to be a need for a separation, concluding that overlap between both systems is so great that having a juvenile court is unnecessary. Supporting this argument, Barry Feld (1997) calls the two systems “duplicative” (p 69).

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.

Juvenile justice has proved to be as imprudent as it is practical. Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that as early as 1825, there was a significant push to establish a separate juvenile justice system focused on rehabilitation and treatment. The procedure continued to stay focused on the rehabilitation of a person, even though financial support and assets sustained to hold back its achievement. In reaction to rising juvenile crime rates in the 1980s’, more corrective laws were approved (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). In the 1990s, the United States legal system took further steps regarding transfer provisions that lowered the threshold at which juveniles could be tried in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Furthermore, laws were enacted that allowed prosecutors and judges more discretion in their sentencing options; and confidentiality standards, which made juvenile court proceedings and records more available to the public (Snyder and Sickmund 1999), were reduced.

The Juvenile System has been around for a long time. The primary reason behind separating Juvenile from adult criminals is quite simple; the judicial system believes that the children are less culpable for their irresponsive behavior and they could easily be reformed as compared to adult offenders. The crucial role of the judicial system is to critically investigate, diagnose, and recommend treatments for the Juveniles rather than accrediting them. However, because of the increasing number of juvenile arrest for crimes committed by persons considered as a child, the attention that the given to a crime involving juveniles, the decreasing trust to the juvenile system itself and the lauder roar of the society for a safer place to live in,