Posted: August 1st, 2023

Juvenile justice system

Juvenile justice system
Name
Institution

The juvenile was established in the United States a century with the intention to divert juvenile offenders from destructive punishment that results from the criminal courts thus encouraging rehabilitation depending on the individual juvenile needs. The system was meant to be different from the adult criminal court by focusing on the juvenile’s needs that led to the criminal act thus rehabilitating the individual. The adult criminal court requires procedural safeguards Such as the right to know the charges involved, the right to an attorney, the right to trial by jury and the right to confront the accuser. In the juvenile system, these were considered unnecessary hence requiring informal approaches that would assist the child or adolescent (Mulvey et al.2013). The adolescent’s juvenile record was to be considered confidential thus the juveniles were not charges with rimes but instead they were charged with delinquencies. The confidential documents were also meant to be confidential so as to void interfering with the adolescent’s rehabilitation process. Also, the juveniles were not sent to prison but to the reformatory schools instead. The language and system used in the juvenile system underscored these differences to the adult criminal court.
However, since the 1990s,the rates of youth crime increased thus leading the jurisdictions to rethink the juvenile justice practices that were popular in the 1980s and 1990s. The increase in the rate of the youth crime caused tension between social welfare and social control that shifted the focused the interest from the best interest of the child to focus on the punishment. The shift caused significant variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction which finally led the juvenile system experienced today (Winfree et al.2004). Also, the increase in violent crimes led to the juvenile justice systems to stress on punitiveness and accountability to maintain public safety. The system rejected the traditional concerns of rehabilitation and diversion leading to punishment for the acts done. Some of the offenders were considered to be a threat to public safety just as their adult criminal counterparts thus the rehabilitation systems were considered too soft on the delinquents (Andrews and Bonta,2010).
The first juvenile court was founded in 1899 after being authorized by the Illinois Juvenile Court Act. The act gave the court the jurisdiction to separate the juveniles from adults during incarceration hence barring the detention of the children under the age of 16 in jails. The idea spread rapidly hence more juvenile courts were established in every state except in Wyoming and Maine by 1925. The system succeeded in diverting most of the children from the justice systems at first until the clientele became overwhelming with adolescents from the immigrant parents and lower class communities. Also, the cases were disposed of differently depending on the gender of the children leading to different charges. Many of the children were also referred by their agents such as parents and relatives more than the police (Winfree et al.2004). The referrals and increasing crime rates led to unofficial cases thus leading to added burdens on the staff members. The detention centers began lacking any seriousness on the punitively based decisions. In the 19th century, the courts’ informality led to discrimination and lack of attention to the due process. Both the children who had committed no crime and those who committed crimes were detained and incarcerated without trial.
Study shows that the indirect costs associated with the juvenile and adult crime in the United States are over $15 billion as of 2007 (Maggard,2015). With the increase in crime led by the spread of technology the costs are expected to increase, therefore, the prevention and diversion programs are implemented to prevent illegal acts among the juveniles before they occur. There are three major types of prevention programs namely primary, secondary and tertiary. The primary prevention alleviates the social conditions related to the offenders before they occur while the secondary prevention diverse the juveniles who appear to be at a high risk of delinquency. Tertiary prevention seeks to intervene after the acts have been committed to preventing further illegal acts. According to Mays and Winfree, the states prevention programs are not as effective because it is challenging to develop and operate such programs.For example, an effective program requires a good match between the host organizations the program concept and the target juvenile to enable behavior change on the youth offenders (Winfree et al.2004). However, the diversion programs are meant to redirect the youths from formal processing of the system while still holding them accountable for their offenses. The systems are less costly compared to the formal court proceedings by reducing the caseloads and freeing up the resources for other uses.
The most appropriate correlation placement towards delinquencies must ensure that the juveniles are rehabilitated and the sanction and pronouncement system is used as the last resort (Mulvey et al.2013). The dispositional alternatives must be fully exploited to deal with the juveniles instead of the formal system. The agencies involved must provide the procedures and coordinated services to achieve rehabilitation without necessary stigma. The increase in crimes and caseloads require an expansion in the system to ensure effective workflow. The involvement of the juvenile individuals and the criminal justice system must be minimized to successfully integrate them back to the community. However, the system is not meant to be soft on the offender. Instead, it recognizes that the further the young individual penetrates the system the harder it becomes to divert them from the criminal career. Also, adopting a rehabilitation system for the del does not mean that dangerous and chronic delinquents should not be confined. Until the system establishes a more effective means of treatment, such individuals must be incarcerated to protect society (Andrews and Bonta,2010). Moreover, the juvenile system must establish more beneficial programs in the outside institutions to cater to young offenders who do not need sheltered care or confinement.
The current system of the juvenile process heavily relies on confinement much like the current criminal justice system. Sometimes each city has its own procedures of dealing with delinquent youth. The juvenile cases are often handled by probate courts juvenile divisions or even family courts. The law violation cases are handled by the courts which have jurisdiction over the juveniles thus they follow the juvenile courts’ procedure. The juvenile courts handle all types of cases such as cases of abandoned and neglected children and the youths charged with status offenses. The court responsible for handling the juveniles with law violations relies on the trial court with general jurisdictions. The process of the juvenile courts involves processes like intake screening, adjudication, filling a formal petition and disposition. The stages involve detention hearing, adjudicatory hearing and the waiver of fitness hearing that views the youth’s violation. The juvenile courts use diverse practices that cause gaps between the actual practice and the intent of due process requirements (Andrews and Bonta,2010). The current juvenile processes are inadequate hence additional and safe procedures need to be applied to protect the youth from the vulnerability caused by the process. The process is designed to lead the young offender deep into the process thus prolonging and enabling a criminal career. Research shows that many youths waiver their right to counsel at the detention hearing. In 2001, the enormous amounts of caseloads caused the public defenders to stay for less than 24 months (Maggard,2015). Also, the juveniles fail to have appointed counsels and they fail to avail themselves of counsel at the beginning process. Therefore, the process leads to inadequate legal representation hence unfair convictions and charges. The limited contact with the juvenile clients leads to insufficient background investigations hence the juvenile court retains more powers over those who come under its jurisdiction.
A report done by the Department of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention finds that the current system deprives the youth of the involvements that are vital and important to their healthy adolescent development (Andrews and Bonta,2010). The confinement system denies the young offender from a parent figure, academic success and peer groups that foster positive socialization. The confinement process should only be applied when the youth poses a risk of harming others. More effort should be put in rehabilitating the offender through restorative justice. The system should have structured risks and needs assessments thus preventing re-offenses. The current juvenile systems should be assessed in their alignment with the practices, laws, and policies hence eliminating the process that targets and exploits the disadvantaged minorities.

References
Winfree Jr, L. T., Bäckström, T. V., & Mays, G. L. (2004). Social learning theory, self-reported delinquency, and youth gangs: A new twist on a general theory of crime and delinquency. Youth & Society, 26(2), 147-177.
Maggard, S. R. (2015). Assessing the impact of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI): Predictors of secure detention and length of stay before and after JDAI. Justice Quarterly, 32(4), 571-597.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39.
Mulvey, E. P., Arthur, M. W., & Reppucci, N. D. (2013). The prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency: A review of the research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(2), 133-167.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Masters Essays, PSY Papers, PSYC, Psychology Assignment, Psychology Dissertations