Youth and Juvenile Justice Draft Submission - Research Paper Example

? Youth and Juvenile Justice Mark Aceto Judy Tompkins JD LLM CRJ 105 Introduction The history of Juvenile justice s back to 1824 when the first juvenile house of reform was opened in the U.S. (Department of Juvenile Services, n.d.). Juvenile justice courts have ever since remained to be civil rather than criminal, but the juvenile were not to have any rights in courts; rather the state should would act in the best of their interests as a parent would (Department of Juvenile Services, n.d.) . Juvenile courts were founded on the doctrines of “parens patriae," which continues up to the present. The Landmark In re Gault case of 1967 laid the ground for the passing of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act in 1968 and eventually the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention Act in 1974(Department of Juvenile Services, n.d.) . Following the In re Gault decision, Juvenile offenders were granted rights like adults had in courts and on top of that was the privilege against self-incrimination. The 1974 act added further protection where henceforth Juvenile offenders were to be treated separate from the adult offenders. Under all costs, were to be protected from jailing or detention unless the offence was very grave; situation in which still they could never be placed in adults jails or courts (Department of Juvenile Services, n.d.). Problem Statement With the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention Act in place, a sharp increase in juvenile delinquency cases in the 1980s through the 1990s led to state legislatures passing punitive laws to address the increasing criminal offences (Hemming, 2012). States took into amending statutes to require juvenile be tried in adult courts at younger ages and for more offences (Hemming, 2012) which has led to many ethical issues. The ethical issues eminent from the justice system include undermining of juvenile offenders need for quality education (Heilbrin, Goldstein, and Redding); Lack of sufficient mental health facilities in juvenile courts and detention facilities (Geary, 2005); cruel punishment; subjection of the minors to overcrowded detention among others. Juvenile Delinquency also influences the economy through the destructions caused by the offenders. Understanding the factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency is critical in coming up with ways to address the problem and to reduce the eminent ethical issues and economic losses. Juvenile Delinquency in its context To get a clear understanding of the contribution of all stakeholders involved in Juvenile delinquency to identify the main divisions in which it occur. These include individual delinquency, situational delinquency, organized delinquency and group supported delinquency. Individual delinquency occurs when a single person commits a criminal act on his or her own. Group supported delinquency results from both personal attributes and the neighborhood of an individual usually out of close companionship of a young person with other delinquents. Organized delinquency refers to the commitment of crime by organized groups, in situations where juveniles happen to be members of a criminal gang. Situational delinquency occurs when young people engage in crime without a strong sense of commitment. One of the key factors contributing to juvenile delinquency is the social setting juveniles are placed especially at family level (Iravani, 2012). The kind of guidance that youths are given, the love and care they are shown and openness in the family setting go a long way in good citizens molding such that delinquency is less likely. Where love and discussion are not stressed on in the family and youths are neglected they are become at risk of being easily lured into crime. Most researchers suggest that most young people engage in crime in an effort to seek solutions for their family problems (Rosenheim. et al, 2002). Iravani (2012) also found out that where both parents are available at home and engage their children in discussion and guidance delinquency is less unlikely. The risk to delinquency due to weak neighborhood social setting is also associated with peer deviance but more so with parenting behavior (Chung and Steinberg, 2006, quoted in Iravani, 2012). Parents, therefore, have the biggest role to play in reducing risks to delinquency. Weak neighborhoods and peer pressure from other delinquents on the other hand play the Other external factors such as group home placements are also associated with increased risks to delinquency (Ryan et al., 2008 quoted in Iravani, 2012). Ryan et al (2008) found that home group setting increases risk to delinquency nearly two and half times, policies implementing group home placement for victims of physical and abuse neglect are to blame. Placements of juvenile delinquents in juvenile detention also aggravate the risks to delinquency to offenders who would otherwise have little risks of reoffending (Lipsey et al, 2010). The juvenile system plays an active role in protecting juvenile but at times also contributes to the problem. Severe punishments of juvenile offenders have further been found to be counter-productive in reducing recidivism (Lipsey et al, 2010). The overwhelming influence of the inner city is another factor causing young people to have a propensity to commit crimes at an early age (Sherman, 2006). Juveniles in Adult Court The judicial system of the United States underwent some contemporary changes that enabled trial of juveniles in adults’ criminal courts. This sometimes occurs due to the severity of juvenile crimes that warrant their trial in the adult courts. The judicial system thus provides three major ways in which juveniles can undergo trial in adult courts. The first is through a judicial waiver whereby judges in a juvenile court refer juveniles to an adult criminal court, implying that these minors no longer enjoy the protection of juvenile jurisdictions. Secondly, the statutory exclusion outlines that every minor who takes part in an excluded offense is an apparent adult according to the courts of justice. Consequently, juveniles also get tried in adult courts due to direct files. Under these circumstances, prosecutors have liberty of dealing with juveniles. In addition, judges from both juvenile and adult courts can hear and determine these cases as they deem legal and proper (Whitehead and Steven, 1999). Addressing the Juvenile Delinquency The concern of this study is the Juvenile Delinquency involving the kind of crimes that states allow to be addressed in adults’ courts, or that would warrant jailing the juvenile offenders. As such, the study reviewed the statistics of Juvenile Arrest rates for crime index offenses across the U.S. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP (2012)] notes that Juvenile arrests rates dropped by 55 percent from an all-time high in 1994 to a historic minimum in 2010.The trend of the Juvenile arrest trend between the 1980-2010 is illustrated below: Figure 1.Juvenile Arrest Rates for Violence Crime Index Offenses, 1980-2010 From OJJDP Statistical Briefing book (2012). December 17. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201 The graph depicted above is only for criminal offenses of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, robbery, forcible rape, and aggravated assault. The 2010 levels were 24% below the 1980 arrest rates and 55 % below the 1994 peak rates. A survey by Adam and Puzzanchera (2012) found that in 2010, there were 225 juvenile arrests for Violent Crime offenses in every 100,000 youths aged between 10 and 17. An analysis of this survey leads to the conclusion that if every arrest was for a different juvenile then about 1 in every 445 youths between10-17 years was arrested for an offense of violent crime index in 2010 though such is less unlikely (Adam and Puzzanchera, 2012). The OJJDP further indicates a slight decrease of these numbers in the year 2011 and 2012. The punitive laws put by various states to address the increasing criminal offences by juvenile have indeed proven to be effective in reducing the rates of Juvenile delinquency. The statistics imply that, though Juvenile delinquency for Crime Violent Crime Index Offenses, there is still a high number of juveniles that are being tried in Adult courts. Also worrying is the fact that the cases of Juvenile cases being addressed in adults courts could be on the rise. The Graham V. Florida case in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner holding that sentencing a juvenile offender to life in prison, with no parole for a non-homicide crime brings to the limelight the ethical issues with the justice system, the 16 year old had been imprisoned for burglary. Lipsey et al (2010) stresses the need for preventive mechanisms rather than punitive intervention. This would have for instance prevented the recidivism of offence by Graham as had happened. Conclusion and Recommendations The primary goal for juvenile justice system remains to be reform. Using punitive intervention to address juvenile delinquency may be necessary at times but mostly leads to ethical issues and problem. This study finds that the rates of Juvenile delinquency have been on a general downwards trend for the last one decade. The literature reviewed suggests that addressing the youths behavior that increases risks to delinquency if done at the family and in the neighborhood level could be effective at lowering the rates even further. Parents must be ready and willing to accord their children maximum love and take part in advising them against any behavior that puts them at risk. Policies encouraging group home placement for victims of physical and abuse neglect are being reconsidered. States could also impose curfews for juveniles especially at the cities where there is a high propensity to commit crimes at an early age. The juvenile offenders who are proven to be at low risks to reoffend should also be diverted from the justice system and rather be counseled. Counseling should also be extended to heavy crime juvenile offenders as it has been proven that harsh punishment is usually counter-productive( Lipsey et al, 2010).Through good collaboration of all the stakeholders involved, Juvenile delinquency will be effectively reduced. References Department of Juvenile Services (n.d.).History of Juvenile Justice in the United States. Maryland. Retrieved November 19 2013, from http://www.djs.state.md.us/history us.asp Geary, Patrick (2005) "Juvenile Mental Health Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Facing the Challenges Posed by Youth with Mental Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System," Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics: 5(2), 671-710 Heilbrun, K., Goldstein, S. & Redding, R. (2005). Juvenile Delinquency: Prevention, Assessment, and Intervention. New York: Oxford University Press Henning, K. (2012). Juvenile Justice after Graham v. Florida: Keeping Due Process, Autonomy, and Paternalism in Balance. Journal of Law & Policy. 37(17), 17-51 Iravani, M. R. (2012). A social work study on juvenile delinquency. Management Science Lipsey, M., Howell, C., Kelly, M., Chapman, G., Carver, D. (2010). Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice. Centre for Juvenile Justice System. Retrieved November 19 2013, from http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (2012). Juvenile Arrest Rate Trends. Statistical Briefing Book. Retrieved November 19 2013, from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201 Puzzanchera, C., and Adams, B. (2012). Juvenile Arrests 2009. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Rosenheim, K., et al. (2002). A Century of Juvenile Justice. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Sherman, L. (2006). Crime and juvenile delinquency. Gender Issues, 23(4), 60-68. Whitehead, T and Steven L. (1999). Juvenile Justice: An Introduction. Ohio: Anderson. Letters, 2(4), 1403-1408. Read More