Assignment 1: LASA # 2: PowerPoint Presentation

The Juvenile System Reforms

Stephanie Rincon

Professor: Captain W. Michael Koval

Criminal Justice Capstone

February 7, 2018

Introduction

A criminal activity committed by an adult is normally considered as a crime and is punishable by law but when the same crime is committed by a child, it is not considered a crime but a juvenile delinquency. The American juvenile system has been focusing on a rehabilitation model which means that the primary goal entails rehabilitating the offenders as opposed to punishing them (Goswami & Mehra, 2014). However, it is imperative to point out that the United States is slowly shifting from the rehabilitation model and getting utterly tougher on the juveniles. This has seen rising opposition and support in equal measure. Individuals opposing shifting from the rehabilitation model view children or adolescents as persons who needs assistance and hence should not be subjected to destructive punishments. On the other hand, individuals in support of the shift argue that children and adolescents are more likely to commit heinous crimes such as murder when they know they can easily get free after committing a crime. The following section evaluates whether juvenile justice systems should shift from the rehabilitation model as a deterrence to juvenile delinquency.

Discussion

In more than a century ago, a separate juvenile system was established in the U.S. with the aim of diverting young offenders from the destructive punishments in the criminal courts so as to encourage the much needed rehabilitation (Leve & Chamberlain, 2005). This system was to focus on a child as a person in need of assistance. Actually, the proceedings were informal where discretion was left to the judge handling the case. It is imperative to point out that the judge was supposed to act in the best interests of the child but an offender was denied procedural safeguards such as right to a jury, right to an attorney and right to confront an accuser among others (Maschi, Hatcher, Schwalbe & Rosato, 2008). Further, the proceedings were supposed to be confidential so as not to interfere with a child’s ability to reintegrate into the society.

After the establishment of the separate system, there was a rising tension between social welfare and social control. This means that focus on the best interests of the offenders as opposed to focus on punishments and protecting the society from certain offenses. Various occurrences followed such as increasing violent crime in the 1980s which called for reforms in dealing with serious offenses and concern for public safety (Huizinga, Schumann, Ehret & Elliott, 2003). 17 states redefined purpose of the Juvenile courts to emphasize public safety and offender accountability. In the U.S., 51 states and District of Columbia have different juvenile justice systems. In majority of the states, there are legal reforms and policy changes that focus on more aggressive policing of the juveniles (Huizinga et al., 2003). This is making it easier to treat a juvenile who has committed some offenses as an adult. However, it is worth noting that changes in law do not necessarily translate to changes in practice as some juveniles are amenable to treatment and rehabilitation. It can be seen there have been legal, social, and policy changes in the juvenile justice system. There is focus on shifting from the rehabilitation model.

According to Shivani Goswami and Neelu Mehra (2014), during adolescence, the brain is still immature and hence individuals are less able to regulate their behaviors. More so, they are more prone to external influence such as peer pressure and immediate reward. Further, they are not able to make decisions that a future orientation. The U.S. juvenile system relies heavily on confinement which is much like the criminal justice system. However, it is has been established that juveniles require different treatment to rectify them and therefore correctional methods adopted should also be different from adults. The U.S. system depends on confinement as a correctional measure but has its limitations. Offenders are deprived their needed involvement with a parental figure, positive socialization with peers among other activities that lead to better decision-making and critical-thinking abilities (Maschi et al., 2008). In this regard, individuals opposed to shifting from the rehabilitation model feel that confinement cannot be applied as a means of making juveniles accountable. Further, data has showed that individuals who have gone through confinement are twice as likely to reoffend (Maschi et al., 2008). Confinement is a form of punishment and not rehabilitation.

According to Margaret Zahn, Jacob Day and Sharon Mihalic (2009) juvenile systems should put more emphasis on encouraging offender accountability through engaging in community service and helping offenders make amends of their lives. The authors argue that juvenile justice should be restorative so as to attain its primary goals which are preventing reoffending and rehabilitating them. Further, the authors have also argued that juveniles perceive confinement as punishment and hence it does not offer restorative justice. According to Maschi et al (2008), restorative justice cannot be attained through confinement without refinement of laws, policies, and frameworks in the juvenile justice system. It can be seen that confinement which is applied in the U.S. juvenile justice system, does not lead to attainment of the system’s primary goal of rehabilitation as majority of individuals who go through the system are twice as likely to offend.

In U.S. today, 2.2 million individuals are incarcerated where 60,000 are teens held in juvenile detention facilities on any given day (Smith, 2013). It is imperative to point out that the young adults normally face a host of barriers when trying to reintegrate into the community. More so, it has been established that the trauma of incarceration can be carried throughout their life (Smith, 2013). For instance, they are unable to find a place to live or are unable to secure a sustainable job. Actually, it has been established that young adults who have undergone the juvenile system are disproportionately low income earners. Further, over half of the offenders are diagnosed with learning disabilities when they are out of the system (Zajac, Sheidow & Davis, 2015). Notably, the issues affect the general population as effects such as lost earning, diminished communities, wasted talents and increased spending in social services.

There is a cross-sector collaboration between educators, policymakers, law enforcement and community organizations to put in place efforts that will help reform the juvenile justice system. These efforts have also been focusing on seeing that juveniles are not made to enter the adult justice systems, post-adjudicated youths are able to gain helpful skills, and assisting youths reentering the society (Zajac et al., 2015). The collaborators hold that the juvenile system needs to be reformed as recidivism rates have remained consistently high which means that the current system is not able to attain its primary goals. There have been rising public concerns for the system to adopt reforms especially due to rising juvenile crimes that are being experienced in the country (Farrington, Loeber & Howell, 2012). However, it is worth noting that the public is calling for restorative justice as opposed to confinement which essentially serves as a punishment.

On the other hand, there are quotas that push for instilling punishment as a deterrence to juvenile crimes which are on the rise. They argue that when young offenders are not punished they are likely to reoffend which explains the rising recidivism rates in the society (Chuang & Wells, 2010). Notably, there are quotas arguing that in instilling punishments, age should be a critical factor that needs to be considered (Chuang & Wells, 2010). There are young offenders who are able to understand their actions and their actions especially those who are or over 14 years old. Such offenders should be subjected to punishment as a deterrence to recidivism.

Conclusion

Juvenile justice remains a bone of contention in the country as parties are divided on how it should be facilitated. It is worth noting that the U.S. government is slowly shifting from the rehabilitation model and is putting more focus on a system that not only rehabilitates but also punishes the offenders. This has led to opposition as there are quotas that feel that the current system is not offering restorative justice. Collaborative efforts by educators, police makers, law enforcers, and legislators have been focusing on pushing for reforms in the juvenile system which is not attaining its primary goal that entails rehabilitation. These efforts are in support of the conclusion of this paper that shifting from the rehabilitation model will not deter juvenile crimes and recidivism.

References

Chuang, E., & Wells, R. (2010). The Role Of Interagency Collaboration In Facilitating Receipt Of Behavioral Health Services For Youth Involved With Child Welfare And Juvenile Justice. Children And Youth Services Review, 1814–1822.

Farrington, D., Loeber, R., & Howell, J. (2012). Young Adult Offenders: The Need For More Effective Legislative Options And Justice Processing. American Society Of Criminology., 727–750.

Goswami, S., & Mehra, N. (2014). Juvenile Justice Systems in United States and India: Modern Scenario and Much Needed Modifications. Journal of Law and Criminal Justice, 251-263.

Herz, D., Lee, P., Lutz, L., Stewart, M., Tuell, J., & Wiig, J. (2012). Addressing the Needs of Multi-System Youth: Strengthening the Connection Between Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 33-63.

Huizinga, D., Schumann, K., Ehret, B., & Elliott, A. (2003). Effect of Juvenile Justice System Processing on Subsequent Delinquent and Criminal Behavior: A Cross-National Study. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 31-49.

Leve, L. D., & Chamberlain, P. (2005). Association with Delinquent Peers: Intervention Effects for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 339–347.

Maschi, T., Rosato, N., Schwalbe, C., & Hatcher, S. (2008). Mapping the social service pathways of youth to and through the juvenile justice system: A comprehensive review. Children and Youth Services Review, 1376-1385.

Smith, C. (2013). Nothing About Us Without Us! The Failure of the Modern Juvenile Justice System and a Call for Community-Based Justice. Journal of Applied Research on Children, 21-29.

Zahn, M., Day, J., & Mihalic, S. (2009). Determining What Works for Girls in the Juvenile Justice System. Crime and Delinquency, 51-73.

Zajac, K., Sheidow, A., & Davis, M. (2015). Juvenile Justice, Mental Health, and the Transition to Adulthood: A Review of Service System Involvement and Unmet Needs in the U.S. Children and Youth Services Review Journal, 139-148.