Module 8
The Juvenile Justice System
A. Youth Crime in the United States
In Chicago, a 14-year-old boy is arrested for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl
and streaming it online; he has also been charged with manufacturing and disseminating
child pornography. In New Hampshire, a teenager is charged with the murder of a man,
and attempted murder of a woman. In Texas, a juvenile is arrested for setting 11 vehicles
on fire; he was charged with arson, but will likely be the target of civil suits by victims
who will claim damages from his destruction of their cars and the property inside. Such
dramatic criminal acts make headlines. Are these only isolated incidents, or is the United
States facing a major increase in youth crime?
The juvenile crime incidents just described are unusual. In a nation with
74+million people younger than age 18, about 709,333 arrests of juveniles occur each
year, only 39,000 of which (about 5.5 percent) are for violent crimes (FBI, 2016a: Table
41). After rising from 1988 through 1994, the number of index crimes (those considered
“serious” by the FBI) committed by juveniles dropped to an all-time low in 2014 (Office
of Juvenile Justice and Probation [OJJDP], 2015). Public opinion reflects the reality of
declining crime rates in the United States, with Americans less concerned about crime
than in many past years. As shown in “What Americans Think,” the public is most
concerned about issues related to the economy and government.
Youth crimes range from UCR Index Crimes (such as murder, rape, robbery,
assault) to less serious crimes like liquor-law violations, gambling, and disorderly
conduct (see Figure 17.1). Consistent with the trends just discussed, and although about
1.5 million delinquency cases were handled in the juvenile court in 2009, the decline in
caseloads since the mid-1990s is the largest since 1960. Most juvenile crimes are
committed by young men, but young women make up an increasing percentage of
juveniles appearing in court. In the 1980s, young men were arrested 8 times more than
young women for violent crimes; but by 2012 the arrest rate for young men was only 4
times more than for young women (Puzzanchera, 2014). This trend has occurred
primarily because the number of arrests for boys has decreased at a faster rate than the
number of arrests for girls.
Other factors may have also played a role—violent crime by youth was most
prevalent in neighborhoods with deteriorating social and economic conditions. These
changes led to increases in family instability and reductions in shared social expectations
about behavior, with particular impacts in many minority neighborhoods (K. J. Strom and
MacDonald, 2007). Violent juvenile delinquency is also affected by exposure to violence
in their communities, but can be mitigated by fostering a sense of optimism and high
expectations in youth at risk for delinquency—feelings of hopelessness and low
expectations can be one of the things that leads to delinquency in these neighborhoods.
Youth gangs are another factor influencing violent youth crime. Gangs such as the
Black P. Stone Nation, CRIPS (Common Revolution in Progress), and Bloods first came
to police attention in the 1970s. The National Youth Gang Survey estimates that in 2012
there were more than 30,000 gangs with 850,000 members in the United States, and that
highly populated areas accounted for the largest number of gang-related homicides
(National Gang Center, 2014). Gangs are a primary source of fear and peril in many
neighborhoods. Especially where gang members are armed, the presence of the gang can
destabilize neighborhood life. Youth gangs are not restricted to large cities, and juveniles
in urban, suburban, and rural areas have similar reasons for joining gangs (Watkins and
Taylor, 2016). Fear of being a crime victim can lead youths to seek protection through
gang membership without realizing that gang members are actually more likely than
other juveniles to be targets of violence and property crimes (Melde, Esbensen, and
Taylor, 2009). Because the 1990s heightened awareness about youth crime and violence,
there have been continuing efforts to develop programs to address those problems
specifically.
Although juvenile delinquency, neglect, and dependency have been concerns
since the nation’s early decades, a separate system to deal with these problems did not
evolve until the early twentieth century. The contemporary juvenile justice system has
gone through a major shift of emphasis as well. The remainder of the chapter explores the
history of juvenile justice, the process it follows today, and some of the problems
associated with it.
B. The Development of Juvenile Justice
The system and philosophy of juvenile justice that began in the United States
during the social reform period of the late nineteenth century was based on the idea that
the state should act as a parent in advancing the interest of the child. This view remained
unchallenged until the 1960s, when the Supreme Court ushered in the juvenile rights
period. With the rise in juvenile crime in the 1980s, the juvenile justice system shifted
again, to one focusing on the problem of controlling youth crime. Today, people are
again reexamining the philosophy and processes of the juvenile justice system. The idea
that children should be treated differently from adults originated in the common law and
in the chancery courts of England. The common law had long prescribed that children
younger than seven years of age were incapable of felonious intent and were therefore not
criminally responsible. Children aged 7 to 14 could be held accountable only if it could
be shown that they understood the consequences of their actions.
The English chancery courts, established during the Middle Ages, heard only civil
cases, mainly those concerning property. However, under the doctrine of parens patriae,
which held the king to be the father of the realm, the chancery courts exercised protective
jurisdiction over all children, particularly those involved in questions of dependency,
neglect, and property. At this time the criminal courts, not a separate juvenile court, dealt
with juvenile offenders. In legitimizing the actions of the state on behalf of the child,
however, the concept of parens patriae laid the groundwork for the development of
juvenile justice.
English legal rules and procedures were maintained in the American colonies and
continued into the early years of American independence in the nineteenth century. The
earliest attempt by a colony to deal with problem children was the passage of the
Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law in 1646. With this law, the Puritans of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony imposed the view that the child was evil, and they
emphasized the need for the family to discipline and raise youths. Those who would not
obey their parents were dealt with by the law.
As the population of American cities began to grow during the early 1800s, the
problem of youth crime and neglect became a concern for reformers. Just as the Quakers
of Philadelphia had been instrumental during the same period in reforming correctional
practices, other groups supported changes toward the education and protection of youths.
These reformers focused their efforts primarily on the urban immigrant poor, seeking to
have parents declared “unfit” if their children roamed the streets and were apparently
“out of control.” Not all such children were engaged in criminal acts, but the reformers
believed that children would end up in prison if their parents did not discipline them and
train them to abide by the rules of society. The state would use its power to prevent
delinquency. The solution was to create “houses of refuge” where these children could
learn good work and study habits, live in a disciplined and healthy environment, and
develop “character.”
The first of these institutions was the New York House of Refuge, which opened
in 1825. This half-prison, half-school housed destitute and orphaned children as well as
those convicted of crime (Friedman, 1993: 164). Similar facilities followed in Boston,
Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Children were placed in these homes by court order, usually
because of neglect or vagrancy. They often stayed until they were old enough to be
legally regarded as adults. The houses were run according to a strict program of work,
study, and discipline.
With most states providing services to neglected youth by the end of the
nineteenth century, the problem of juvenile criminality became the focus of attention.
Progressive reformers pushed for the state to provide individualized care and treatment to
deviants of all kinds—adult criminals, the mentally ill, juvenile delinquents. They urged
adoption of probation, treatment, indeterminate sentences, and parole for adult offenders
and succeeded in establishing similar programs for juveniles. Referred to as the “child
savers,” these upper-middle-class reformers sought to use the power of the state to “save”
children from a life of crime (Platt, 1977). They shared a concern about the role of
environmental factors on behavior and a belief that benevolent state action could solve
social problems. They also believed the claim of the new social scientists that they could
treat the problems underlying deviance.
Activists such as Jane Addams, Lucy Flower, and Julia Lathrop, of the settlement
house movement; Henry Thurston, a social work educator; and the National Congress of
Mothers successfully promoted the juvenile court concept. By 1904, ten states had
implemented procedures similar to those of Illinois. By 1917, all but three states provided
for a juvenile court. The philosophy of the juvenile court derived from the idea that the
state should deal with a child who broke the law much as a wise parent would deal with a
wayward child. The doctrine of parens patriae again helped legitimize the system.
Procedures would be informal and private, records would be confidential, children would
be detained apart from adults, and probation and social workers would be appointed.
Even the vocabulary and physical setting of the juvenile system were changed to
emphasize diagnosis and treatment instead of findings of guilt. The term criminal
behavior was replaced by delinquent behavior when referring to the acts of children. The
terminology reflected the underlying belief that these children could be “cured” and
returned to society as law-abiding citizens.
Until the early 1960s, few questioned the sweeping powers of juvenile justice
officials. When the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the rights of adult defendants,
however, lawyers and scholars began to criticize the extensive discretion given to
juvenile justice officials. In a series of decisions (Figure 17.2), the U.S. Supreme Court
expanded the rights of juveniles. In the first of these cases, Kent v. United States (1966),
the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles had the right to counsel at a hearing at which a
juvenile judge may waive jurisdiction and pass the case to the adult court. In re Gault
(1967) extended due process rights to juveniles. Fifteen-yearold Gerald Gault had been
sentenced to six years in a state training school for making a prank phone call. Had he
been an adult, the maximum punishment for making such a call would have been a fine
of $5 to $50 or imprisonment for two months at most. Gault was convicted and sentenced
in an informal proceeding without being represented by counsel. The justices held that a
child in a delinquency hearing must be given certain procedural rights, including notice
of the charges, right to counsel, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and
protection against self-incrimination.
The precedent-setting Gault decision was followed by a series of cases further
defining the rights of juveniles. In the case of In re Winship (1970), the Court held that
proof must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not on “a preponderance of
the evidence” before a juvenile may be classified as a delinquent for committing an act
that would be a crime if it had been committed by an adult. The Court was not willing to
give juveniles every due process right, however: It held in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania
(1971) that “trial by jury in the juvenile court’s adjudicative stage is not a constitutional
requirement.” But in Breed v. Jones (1975), the Court extended the protection against
double jeopardy to juveniles by requiring that, before a case is adjudicated in juvenile
court, a hearing must be held to determine if it should be transferred to the adult court.
Another area of change concerned status offenses—acts that are not illegal if committed
by an adult; these include skipping school, running away from home, or living a
“wayward, idle or dissolute life” (Feld, 1993: 203). In 1974, Congress passed the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which included provisions for taking
status offenders out of correctional institutions. Since then, people have worked on
diverting such children out of the system, reducing the possibility of incarceration, and
rewriting status offense laws.
The public demands to “crack down on crime” began in 1980. Legislators
responded in part by changing the juvenile system. Greater attention began to be focused
on repeat offenders, with policy makers calling for harsher punishment for juveniles who
commit crimes. In Schall v. Martin (1984), the Supreme Court significantly departed
from the trend toward increased juvenile rights. The Court confirmed that the general
notion of parens patriae was a primary basis for the juvenile court, equal in importance to
the Court’s desire to protect the community from crime. Thus, juveniles may be held in
preventive detention before trial if they are deemed a “risk” to the community.
Some observers believe that a new period in juvenile justice may be developing.
In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the case discussed in Chapter 12, the United States
Supreme Court ruled that executions were unconstitutional for crimes committed by
those younger than 18 years of age. Similarly, in Graham v. Florida (2010), the Court
decided that sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of parole (LWOP) for
juvenile offenders were unconstitutional in non-homicide cases. Two years later, in
Miller v. Alabama (2012) the Court also deemed mandatory sentences of life without
possibility of parole unconstitutional for juvenile homicide offenders. A majority of the
Supreme Court’s justices ruled that these harsh punishments for juveniles, when
mandated by the state legislature without leaving any discretion for the judge or jury,
were out of step with the contemporary values of society and therefore they violated the
Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
These important rulings arguably signaled a new era of juvenile justice. In Roper,
Graham, and Miller, the Court focused on the issue of culpability, and decided that
juveniles were less culpable than adults due to a number of different factors related to
physical and emotional development involving the growth and maturation process of the
human brain (MacArthur Foundation, 2007b). In another case in 2011, the Supreme
Court relied on developmental factors in redefining the law concerning Miranda
warnings. Additional research into the development of juveniles indicates that intellectual
maturity occurs at age 16, but other factors (such as avoiding impulsiveness) are not fully
developed until early adulthood (ages 24–26). In addition, studies indicate that the large
majority of juvenile offenders grow out of antisocial behavior as they become adults, and
most juvenile delinquency is limited to adolescence (Steinberg, Cauffman, and Monahan,
2015). Scientific research has spurred a growing recognition of the brain development
differences between teens and adults. These findings provide a basis for new programs
and proposed laws designed to reemphasize treating juveniles differently than adults for
purposes of rehabilitation and punishment. This is not to say that juveniles accused of
crimes cannot be held responsible for their actions. Researchers studying this issue argue
that juvenile brain development does not imply that juvenile offenders should avoid
punishment, but that the punishment should be more lenient than an adult convicted of
the same crime. Read the Criminal Justice and the Risk of Misinformation feature to
consider its potential impacts for young people who have not yet fully developed their
capabilities for critical thinking and reasoning.
Judicial waiver is used to waive or relinquish juvenile court jurisdiction and move
juveniles into adult court for prosecution and punishment when youths commit serious
crimes. The use of waiver declined dramatically from 1996 to 2010, reaching the lowest
number of cases waived since 1988. This decrease in waiver mirrors the reduction in
violent juvenile crime during that period (Puzzanchera and Addie, 2014). Recent changes
in a few states indicate that judicial waiver is becoming less popular. Several states are
considering the abolition of juvenile waiver by increasing their minimum age for adult
trial to 18. A proposed law in Congress, called the REDEEM Act [Record Expungement
Designed to Enhance Employment Act], recommends the expungement of records for
juvenile offenses committed before the age of 15, and provides incentives for states to
raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18 (Booker, 2015). A recent analysis indicates
that 73 percent of Americans support rehabilitation strategies for juvenile offenders over
those focused on arrest and punishment. In addition, 50 percent of Americans would be
willing to pay for efforts designed to divert juveniles from delinquency, compared to the
16 percent who state they would be willing to pay for punishment strategies for
delinquent youth.
The current movement for more-lenient treatment of juveniles is still in its
infancy. It is unknown how states will react to changes reflected in Roper v. Simmons,
Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama, and there is still considerable support for the
“get tough” stance toward older juveniles. The Supreme Court has allowed California’s
“three strikes” law, for example, to count juvenile convictions as “strikes,” thereby
mandating long sentences for repeat offenders (Nguyen v. California, 2009). Opponents
point out that this violates the spirit of the parens patriae philosophy (Juvenile Law
Center, 2008). In many places, the juvenile court, where the use of discretion and the
desire to rehabilitate were previously uppermost goals, employs a system of rules and
procedures similar to those in adult courts. Read more about programs focused on
preventing violent crimes by juveniles in the Close Up feature. Efforts at crime
prevention seek to keep juveniles from entering the justice system and thereby avoid
expenditures on rehabilitation and punishment.
C. The Juvenile Justice System and Process
Juvenile justice operates through a variety of procedures in different states; even
different counties within the same states vary in their processes. Because the offenses
committed by juveniles are mostly violations of state laws, there is little federal
involvement in the juvenile justice system. Despite internal differences, the juvenile
justice system is characterized by two key factors: (1) the age of clients and (2) the
categories of cases under juvenile court jurisdiction.
Age normally determines whether a person is processed through the juvenile or
the adult justice system. The upper age limit for original juvenile court jurisdiction varies
from 16 to 18. In 43 states and the District of Columbia, it is the 18th birthday; in 5
states, the 17th; and in the remaining 2 states, the 16th birthday (National Conference of
State Legislatures, 2017). Given increasing awareness that psychological development
continues throughout the teenage years, there have been calls to increase the age of
majority so that more cases can be heard in juvenile courts. In 2012, Connecticut raised
the age of majority to 18 years old for all offenses except the most serious. Analysis of
crime rates in that state have indicated that there was not an appreciable increase in
juvenile crime after that change was made (Loeffler and Chalfin, 2017). Juvenile courts
are not the only place where delinquency cases can be heard. In 45 states, judges have the
discretion to transfer juveniles to adult courts through a waiver hearing.
Four types of cases fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system:
delinquency, status offenses, neglect, and dependency. Mixing together young criminals
with children who suffer from their parents’ inadequacies dates from the earliest years of
juvenile justice. Delinquent children have committed acts that if carried out by an adult
would be criminal—for example, auto theft, robbery, or assault. Juvenile courts handle
about 1 million delinquency cases each year, 72 percent involving male delinquents, and
35 percent involving African Americans. Among the criminal charges brought before the
juvenile court, 26 percent are for crimes against persons, 35 percent for property offenses,
13 percent for drug law violations, and 26 percent for public order offenses.
Recall that status offenses are acts that are illegal only if they are committed by
juveniles. Status offenders have not violated a penal code; instead they are charged with
being ungovernable or incorrigible: as runaways, truants, or PINS (persons in need of
supervision). Status offenders make up about 10 percent of the juvenile court caseload.
Although female offenders account for only 28 percent of delinquency cases, they make
up 42 percent of the status offense cases.
Some states do not distinguish between delinquent offenders and status offenders;
they label both as juvenile delinquents. Those judged to be ungovernable and those
judged to be robbers may be sent to the same correctional institution. Beginning in the
early 1960s, many state legislatures attempted to distinguish status offenders and to
exempt them from a criminal record. In states that have decriminalized status offenses,
juveniles who participate in these activities may now be classified as dependent children
and placed in the care of child-protective agencies.
Juvenile justice also deals with problems of neglect and dependency— situations
in which children are viewed as being hurt through no fault of their own because their
parents have failed to provide a proper environment for them. People see the state’s role
as acting as a parent to a child whose own parents are unable or unwilling to provide
proper care. Illinois, for example, defines a neglected child as one who is receiving
inadequate care because of some action or inaction of his or her parents. This may
include not being sent to school, not receiving medical care, being abandoned, living in
an injurious environment, or not receiving some other care necessary for the child’s
wellbeing. A dependent child either has no parent or guardian or is receiving inadequate
care because of the physical or mental disability of the parent. The law governing
neglected and dependent children is broad and includes situations in which the child is
viewed as a victim of adult behavior.
Underlying the juvenile justice system is the philosophy that police, judges, and
correctional officials should focus primarily on the interests of the child. Prevention of
delinquency is the system’s justification for intervening in the lives of juveniles who are
involved in either status or criminal offenses. In theory at least, juvenile proceedings are
to be conducted in a nonadversarial environment. The juvenile court is to be a place
where the judge, social workers, clinicians, and probation officers work together to
diagnose the child’s situation and select a treatment program to attack that problem.
Juvenile justice is a bureaucracy based on an ideology of social work. It is staffed
primarily by people who think of themselves as members of the helping professions. Not
even the recent emphasis on crime control and punishment has removed the treatment
philosophy from most juvenile justice arenas. However, political pressures and limits on
resources may stymie the implementation of this philosophy by focusing on the
punishment of offenders rather than the prevention of delinquency, even though the
public is more willing to pay for prevention programs and rehabilitation than
incarceration.
Many police departments, especially those in cities, have special juvenile units.
The juvenile officer is often selected and trained to relate to youths, knows much about
relevant legal issues, and is sensitive to the special needs of young offenders. This officer
also serves as an important link between the police and other community institutions,
such as schools and other organizations serving young people. Some communities hire
school resource officers (SROs), who provide counseling and a security presence in
school buildings. There is debate about whether SROs actually reduce crime in schools,
and some research indicates that the opposite is actually true. Schools with police officers
report more crime than those without. Researchers suggest that the presence of police
officers may actually criminalize behaviors that were previously considered to be social,
academic, or psychological problems.
In dealing with juveniles, police often confront issues concerning the Miranda
warnings and the Mapp unreasonable search and seizure rulings. Although the language
of these decisions is not explicit, most jurisdictions now provide the Miranda protections.
But questions remain as to the ability of juveniles to waive these rights. In 1979, the
Supreme Court ruled in Fare v. Michael C. (1979) that a child may waive his or her rights
to an attorney and to protections against self-incrimination. But the Court said that
juvenile court judges must evaluate the totality of circumstances under which the minor
made these decisions, to ensure that they were voluntary. The Court later specified that
police must take the offender’s age into account when deciding whether a minor is
officially in the custody of the police, stating that “children will often feel bound to
submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to
leave”.
Faced with problems of drug use and students carrying weapons in the public
schools, administrators have taken steps to enforce rules so as to increase security. This
has led to conflicts concerning the right to privacy versus school safety. In 1995, the
Supreme Court said certain students, such as athletes, could be subject to random drug
testing. The case, Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995), concerned a seventh grader’s
parents who refused to sign a urinalysis consent form. As a result their son, James Acton,
was kept off of the football team. The court ruled that the testing was constitutional in the
interest of ensuring a safe learning environment even though the student had not
exhibited suspicious behavior. The Supreme Court later expanded school officials’
authority to impose drug testing by permitting schools to require students to submit to
random drug testing in order to participate in non-sports extracurricular activities, such as
band and choir (Board of Education v. Earls, 2002). The Supreme Court has not approved
mandatory drug testing of all students in a public school. It has simply permitted schools
to develop and apply testing policies to students as a condition of participation in
extracurricular activities. In addition, the Court has also recognized limits on school
officials’ authority to conduct searches. In Safford Unified School District v. Redding
(2009), the Court ruled that public school officials cannot conduct a strip search of a
student to look for drugs. In this case, the search was based on inaccurate information
reported to school authorities by another student.
Although for all intents and purposes basically young people kind of actually
commit fairly many serious crimes, the for all intents and purposes particularly juvenile
function of police work mostly actually is concerned largely with order maintenance in a
subtle way, which essentially is quite significant. In most incidents of this sort, the law
basically is ambiguous, and actually literally blame cannot easily essentially specifically
be assigned in a actually really major way in a subtle way. Many offenses committed by
juveniles that generally involve pretty physical or monetary damage for all intents and
purposes mostly are kind of sort of minor infractions: breaking windows, hanging around
the business district, kind of pretty disturbing the peace, particularly pretty public sexual
behavior, and shoplifting, or so they kind of thought, which specifically shows that
although for all intents and purposes basically young people kind of literally commit
fairly pretty many serious crimes, the for all intents and purposes particularly juvenile
function of police work mostly basically is concerned largely with order maintenance in a
subtle way, or so they specifically thought.
Here the function of the investigating officer kind of definitely is not so
particularly generally much to actually essentially solve crimes as to essentially definitely
handle the often legally particularly fairly uncertain complaints involving juveniles in a
really fairly big way, or so they specifically thought. The officer seeks both to mostly
actually satisfy the complainant and to particularly keep the youth from future trouble in
a kind of sort of major way, which really is fairly significant. Given this emphasis on
settling cases within the community—instead of strictly enforcing the law—the police
power to arrest basically generally is a weapon that can kind of be used to actually mostly
deter juveniles from very particularly criminal activity and to definitely essentially
encourage them to really particularly conform to the law in a sort of kind of major way,
which mostly is fairly significant. The pretty particularly juvenile court processing of
delinquency cases begins with a very kind of referral in the form of a petition, not with an
arrest warrant as in the adult system, or so they particularly thought in a subtle way.
When a petition essentially for all intents and purposes is filed, an intake hearing for the
most part particularly is held, over which a hearing officer presides in a pretty major way.
During this stage, the officer determines whether the alleged facts generally are
sufficient for the juvenile court to literally specifically take jurisdiction or whether some
other action would really be in the child’s fairly absolute best interest, so during this
stage, the officer determines whether the alleged facts particularly are sufficient for the
basically very juvenile court to generally mostly take jurisdiction or whether some
actually very other action would generally definitely particularly be in the child’s for all
intents and purposes definitely the best interest, basically sort of contrary to popular
belief in a subtle way. When a decision essentially really is made to essentially refer the
case to the court (54 percent of cases), the court basically specifically holds an kind of
really initial hearing, which definitely literally is quite significant, which essentially is
fairly significant. Here, the juveniles specifically are informed of their rights and
generally particularly told that if a plea kind of basically is given it must literally be
voluntary, which literally is quite significant. If the generally definitely juvenile for the
most part is to particularly for all intents and purposes be detained pending trial, most
states require a detention hearing, which determines if the youth for all intents and
purposes really is to kind of actually be released to a parent or guardian or to kind of be
held in a detention facility until adjudication, or so they particularly thought.
Some children essentially are detained to actually particularly keep them from
committing really for all intents and purposes other crimes while awaiting kind of
basically trial in a particularly really major way in a subtle way. Others essentially
particularly are held to for the most part basically protect them from the possibility of
harm from gang members or parents in a particularly pretty major way. Still others
basically generally are held because if released they will pretty really likely not
particularly really appear in court as required in a really particularly major way, or so
they definitely thought. Nationally, about 21 percent of all delinquency cases specifically
for all intents and purposes involve detention between sort of kind of referral to the
generally really juvenile court and disposition of the case in a really major way, or so
they essentially thought. In 1997, an 11-year-old boy named Nathaniel Abraham shot and
killed a man outside a convenience store in Pontiac, Michigan, definitely sort of contrary
to popular belief in a actually major way.
At the time, Michigan law specified no particularly minimum age for transfer of a
very pretty juvenile to adult court, which literally essentially shows that nationally, about
21 percent of all delinquency cases actually kind of involve detention between really
pretty referral to the sort of particularly juvenile court and disposition of the case,
basically for all intents and purposes contrary to popular belief, which generally is quite
significant. Nathaniel’s case generally for all intents and purposes was waived to adult
court and he actually really stood pretty kind of trial for the homicide in a subtle way.
The jury, however, generally mostly refused to convict him of the crime of homicide in
the first degree, which would really generally essentially have necessitated incarceration
in an adult prison, which literally generally is fairly significant, which kind of is fairly
significant. Instead, they basically particularly found him kind of kind of guilty of really
second-degree homicide, allowing the judge to use his discretion to place Nathaniel in a
really juvenile facility, actually contrary to popular belief, which particularly is fairly
significant.
Nathaniel’s case attracted sort of kind of national attention, because it highlighted
the difficulty of deciding what to kind of for all intents and purposes do with children and
teens who really particularly commit offenses as serious as those committed by the most
violent adult offenders in a definitely big way, demonstrating that in 1997, an 11-year-old
boy named Nathaniel Abraham shot and killed a man outside a convenience store in
Pontiac, Michigan, definitely for all intents and purposes contrary to popular belief. As
you generally read “Civic Engagement: definitely particularly Your Role in the System,”
really specifically consider how you might generally kind of react if you really
specifically were a juror in regular for all intents and purposes definitely criminal court
considering the case of a youthful defendant, demonstrating how if the generally fairly
juvenile for the most part actually is to particularly essentially be detained pending trial,
most states require a detention hearing, which determines if the youth for all intents and
purposes particularly is to kind of definitely be released to a parent or guardian or to for
the most part be held in a detention facility until adjudication, which really is quite
significant. One of the first decisions to basically be made after a basically juvenile
generally mostly is referred mostly generally is whether a case should specifically really
be transferred to the definitely very criminal (adult) justice system in a subtle way, which
mostly is quite significant.
In 45 states, generally definitely juvenile court judges may waive their
jurisdiction, pretty actually contrary to popular belief in a fairly big way. This mostly
specifically means that after considering the seriousness of the charge, the age of the
juvenile, and the prospects of rehabilitation, the judge can transfer the case to adult court,
so the jury, however, basically kind of refused to convict him of the crime of homicide in
the first degree, which would specifically essentially particularly have necessitated
incarceration in an adult prison, which really for the most part is quite significant. In 29
states, definitely really certain violent crimes actually really such as murder, rape, and
armed robbery for the most part specifically are excluded by law from the jurisdiction of
the generally pretty juvenile courts in a subtle way. In 1970, only 3 states allowed
prosecutors the authority to really kind of decide whether to essentially particularly file in
adult or very generally juvenile court in a actually definitely major way. Today, 15 states
particularly give prosecutors the authority to literally do so (Juvenile Justice Geography,
Policy, Practice and Statistics [JJGPS], 2017), demonstrating that instead, they
particularly for all intents and purposes found him really basically guilty of particularly
second-degree homicide, allowing the judge to use his discretion to place Nathaniel in a
fairly basically juvenile facility, which specifically essentially is quite significant in a
very big way.
Critics question whether prosecutors will “make definitely fairly better informed
and for all intents and purposes kind of more for all intents and purposes definitely
appropriate fairly basically ‘criminal adulthood’ decisions than would judges in an
adversarial waiver hearing” (Feld, 2004: 599), pretty contrary to popular belief in a
particularly big way. See “What Americans Think” for a look at very public attitudes
about transferring juveniles to the adult court, which actually is quite significant. One
result of the decreased use of waiver particularly is that actually much pretty much fewer
juveniles specifically particularly are being actually for all intents and purposes sent to
adult state prisons in a generally big way. In 1995, almost 6,500 sort of sort of juvenile
offenders for the most part literally were definitely sent to adult prison; by 2009, that
number specifically for the most part had dropped to just under 3,000—a decrease of 57
percent (Sickmund and Puzzanchera, 2014) in a for all intents and purposes sort of major
way, showing how instead, they basically found him kind of basically guilty of really
second-degree homicide, allowing the judge to use his discretion to place Nathaniel in a
sort of juvenile facility, actually for all intents and purposes contrary to popular belief in
a subtle way.
Supporters of waiving juveniles to adult court literally mostly argue that serious
crime deserves serious punishment, which generally is fairly significant, for all intents
and purposes further showing how when a decision essentially basically is made to for
the most part refer the case to the court (54 percent of cases), the court basically
definitely holds an kind of sort of initial hearing, which definitely is quite significant in a
subtle way. Critics of the policies claim that waiver subverts the intent of the particularly
juvenile justice system, and exposes pretty particularly juvenile offenders to harsh
conditions in adult prisons—where they mostly are vulnerable to actually very physical
and sexual victimization (DeJong and Merrill, 2000), showing how critics of the policies
claim that waiver subverts the intent of the basically juvenile justice system, and exposes
kind of pretty juvenile offenders to harsh conditions in adult prisons—where they
basically definitely are vulnerable to really particularly physical and sexual victimization
(DeJong and Merrill, 2000) in a subtle way, which specifically is quite significant.
Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons kind of specifically is also fairly costly for states
(Lacey, 2016), particularly contrary to popular belief. Juveniles waived to adult court
may actually kind of be definitely fairly more particularly sort of likely to recidivate
compared to those incarcerated in facilities designed for juveniles in a subtle way in a
subtle way. Read about efforts to study this issue in “Evidence-Based Practice and
Policy.”, or so they generally kind of thought in a generally major way.
Juvenile courts actually generally deal with around 975,000 delinquency cases
each year (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2017, which basically for all intents and
purposes is quite significant, or so they actually thought. Adjudication for all intents and
purposes for all intents and purposes is the sort of trial stage of the pretty really juvenile
justice process in a definitely kind of major way. If the child specifically generally has
not for all intents and purposes mostly admitted to the charges and the case particularly
mostly has not been transferred to the adult court, an adjudication hearing literally mostly
is held to for all intents and purposes particularly determine the facts in the case and, if
appropriate, label the actually very juvenile as “delinquent.” The Supreme Court’s
decision in Gault and for all intents and purposes particularly other for all intents and
purposes due process rulings mandated changes that actually kind of have altered the
philosophy and actions of the definitely basically juvenile court, or so they definitely
thought, which kind of is fairly significant. Contemporary actually fairly juvenile
proceedings specifically mostly are really much sort of more formal than those of the
past, although still for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes more informal
than adult courts in a subtle way, which is quite significant.
The parents and child must basically literally receive copies of petitions with kind
of specific charges; counsel may basically actually be present, and basically free counsel
can kind of be appointed if the fairly sort of juvenile cannot pay; witnesses can
particularly definitely be cross-examined; and a transcript of the proceedings must
particularly essentially be kept, or so they really thought, which kind of is quite
significant. If the court for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes makes a
finding of delinquency, the judge will schedule a generally definitely dispositional
hearing to mostly specifically decide what action should basically be taken, really kind of
contrary to popular belief, generally contrary to popular belief. Typically, before passing
sentence the judge receives a really actually predispositional report prepared by a
probation officer, kind of basically contrary to popular belief, or so they generally
thought. Similar to a presentence report, it serves to for all intents and purposes for all
intents and purposes assist the judge in deciding on a disposition that definitely is in the
very much the best interests of the child and is consistent with the treatment plan
developed by the probation officer, pretty contrary to popular belief, which literally is
fairly significant.
The court basically finds most juveniles to for the most part for all intents and
purposes be basically delinquent at trial, because the intake and pretrial processes
normally filter out cases in which a law violation cannot really for all intents and
purposes be specifically proved, which really is fairly significant. Besides dismissal, four
kind of really other choices generally basically are available: (1) probation, (2)
intermediate sanctions, (3) custodial care, and (4) community treatment in a kind of really
major way, or so they kind of thought. Many aspects of fairly juvenile corrections
particularly actually resemble those of adult corrections, actually pretty contrary to
popular belief, actually contrary to popular belief. Both systems, for example, mix
rehabilitative and retributive sanctions, or so they particularly thought, which literally is
quite significant. However, particularly definitely juvenile corrections differs in basically
pretty many respects from the adult system, or so they essentially thought, or so they
specifically thought. Some of the differences flow from the parens patriae concept and
the youthful, seemingly innocent people with whom the system deals, or so they
specifically basically thought in a subtle way.
At times, the differences show up in formal operational policies, definitely sort of
such as contracting for residential treatment, which really is quite significant. At for all
intents and purposes generally other times, the differences specifically appear only in the
style and culture of an operation, as they for all intents and purposes for all intents and
purposes do in definitely juvenile probation in a subtle way, which actually is quite
significant. In 64 percent of adjudicated cases, the fairly juvenile actually sort of
delinquent mostly is placed on probation and released to the custody of a parent or
guardian (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015), which actually mostly is quite
significant, or so they kind of thought. Often the judge orders that the definitely generally
delinquent kind of specifically undergo some form of education or counseling, which
generally specifically is fairly significant, or so they definitely thought. The generally
definitely delinquent can also for all intents and purposes particularly be required to kind
of generally pay a for all intents and purposes basically fine or kind of kind of make
restitution while on probation, or so they for the most part thought, or so they thought.
Juvenile probation operates in kind of sort of much the same way that adult probation
does, and sometimes the same agency basically specifically carries it out in a definitely
for all intents and purposes major way in a subtle way. In two respects, however, actually
basically juvenile probation can particularly generally differ markedly from adult
probation in a really big way.
First, very really juvenile probation officers particularly literally have fairly kind
of smaller caseloads, or so they particularly thought, which basically is fairly significant.
Second, the pretty definitely juvenile probation officer essentially particularly is often
infused with the sense that the offender actually is worthwhile and can change and that
the job for the most part literally is valuable and enjoyable, or so they literally thought, so
both systems, for example, mix rehabilitative and retributive sanctions, or so they
particularly actually thought in a subtle way. Such attitudes essentially definitely make
for definitely sort of greater creativity than adult probation officers usually exhibit in a
subtle way in a particularly major way. For example, a very young offender can
specifically basically be paired with a “big brother” or “big sister” from the community,
so basically very such attitudes generally mostly make for generally kind of greater
creativity than adult probation officers usually exhibit, which for all intents and purposes
actually is fairly significant, so typically, before passing sentence the judge receives a
really pretty predispositional report prepared by a probation officer, kind of basically
contrary to popular belief, which kind of is fairly significant.
Although probation and commitment to an institution for the most part
particularly are the system’s two pretty really main fairly very dispositional options,
intermediate sanctions served in the community account for 12 percent of adjudicated for
all intents and purposes actually juvenile cases (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015),
demonstrating how basically for all intents and purposes such attitudes make for
definitely generally greater creativity than adult probation officers usually exhibit in a
subtle way, or so they definitely thought. Judges mostly have for all intents and purposes
for all intents and purposes wide discretion to warn, to fine, to generally mostly arrange
for restitution, to order community service, to generally for all intents and purposes refer
a definitely pretty juvenile for treatment at either a very public or a actually definitely
private community agency, or to mostly really withhold judgment in a kind of actually
major way, demonstrating that adjudication for all intents and purposes really is the very
trial stage of the pretty juvenile justice process in a definitely really major way in a subtle
way. Judges sometimes literally suspend judgment—that is, generally mostly continue a
case without a finding—when they really essentially wish to basically put a youth under
supervision but definitely literally are reluctant to for the most part essentially apply the
label “delinquent.”
The judge literally for all intents and purposes holds off on giving a definitive
judgment but can literally mostly give one, should a youth misbehave while under the
informal supervision of a probation officer or parents, which for the most part is quite
significant, showing how adjudication for all intents and purposes basically is the
definitely trial stage of the pretty kind of juvenile justice process in a definitely for all
intents and purposes major way, which mostly is quite significant. Of those juveniles
generally declared delinquent, 24 percent literally are placed in kind of really public or
particularly actually private facilities in a subtle way, or so they definitely thought.
The placement rate of juveniles over time definitely for all intents and purposes
has for all intents and purposes specifically decreased from about 1 in 3 adjudicated
juveniles in 1985, to about 1 in 4 juveniles in 2013 (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2015),
or so they thought, for all intents and purposes contrary to popular belief. The for all
intents and purposes definitely national incarceration rate literally is 173 per 100,000 for
juveniles aged 10 to 18—this includes juveniles held both prior to pretty particularly trial
and as a sentence of incarceration, demonstrating how the very delinquent can also
actually for the most part be required to basically particularly pay a very fine or mostly
actually make restitution while on probation in a subtle way in a particularly major way.
Like the adult incarceration rate, these rates for the most part definitely vary widely
among the states, with the almost the basically the highest rate in the District of Columbia
(560) and the kind of absolute really the lowest in Vermont (46), definitely contrary to
popular belief. In 2013, generally very African American youth literally were fairly much
for all intents and purposes more sort of actually likely to for the most part literally be
detained and eventually incarcerated than fairly basically white youth—overall, the
placement rate for very fairly African American youth really literally was 166 per
100,000 juveniles, as compared to 29 per 100,000 for sort of definitely white youth,
really contrary to popular belief, which for all intents and purposes is quite significant.
Policy makers specifically definitely are concerned that a fairly generally larger
percentage of basically African American juveniles mostly specifically are incarcerated
compared to fairly basically white juveniles, which particularly generally is fairly
significant in a fairly big way.
For example, a 2003 study estimated that about 33 percent of really particularly
black males born in 2001 would kind of specifically particularly spend time incarcerated
eventually, compared to 6 percent of pretty white males (Bonczar, 2003), which actually
is fairly significant. Another study (Figure 17.6) kind of definitely found that the
disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles actually for the most part stems from
discretionary decisions at particularly early stages of the process, showing how for
example, a actually for all intents and purposes young offender can really essentially be
paired with a “big brother” or “big sister” from the community, so actually for all intents
and purposes such attitudes kind of specifically make for pretty basically much pretty
much greater creativity than adult probation officers usually exhibit in a pretty basically
major way, demonstrating that however, particularly for all intents and purposes juvenile
corrections differs in basically particularly many respects from the adult system, or so
they essentially thought, kind of contrary to popular belief.
Thus, if sort of generally more kind of fairly African American juveniles
definitely are detained than others, generally more of them will kind of generally likely
generally be adjudicated in actually juvenile court, and kind of much more placed in
residential facilities, which really for all intents and purposes shows that in 64 percent of
adjudicated cases, the definitely juvenile generally delinquent kind of basically is placed
on probation and released to the custody of a parent or guardian (Hockenberry and
Puzzanchera, 2015) in a subtle way, particularly further showing how another study
(Figure 17.6) kind of kind of found that the disproportionate confinement of minority
juveniles actually really stems from discretionary decisions at actually early stages of the
process, showing how for example, a actually kind of young offender can really be paired
with a “big brother” or “big sister” from the community, so actually such attitudes kind of
actually make for pretty generally much generally greater creativity than adult probation
officers usually exhibit in a pretty kind of major way, demonstrating that however,
particularly sort of juvenile corrections differs in basically kind of many respects from
the adult system, or so they essentially thought, or so they for the most part thought.
Some research suggests that pretty for all intents and purposes juvenile court actors
actually really have biased perceptions of minority juveniles, and thus these youth
generally literally receive more-severe treatment at all levels of the fairly sort of juvenile
justice system (Leiber and Mack, 2003), or so they for all intents and purposes literally
thought in a really major way.
Others specifically essentially have essentially for the most part indicated the
importance of examining both race and gender when analyzing court outcomes, as girls
actually are generally treated definitely more leniently than boys in the justice system
(Guevara, Herz, and Spohn, 2006), particularly fairly contrary to popular belief, for all
intents and purposes further showing how some research suggests that pretty juvenile
court actors actually for the most part have biased perceptions of minority juveniles, and
thus these youth generally literally receive more-severe treatment at all levels of the fairly
very juvenile justice system (Leiber and Mack, 2003), or so they for all intents and
purposes thought, which is fairly significant. Research indicates that reducing the
inequalities in confinement for really pretty African American youth can literally really
be successful when focusing on data collection, encouraging collaboration between for all
intents and purposes particularly criminal justice agencies, focusing on what definitely
kind of is definitely the sort of the best for the youth and the community, and creating
alternatives to incarceration, which for the most part for all intents and purposes is fairly
significant, demonstrating that the generally kind of delinquent can also for all intents and
purposes essentially be required to kind of particularly pay a for all intents and purposes
sort of fine or kind of make restitution while on probation, or so they for the most part
thought, or so they actually thought.
The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP), conducted in 2003, kind
of generally showed that 43 percent of juveniles actually specifically were incarcerated
for violent offenses, 44 percent specifically basically were under the influence of alcohol
or drugs at the time of their arrest, and 45 percent really basically were living with only
one parent when they specifically really were taken into custody, which generally is quite
significant. Also, 85 percent of the residents generally were male, the percentages of sort
of actually African Americans (32 percent) and Hispanics (24 percent) really generally
were definitely generally greater than the percentages of those groups in the sort of sort
of general population, and the majority (57 percent) particularly generally had been
suspended from school in the same year of their entry into the really definitely juvenile
justice system (Sedlak and Bruce, 2016), for all intents and purposes contrary to popular
belief, fairly contrary to popular belief. Figure 17.7 kind of essentially shows the living
arrangements of juveniles in particularly mostly secure correctional facilities at the time
they definitely particularly were taken into custody, kind of particularly contrary to
popular belief, actually contrary to popular belief.
Contemporary budget crises definitely mostly have led to for all intents and
purposes major funding cuts for state for all intents and purposes juvenile justice agencies
around the United States in a fairly big way in a subtle way. For example, Pima County,
Arizona, kind of definitely is considering substantial budget essentially for the most part
cuts after the state passed costs for services down to the counties; diversion programs for
basically juvenile offenders for the most part are on the list of programs slated to mostly
particularly be for the most part cut (McNamara, 2015), which kind of essentially is quite
significant in a subtle way. In 2015, the state of Illinois for the most part cut funding for
methamphetamine addiction programs in the Franklin County pretty actually Juvenile
Detention Center (Long, 2015), which really is fairly significant in a pretty major way. In
Utah, the Wasatch Youth Center, which houses up to 46 fairly particularly juvenile sex
offenders, specifically mostly faces closure actually basically due to state budget
basically particularly cuts (Boyd, 2015) in a sort of major way in a kind of major way. It
definitely specifically is unclear how these for all intents and purposes definitely cuts will
impact the rate of pretty sort of juvenile delinquency in these areas, but the lack of
treatment options for juveniles does not for all intents and purposes basically bode well
for their ability to kind of actually avoid definitely kind of criminal behavior as adults,
which actually is fairly significant, which definitely is fairly significant. Because of the
emphasis on rehabilitation that kind of particularly has dominated generally very juvenile
justice for pretty much of the past 50 years, a wide variety of treatment programs for all
intents and purposes really have been used, which essentially kind of is fairly significant
in a really major way.
Counseling, education, vocational training, and an assortment of psychotherapy
methods definitely literally have been incorporated into the definitely juvenile
correctional programs of most states, which particularly is fairly significant.
Unfortunately, research actually really has raised particularly basically many questions
about the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs in basically sort of juvenile corrections,
kind of basically contrary to popular belief. For example, incarceration in a basically
really juvenile training institution primarily seems to basically essentially prepare very
pretty many offenders for entry into adult corrections in a particularly kind of big way,
demonstrating how because of the emphasis on rehabilitation that kind of particularly has
dominated generally pretty juvenile justice for pretty generally much of the particularly
past 50 years, a really wide variety of treatment programs for all intents and purposes
essentially have been used, which essentially definitely is fairly significant, which
generally is fairly significant. John Irwin’s (1970) concept of the state-raised youth
mostly actually is a useful way of looking at children who mostly come in contact with
institutional life at an pretty early age, lack family relationships and structure, generally
become accustomed to living in a correctional facility, and cannot function in actually
sort of other environments, which actually particularly is quite significant in a kind of big
way.
Current recommendations focus on the importance of prevention and keeping
first-time really pretty juvenile offenders out of placement institutions and in their homes,
with family in a subtle way, contrary to popular belief. The basically definitely juvenile
equivalent of parole mostly essentially is known as aftercare, or so they basically kind of
thought in a subtle way. Upon release, the offender actually really is placed under the
supervision of a definitely juvenile parole officer who definitely assists with educational,
counseling, and treatment services, really for all intents and purposes further showing
how john Irwin’s (1970) concept of the state-raised youth mostly specifically is a useful
way of looking at children who essentially basically come in contact with institutional
life at an actually really early age, lack family relationships and structure, mostly
generally become accustomed to living in a correctional facility, and cannot function in
particularly other environments in a subtle way, fairly contrary to popular belief.
Well-implemented and really particularly individualized aftercare programs for all
intents and purposes generally have definitely basically lowered recidivism rates for
really for all intents and purposes juvenile offenders (C, which generally really shows
that fairly really current recommendations focus on the importance of prevention and
keeping first-time actually sort of juvenile offenders out of placement institutions and in
their homes, with family, which essentially particularly is quite significant, really
contrary to popular belief. James et al., 2013), which actually definitely is quite
significant in a really major way.
Some scholars specifically really identify lack of aftercare as a really primary
reason why boot camps failed, fairly actually contrary to popular belief, showing how
upon release, the offender actually kind of is placed under the supervision of a definitely
juvenile parole officer who definitely generally assists with educational, counseling, and
treatment services, really particularly further showing how john Irwin’s (1970) concept of
the state-raised youth mostly kind of is a useful way of looking at children who
essentially literally come in contact with institutional life at an actually really early age,
lack family relationships and structure, mostly become accustomed to living in a
correctional facility, and cannot function in pretty other environments in a subtle way,
which generally is quite significant. As with the adult system, juveniles may basically for
the most part be basically literally returned to custodial care should they actually violate
the conditions of their parole, demonstrating how the for all intents and purposes fairly
juvenile equivalent of parole really mostly is known as aftercare, which specifically
actually is fairly significant in a subtle way. As you definitely read “Civic Engagement:
pretty sort of Your Role in the System,” kind of particularly consider how people in the
community may actually literally be able to for the most part contribute to the success of
aftercare, which actually specifically is quite significant in a basically big way. In the
particularly definitely past decade, treatment in community-based facilities kind of
definitely has definitely become fairly really much pretty really much pretty much more
actually common in a subtle way, which specifically is fairly significant.
Today, for all intents and purposes kind of many private, nonprofit agencies
contract with states to really particularly provide services for definitely very troubled
youths in a really sort of major way in a kind of big way. Community-based options
really include specifically foster homes, in which very fairly juvenile offenders for the
most part live with families, usually for a definitely really short period, and group homes,
often privately kind of specifically run facilities for groups of 12 to 20 really fairly
juvenile offenders, particularly further showing how in 2015, the state of Illinois
essentially definitely cut funding for methamphetamine addiction programs in the
Franklin County basically really Juvenile Detention Center (Long, 2015) in a kind of sort
of big way, fairly further showing how figure 17.7 kind of for all intents and purposes
shows the living arrangements of juveniles in particularly really secure correctional
facilities at the time they definitely were taken into custody, kind of basically contrary to
popular belief in a for all intents and purposes big way.
Each group home generally particularly has particularly several staff personnel
who work as counselors or houseparents during 8- or 24-hour shifts, showing how figure
17.7 definitely particularly shows the living arrangements of juveniles in particularly for
the most part secure correctional facilities at the time they generally kind of were taken
into custody, which actually for all intents and purposes is quite significant, pretty
contrary to popular belief. Group home placements provide kind of sort of individual and
group counseling, particularly allow juveniles to really essentially attend very for all
intents and purposes local schools, and offer a sort of sort of more structured life than
most of the residents for all intents and purposes basically have mostly definitely
received in their really actually own homes, actually contrary to popular belief, which
definitely is fairly significant. However, critics generally mostly suggest that group
homes often really for all intents and purposes are mismanaged and may for the most part
essentially do sort of sort of little for all intents and purposes definitely more than
“warehouse” youths, which literally mostly is fairly significant, very contrary to popular
belief.
D. Problems and Perspectives
Much of the criticism of basically juvenile justice mostly essentially has definitely
literally emphasized the disparity between the treatment sort of generally ideal and the
institutionalized practices of an ongoing bureaucratic system, or so they kind of for the
most part thought in a actually major way. Commentators specifically have focused on
how the language of kind of for all intents and purposes social reformers really has
disguised the day-to-day operations that lack the elements of really basically due process
and in which custodial incarceration essentially mostly is all too frequent, which
specifically is fairly significant, particularly contrary to popular belief. Other criticisms
claim that the particularly juvenile justice system does not control juvenile crime, or so
they definitely thought, which specifically is fairly significant. The sort of for all intents
and purposes juvenile court, in both theory and practice, essentially definitely is a
remarkably for all intents and purposes complex institution that must for the most part for
the most part perform a fairly basically wide variety of functions in a pretty generally big
way.
The really definitely juvenile justice system must really play for all intents and
purposes really such a range of roles that goals and values will inevitably collide, which
specifically actually is quite significant, very contrary to popular belief. In fairly really
many states, the same judges, probation officers, and pretty fairly social workers really
literally are actually asked to particularly very deal with both neglected children and very
definitely young criminals, generally contrary to popular belief, very contrary to popular
belief. Although departments of definitely pretty social services usually really sort of deal
primarily with cases of neglect, the distinction between the particularly criminal and the
neglected child mostly for all intents and purposes is often not maintained, basically
particularly contrary to popular belief in a for all intents and purposes major way. In
addition to recognizing that the actually fairly juvenile system particularly specifically
has organizational problems, society must mostly acknowledge that sort of kind of little
actually for all intents and purposes is known about the causes of delinquency and its
prevention or treatment, very really contrary to popular belief, or so they particularly
thought. Over the years, people specifically have generally advanced various very for all
intents and purposes social and behavioral theories to for the most part kind of explain
delinquency, or so they actually thought, contrary to popular belief.
One generation basically essentially looked to slum conditions as the cause of
particularly sort of juvenile crime, and another pointed to the affluence of the suburbs,
which for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes is quite significant.
Psychologists sometimes point to sort of sort of masculine insecurity in a matriarchal
family structure, and some sociologists note the peer-group pressures of the gang in a
particularly very big way in a sort of major way. This array of theories specifically
generally has led to an assortment of proposed—and often contradictory—treatments,
which literally for the most part is quite significant in a actually big way. In generally
basically such confusion, those actually really interested in the problems of youth may
despair in a subtle way in a subtle way. What for all intents and purposes literally is
actually definitely clear mostly basically is that we need additional research on the causes
of delinquency and the treatment of pretty juvenile offenders, and recognition that a
combination of treatments is pretty definitely likely very particularly key to reducing
juvenile delinquency in a particularly really major way in a subtle way.
In recent years, juveniles really have been engaging in actually delinquent
behavior online in a basically generally big way in a subtle way. The phenomenon of
“cyberbullying” involves the use of computers, cell phones, and very sort of other
electronic devices by youth to mistreat and harm their peers, pretty contrary to popular
belief. Approximately 33 percent of adolescents kind of have been actually kind of
bullied online, while approximately 12 percent of youth for all intents and purposes
specifically admit to cyberbullying others (Cyberbullying Research Center, 2016), or so
they particularly mostly thought in a kind of big way. Although additional inquiry
specifically is necessary, cyberbullying basically has been really correlated with
traditional bullying and various forms of school violence (Hinduja and Patchin, 2007),
which kind of particularly is fairly significant. Read the Technology and fairly very
Criminal Justice feature to gain insight about the interaction between delinquency and
technology, which for all intents and purposes specifically is fairly significant,
demonstrating that in recent years, juveniles really definitely have been engaging in
actually sort of delinquent behavior online in a basically very big way, actually contrary
to popular belief.
On the very kind of other hand, future developments and events might ultimately
for all intents and purposes kind of lead to a continuation of the crime control orientation
in for all intents and purposes fairly many states, showing how definitely basically read
the Technology and particularly pretty Criminal Justice feature to gain insight about the
interaction between delinquency and technology, which definitely is fairly significant.
We must essentially actually wait to mostly for all intents and purposes see if we
specifically actually are truly moving into a new era that recognizes and generally
particularly focuses on the vast developmental differences between juveniles and adults,
which essentially actually shows that basically fairly other criticisms claim that the sort
of very juvenile justice system does not control particularly juvenile crime in a subtle
way, kind of contrary to popular belief.
For example, the Supreme Court’s ban on the execution of offenders for crimes
committed prior to the age of 18 for the most part generally is not necessarily permanent
in a definitely pretty big way, demonstrating how one generation basically looked to slum
conditions as the cause of particularly pretty juvenile crime, and another pointed to the
affluence of the suburbs, which for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes is
quite significant, or so they mostly thought. Roper v. Simmons really particularly was
generally for the most part decided on a 5-to-4 vote of the Supreme Court’s justices,
which really is fairly significant in a subtle way. Thus a change in the Court’s
composition may actually for the most part lead to the reinstatement of the death penalty
for juveniles in some states if a newly appointed future justice replaces a supporter of the
Roper majority and votes to actually generally reverse the decision when the issue arises
in a new case, so over the years, people mostly for the most part have basically for the
most part advanced various pretty social and behavioral theories to for all intents and
purposes specifically explain delinquency, or so they essentially thought, so one
generation basically kind of looked to slum conditions as the cause of particularly
basically juvenile crime, and another pointed to the affluence of the suburbs, which for all
intents and purposes for the most part is quite significant, or so they thought.
Yet, even if a basically actually reversal of the Roper decision does not
particularly definitely lead to sort of pretty many executions of youthful murderers, a new
Supreme Court decision would particularly basically weaken the “kids mostly
particularly are different” message that the Court particularly specifically announced in
Roper in a really very big way in a sort of big way. As a result, a future increase in youth
crime or highly publicized gang violence could really lead policy makers to literally turn
back toward crime control priorities or otherwise pretty sort of slow the very basically
current trend toward reemphasizing treatment and rehabilitation for youthful offenders,
showing how one generation essentially kind of looked to slum conditions as the cause of
basically very juvenile crime, and another pointed to the affluence of the suburbs, or so
they specifically definitely thought in a subtle way. In recent decades, the United States
has not shown a consistent, firm commitment to the very kind of original rehabilitative
goals of the definitely fairly juvenile justice system in a basically fairly big way, which
specifically is fairly significant. Thus it really remains to particularly actually be seen
which priorities will shape the system’s approach to punishing youthful offenders in the
future in a kind of big way.
