The Juvenile Justice System
The juvenile justice system was established primarily to protect children from the damaging punishments that are visible in the criminal courts. The tribunals were intended to be distinct from those that dealt with adults. The young people were given a lot of attention in order to address their needs and worries regarding the crimes they perpetrate. In addition to informalities that attempt to find solutions to the problems, much discretion was to be integrated. (Howell, 2003). There is a problem statement that aims to find a solution to protect society in light of the increasing cases among teenagers. The issue is on whether punitive punishments should be considered over traditional concerns for rehabilitation to uphold the community from offenses.
Theories on Young People and Crime
Scholars and researchers get faced with the challenge of trying to come up with a theory that explains why young people engage in crime. Despite their being the argument in numerous states that it's the graduation from childhood to adulthood, the explanation receives disapproval by researchers arguing that their brains are fully mature during the period (Petrosino & Buehler, 2003). The numbers of cases relating to delinquency are continuously on the rise necessitating the need for urgent mitigation efforts (Petrosino & Buehler, 2002). There is evidence in several states where they have undertaken to redefine policies and guidelines relating to juvenile courts. All this is to ensure the victims become accountable for their actions and an emphasis on the public safety gets enforced. The change is as a result of discussions that present laws governing juveniles are mild and aren't addressing the initial set objectives. Furthermore, there is the assumption that the victims seem to be an equal threat similar to their adult counterparts' thereby they should also face strict control and measures.
Juvenile Law and Policy Variation
Despite that, the various states operate independently and aren't governed by common law. Juvenile law and policy vary across the states and at different levels. The Federal government in some instance has authority over certain minor obligations and regulating of the environment in which the young ones get confined. Certain criteria need to be in place by the states receiving funds to implement the programs, but the local jurisdiction is the final determinants of the structure of the courts. The general term juvenile justice system in our context incorporates all activities and framework represented in the various states. Some of the legal reform changes enforced by the states include aggressive juvenile policies, simplifying the process in place to handle juveniles that commit adult offenses, coming up with difficult decisions on where best to try the individuals, opening their case records and altering the incarceration options (Cottle & Heilbrun, 2001).
Challenges and Considerations
Contrary to the belief that changing the policies would mean implementing them, numerous factors need to be given consideration to ensure the success of the programs. Some of them include the cost involved to carry out the operations, the wretched state, and condition of the correctional facilities brought about by overcrowding due to harsh sentences and the lack of positive results caused by reduced levels of recidivism brought about by incapacitation of young people and neglecting treatment and rehabilitation (Petrosino & Buehler, 2003). What is more, practicing of the policies may significantly deviate from what was envisioned initially hence bringing by more challenges and upheavals. An example would be the comparison between alternative strategies such as the restorative justice model with the traditional model. The traditional model pays more attention to the rehabilitation of the juveniles and the severe changes such as offensive and punitive punishment. The restorative model is rather mild in its strategy since it tries to balance needs of the victims, lawbreakers, and the general society (Przybylski, 2008).
Data and Information Accessibility
Getting a clear view of the possible changes gets seemingly complicated due to the diversity in the juvenile structure among the various states besides the details collected regarding processing and incarcerating of the minors. There is a different account of the states since some of them collect and publish their data while others archive their materials. Despite the fact that court cases proceeding are received all over the country, the justice system isn't obliged to release the details thereby making access to the information only available to the courts that handle two-thirds of the young people's population (Bradshaw & Roseborough, 2005). The center of juvenile justice system is the primary organ tasked with the mandate of handling juvenile cases (Carney & Buttell, 2003). The body is at the same time used to describe the offenses committed by the young adults, incarceration cases, and correctional facilities.
Striking a Balance
In conclusion, considering the various factors in the juvenile justice system and altering of the policies to accommodate punitive punishment, there is a significant problem. It would create a conflicting tension contradicting the initial goals and objectives of the system. There is need to safeguard and protect the young ones at the same time the society in general. Therefore, a balance between rehabilitative goals and concerns of the child on the one hand while on the other punitive punishment and measures need to strike a balance (Abrams, 2006). It is with the aim of ensuring protection and safeguarding of interests of both parties.
References
Abrams, L. S. (2006). Listening to juvenile offenders: Can residential treatment prevent recidivism?. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(1), 61-85.
Bradshaw, W., & Roseborough, D. (2005). Restorative justice dialogue: The impact of mediation and conferencing on juvenile recidivism. Fed. Probation, 69, 15.
Carney, M. M., & Buttell, F. (2003). Reducing juvenile recidivism: Evaluating the wraparound services model. Research on social work practice, 13(5), 551-568.
Cottle, C. C., Lee, R. J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles a meta-analysis. Criminal justice and behavior, 28(3), 367-394.
Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Sage.
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2002). Scared Straight’and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2.
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2003). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(1), 41-62.
Przybylski, R. (2008). What works: Effective recidivism reduction and risk-focused prevention programs. RKC Group, 38.
