Arizona Youth Assessment System Case Study

The purpose of sentencing is to ensure youth are held accountable for their actions focusing on a rehabilitation and re-integration approach, while ensuring youth are given an appropriate consequence. There are many differences to sentencing a youth than an adult. A young person lacks the maturity of an adult, and the youth justice system must reflect that fact. Some differences include accountability and level of maturity, rehabilitation and reintegration are strongly emphasized, increased protection on procedures, and the intervention is implemented in a timely

The Phoenix Youth Achievement Program is long term program that provides low income Phoenix Hispanic youth the opportunity and support they need so they are able to obtain a high quality education that will allow them to achieve college and career goals in their future as well as be provided with the opportunity to embrace their home culture, language and country. The Phoenix Youth Achievement program will provide the support, resources, tools, opportunities, networking, and academic experiences from pre-kindergarten to their senior year that will allow the student to achieve a quality education. The PYAP will also help the students prepare for their college and career goals. In addition to helping achieve

AZYAS is a risk assessment tool for the juvenile and for the protection of the community. It assists the Juvenile Probation Officer in making appropriate recommendations to the court and in deciding the correct path of supervision. The degree of negative history involved might show the necessity of a harsher sentence and/or more strict terms of probation. For example, if AZYAS shows that the youth in question has a history of violence, substance abuse, of associating with anti-social peers with substance abuse, I would conclude that there is a strong reason to recommend that the juvenile not be allowed to associate with those peers involved in anti-social behavior. Further recommendations to the court would reflect the need for more

Since juvenile offenders are viewed as immaturity because their brains are not completely developed, they are considered as what is desired to be protected and educated in general. Minors are believed to be competent to be held responsible for their actions. Recently, it has been debated that juvenile offenders should be punished tougher like adult offenders or should not be punished tougher. The question is whether recent treatments are appropriate or not. If not, what kinds of treatments should provide for minor offenders to clean up their criminal behavior?

Juvenile delinquency has become a controversial issue within the Criminal Justice system. In the United States, juvenile delinquency refers to disruptive and criminal behavior committed by an individual under the age of 18. In many states, a minor at the age of 16 to 17 ½ can be tried as an adult. Once the individual reaches adulthood, the disruptive and criminal behavior is recognized as a crime. However, the criminal justice system has divided juvenile delinquency into two general types of categories that has brought upon controversial issues of inequality and corruption. Yet, putting young individuals in juvenile detentions facilities seems to open the door for them to commit more crimes in the future. Therefore, under certain circumstances juveniles should be tried as an adult.

When transfer to adult court juveniles’ procedural rights may increase in adult courts, but would have multiple drawbacks for a youth. Once the juvenile has transferred in criminal court, the juvenile can be sentenced to longer punishments, lose the right to vote and received educational funding by the government and will have a criminal record that can be used against him if he commits another crime. Therefore, this juvenile is being subjected to the three strikes sentencing structure. Juveniles are also victimized in the adult penal setting in which waivers have been known to increase more crimes by the youth. Juvenile retained in the juvenile system are not more likely to reoffend than those waived youths will reoffend more quickly and more often, than those

Juvenile institutions and programs have changed over time. There are also juvenile programs that necessarily do not punish juvenile’s delinquents but instead help modify their behavior to avoid recidivism. Certain treatments and methods regarding how to deal with these dangerous young offenders were fixed and improved to make these institutions and programs more effective in changing the lives of these young

As was shown above, prevention/intervention modalities have been effectively initiated for children as young as three to four years of age in an effort to address the issues and possibilities for juvenile delinquency. Effective treatment of juveniles in the system comes with specific responsibilities to be considered meaningful and significant. Juvenile treatments should reduce recidivism, have well-described procedures in treatment, have well-defined training protocols for therapists, monitoring procedures for treatment and proven evidence of long-term outcomes (Heilbrun, 2005). Delinquency prevention programs are not designed with the intention of excluding juvenile justice personnel. Many types of delinquency prevention programs, especially those that focus on adolescents, involve juvenile justice personnel such as the police (Siegel & Welsh p. 401). Often, for the purposes of funding, effective programs should also have a documented cost/benefit analysis attached to its program characteristics (2005). Following are two examples of treatment modalities that have proven effective in working with juvenile

place for someone not yet an adult; after all, prison is a place where many believe to be hell.Abolition of the juvenile court would not require that all young offenders be sent to adult prison. Many states already operate separate correctional facilities for young adults (under age 21, under 23, etc.). There is not enough reason to suggest that juvenile should not belongto the adult court system; after all, the division is just a waste of money and time on thestate’s part. The use of juvenile courts in Arizona was ended by the “Stop Juvenile CrimeInitiative” and was endorsed by 63% of Arizona voters. According to a NBC New-WallStreet Journal poll, two thirds of Americans think juveniles under the age of 13 who commitmurder should

73).” He believes the juvenile court has shifted away from the idea of rehabilitation and protection of youth to more punitive measures found in the adult system, and believes youths should be incorporated into the adult system and that their “youthfulness” be seen as a mitigating factor at the time of sentencing. He proposed a sliding scale for youthful offenders in the adult system would save time and money, due to the fact both systems, regardless of terminology, are quite similar in terms of their orientation and how they deal with offenders (Feld,

In most situations, once a juvenile has been accused of a crime, the individual appears in court and the case is heard by a judge. The judge will determine the sentence the juvenile has to complete. According to the NCCP, most juveniles receive punishment, such as community service of probation (Kihl 10). When the youth face the possibility of incarceration in an adult prison, juveniles will less likely receive any rehabilitative or therapeutic services in the facility. The youth who are charged with most serious and violent crimes are more likely to tried as adults and more likely to be sent and sentenced to an adult prison, Juveniles that minor offenses, such as, theft or burglary, are more likely to be sent to a juvenile center. Because

Within the Juvenile system no one really takes the time to systematically track the statistics concerning the changes that need to be made within the system to deter juvenile offenders. The system tends to move slowly when it involves change because it can be costly. So, with many budget cuts happening we will need to tackle the problem, by first looking at the number of juveniles that are committing crimes and at what rate. Then we need to find out what type of programs we can put in place to deter juvenile type offense and keep them down. Once we can analyze the

Probation in juvenile justice has a very specific role. The first important thing to keep in mind is the underlying reasons for crimes committed by youth and the importance of distinguishing this from the reasons why adults would engage in criminal activity (King County, 2012). As such, the Juvenile Probation Office regards accountability as important when young people like John commit crimes, but it is also important to prevent further delinquent activity. Hence, the Office considers incarceration or institutionalization only as a last resort

Juveniles offenders demonstrate higher rates of substance abuse indifference to non-offending juveniles. Recidivism increases more often with substance abuse and mirrors a deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system. The likelihood that a youthful offender will have extensive interaction with the system is in part due to drugs and alcohol use. Substance abuse has also produced rebellious behavior in juveniles. More serious offenses are linked with severe substance abuse and increase the rates of offending.

The juvenile justice system is designed to correct and change the behavior of juvenile offenders. Change in behavior is an indication the system is working. If there is no change, the system is deemed ineffective and a team of juvenile justice consultants are called in to make corrections. In reality, this team is composed of four state officials whose sole purpose is to develop a proposal to present to the state legislature for recommendations of adjustments to the juvenile justice system. This team of consultants is creating these