Trends In The Juvenile Justice System

Modification in the Juvenile Justice System and the Affect on the Future of our Youth

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.

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.

The juvenile justice system can be dated back to the late 18th and early 19th century. Youths were confined to jails with mentally ill and hardened criminals because there were no other alternatives for them. Many of these youths were in these institutions for non-violent offenses. During this same time, many American cities had to find a solution to the overwhelming rate of child neglect. Today, there is still much debate about the well-being of youths in the criminal justice system. The juvenile justice system plays an important role in society because it allows youths the opportunity to change their behavior. The current system is effective in providing programs for juveniles in an effort to

Four current big themes in juvenile justice are as follows: (1) revising the criteria under which juveniles can be waived to criminal court; (2) assessing and serving the mental health needs of juvenile offenders; (3) increasing the use of evidence-based program; and (4) estimating the benefits of improved outcomes that are possible with evidence based programs.

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

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.

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).

The juvenile justice system was founded on the belief that juveniles should be rehabilitated from committing crime. It was the belief of the government that juveniles do not posses the cognitive reasoning of adults, therefore should not be punished as adults. The juvenile court was formed in 1899 with the belief that the government needs to play a more active role in the rehabilitation of juveniles. This belief held strong up until the 1980's when President Ronald Reagan took office. The beliefs in juvenile rehabilitation were fading and an alternative was rapidly being put into motion, juvenile incarceration. Juveniles being incarcerated was not

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

The criminal justice system has become an ad hoc medical and social service delivery institution with more than eight million offenders under correctional control. Offenders have more physical, substance-abuse disorders, social and psychological deficits than the general population. According to Estelle versus Gamble, correctional institutions are required to provide reasonable care for all offenders who are incarcerated. Other issues such as psychological and social services have become a burden. A recent survey of prison administrators sheds light on the capacity of offenders that needed medical, psychological, and social services for offenders. The survey also dissected the analysis of the organizational factors that may affect whether an

These individual rights must be effectively balanced against these present and emerging community concerns: Widespread drug abuse among youth The threat of juvenile crime Urban gang violence High-technology, computer, and Internet crime (cybercrime) Terrorism and narcoterrorism Occupational and whitecollar crime

Early in U.S. history, children who broke the law were treated the same as adult criminals. If you are a young person under the age of 18 and you commit a crime, you will have your case heard in the juvenile justice system. The thing is that, it hasn’t always gone that way. The idea of a separate justice system for juveniles is just over one hundred years old (American Bar). Where did juvenile justice come from? The law was in the image of the common law of England. William Blackstone, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in the late 1760s, was admired by the United States founders.

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

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