For decades, the United States correctional facilities have had one of the highest incarceration rates throughout the world, contributing to excessive overcrowding. The rate for United States juveniles incarcerated is no different. The rate is about 300 per 100,000, which has significant consequences on these young individuals. Over the years, reforms have been concentrated on giving these delinquents an alternative option besides incarceration. Alternatives such as community-based programs have substantial long-term benefits for these individuals and the community. Furthermore, it is significant that the criminal justice system recognizes the possibility for developmental improvement in these juveniles.
In contemporary times, there is an increasing tendency for juvenile involvement in crime. The frequency and the severity of the crimes has increased so much that there are call for trial of delinquents as adults in extreme cases. The juvenile justice system however has a stronger emphasis on correctional activities and giving the under-age offenders a chance to change and make something useful of their lives. The Crossroads Juvenile Center is a detention facility in New York, it development and operations demonstrate the desire of the juvenile justice system to effects changes in the children admitted to these systems.
A Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a study in 40 of the nation’s largest urban communities. “It was found that an estimated 7,100 juvenile defendants were charged with felonies in adult criminal court in 1998. Of these 40 county criminal courts, juveniles were 64% more likely than adults to be charged with a violent felony. These juvenile defendants were generally treated as serious offenders, as 52% did not receive pretrial release, 63% were convicted of a felony, and 43% of those convicted received a prison sentence. States have expanded the mechanisms by which juveniles can be charged in criminal courts. In 1998, statutory exclusion was the most common method (42%) used to charge juveniles defendants compared to the more traditional use of juvenile waiver (24%). In the 40 counties in 1998, 62% of the juvenile felony defendants were black, 20% were white, 16% were Hispanic, and almost 2% were of another race” (“Bureau of Justice Statistics”).As time goes on, crime rates of youths
The United States has a larger percent of its population incarcerated than any other country. America is responsible for a quarter of the world’s inmates, and its incarceration rate is growing exponentially. The expense generated by these overcrowded prisons cost the country a substantial amount of money every year. While people are incarcerated for several reasons, the country’s prisons are focused on punishment rather than reform, and the result is a misguided system that fails to rehabilitate criminals or discourage crime. This literature review will discuss the ineffectiveness of the United States’ criminal justice system and how mass incarceration of non-violent offenders, racial profiling, and a high rate of recidivism has become a problem.
Juveniles being tried as adults in the justice system face the same penalties as adults, including life without parole, will receive little or no education, mental health treatment, or rehabilitative programming. Transferring adolescents to the adult system is counterproductive and even harmful because adult facilities cannot meet the special needs of the juvenile offender. Trying juveniles as adults they will obtain an adult criminal record that may significantly limit their future education and employment opportunities. This choice to try juveniles as adults put them at greater risk of assault and death in adult jails and prisons with adult inmates. The ultimate outcome of transferring juvenile offenders to adult prisons is overwhelmingly
There are differences between a juvenile court and criminal court in the United States. The focus of the juvenile justice system is on rehabilitation, in hope of deterring the minor away from a life of crime so they will not commit a crime again as an adult. In contrast, the criminal justice system focuses on the punishment and often bases the sentencing outcome on the criminal history of the youth. In a study conducted, Butler (2011) showed that the participants’ experience with adult jails and prisons show that those facilities may instill fear but are otherwise emotionally—and often physically—dangerous for youth. Many of the adult prisoners, who were minors when they enter the adult institution, felt they were forced to “grow
The federal government’s “War on Crime” by the Johnson administration in the 60s made way for tougher law enforcement and surveillance (Hinton, 2015). However, with this came the separation of children and adults in the criminal justice system; then the separation of juvenile delinquents from status offenders. As mentioned, status offenders are different from juvenile delinquents because they had broken rules which apply to only children. Meanwhile, juvenile delinquents are youths under the age of 18, who committed offenses that would be punishable to adults as well. By the late 1960s, there became a growing concern that juveniles involved in the court-based status-offense system, were not getting their best interests met (Shubik & Kendall, 2007). This can be seen in the growing number of court-involved status offenders who were being detained and placed outside of their homes for noncriminal behavior (Shubik & Kendall, 2007). Following multiple studies and research, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice recommended that the juvenile court be the agency of last resort and that community-based organizations, not penal institutions, should be responsible for these youths (Shubik & Kendall, 2007; Farrington,
The book also examined adolescent’s psychological development and also provides critiques to policies of zero tolerance and the pipeline of school to prison. Ecenbarger (2012) believes that that evidence that support diversion and community-based services are much more effective in recidivism reduction compared to incarceration. Similarly, he considers research that illustrate the net negative effects of youth incarceration, arguments that discourage shackling, fiscal arguments for the reaction of incarceration of the youth, and the significance of due process protections and quality representations for the accused youths for the
We have seen today in society of how crime rates have been rampant and how statistics show that most of the crimes were being made by minors. I believe that when most of them look at the bottom of these young offenders come disproportionately from impoverished single-parent homes that are located in the neighbourhoods desinvertido and have high rates of learning disabilities, mental health, and substance abuse and problems with the help of the system of juvenile justice that can make a great return on a successful transition to adulthood. Their ages ranged from 20 and under, most are under fifteen years of age.
Teen court also known as youth courts is a juvenile justice system program that permits teens to try and sentence their fellow peers for committing minor and status offenses. The main purpose of the teen court is to make young offenders accountable for their wrong doing by paying the price for their offences. However this system keeps first time offenders away from the Juvenile system and gives them a chance to change. In order for a youth to be considered to serve on a teen court, the young individual must be 8th to 12th grade with good academic standing, the teen must be nominated by teacher, parent or him or herself, an application must be filled up and signed with the parent’s approval.
Using juvenile drug court as an alternative to incarceration to decrease the rapidly increasing number of young offenders is a policy that includes various key concepts that one must understand. To start, juvenile drug courts are mostly voluntary. While some juvenile drug courts are mandated, this aspect has not motivated a vast majority of these courts to follow suit. Therefore, these programs are designed to keep youth from using any type of substance. These juveniles are obviously involved in this type of program due to their substance use/abuse issues. The juveniles that are involved in this type of alternate program are comprised of both males and females. It has been shown that female juveniles have improved success at this type of program,
For generations, the argument whether juveniles should be waived to adult courts or not has been a prevalent one in our society. Some agree that waiving the juveniles to adult courts will reduce their recidivism rate, due to the harsh sentences and a lifelong record next to their name. However, in light of the argument these individuals fail to consider that the level of maturity of the juvenile is not the same as an adult. The cognitive development of the juvenile is still in process when they are underage, causing them to act impulsively without thinking about the consequences of their actions. In this paper, I will provide information as to why waiving juveniles to adult courts only causes their recidivism rate to increase rather
Can you imagine waking up behind closed walls and bars? Waking up to see your inmate who is a 45-year-old bank robber and you are a 14-year-old minor who made a big mistake. This is why minors who have committed crimes should not be treated the same as adults. Some reasons are because the consequences given to minors in adult court would impact a minor’s life in a negative way. If a minor is tried through a juvenile court, they have a greater chance of rehabilitation.
There are five ways in which a juvenile can be prosecuted in adult court. One way is through a judicial wavier, this is allowed in most states, where judges have the discretion to have a youth’s case tried in the adult criminal court. The second way is through statutory exclusion, twenty-nine states automatically require a juveniles’ case to be tried in the adult court based on the age of the youth and/or the alleged crime. The other three ways are allowed in fewer states and include direct file or “prosecutorial discretion” where juvenile court judges the decision to have a youth 's case tried in the adult criminal court. There also mandatory waivers in few states which require juvenile court judges to automatically transfer a youth 's case to adult criminal court for certain offenses or because of the age or prior record of the offender. Lastly, in some states; there are age of majority statutes which automatically prosecute sixteen and/or seventeen years old depending on the state as adults (Campaign for Youth
As members of a society we need to distinguish the differences between adolescent and adult behavior and keep those differences in mind when thinking about the implications of abolishing juvenile court has on society. Questions need to be answered such as are all adolescent considered to be as responsible and independent as adults are to be treated the same in a court system? As a society, are we ready to return to a court system similar to that of