US Juvenile Justice System: A Case Study

Whether a child who has committed a serious crime deserves rehabilitation or harsh punishment has been argued and the Juvenile Justice System is being blamed. Children who deserve real punishment are receiving rehab and children who deserve rehab are receiving harsh punishment. Many children’s lives are getting ruined because of unnecessary harsh punishment. Some juvenile offenders are not learning their lesson. The article “Sentences Show Acknowledge Juveniles’ Maturity, and Immaturity,” by Laurence Steinburg and the article, “Remember the Victims of Juvenile Offenders,” by Jenifer Bishop-Jenkins differ not only in their views of issues surrounding the American juvenile justice system, they differ in quality; however, Steinburg who argues for rehabilitation, clearly presents the best argument using logical reasoning and relevant evidence.

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

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

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

The juvenile justice system is imperfect, at best, and part of this stems from the fact that juvenile justice, as a specific, discrete category of crime and punishment is still a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact, the notion of childhood and adolescence as distinct phases of human development is a novel idea that did not truly emerge until the twentieth century, so it is only natural that some elements of the juvenile justice system seem to have been made up they went along. Now, however, after substantial research into juvenile delinquency, it causes, and potential solutions, a much clearer picture of the phenomenon is emerging that will allow parents, teachers, legislators, and law enforcement officials to better reduce juvenile delinquency without imposing unnecessarily harsh restrictions of juveniles. By examining the history of the juvenile justice system alongside more recent research into juvenile delinquency, it will be possible to see how the most effective treatments going forward will likely focus on reducing risk before delinquency occurs and rehabilitating juveniles already in the justice system, as opposed to more punitive measures that mark juveniles as a criminal and thus hinder them for the rest of their lives.

Daniel first became involved in the justice system at age 16. His legal history includes five intake contacts and two violations of parole. Daniel has had an intake contact for a felony offense. None of the intake contacts were for felony offenses against another person. He has no history of escape. He has had three juvenile detention confinements and no other court ordered placements.

When most people think about the American criminal justice system some of the first things that come to mind is corruption of officers and courts, or jails with prisoners. One of the last things that come to mind is the juvenile justice system. Nevertheless, nothing is more important than the juvenile justice system because the juveniles within the system are the future working class and citizens of America. Therefore, it is important that they receive the necessary punishment and rehabilitation to move past mistakes they previously made. However, there are aspects that push against the goal of rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system such as the misuse or lack of money, the harshness of the punishment, and the programs within the

3. Jeremy Bentham was the founder of utilitarianism as well as an English philosopher. His theory expressed that humans are rational beings with a free will to commit crime. Yet, prior to committing a crime they weigh the costs and benefits to maximize the overall happiness and minimize the overall pain and punishment (Sandel, 34). In order for a crime to occur, the overall pleasure should exceed the pain and punishments. Moreover, those who commit a crime have a low situation control and they are discouraged through punishments that are severe, certain, swift, and appropriate to the

Thousands of youths have to go through the Juvenile Justice System every year. Sentencing is unfairly given to many of these youths that end up going through The Juvenile Justice System has become a school for criminals. The sentencing has become biased. Barry C. Feld is one of the nation's leading scholars of Juvenile Justice. He received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania, his J.D. from the University of Minnesota, and his Ph.D. in sociology from Harvard University where he was a Russel Sage Foundation Fellow in Law and the Social Sciences ( “Feld, Berry | University of Minnesota Law School,” n.d.). He wrote the article Justice for Juveniles. Justice for Juveniles is an article outlining various issues and solutions

This week’s article focuses on the urgent need for juvenile justice reforms. Maryland lawmakers are questioning whether they should withhold $1 million from the juvenile justice system. These inquisitions over budget allocation resulted from the harsh treatments towards juvenile offenders. For instance, some Juveniles are subjected to strip searches and shackles. The new legislation would rid the Department of Juvenile Services from physically restraining young offenders. Furthermore, the uses of physical restraints on juveniles have been proven to be counterintuitive. Cruel punishments such as shackles counter the notion of rehabilitation. Research suggest that Juveniles that undergo harsh treatment tend to develop ruthless behaviors. In Baltimore,

“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

Millions of juveniles are processed through the juvenile court system, and the number has been growing for years. Judges and court officials have been looking for many ways to come up with alternatives to incarceration. There are several different alternatives to incarceration for juveniles currently that will be discussed. Incarceration has an impact on the society as well, even for those who have not been in trouble with the law before which is one of the reasons why alternatives have been evolved. Tensions between the established principals and the proposed methods determined the way in which early incarceration alternatives were introduced into legislation.

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

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in 1899 as a part of the Juvenile Court Act. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than adults. In all but three states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her eighteenth birthday is considered a juvenile offender. Now more than ever, states and countries have begun to question the reliability of the juvenile court. Some believe the juvenile court system should be abolished because of its insufficient gain to the community. Others believe children are not fully capable to understand the degree of their actions and the consequences that come from them and believe that juvenile courts are a necessity in the court system.

It may seem shocking that America has one of the highest crime rates per capita compared to other similar industrialized nations. Over the years, there have been many discussions and efforts in order to reduce this problem. Perhaps one of the more sensitive issues when discussing crime in America is the problem of juvenile crime. Recently, juveniles make up 3% of all felonies committed each year and 6% of all violent crimes (criminamerica.net). These statistics have troubled politicians for decades as they have worked to find a solution. Starting in 1994 the Clinton administration started putting stricter punishment on juvenile offenders, but it was quickly realized that this harsh punishment may not be the best solution. Various studies and programs put into action have shown that early prevention in a child’s life is much more effective and more cost efficient in reducing crime. Because of these efforts, juvenile crime has reduced 68% since the violent boom of the 1990s. In light of these discoveries, it is important for states to focus on these results in order to reduce crime.