Changes in Juvenile Justice over the Last Few Decades - Coursework Example

Changes in Juvenile Justice over the Last Few Decades Introduction The United s utilizes a juvenile justice system that has operation standards, which differ from the criminal justice framework that governs adults. These two systems of justice are entirely separate from each other, in order to clearly distinguish delinquent acts carried out by minors from criminal acts by adults. For example, court hearings for underage offenders are held outside the conventional adult system, while services meant for rehabilitation are also availed by independent providers. On the whole, the American justice system acknowledges the dissimilarities between juveniles and adults, assigning lower accountability measures for youths that commit criminal acts compared to their grownup counterparts. Therefore, juvenile programs in the US recognize that young offenders, unlike adults, have higher potential for reform thus ensuring that the system leaves room for this rehabilitative potential. This paper seeks to explore the developmental progress of the juvenile justice system in the US since its inception, landmark changes over time, and potent recommendations for further improvement. Through relevant reform strategies, the juvenile justice system will continue to transform delinquent youths into productive citizens, while continually reducing recidivism. Inception of the Juvenile Justice System in the US America’s initial juvenile court was formed in Chicago in the year 1899, after Illinois enacted the Juvenile Court Act of 1899. This juvenile court was formed based on the British creed of parens patriae, which directly translates to “the State as parent”. The latter implies that the court justified state intervention in rectifying children’s behavior, in a way that was significantly different from that which was used for adults. The decision was deemed justifiable, since children were considered to lack the legal capacity wielded by adults, leaving the state as the party responsible of providing protection in cases where natural parents failed to provide necessary supervision or care. A key consideration during establishment of the juvenile court was delinquent children’s welfare, viewed as a responsibility of the legal system (Lundman, 2001). This initial court served as a platform for formation of the juvenile justice system for the rest of the country, as discussed further in subsequent sections. Juvenile Justice System in the 20th Century Following Chicago’s establishment of a juvenile court, the rest of the country followed suit and by 1925, only two states were yet to form juvenile courts and probation services for youths. Instead of solely focusing on punishing young offenders for their crimes, these early courts adopted treatment measures aimed at transforming them into useful citizens (Krisberg, 2005). This mission aimed at helping troubled children was integrated into laws that formed and governed juvenile courts. In the subsequent 50 years, virtually all juvenile courts wielded exclusive jurisdiction over youngsters below the age of 18 that had criminal charges filed against them. It is only when juvenile courts gave up this jurisdiction, that underage offenders would be transferred to mainstream legal courts, where they would be tried as adults. These decisions to waiver juvenile court jurisdiction were made on the basis of individual cases, using a standard balancing the child’s interest with public safety. This focus on offending youths and not their crimes, as well as, on rehabilitation as opposed to punishment, significantly influenced the juvenile justice system. Introduction of Due Process Safeguards Despite the commitment of juvenile courts to rehabilitating troubled youths, many members of the public questioned this ability, particularly in the mid-20th century, from the 1950s to 1960s. The rehabilitation measures adopted by these early juvenile courts never attained the level of efficiency expected by different stakeholders. Even though the objective of transforming youngsters through individual-oriented justice was considered viable, professionals in criminal justice started questioning the increasing number of young offenders held for an indefinite period of time in detention centers, as an excuse for rehabilitation. As a result, the US Supreme Court initiated a series of actions starting in the 1960s, in an effort to ensure that juvenile courts and their rehabilitative detention facilities became more formal. Some of the formalities associated with the mainstream criminal justice system were introduced into the juvenile system. For example, formal hearings became norm in situations where juvenile courts sought jurisdiction waivers. Further, young offenders charged with crimes punishable by detention were provided protection to avoid incriminating themselves and the rights to get notice of charges brought against them, to attorney representation, as well as, to present and question witnesses. Another formality introduced by the Supreme Court was the need to for evidence that proved the young offender’s crime beyond doubt, unlike before when all was required was adequate presentation of evidence (Krisberg, 2005). Regardless of the introduced formalities, the Supreme Court still emphasized that there were still substantive differences between juvenile and ordinary criminal courts. For instance, juvenile courts did not require presence of a jury during trial of an offender. Another notable change in the juvenile justice system took place in 1968, when Congress passed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act. The statute suggested that underage youths charged with offenses considered non-criminal, be dealt with outside court systems. In 1974, Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. This act sought to deinstitutionalize juveniles’ status, while allowing separation of young offenders from their adult colleagues. An amendment to the 1974 act stipulated that juveniles should not be placed in adult jails or confinement facilities. Between the 1970s and 1980s, juveniles’ removal from adult institutions and their diversion to community-based programs were the landmark undertakings. Shift to Law and Order As the 20th century neared its end, members of the public insisted that serious crimes attributable to underage offenders were increasing. They also argued that the juvenile justice system was too lenient to deal with young criminals in an effective manner. Despite the lack of consensus on actual increase in juvenile offenses, many states passed more laws aimed at punishing young offenders in response to the public’s call for stricter measures. Some of these laws reclassified certain classes of offenses, thus transferring specific offenders from juvenile courts to criminal courts that dealt with adult offenders. Other laws recommended change of juvenile justice framework to adopt aspects of the mainstream criminal justice system. Consequently, young wrongdoers charged with serious offenses are removed from the jurisdiction of juvenile courts or face compulsory transfer to criminal courts. In other states, introduction of provisions on concurrent authority gave prosecutors the choice to file specific juvenile cases in criminal courts instead of juvenile court (Butts & Mears, 2001). State Legislature and Juvenile Crime Throughout the last decade of the 20th century, there were unprecedented changes in state laws, aimed at significantly reducing juvenile crime. Areas that experienced substantial changes included eligibility for processing in criminal court, reduced protection of privacy for a certain category of juvenile criminals, and eligibility for adult corrective mechanism. For instance, from 1992 to 1997, only three states had not changed legal statutes on transfer, sentencing, confidentiality victim rights, and correctional programs. In regard to transfer, most states formulated legal provisions that made it easy to transfer underage criminals from the juvenile to the criminal justice legal framework. On sentencing matters, 31 states introduced laws that gave juvenile and criminal courts access to a broader range of confinement options. In regard to privacy and confidentiality, 47 states changed or entirely removed traditional laws thus making juvenile court proceedings and records open to the public. Further, on the issue of victim rights, laws facilitated more participation of the aggrieved in the process of searching for justice (Butts & Mears, 2001). Administrators of juvenile and adult correction programs had to develop new rehabilitation approaches, due to the new sentencing and transfer laws. The new programs sought to guarantee balance between offender accountability, development of offender productivity, and community safety. This was to guarantee that, delinquent juveniles were not overly protected by law. The change system also sought to ensure that young offenders learnt how to take responsibility for their actions, while repairing harm inflicted on victims and communities at large (Lundman, 2001). Current state of Juvenile Justice System The present juvenile justice structures still maintain rehabilitation as the principal goal, as well as, distinguishing itself from criminal justice system in imperative ways. With a couple of exceptions, it is apparent that in numerous states delinquency can be defined commitment of a criminal offence by a minor especially one that is under the age of eighteen years. With the new reforms, most states are now allowing youths to remain under supervision of a juvenile court until they reach a legal age of 21 years (Howell, 2003). Nowadays, it is common for the justice system allows the judges to utilize other forms of punishment instead of prison. The court also allows the judges to refer to other legal options in order to make sure that they meet the safety needs of the youth in the case as well as the public. It is clear that disparate to adult criminal proceedings, the juvenile court proceedings are usually closed to public as well as records made confidential in order to protect the child. It is apparent that cases can have a lot of burdens for kids when they are venturing into adulthood. Therefore, it is extremely imperative to note that with the new chances in the juvenile justice system, have improved towards making the life of the kid bearable in the future. Nevertheless, in spite of what numerous individuals believe, juvenile records are not always expunged or sealed in some jurisdictions. If the juvenile records are not mechanically sealed or expunged, young people usually face a lot of problems in the future especially when they get involved in a legal issue (MacKenzie, 2000). For instance, they might probably face difficulties in obtaining financial assistance, employment or even get a chance to serve in the military or public service. With the new changes, it is apparent that there is a lot of progress on the social opinion about juvenile justice. This is because it is now turning into a new direction, where numerous studies point to very dissimilar developmental phases between young people and adults. This is a huge contrast between the past where juvenile justice policies mainly focused on imprisoning juvenile offenders. Presently, the juvenile justice has embarked on embracing a reforming developmental model where young people are taught unique ways of dealing with wrong doings. Many reform organizations are now trying their level best to apply behavioral science as well as sensitivity in dealing with ill mannered young adults. Such organizations are focusing on ensuring that juvenile offenders get the necessary assistance instead getting incarcerated (MacKenzie, 2000). Additionally, the changed juvenile justice system reforms advocate on seeking protection for such individual’s civil rights. Presently, the principal tenet in numerous juvenile justices structures are focused towards reforming individuals. There is a greater responsibility that juvenile institutions have been accorded to and that is shaping youthful outcomes. Additionally, these organizations have established local outreach programs, as well as, alternative sentencing. These are better solutions compared to incarceration. The justice systems have also adopted educational as well as therapeutic programs which are being provided. Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice There is a huge change that has taken place in the juvenile justice structure. Therefore, there is need to provide necessary improvements on interventions programs for juvenile offenders. For instance, such organizations have made sure that delinquent juvenile behavior is reduced and that youths get a chance to prosper and become productive. The Juvenile justice systems should also embark on making use of numerous programs intended in accomplishing reformation. Therefore, in order to effectively optimize optimistic outcomes for the youth, as well as, the community, there is imperativeness in making sure that proper programs are effectively implemented (Krisberg, 2005). Therefore, principal objectives such models should be well implemented, developed and sustained. This means that there is need to have a suitable array of efficient evidence-based programs. Implementation and sustenance of well thought-out decision on juvenile programs should be implemented based on objective assessments as well as needs and risk. Such systems are supposed to be used in constructing case management strategies that are focused towards improving the future behavior of juveniles. It is crucial to note that some court procedures should not be used on kids because they lack developmental aspects and this means they undermine the major intentions of any juvenile court (Dawood, 2009). Further Recommendations for Reforms Courts are supposed to offer children with psychological counseling in case one is a witness or involved in a serious case. Additionally it is imperative for courts to allow children to have the help of experts in case they are supposed to testify in a case. This will ensure that they are confident and are not afraid of facing different occurrences in a case. Courtrooms are supposed to get the necessary accommodations that will develop the needs of a kid and lessen any related fears that can intimidate or overwhelm a child who could be testifying. With respect to the latter, it imperative to make sure that significant studies are conducted, in order to comprehend psychiatric needs of detained juveniles. This is because some of the youths undergo such issues, as a result of serious mental problems and they have the civil right to be treated when incarcerated. Such measures might, therefore assist in preventing their return to old ways or getting imprisoned later in life. Given the numerous challenges that the juvenile justice system faces on psychiatric matters, it is important to make sure that affiliated organizations are manned by experts. Further, youths with mental issues should be screened under supervision and observed over a period of twenty four hours before they get admitted into such facilities. Another issue that should be taken into account is the need for constant training of personnel that will be dealing with the young people. It is necessary to determine common pathways that will assist these individual in living a better life, in order to further improve the already changed juvenile justice system. Conclusion It is apparent from the discussion that the juvenile justice system has changed significantly over time and will keep on evolving on the basis of emerging societal issues and needs. Through continuous transformation, the juvenile justice system has been able to properly respond to the social changes and unpredictable shifts in what is commonly known as juvenile offense. The notable reforms have been put in place, in an effort to enhance the public’s perception of juvenile rehabilitation efficiency, while at the same time incorporating unique requirements of underage offenders. Continued improvement of the system through proposed programs and measures will not only assist in mentorship of troubled youths, but also in reinforcing juvenile justice. References Butts, A., & Mears, D. (2001). Reviving Juvenile Justice in a Get-Tough Era. Youth & Society, 33, 169-198. Dawood, N. (2009). Juvenile Justice at a Crossroads: The future of Senate bill 81 in California. Berkeley, CA: Prison Law Office. Howell, C. (2003). Preventing & Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krisberg, B. (2005). Juvenile justice: Redeeming our Children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Lundman, J. (2001). Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Oxford. MacKenzie, L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457-471. Read More