Discussed earlier was the idea of rehabilitating youths in reformatories at the House of Refuge, but only youths deemed reformable (Fox, 1996). What about the youth who were not reformable? What about the youth that commit a serious violent offense such as murder, rape, torture, or armed robbery? In the 1980’s during the “get tough” on juvenile crime movement, states passed waiver legislation that allowed for the transfers of youths to adult court (Kupchik, 2003). Not only has there been no significant findings that trying juveniles as adult does not lower the potential for recidivism, but it has not been found to be an effective means of crime control (Fagan, 2008). Although being tried as an adult opened up even more constitutional safeguards than had been provided post-Gault, the transfer of juveniles to adult court went against the moral notion of keeping youths out of court and out of the system (McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., … Stone, G., 2007). How does the juvenile justice system, after years of reform and change get back to being a therapeutic and focused on individualized justice? Is it possible? …show more content…
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,
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
Florida Legislatures created the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice in 1994 to serve as the state agency responsible for youth involved in the juvenile justice system. Although the state agency is under the authority of the state governor, Secretary Christina Daly, who provides leadership for the organization, each circuit has a leadership team who runs the daily operation of each sub-department. The Department’s headquarter is located in Tallahassee Florida where 3,000 employees are employed statewide. Broward County, the seventeenth circuit employs one hundred and twenty employees in Probation. The Department’s mission is to increase public safety by reducing juvenile delinquency through effective prevention, intervention and treatment services that strengthen families and turn around the lives of troubled youth. The Department’s vision is that the children and families of Florida will live in safe, nurturing communities that provide for their needs, recognize their strengths and support their success. The Department has five guiding principles: Prevention and education are paramount; Strengthen partnerships with judicial, legislative and community stakeholders; Promote public safety through effective intervention; provide a safe and nurturing environment for our children and preserve and restore physical and mental health (http://www.djj.state.fl.us/about-us/mission).
The evaluation of success for the purpose of justice is worth seeing the adolescent’s age to be no longer considered a juvenile. Has society dealt with the crime correctly or does the cost for said decision outweigh the punishment the juvenile deserves? Is this the right direction? The struggling issue the legal system is navigating through leads into a decision pointing the said juvenile in the right direction by guidance and education or destroying the juvenile by matching a harsher punishment to a particular crime. In order to make the appropriate decision, a list of “pros” and “cons” would be able to offer some assistance. The “pro” side for a juvenile court system is direction and guidance. This court system sees the lack of maturity and discretion of this youth. This should give cause of seeing the youth as “different” than an adult and should be held less blameworthy for the crime committed. This court’s main objective is to handle the youth through policed courses and correctional involvement for the purpose of rehabilitation. The court focuses on the “age” instead of the “crime.” Transferring to the adult courts, the purpose is to bring harsher sentences for the crime committed as well as the slim chance of “getting off” the hook by attending counseling or other step-process program. Adult courts also see the victims and their families need relief for the crime committed against them. Adult courts do offer the juvenile the majority
The United States juvenile justice court was based on the English parens patriae adopted in the United States as part of the legal tradition of England. But the efforts of the state to rehabilitate juvenile offenders with institutional treatment with the houses of refuge and reformatories failed. Today, the United States has 51 different juvenile court systems; the laws and statutes vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Thus, each state’s approach to handle the youth offenders is responsible for how the youth offenders will experience the justice system. Both the past and the present approaches to deal with juvenile offenders have shaped today’s juvenile justice system.
The juvenile justice system is a complex web of people and agencies that process about billions of funds on a yearly basis. To understand the system requires that you have some sort of baseline knowledge of the trends that have shaped the system’s ability to function and the roles played by the various components of the system. This policy paper provides information on changes in the juvenile justice system and analyzes why the increased prosecution sentences of juveniles in adult court is another failed “get tough “policy and does nothing to focus on the best interest for the juvenile. Before the modern era, it appeared that children who committed crimes received no type of preferential treatment. They were adjudicated, punished, and imprisoned
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.
The juvenile justice system was subject to a lot of corruption and civil rights violations in its early stages. Juveniles did not have the same rights as adults and could be forced into terrible living or working conditions. With no child labor laws, delinquent juveniles could be sentenced to forced labor in factories or to houses of refuge. With the ruling of Ex Parte Crouse, the state took ultimate responsibility of children and send them to these institutions, even against the will of the parents. Some of these institutions, such as houses of refuge may have started with good intention, but they ultimately led to rampart corruption and abuse of juveniles.
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.
Youths like the adults, come under the supervision of the courts per capita more than any other country in the world (Mendal, 2011). Rates for rearrests are high for adolescences, ranging up to 69 percent in one year and up to 89 % in three (Holman, B. & Ziedenberg, J, 2004). Furthermore, between 50% and 75% of minors who have been held in detention centers are imprisoned as adults (Holman, B. & Ziedenberg, J, 2004). Missing from statistics for youths is that many offenders are tried as adults. Each state defines the age of accountability and determines at what age a person can be tried as an adult or as a youth. For instance, in Mississippi, 13-year-olds who face felonies do so in adult court and in North Carolina and New York, everyone at 16- attends adult court (Holman, & Ziedenberg, 2004). Determining youthful offender outcomes is more difficult to gauge since many states can sentence adolescents as an adult or as a child. Recidivism of juveniles can eventually contribute to adult criminal justice systems so that America’s mass incarceration can be perceived as a continuum of punishments from youth through
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
Although based on the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile justice process works differently. Juveniles can end up in court by way of arrest, truancy or for curfew violations or running away. A youth may also be referred to the juvenile court system by school officials or a parent or guardian for being continuously disobedient. The juvenile justice process involves several different steps including intake, detention, adjudication, disposition and aftercare following release from a juvenile correctional facility. In this paper we will breakdown the numerous steps involved in the juvenile justice process as well as compared some
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.
There are five periods of juvenile justice history. The first period is considered the Puritan period then there is the Refuge period, Juvenile Court period, Juvenile Rights period, and last the Crime Control period. I will be discussing these periods and their significance. These periods begin in 1646 and go into the present.
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While
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,