Juvenile Justice in America - Scholarship Essay Example

Juvenile Justice in America al Affiliation: Juvenile Justice in America Introduction The Juvenile Justice System in America primarily deals with and addresses the youths who are caught and found guilty of crimes. This system intercedes in delinquent behavior via the police, court and correctional involvement, and is largely punitive. Youths together with their parents can face numerous consequences including probation, Youth court, community service, youth incarceration as well as alternate schooling. The juvenile justice system operates in a similar way to the adult system, believing that intervening early in delinquent behavior will discourage adolescents from involving themselves in crimes as adults. Critics, however, often point to research that indicates the assurance of results of punishment in deterrence, rather than its severity (Simpson, 1976). Criminal behavior in the youths or the juveniles is a relentless and invasive problem in the society of United States of America. Crimes by the juveniles comprise of about 42% of the individuals arrested for major crimes, including burglary, murder and rape with an increased rate of juvenile incarceration that reflects that of the adults.  The youths comprise a predominantly disadvantage sector of the population in America which has greatly been neglected by the society and the written law and eventually creating a social and economic costs implications to the economy of America.  The core sources of juvenile delinquency need an immediate addressing, funds should be availed, mechanisms of effective rehabilitation should be devised and these programs provided to the severely underserved youth population (Hinton et.al 2007).      Many crimes are committed by the minorities and the crimes incline more to the people of low incomes compared to the same case with the wealthy individuals. With the high rate of poverty and unemployment, insufficient family and neighborhood support has resulted to juveniles opting for crimes to attain means of survival. Time spend in the prisons just accounts for the credibility in the streets of US instead of segregating the youths from their society (Fox, 1996). The juvenile justice system in US has responded to legislative decisions that have made a shift from an emphasis on rehabilitation, to a more punitive focus, characterized by stricter laws and harsher punishments. During the Progressive Era back in 1860s, a separate juvenile justice system was established in US that emphasized on rehabilitating specific needs of the individual youth. However, cases of juvenile crime became rampant over time and in 1980s the courts adopted a more punitive approach to address the issue. Ironically this has shifted back to the rehabilitation stance focusing on counseling, community based resources and other mental health services. This decision was adopted primarily due to numerous applications to conduct research on juvenile crimes in courts of law along with increased awareness of the problems in the existing juvenile justice system among community members and the advocates as well (Hinton et.al 2007). These transitions have been influenced by many factors like the highlights in the media coverage that influence the public opinion. They said the implementation policy determines the role of the court in the juvenile system, public opinion influences the legislative decisions and the level of resources and funding reflects the degree of rehabilitative treatment (Simpson, 1976). The history of United States Juvenile Justice System The juvenile justice system in US has been into existence for over 100 years and is currently operating throughout the courts in the states. As I have said the system was initially established to rehabilitate and treat juvenile offenders but at a point children stopped receiving such treatments and in turn were treated similar to adults. Juveniles often encountered harsh and severe discipline for misbehaving from the courts (Simpson, 1976). New York House of Refuge was opened in the year 1824 and housed juveniles for treatment and rehabilitation (Fox, 1996). Philadelphia also built institutions primarily with similar ideologies of rehabilitation in 1828. Adult correctional institutions were not disregarded for children and in some cases children were still sent there as a reminder of the offense. The House of Refuge sparked controversy over their ideas of punishing the youth for committing offenses as some thought adult institutions can teach the children valuable lessons (Hinton et.al 2007). The New York reformers had the perspective that establishment of juvenile courts will not destroy the children but would rather give them a chance to learn from their mistakes. The first juvenile court was created in 1899 in Chicago, Illinois through the Illinois Juvenile Court Act. The act advocated for segregation of children from the adult prisons and considered the interests of the child by validating the agencies’ role in child care. Parens Patriae, which means the empowerment of the state to operate and provide care on behalf of the child, contributed much in the proceedings of the juvenile court The progressive era acted as a period of social modifications in the United States that saw changes in the in child labor laws, working hours reduced, social welfare benefits and the growth in the women’s suffrage movement (Elrod & Ryder, 2011). Before this era, children were housed with adult offenders as a method of discipline for offenses but later it emerged that children had very different needs than the adults. Child welfare reformers like Jane Addams opted to replace the issues by placing children in foster care facilities in an attempt to improve the conditions that children stumbled upon and to ensure that other policy changes would proceed immediately. America suggested that same legal rights as adults should be granted to the juveniles under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that tabled actions that have to be taken in order to change the methods used prior to handle juvenile hearings. Juveniles were endowed due process and equality which involved the right of presence of counsel in court and during questioning, the right to be informed of alleged charges in a rational timeframe, right to appeal and record as well as the right to cross-examine witness (Hinton et.al 2007). The White House hosted its first conference in 1909 that focused on children. Many of the members who attended the Congress aired concerns that affected children. They advocated for an establishment of an agency to address and oversee the issue. That was fulfilled later in 1992 when United States Children’s Bureau was established as the first federal agency to primarily address the problems encountered by children and generally deal with the well-being of children. The agency also increased the health support to the needy families along with providing safety to the children that were abused (Simpson, 1976). The U. S. Children’s Bureau investigated and provided reports that led to decrease in the rate of child mortality. The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDP) was constituted to implement deinstitutionalization among juveniles by the Congress in the adult prison system and consented that they be taken away from adult correctional facilities. This followed the establishment of Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) that was to provide programs for youth and juvenile prevention. This office also currently allocates grants to states in order to provide prevention programs to juveniles. It also evaluates the effectiveness of states to supervise program interventions and reduce juvenile crime. This office works to avail preventive treatment to juveniles that could prevent their escalation into adult criminality and their families that will build healthy relationships Research from various scholars basing their arguments from data collected in juvenile detention centers show that there is negative effects of taking a punitive approach in juvenile justice and also there are factors that hinder the process of rehabilitation (Simpson, 1976). Due to the increased juvenile delinquency, the confinement of juveniles in detention centers has also raised. The role of juvenile detention is described as “the temporary and safe custody of juveniles who are accused of conduct subject to jurisdiction of the court who require a restricted environment for their own or the communitys protection while pending legal action"(Elrod & Ryder, 2011). However, it is not apparent that juvenile detention centers contribute in any manner to the process of rehabilitating the Youths of America. Scarce research articles on juvenile detention centers avails some of the regular problems of injustice evident in these detention centers. The facilities utilized by the detainees are unsafe and the issue of overcrowding is rampant in the centers along with overrepresentation of minority. Inadequate health care facilities and lack of education services are the core concerns juvenile justice system (Simpson, 1976). There was a popular liberal view by majority of citizens when the notion of juvenile justice was initially introduced in America who believed that the state can achieve the issue of rehabilitation.  This stance directed the approach of juvenile justice reformers and crafted the idea of the state as the sole protector of juveniles.  This was a period when detention centers were homes and the juvenile court adopted a mentoring approach to guide at-risk youth (Elrod & Ryder, 2011). The Fundamentalist approach was famous during the years of Reagan in office that focused on promoting family values. The issues that concern the gremlin in the juvenile detention centers currently are as a result of escalation of incarceration in reaction to a Conservative approach.  The conservative approach emerged as a reaction to the plummet in juvenile delinquency between 1970 and 1980, which saw an increase in the rise of gang membership and the crack epidemic. Congress housed conservatives who asserted the dormancy and inefficiency of prevention programs and recommended that the youths convicted of crimes should be strictly punished and made liable for their behaviors. Juvenile justice system lacked adequate financial resources and those with a conservative mindset were reluctant to grant funds to proposed preventative programs.  This directive became the prime view, and other policies established to discipline the youths convicted of crimes make them liable to their crimes. Youth Courts Youth sentence their peers for committing minor delinquents and other offenses resulting from worse behaviors in special programs known as youth courts. This program philosophy aims at holding the youths liable to their behaviors, educate them on the legal and judicial systems, as well as empower them to actively solve problems that arise in the community (Adams, 2007). These courts function to determine fair and restorative sentences for the youth respondent. They are administered by juvenile courts, law enforcements, juvenile probation departments, private nonprofit organizations, as well as schools operating under four primary models: Adult Judge, Peer Jury, Youth Judge, and Youth Tribunal Models. So far, there are more than 675 youth courts in the United States strongly implemented in East Palo Alto, CA and Boston. A number of issues aroused in the detention centers discussed below (Hinton et.al 2007). Overcrowding in the detention centers The increase in incarceration rates in juvenile detention centers led to overcrowding in the centers with one-third these centers and facilities housing populations that surpassed the capacity they were designed to hold.  The tendency of overcrowding has been perceptible for a considerable time and seems to grow even worse over the last two decades. Many researchers think that overcrowding is the most precarious factor of the overall ineptitude of juvenile detention facilities in America. Other problems surge from the issue of overcrowding like a great shortage of individualized services and escalated threat of vicious behavior, and captures away from a rehabilitative environment. We can say it causes disregard of individual juveniles as overcrowding in the detention centers’ facilities with small rooms, vicious and non-vicious offenders are confined together translating to an increase in the cases of injuries (Elrod & Ryder, 2011).Several possible solutions to address the issue of overcrowding are available like changing the policies that legalize confinement in juvenile centers, minimizing the period one is detained, and getting rid of the use of hefty dormitories (Simpson, 1976).  Minority Overrepresentation Discrimination, disparity and overrepresentation cases are also evident in detention centers. This is noticeable when the population represented in the juvenile justice system is not proportional to the population in the nation generally. Like research from various scholars shows that 6/10 juveniles who are incarcerated are minorities.  Disparity occurs when the probability of a given population to receive an outcome constantly from that of another population.  For instance, females represent 1/17 juveniles in residential placement relative to the fraction of males, 16/17 (Elrod & Ryder, 2011).The gender of girls is considered during sentencing procedures by prosecutors and judges who seem to divert them from residential placement by considering that their crimes are far less frequent and are of a less violence naturally. Discrimination is witnessed in the juvenile justice system when a population is treated differently on the basis of their gender, race, social-economic status or ethnicity.  The former factors, disparity and overrepresentation are not forms of discrimination.  Research shows that there is an elevated pervasiveness of crimes by the youth who come from the urban minority neighborhoods that are characterized by a low social-economic status but with no evidence supporting that discrimination contributes to that (Simpson, 1976). There is need for extensive treatment programs to cover the minority youths in the society and in the effect reduce the way the over-rely support from institutions run by the state. Minorities are overrepresented in facets of personal health problems comprising of about 86% of the youths. This high portion of minority youth in the system, rehabilitation programs and detention facilities need to establish programs that put more emphasis on the requirements of minority youth (Elrod & Ryder, 2011). The greatest portion of the population of the detained youth comprise the minority youth. The number of incarcerated youths has plummeted due to the evolution of the juvenile justice system along with detention of the juveniles in more secure facilities (Zimring, 2000). For the juvenile justice system to take up again the rehabilitative stance there is a necessity to increase the awareness of the experiences as well as the needs of the minority delinquents. The incumbent juvenile justice system cannot progress, and cannot offer necessary resources for rehabilitation to the youth, until the needs of the individuals and groups are met first inside the system.  Healthcare There is a woeful insufficiency of healthcare services in juvenile detention centers.   According to a research done by Bolin and Jones, they discovered that untreated decay beleaguered 86% of the juveniles in detention centers relative to 21% nationwide. An additional research indicated that only 44% of the youth get screened during their initial hours of confinement. Many of the juveniles that are detained in these centers come from impoverished and disadvantaged backgrounds, meaning that they have never received proper health care facilities. Availing proper health care facilities in the detention centers incorporates an opportunity to improve the conditions of at-risk juveniles and at the same time teach them how to maintain their health. Hence, it is a rehabilitative service very necessary in the detention centers but research articles claim that these facilities are not adequate (Hinton et.al 2007). Studies have explored mental health and psychiatric care in detention centers and have came up with the same detrimental results. There is a high prevalence of psychological disabilities in detention centers with the suicide rate of the incarcerated juveniles tallying to a rate of 2 to 4 times upper than the rate of the same cases in the community (Zimring, 2000). Solitary confinement, segregation from family and friends, crowding among other conditions associated with confinement can escalate the peril of suicide cases. This threat posed by suicidal conduct is greater in detained youths who are beset by emotional and mental and disorders. In US, only half of the juveniles are confined in a facility that can monitor suicidal behavior at a rate that complies with national standards. There are no adequate mental health care officers to administer the service to the detention centers (Hinton et.al 2007). Various recommendations to improve the health care services in the detention centers have been tabled by policy makers. There should be increased amount of research on the quality of health care service offered in detention centers as a way to examine the needs of the detained juveniles and discover what misses in the healthcare programs. Zimring 2000 also recommended that psychiatric services need to be increased in detention centers along with training staff on how to counter suicidal behavior as well as how to use juvenile facilities like screening (Hinton et.al 2007). Healthcare in juvenile detention centers is a critical problem and the lacking adequate services averts successful rehabilitation.  While experiencing an evolution to a more punitive approach in the incumbent juvenile justice system, more youths have witnessed the injustice in the deteriorating healthcare system in the detention centers which is mainly as a result of insufficient funds. Failing to offer healthcare services in abundant to the youth means that their most basic need is not catered for. When they are released from the centers they will carry forward their mental, emotional and health issues and hence not successfully rehabilitated.   Education Education within juvenile detention centers is not satisfying with the intellectual functioning of youth in these detention facilities ranging from little to little-average. The services offered are not current and the detainees in the centers do not receive the services to which they are warranted in regards to special education. Juvenile offenders usually have documented records of the past about disabilities in learning but do not access the appropriate educational services they need to succeed.  Education is deemed as one of the chief remedies to juvenile delinquency however, it is not granted the necessary attention it deserves in the detention centers but instead it is usually ignored. Successfully rehabilitating the youth in Americas juvenile justice system, the detainees need to gain access to educational services that aid in advancement of their academics.  While it is hard to focus them on schoolwork since they are failures in academics, (Zimring, 2000), juvenile curriculum in the detention facilities must integrate basic subjects of writing and reading that will result to quantitatively higher levels of literacy and qualitatively greater affinity of reading. There are learning disabilities in the juveniles detained in detention centers, and designing teaching programs to attend to those disabilities will help the children and hence all detention centers should adopt such motives (Simpson, 1976). Some people have suggested that Juvenile delinquents should not be warehoused in the centers but instead should be rehabilitated with the very role of rehabilitation resting in education. This is because this portion of the youth ought to learn means of navigating and succeeding in the globe without leading to crime. Funding like in the healthcare sector is necessary to impose the education programs in these detention centers. Education is the basis of rehabilitation (Simpson, 1976). Success and failures of rehabilitation in detention centers The grounds that these programs, and their precise measurements of effectiveness, are so crucial are because they are the hope of rehabilitation. Zimring, 2000). suggested three vital improvements. He argued that a focus should be made on the dynamic and changeable risk factors. This encompassed improving the skill set of the juveniles as well as deterring them from substance use. Incarcerated juveniles need to learn how to manage themselves and their behaviors as well as form positive relationship with their relatives and friends through proper counseling and skills training.  He also added that the centers should focus more on the needs of the individual offenders. He finally closed it by recommending that the process of rehabilitation should focus relentlessly on the high-risk youths (Simpson, 1976). Techniques of Diversion Simpson, 1976 discovered that diversion – which encompasses measures like educational alternatives, shelter care, medical treatment and counseling – aid in protecting the youth but are only fruitful when they reduce the rate of recidivism in the juvenile justice system, involve a wide community appointment and support network, and promise enhanced social behavior.  The augmentation of the community-based programs may have passed more juveniles into the system, although it has not attested to have any long-lasting effects on the population of the delinquent juveniles.  Community programs remain to be helpful only if the legislature ensures they have the necessary supplies to rehabilitate the juveniles instead of remitting them to the society that probably threw them in to the crimes. Adopting the diversionary rationale according to Zimring (2000), the juvenile court would assist the children to reduce the harms they commit relative to the adult criminal court. Even though these diversionary techniques do not reduce recidivism rates, they will help keep the youths out of the system of the adults by providing a safer area to enjoy their leisure time. The interventionist rationale trusts that the techniques of diversion could aid in protecting the society and curing the child. The two rationales have dissimilar beliefs about how a child is effectively rehabilitated but if the two are blended well, it will form the basis of the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile justice system (Zimring, 2000).  There has been a recent emergence of boot camps to replace the popular juvenile detention centers.  Detained youths viewed the boot camps to be much structured, therapeutic, controlled, active, safe, just, suitable for preparation of their discharge, and expected to provide and demonstrate a quality and better life. Many supporters of this stance feel that the environment of the boot camp is more preferable for rehabilitation. However, critics argue that the military styles that permeate ‘boot camp’ facilities could pessimistically impact the youth and remit them to their societies with annoyance and bitterness.  The rates of recidivism however are not lower for youth confined in boot camps.  It is also important to anticipate the fact that boot camps are a comparatively new tactics of rehabilitation, taking in new and better trained staff and more modern and accessible facilities. They are crucial to the success of detention centers despite the fact that they may not be the ultimate rehabilitative measures for detained youth (Zimring, 2000). The most contested and the central part of juvenile justice is rehabilitation. Some diversion techniques are fruitful but however there is a need to raise identical reaction to curb rise in juvenile crimes such as engaging the youth with their societies and their families as well (Zimring, 2000). Diversion techniques are increasingly and progressively gaining popularity as the violent incidents of detention centers increasingly became noticeable to prosecutors, probation officers and judges. These techniques will become less imperative if the detention centers have the capability to rehabilitate aberrant youths however they continue to be crucial to community involvement. The juveniles in the system desire a feeling of connection with their communities since programs that promote such a connection often make them powerful in a perspective that a detention center cannot. They endow them with opportunities as well as positive experiences in their own communities instead of detention at a safe and a secure facility. It will be an impressing directive to witness the figure of diversion techniques decreasing as the focus of rehabilitation in detention centers increase and academic, mental and emotional support is granted to the delinquent youths.  Conclusion After constant review of appropriate literature, it is clear that there are many insufficiencies in the Americas juvenile detention centers. Recent results show that there is adoption of punishment and aversion from rehabilitative services, a trend that is evident from the significant rise of detained juveniles.   It is apparent that the juvenile detention centers are facing many injustices today. Even though the injustices are well-known, petite research concentration has been devoted to the juvenile detention centers relative to other facets of juvenile justice. Detention centers have been branded as the "hidden closets of juvenile justice" because of lack of considerable tracking of their success.  Juvenile detention centers are a central component of the juvenile justice system, particularly as the guidelines of punitive sentencing increase the rates of juvenile incarceration, and the research amount on the needs of detention needs to proportionally act in response. There is a need to recognize injustices and proper resolutions have to be adopted early enough before large portion of youth is ignored in juvenile detention centers (Zimring, 2000). The juvenile justice system created in America was intended to create a through pass on which youths could be granted the services they desire in for them to be prosperous in their communities. This system is not attaining its initial goals with juvenile detention centers which are evident from the insufficiencies of facilities in the juvenile detention centers giving petite hopes for the success of youths switch back to society. Community members, researchers and policy makers must work collectively to avail adequate funds and resources for the great portion of the population in desire. Underprivileged neighborhoods and the minority must be aimed and approached, healthcare and education must become basic requirements in the detention facilities, and research must progress on in order to come out with the most effectual means of punishment, rehabilitation and ultimately safeguard the current and the future youth (Simpson, 1976). Punitive approach has affected the success of rehabilitation process in a negative way just as the juvenile detention centers have done within the system as they provide solid examples of explicit aspects that have obstructed rehabilitation in the past.  Despite the fact that the juvenile justice system is evolving, it has deviated from the initial rehabilitation focus that resulted to the very many injustices I have discussed. Occurrence of new reforms and the beginning of transformations to the rehabilitative approach along with the injustices found in the juvenile detention centers can be dealt with. References Elrod, P. & Ryder, R. S. (2011). Juvenile justice: A social, historical, and legal perspective (3rdEd.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC. Fox, S. J. (1996). The early history of the court. The Future of Children, 6(3), 29-39. Hinton, W., Sims, P., Adams, M., & West, C. (2007). Juvenile justice: A system divided. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(4), 466-483. Simpson, Anna L. 1976. “Rehabilitation as the Justification of a Separate Juvenile Justice System.” California Law Review 64(4):984-1017. Zimring, Franklin E. 2000. “The Common Thread: Diversion in Juvenile Justice.” California Law Review 88(6): 2477-2495. Read More