JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM.   Term Paper ID:24342 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: History, rehabilitation vs. punishment, problems, need for reform, public & media views, juvenile's rights.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 11 sources, 18 Citations, APA Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: History, rehabilitation vs. punishment, problems, need for reform, public & media views, juvenile's rights. Paper Introduction: INTRODUCTION The American system of juvenile corrections has numerous failures and few successes, and it is a system in crisis as the inner cities produce more and more street gangs, violence, and troubled youth. There are many reasons for the increase in these problems, and the programs developed to cope with them have not kept pace with the rate of change and have not served well to control juveniles or to address their problems. Yet, new programs are suggested all the time, showing that there is a realization of the need and an attempt to come to terms with it. There has long been a tension in the system between the twin missions of punishment and rehabilitation, just as there is in the adult criminal justice system. With juveniles, however, there is the added belief that the offenders are less responsible Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. CONCLUSION There are two essential theoretical perspectives at war over thejuvenile justice system today, and it mirrors the argument in the adultsystem. Juvenile Correctional Reform. Crimewarps. Even if the rehabilitative model is seen asimportant, it is considered useless for certain offenders as people come tothe view that children are being hardened in their behaviors at a youngerand younger age. The probation system was inadequate because the probationofficer had little time for family counseling, and though he or she wassupposed to be a mentor and guide for the client, there were usually toomany clients for individual care to be possible (Sandhu and Heasley, 1981,46-47). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.----------------------- 1 Since the beginning of this century, the juvenile justicesystem has been based on protecting the rights of juveniles and on arehabilitative model so that even if punishment is seen as the proper rolefor the adult system, juveniles are different because they are not yethardened in their behavior. In the 186 s and 187 s, separate hearings wereheld for juveniles in some courts, and agents were often appointed toattend juvenile hearings to protect the interests of the child. Sandhu and Heasley (1981) find that the juvenile justice system wasinadequate to the task it set for itself. Gardner, M.R. In the longrun, they said, the system actually created more crime. Juvenile justice in context. Heasley (1981). Shireman, C.H. Rehabilitation hadbeen a strong objective in juvenile justice even after it had becomediscredited for adult offenders, with the idea being that rehabilitationshould be possible for young offenders before they become too hardened.Much of this intention has withered away to be replaced more and more bymandated prison sentences and an emphasis on punishment. From 1878to 1898 Massachusetts enacted a statewide probation system. By 1974, eleven states had done so and had provisionsfor jury trials for juvenile offenders. (1989). Vito and Wilsondescribe it as follows: The court was to be a special jurisdiction within the circuit court, presided over by separate judges. However,as juvenile crime has increased in incidence and severity, the public hasbecome less patient and has demanded punishment over rehabilitation, seeingthis as a way to protect itself against the depredations of youngoffenders. With juveniles, however, there is the added belief thatthe offenders are less responsible for their actions than are adults, thatthe system has a role as substitute parent, and that alternatives toincarceration are particularly valuable to meld these missions. While the juvenile population under direct governmentalsupervision has declined significantly since 197 , the total number ofyouthful offenders held in custody has changed little (Curran, 1988, 363-378). This perception is changing, and the system ischanging along with it. (1988, October). Wilson (1985). and L. This came ata time when the Kennedy Administration was taking an activist approach byraising the issues of juvenile justice to the national level (McGarrell,1988, 7). Critics sawthe existing system as treating children as if they had free will in theiractions when in fact they were less responsible than adults. Gardner (1987) discusses a recent trend in the emergence of thepunitive sanction in juvenile justice systems, a sanction that gives agreater emphasis on personal responsibility and less on external forces onthe offender, such as poverty or family breakdown. the most important of these cases was In re Gault in 1967.The Court held that a child has the right to a lawyer and to a free lawyerif necessary and also that a written notice of the specifics of the offensemust be provided for children and parents, that children have the right tocross-examine witnesses against them, and that children should be protectedagainst self-incrimination.In Kane v. New York:State University of New York Press. Sandhu, H.S. One-third of all juvenilescharged with delinquency were transferred to adult courts or sent to statereformatories, and almost two-thirds of juvenile girls were committed tostate and local institutions. MEDIA VIEW Bennett notes that one of the consequences of increasing teenagecrime and drug use has been a new intolerance expressed in the juvenilejustice system through programs emphasizing punishment. This came at a time ofincreased public awareness of social problems and issues of justice, and itwas also only one of several social trends directed at improving thewelfare of children, along with such considerations as child laborregulations, expanded public education, and special services for disabledchildren. The court created in 1899would have jurisdiction over children who were under the age of sixteen andwho were found to be dependent, neglected, or delinquent. McGarrell (1988) notes that the first signs of change in the juvenilejustice system were seen in the early 196 s at both the state and federallevels as there was a substantial revision of juvenile codes to add many ofthe procedural safeguards called for by the Supreme Court decision invarious cases. This has become more and more a politicalargument and a matter of perception rather than empirical research. and F.G. Shireman and Reamer (1986) find that the period from the mid-196 s tothe early 198 s can be considered a period of counter-revolution in thejuvenile court system: We believe this development to have been necessary and valuable, even inevitable. We need to send a strong and united message (Chu, 1995, B3).Los Angeles schools employ their own police force but it is used primarilyfor on campus law enforcement. Yet,the system is responding to these fears and perceptions and is shiftingempahsis away from two things: 1) there is a shift away from protecting theyouthful offender by separating him or her from the adult system and fromthe idea that the court has a parental role; and 2) there is a shift fromthe idea of rehabilitating youthful offenders and toward the idea ofpunishing them, even to the extent of imposing the death penalty in certaincases, something long proscribed for offenders below a certain age. Curran believes that this dual system does not bode well for theprotection of the rights of juvenile offenders, and there are alsouncertainties in terms of security for the public in the face of privatelyoperated diversionary programs. There are many problems with the juvenile justice system that areconstantly in debate by both politicians and the populace. Respers (1995, May 11). Thisall derives from the view that the old system has failed, but the answerhas been to return to an even older system that was also seen as a failure. One approach to controlling youth has been to imposegreater restrictions on truancy as a way of keeping young people in schooland out of trouble, as in an ordinance passed by the Los Angeles CityCouncil in May of 1995. New York: Columbia University Press. Mahoney, A.R. The philosophy that prevailed in the adult court system in thenineteenth century was one of deterrence. (1987). The children were to have a separate court, separate hearings, and separate records. References Bennett, G. The act passed in 1899 established ajuvenile court in every county with a population of more than 5 , ,which at the time applied only to Cook County (Vito and Wilson, 1985, 47-48). In re Winship (197 ) was a case in which thecourt ruled that the measure of proof in the case of a juvenile chargedwith an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult requires proofbeyond a reasonable doubt, just as in an adult trial. Reamer (1986). We also believe that there is danger that it will achieve a powerful momentum, and while sweeping away many of the superficial excrescences and absurdities of the original revolution, may result in the loss of much of value" (Shireman and Reamer, 1986, 31). (1966), the Court "asserted that in procedures concerningtransfer from juvenile court to criminal court, due process fairness mustattach" (Mahoney, 1987, 26). Curran, D.J. Though some have calledfor the abolition of the substitute parent juvenile justice system, Gardnerargues that the punitive model need not result in such an abolition or inthe reincorporation of the juvenile justice system into the adult system(Gardner, 1987, 129-151). Mahoney (1987) states that lawyers and advocates for children'srights began to look more closely at the juvenile court and to identifycases that were a cause for concern. (1987). U.S. juvenile correctionalsystem and finds a movement toward deinstitutionalization, accompanied bylegislation addressing the development of community-based corrections.Curran finds that there has been increased funding to allow for thetreatment of many nondelinquent juveniles outside the formal justice systemin private agencies, but existing public institutional facilities have alsobeen maintained. This was an important constitutional protection because earliercases had held that the double jeopardy clause did not apply to juvenileswho could subsequently be convicted in criminal court or who could besubject to successive juvenile proceedings arising out of the same conduct. Curran (1988) examines the trends in the U.S. At the federal level, the changes that were brought aboutwere fundamental and derived from concern brought about by increasedjuvenile arrests and juvenile court cases, increased public concern aboutcrime, and criticism of the existing juvenile justice system. The media has shown more and more concern about youthful crime and itsincreasing violence. Arts & Entertainemnt Network. By 1983, 48states and the District of Columbia had taken away much of the discretionof judges in setting sentences (Bennett, 1989, 68). McGarrell, E.F. Los Angeles Board of Education President, MarkSlavkin, spoke in support of L.A.'s new truancy ordinance: There's a high correlation between truancy and daytime crime affecting shopkeepers and homeowners, like graffiti. To that extent, it's a very real law enforcement issue. These ideas were used before thecreation of the court as part of the child welfare movement in theestablishment of institutions for juveniles to keep them out of New Yorkand Boston adult jails. Vito, G.F. So it's not a matter of turf. Reformers opposed this idea andsaw the criminal court as harsh and oppressive, particularly with referenceto the treatment of children. The Supreme Court would look at manyof these cases and hand down decisions that would reshape the juvenilejustice system. The American juvenile justicesystem. This new ordinance would enable a muchlarger group--the Los Angeles Police Department--to have responsibilityover truants (Rainey and Respers, 1995, B1). "L.A. Yet, newprograms are suggested all the time, showing that there is a realization ofthe need and an attempt to come to terms with it.There has long been a tension in the system between the twin missions ofpunishment and rehabilitation, just as there is in the adult criminaljustice system. The intention of dealing withjuveniles through probation, with the youth in the community under adultsupervision, was inadequate, and the system more and more relied onincarceration of children in institutions. and D.G. Much of this incarceration was seen asunnecessary. More and more courts are moving juvenile cases into adultcourt, and this is a response to the perception that the juvenile justicesystem has failed and that youthful offenses are becoming more egregious. News accounts after young peoplemurder also usually present citizens, police, and jurists calling for morepunishment and even for children to be tried as adults, a clear view thatthe juvenile justice approach has failed. Chu, H. As early as 1978,public dissatisfaction had caused all fifty states and the federalgovernment to enact statutes under which juveniles could be tried in adultcourts, but even this has not worked as intended: "The very mandatedsentences that are supposed to make life harder for criminals make it muchmore difficult to prosecute a youngster" (Bennett, 1989, 68). Breed v. "Destructuring, privatization, and thepromise of juvenile diversion: Compromising community-based corrections."Crime and Delinquency, 363-378. It has been impossible to produce a definitive study showing whetherthe rehabilitation or punishment model is superior and whether one isworkable and the other not. Jones (1975) involved theapplication of the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment tojuveniles through the fourteenth Amendment: "This decision prevented ajuvenile from being adjudicated in the juvenile court and then transferredto an adult court where a harsher sentence could be imposed" (Mahoney,1987, 26). New York: Anchor Books. The court was developed on the legal model of Britishinstitutions, first the Court of Chancery under which the king acted asparens patriae (or the father of his country) to exercise guardianship overwards of the state, and the presumption in the English common law thatchildren are more innocent than adults. The reason why this had been true was that juvenile proceedings were seenas civil and protective and not as criminal and punitive. McKeever v.Pennsylvania (1971) "reverted to an earlier rationale in ruling that thefederal constitution did not compel states to provide the right of jurytrial to an accused juvenile" (Mahoney, 1987, 26). A state could legislatethis option, however, or the state's appellate court could find that thestate constitution required the right of a trial by jury for juvenileswithin the state. There are manyreasons for the increase in these problems, and the programs developed tocope with them have not kept pace with the rate of change and have notserved well to control juveniles or to address their problems. Such efforts are part of a larger view that the criminal justicesystem "coddles" criminals, and this extends to youthful offenders as well. Justice Files (1996, July 13). "Punitive juvenile justice: Some observationson a recent trend." International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 129-151. and C.W. Rainey, J. Boston:Northeastern University Press. The new philosophyheld that the court should take the role of parent in lieu of the realparents and should treat the children as wards. A television documentary on the Discovery Channel'sJustice Files (July 13, 1996) examined a number of instances in whichchildren had murdered and asked what would be the best way to punish suchoffenders, without developing an answer. LITERATURE The first juvenile court in the United States was founded in 1899 inCook County, Illinois, which includes the city of Chicago. The procedures were to be informal, and charges were not filed against the child; instead, a petition was filed in his or her interest (Vito and Wilson, 1985, 48).Many of the trappings of adult court procedure were eliminated, such asindictments, pleadings, and juries, and instead the probation officers andthe judge used informal hearings to determine the causes of the problem andto recommend and oversee the treatment. truancy law upsetsstudents, pleases officials." The Los Angeles Times, B1, B3. California and New York led the way with revisionsfollowing a period of an increase in appellate court cases involving thejuvenile court, criticism of the lack of procedure in the juvenile courts,and the establishment of special commissions to study the problems of thejuvenile courts. However, itwas in Chicago where welfare and civic organizations including the ChicagoWoman's Club, the Catholic Visitation and Aid Society, the State Board ofCharities, and the Chicago Bar Association created the juvenile court aftera long period of campaigning. The court wasdeveloped in response to the work of individuals and organizationsdedicated to many social causes including prison reform, women's suffrage,the abolition of poverty, and child welfare. (1995, June 2 ). "Enforcement of truancy law delayed." LosAngeles Times, B3. (1988). Improving juvenile justice.New York: Numan Sciences Press. The issue at one level is whether the system should rehabilitateor punish. Rehabilitating juvenilejustice. Reformers also believed that the punitivestance taken by the courts had not resulted in any deterrence. INTRODUCTION The American system of juvenile corrections has numerous failures andfew successes, and it is a system in crisis as the inner cities producemore and more street gangs, violence, and troubled youth. With thespecter of violent crime being committed by younger and younger children,such as the recent California case of a six year old beating an infant tonear death, there is a growing debate on the age of true responsibilitywhen a youthful offender should be treated as an adult or held culpable forhis or her crime. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.