Juvenile Delinquency - Term Paper Example

Juvenile Delinquency Juvenile delinquency is on the rise in the world today. Crimes rates increase yearly and this involves criminal acts by underage children. Due to the many factors surrounding adolescent and child behavior psychologically, dealing with their cases has become complicated. These factors necessitate the adoption of new strategies in juvenile justice. New strategies should seek to address juvenile justice in court proceedings as well as establish the causes of increasing juvenile delinquency. In addition, new prevention approaches should come into place to curb the increase. This paper will discuss the history of juvenile justice, analyze the causes of increasing juvenile delinquency, and consider approaches of curbing delinquency. In addition, the paper will consider the effectiveness and challenges of these strategies. It will also highlight new approaches worth a trial in combating delinquency. History of Juvenile Justice and Approaches Used in the Past Before the introduction of juvenile justice system, children committing offenses underwent a similar trial process with adults committing crimes. During that era, it did not matter whether the children had capable discernment and awareness of the consequences of their actions or not. In that system, only children less than seven years categorized as infants did not face full trials for their offenses. For children over seven years, they had to bear the consequences of their actions. They underwent all court proceedings as required by law. In addition, they were subject to sentences and forms of punishment similar to adults (Krisberg, 2005). The 19th century saw several changes in juvenile justice system. Social reform was the order of the century and highlights concerning juveniles appeared. It became evident that new approaches were essential in the juvenile justice system. Through the social reform agenda, construction of special facilities that aimed at taking care of youths with troubled lives and indulging in delinquency. In the United States, the first of juvenile facilities was the construction and launching of a refuge house in New York (27). This led to replication of the idea in other states. The main objectives of the refuge house was to separate juvenile offenders from adults committing crimes. The refuge houses worked towards rehabilitating the youths. They wanted to get the delinquents back to the right track and encourage them to adopt a responsible lifestyle (Siegel & Welsh, 2010). The launching of reform schools followed with the same agenda of rehabilitation. In 1899, Cook County in Illinois became a pioneer with its launch of the first court specializing with juvenile cases. Krisberg (2005) argues that the juvenile courts had a basis in a law clause that presented the state with a guardian responsibility to the state. The clause applied in this case because juveniles presented multiple legal disabilities. These juvenile courts were to prioritize the interests of the child. These courts adopted a flexible approach with minimal procedures that focused on correction and guidance into a responsible lifestyle. In these courts, the juvenile officers made the juvenile understand that he or she was facing the state. In addition, the officers made the juveniles recognize the protection that it could offer to the delinquent. The judges in these courts adopted a dignified but friendly arrangement that served as an assurance to the delinquent (Krisberg, 2005). The scenes in juvenile courts changed in the 1960’s after the Supreme Court realized that juvenile courts denied the delinquents the due process of law. The Supreme Court made it mandatory for juvenile courts to safeguard the juveniles under their trial in similar ways that other courts safeguarded offenders. Without the due process, it was evident that juveniles could end up at a disadvantage in the juvenile courts. From then, the Supreme Court required the juvenile courts to accord the juveniles some elements of the due process. These included offering the juveniles a notice concerning their charges. In addition, delinquents deserved a right to receive legal counsel. It became a necessity for juvenile officers to cross-examine and confront witnesses during the trial (Siegel & Welsh, 2010). The Supreme Court directed the juvenile courts to allow juveniles to exercise their rights against self-incrimination. Five cases during this period altered the way juvenile courts had operated. After the supreme courts’ hearing, it became a requirement for juvenile courts to carry out proceedings similar to those in adult courts. These courts were to prove the guilt of a juvenile to the level of ‘without doubt’ (Krisberg, 2005). However, in the 1990’s, things changed. After the predication that a new wave of increased juvenile delinquents that would involve itself in serious crime. This era had many terms that described juveniles. The fear that numbers of juveniles would increase in the years that followed made many of the juvenile systems readjust their objects. Because of the perception that the future juveniles would prove to be hardened criminals without morals and values, the juvenile systems opted to adopt punitive measures in the juvenile system. In real sense, the predicted new wave of merciless juvenile delinquents never appeared. However, the adolescents who committed offences in this era faced a system that treated them like the adults who were committing crimes (Lipsey 2010). During this period, most of the delinquents facing charges received trial in courts that did not factor out that their age limited their competence in undergoing the trial process. However, the results of these punitive measures proved devastating. News strategies are essential for the 21st century. Stakeholders to Juvenile Delinquency The addressing of juvenile delinquency brings different stakeholders to the forefront. The law enforcers play a major role in juvenile delinquency because the approaches they employ determine whether juveniles result to serious offenses or not. The role played by law enforcers in maintenance of law and order and taking custody of offenders is critical in juvenile delinquency. If they handle the first arrest of delinquents efficiently, it will have positive results in prevention of delinquency in the future. Parents and guardians play a major role in juvenile delinquency. Their cooperation with juvenile officers and efforts to encourage juveniles to transform is critical. Schools and faith-based organizations play an important role in curbing juvenile delinquency through their cooperation with juvenile officers in monitoring delinquent behavior. The entire community plays a crucial role depending on its values for quality life. Communities that allow petty nuisances to persist present a good environment for delinquency and gangs. Others stakeholders in juvenile justice include prosecutors, specialized juvenile officers, juvenile court judges and representatives from other government offices (Krisberg, 2005). Issues Addressed in Juvenile Justice Effective approaches towards juvenile justice should address several issues. The first involves procedures of protecting the public from the activities of juveniles. This surrounds their arrest and detention procedures. The procedures of adjudication in the juvenile courts are another crucial issue. In addition, research into the causes of increasing delinquency is essential. Juvenile justice seeks to establish the most effective approaches in handling juveniles. Other researchers are seeking to establish practical and effective strategies in curbing delinquency. Other researchers look into future prospects of the issue and predict what the scene of juvenile delinquency will look like (Krisberg, 2005). Analysis of Possible Strategies and Interventions Designed to combat juvenile delinquency Community-based Prosecution One of the strategies that can prove effective in addressing juvenile delinquency is community prosecution. This strategy seeks to include all the stakeholders in juvenile justice to the front. The entire community participates in identifying the problems that lead to increased delinquency as well as contribute in formulating unique solutions to their problems. This strategy brings to board law enforcers, prosecutors and other government representative to reason with members of a community on possible solutions concerning delinquency. In this approach, each of the stakeholders must play a specific part in combating delinquency. The approach does not place its basis on traditional law enforcement strategies that have proved insufficient in addressing the issue (Siegel & Welsh, 2010). The different stakeholders offer a diverse perspective of the matter. This approach relies on the theory of ‘broken windows’. According to this theory, there is great and urgent need for communities to bring to an end petty nuisances and minor public offences. These include loitering of youth aimlessly, vandalism, prostitution, and public intoxication. These minor offenses are the broken windows in the theory. Failure to take action against such minor offenses makes these offenders feel confident enough to indulge in serious crime. However, if urgent and serious action against minor offenses is a priority, these potential criminals realize that the community cannot tolerate crime. Repairing broken windows is a sure way of combating delinquency (Lipsey 2010). The community-based approach seeks to solve the problem of delinquency from its roots. The approach involves identification of a specific geographical area. Law enforcers working hand in hand with schools, faith-based organizations in the community identify nuisances that reduce quality of life in the area. The approach then begins by putting into place measures that can eliminate such minor offenses (Krisberg, 2005). In addition, the approach involves the identification of youth who are prone to delinquency. Identification occurs through self-confession and other sources of community data. The approach also involves institutionalizing a community justice programs that address the needs of delinquents. Through this justice program, delinquents receive rehabilitation. It may involve probations, detention, and punitive programs that require the juvenile to perform tasks within the community. Through these tasks, the delinquents realize that they are members of a large community and that they should act responsibly. The justice programs work in conjunction with schools in monitoring the behavior change and delinquency frequency. The juvenile officials in this approach weigh cases based on records from school and the entire community. The new approach seeks to prevent the development of delinquency. It identifies ways in which the groups mentioned above can help prevent crime among youths. In addition, the community prosecution approach has the potential of establishing programs that can effectively meet the needs of juvenile justice systems (Siegel & Welsh, 2010). Through negotiations of the institutions involved, there is possibility to formulate guidelines that will help rehabilitation centers to give juveniles the right treatment. The extensive programs designed through community prosecution provide a re-integration program of offenders back into the society. Benefits and Challenges This approach has several benefits. It is a preventive measure of delinquency that takes measures to combat delinquency from its roots. In addition, it incorporates a justice system that handles juveniles who indulge actively in crime. This approach relies on the contribution of all relevant stakeholders. Each stakeholder plays a role in the approach. In addition, the juvenile officers inculcate community responsibility into the juvenile offenders and this serves in transforming them positively. However, despite its effectiveness, it needs a higher level of organization for all stakeholders as well as proactive thinking. Integration of Programs A second approaching involves the design of effective programs for youths according to their current needs. Young who have never indulged in crime require programs that keep them motivated towards setting and achieving personal goals. Youth who prove prone to committing offenses require programs that can empower them to cope with the pressure effectively. Other youths indulging in minor offenses require correctional programs that prevent them from becoming regular delinquents. Juveniles committing serious offenses require rehabilitation and transformational programs that can motivate them to undergo self-discovery and cultivate the will to make their lives better. After rehabilitation, youths released back to the society require programs that can effectively re-integrate them to society (Krisberg, 2005). Benefits and Challenges This approach requires professionals to address the needs of youths under all categories mentioned. Launching the programs for empowering youth under all categories in all societies will prove costly but it is worth the cost. It will help curb increase of delinquency and prepare youth to become responsible adults. In addition, it will help delinquents under rehabilitation and help reintegrate them back to society. If professionals handle the needs of each youth category well, it can prove effective in curbing delinquency (Lipsey 2010). Future Prospects With the emergence of new approaches towards delinquency, the future looks promising. The next decade will likely register fewer juvenile delinquencies. With effective implementation of community prosecution and integration of special programs for the youth, the next two decades will see the diminishing of juvenile delinquencies. Since psychology is producing scientific data concerning the functioning of the brains of adolescents, the juvenile justice will definitely take a different course in the future (Lipsey 2010). It is evident that juvenile delinquency is becoming a challenge in society today. Dealing delinquents requires expertise. Juvenile justice requires new approaches because the 21st century needs of the youth are different. Adoption of community prosecution is likely to register a major decline in delinquency. In addition, an integrated approach that addresses the needs of each youth category will be efficient in preventing and curbing delinquency. Implementation of these strategies can assure society of a decline in juvenile delinquency. References Krisberg, B. (2005). Juvenile justice: Redeeming our children. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Pub. Siegel, L. J. & Welsh, C. B. (2010). Juvenile Delinquency: The Core. New York: Cengage Learning. Lipsey, M.W., Howell, J. C. & Kelly, R. M. Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs. A new Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice. Retrieved on 13 October, 2012, from http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf Read More