Major Topic in Juvenile Delinquency - Essay Example

? The Juvenile Justice Process al Affiliation Youth crime has always been a serious problem to the society since history. However, it has risen and turned serious in recent years, as youths now not only engage in insignificant offences, but also commit severe offenses such as murder and rape. The juvenile justice system, which works hand in hand with the juvenile justice process, was established in order to handle such cases. The system has faced many challenges due to the rise in crime rates in recent years, and the fact that some crimes are too serious to be treated in nonadversarial ways. However, it can be said that the system has been fairy effective in controlling juvenile crimes and rehabilitating youths. The juvenile justice system comprises of formal and informal institutions, while the juvenile justice process consists of the procedures that are followed in processing juvenile cases. This paper discusses the history of juvenile justice, the juvenile justice system, which collaborates with the juvenile justice process to administer justice to juveniles, and the juvenile justice process. Keywords: Juvenile, Youth, Child, Justice, Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Justice System, Juvenile Justice Process Introduction Youth crime is a very serious problem to the society. Early youth crimes included runaways, loitering, bullying, and other minor offenses. This has however changed with youths turning violent and committing crimes as serious as assault, robbery, murder, rape, and drug trafficking. In recent years, youth crime has been on the rise affecting many nations worldwide. In the United States, millions of juvenile arrests are conducted each year for crimes ranging from violence to minor crimes. According to Cole and Smith, “in a nation with 74 million people younger than age 18, about 1.6 million arrests of juveniles occur each year , 74,000 of which (just over 4.5 percent) are for violent crimes” (2010, p. 604). Due to the increase in youth crimes, the philosophy of juvenile justice was established. The philosophy was aimed at reforming youths and looking for ways to develop them into responsible citizens. From the common law, it was clear that children were to be treated differently from adults, and controlling their behavior as well as looking for ways to reform them, was the best solution to the problem of youth crime (Cole & Smith, 2010). Institutions and procedures were thus established, in order to conduct justice for juveniles with focus on their welfare. The institutions and procedures established are referred to as the juvenile justice system and the juvenile justice process respectively. The juvenile justice process is therefore a philosophy that underlies the juvenile justice system. From this, it is clear that both institutions and procedures collaborate to administer juvenile justice, and no entity can exist on its own. Martin points out that “the juvenile justice system is composed of institutions that have been organized to manage established procedures as a way to achieve justice for all juveniles” (2005, p. 4). The institutions are divided into formal and informal organizations, and constitute of community-based programs and agencies, juvenile corrections, juvenile courts, and the police. The juvenile justice process on the other hand, “refers to distinct procedures established to assure the fair administration of youths under the law” (Martin, 2005, p. 4). These procedures have to conform to the institutions established to administer juvenile justice. The juvenile justice process in conducted in a friendly way, with the primary aims of identifying the youth’s problem and seeking a treatment plan to control and ultimately eliminate the problem. The juvenile justice process involves the police interface, intake and screening at the court, pretrial procedures, transfer to adult court, adjudication, disposition, and corrections (Cole & Smith, 2010). History of Juvenile Justice The issue of juvenile justice has been around for many years, and has been discussed throughout history. According to Cox, Allen, Conrad, and Hanser, “some 4,000 years ago, the Code of Hammurabi (2270 BC) discussed runways, children who disowned their parents, and sons who cursed their fathers” (2011, p. 5). Children who had reached the age of puberty received forms of punishments similar to those used on adults for engaging in activities regarded as criminal. Thousands of years later, the belief in age of responsibility led to a distinction between juvenile and adult criminals. As a result of this, some forms of punishment were made less severe for children. For example, cases of theft for children led to corporal punishment and compensation of the offended party, while adults were enslaved and received lashes for similar acts. Changes continued to take place as societies and governments attempted to seek better ways of handling child criminals. While juvenile offenders in the early eighteenth century were sent to adult prisons, this changed in the mid-eighteenth century when separate institutions for young offenders were established (Cox, Allen, Conrad, & Hanser, 2011).In the nineteenth century, the United States became increasingly dissatisfied with the way juvenile crimes were handled. “As early as 1825, the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency advocated separating juvenile and adult offenders” (Cox, Allen, Conrad, & Hanser, 2011, p. 7).Very little attempt had been made to separate adult from youth offenders in prisons, and it was feared that adults could transfer their knowledge and attitudes to the young offenders. Another cause of concern was the brutality that young offenders could sometimes suffer from adult offenders. From this perspective, it was clear that holding juveniles in the same jails as adult criminals was not of any benefit. However, releasing young offenders and failing to hold them in the institutions of law was not a viable alternative. As a solution to this problem, juvenile courts and prisons were established. As a result, “emphasis on the legal rights of the juvenile declined, and emphasis on determining how and why the juvenile came to the attention of the authorities and how best to treat and rehabilitate the juvenile became primary” (Cox, Allen, Conrad, & Hanser, 2011, p. 8). Focus was thus diverted from the crimes committed by young offenders, to the well-being of the offenders themselves. There was a general shift from intervention through the criminal law to the use of the civil law (Cox, Allen, Conrad, & Hanser, 2011). Informality in legal procedures was thus embraced in a bid to help young offenders. A lot of discretion was exercised in handling youth cases, as legal systems moved away from the law, punishment, and corrections, to interception, management, and rehabilitation (Cox, Allen, Conrad, & Hanser, 2011). Reforms on the issue of juvenile justice continued to be made under the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act by “the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals” (Burfeind & Bartusch, 2011, p. 24) established in 1965, 1966, and 1971 respectively. From the 1980s, juvenile crimes increased and rehabilitation seemed ineffective in controlling delinquency, this “led to a shift to a crime control and punishment philosophy similar to that of the adult criminal justice system” (Siegel, 2010, p. 660). The juvenile justice system was also altered, making it similar to the adult criminal justice system in order to improve its effectiveness. Today, the approach used in administering juvenile justice is balanced and has so far been very effective. The Juvenile Justice System Unlike the criminal justice system, the juvenile justice system has additional agencies, programs, and organizations. The juvenile justice system is thus classified into nonofficial and official juvenile justice institutions (Martin, 2005). Nonofficial juvenile justice institutions. These institutions are different from those of the adult criminal justice system. According to Martin, “unlike the adult system, the juvenile justice system also marshalls the resources of community and local government service agencies” (2005, p. 8). Majority of these informal systems are private and operate on a not for profit or for profit basis. However, they are managed and reviewed by the state. The chief obligation of delivering youths at risk and rehabilitating them is given to government service agencies and private community based organizations. These informal establishments are used for processing juvenile victims and juvenile criminals who commit insignificant crimes, because rather than facing strict punishments in corrections, such youths need treatment. The mode of operation of these service agencies and community based organizations is very welcoming and informal. Official juvenile justice institutions. The components and way of operation of these establishments are similar to those of the adult criminal justice system. The main components of these institutions are corrections, courts, and the police. Just like in the criminal system, procedures in these institutions can be rigorous and formal, depending on the status of each case. These institutions process lesser but significant cases, and serious cases involving juveniles. Martin points out that “when juveniles are processed through these institutions, they are under the custody and guardianship of the state, and the state is responsible for correcting, rehabilitating, or otherwise saving, such youths” (2005, p. 8). Each component of the informal and formal juvenile justice institutions comprise of different subsystems, which are all unique in their functions, but collaborate with one another to administer juvenile justice. “They each serve a unique function, and, depending on the manner in which a person is processed through every phase, there are a large number of possible outcomes” (Martin, 2005, p. 10). The subsystems of the nonofficial and official juvenile justice institutions thus include the police subsystem, the judicial subsystem, the corrections subsystem, and the community based subsystem (Martin, 2005). The police subsystem. The police are closely involved in matters regarding juvenile justice. They form the largest subsystem of the juvenile justice institutions. The fact that they are usually placed close to neighborhoods and towns make them the first point of contact with victims and offenders in the community. In fact, “juvenile offenders who break the law are frequently taken to the police as a first option, or the police may apprehend them while observing them commit an offense” (Martin, 2005, p. 10-12). Victimized youths are also taken to police custody before further actions are taken. The police have the discretion to decide on the next steps to take on juvenile charges. The judicial subsystem. Majority of the personnel found in this subsystem are similar to those in the adult criminal justice system.They include the defense counsel, administrators, judges, and prosecutors. Due to the fact that the system is a civil system rather than a criminal one, “there is also a significant amount of participation by social workers , probation officers, case managers, and other professionals whose primary duty is to inform and advise the court on the status of each juvenile” (Martin, 2005, p. 12). The corrections subsystem. Despite the fact that juvenile corrections are similar to adult corrections to some extent, they are quite different from each other. Juvenile corrections place a lot of emphasis on rehabilitating youths through various official operation policies, such as bargaining for residential treatment of juveniles. Juvenile corrections are managed and maintained by the state and federal agencies, and therefore must abide by the laws. The community-based subsystem. This subsystem is very extensive. Agencies under this subsystem include public government programs based within neighborhoods, nonprofit private organizations, and for-profit private organizations. They receive juveniles who are transferred from the formal juvenile justice institutions and those that are directly referred to agencies and community-based programs. Martin points out that “regardless of the manner in which youths are placed in community venues, they are likely to receive more individualized treatment than they would otherwise receive in formal correctional institutions” (2005, p. 14). It is important to note that states and in some cases, counties have their own juvenile justice systems. This means that there is no solo juvenile justice systems, since the different states and counties in some instances, have their own distinct systems. However, all procedures of the systems have two similar factors, which are; the age of the offenders they handle (juveniles in this case,), and the types of cases they process, which include status offences, delinquency, dependency, and neglect (Cole & Smith, 2008). The Juvenile Justice Process The juvenile justice process is the basis of the juvenile justice system. Cole and Smith (2008) point out that it “is the philosophy that the police, judges, and correctional officials should be primarily concerned with the interests of the child” (p. 394).The juvenile justice system interferes in the lives of youths involved in criminal and status offences, in order to prevent delinquency. The juvenile justice process requires that probation officers, clinicians, social workers, and judges collaborate to identify the problem in a juvenile, and chose a plan for treatment, in a non-adversarial way. Despite the fact that there has been more emphasis on punishment and crime control in recent years, all the personnel in the juvenile justice system are required to put the interests of the juveniles first, and act in nondiscriminatory ways to help them. Exchange relationships take place between private and government agencies in juvenile justice operations, in order control decisions within the system. According to Cole and Smith, “the juvenile court must deal not only with children and their parents, but also with patrol officers, probation officers, welfare officials, social workers, psychologists, and the heads of treatment institutions” (2008, p. 394-395). All these people have their own roles to play in diagnosing and treating juveniles. However, there are steps and procedures involved in the juvenile justice system, such that every member of the system plays his role at his respective stage in the proceedings, that is, from investigation by the police, to disposition in the correctional or community-based systems. The step by step sequence of the judicial justice process is as follows: Custody or police interface. The police act as the first point of contact with juvenile victims and offenders. The police may take juveniles into custody for various reasons. These include suspicion of victimization, injury, or homelessness, breaches of prohibitions focused toward the youths such as truancy and drug and alcohol abuse, as well as suspicion of misconduct (Martin, 2005). When taken into police custody, most juveniles are kept in juvenile units within the police department. The police have the discretion to make decisions on the next course of action to take, for the juveniles they hold in custody. The courses of actions “are influenced by such factors as the predominant attitude of the community; the officer’s attitude towards the juvenile, the juvenile’s family, the offense, and the court; and the officer’s conception of his or her own role” (Cole & Smith, 2008, p. 396). Among the course of actions that the police can take on juveniles in custody are giving them stern warnings, sending them back to their parents, or handing them over to the next authority in the justice system, depending on the seriousness of the crime, the juvenile’s behavior, and his or her prior record. Despite the fact that the police get to handle juvenile offenses, their main role is to maintain order. Therefore, their main role is to handle uncertain legal accusations involving youths, rather than solving juvenile crimes. Such accusations include disturbing peace in the community, shoplifting, sexual displays in public, loitering within business areas, and breaking windows. The officer in this case has the responsibility of preventing the juvenile from engaging in offensive activities in the future and satisfying the offended. Given that the role of the police within the community is to resolve cases, “instead of strictly enforcing the law-the police power to arrest can be used to deter juveniles from criminal activity and to encourage them to conform to the law” (Cole & Smith, 2008, p. 396). Apart from the police, parents, and other community members such as neighbors and teachers can file petitions in court against juveniles. Court intake screening. This phase is similar to the preliminary hearing or initial appearance in the adult criminal justice system. Martin defines it as “a process that is used to determine whether a juvenile should be released or processed through the juvenile justice system” (2005, p. 15). A referral in the form of a petition that can be made by the police, parents, neighbors, and teachers begins the court processing of a juvenile case. This is different from the adult criminal justice system, where court processing of adult cases begins with an arrest warrant. An intake hearing conducted by a hearing officer initiates the court process. Alleged facts may be adequate to allow the juvenile court to process the case, and in some cases, an alternative action with the best interests of the youth taken as chief can be taken, as determined by the hearing officer. Youths can be screened out of the juvenile justice system without the courts involvement in a process known as diversion. Majority of juvenile court referral cases are dismissed, others are changed towards informal probation, others referred to treatment and mental health facilities, and others solved through different recommendations. Cole and Smith point out that in the United States, “45 percent of all referrals are disposed of at this stage, without formal processing by a judge” (2008, p. 396). Pretrial processes. This takes place when a hearing officer determines that there is adequate evidence to allow the juvenile court to process a case. Pretrial procedures begin with an initial hearing by the court. Accused youths are advised at this point and made aware of their individual rights and the fact that in case they make any pleas, they must be out of their own will and not due to any form of coercion. In some cases, juveniles may need to be detained as they await trial, and this requires a detention hearing prior to the detention. The detention hearing determines whether a juvenile should be held in a detention facility until his or her adjudication, or whether he or she should be released to a parent or guardian as he or she awaits adjudication (Cole & Smith, 2008). A number of factors determine the outcome of a detention hearing. These include the need to keep accused youths from committing more crime if released to the parent or guardian, the need to protect them from harm that may be caused by parents or other gang members in case the youth belongs to a gang, and the need to have accused youths appear in court, since some may fail to appear if released. In the United States, “about 19 percent of all delinquency cases involve detention during the time between referral to the juvenile court and disposition of the case” (Cole & Smith, 2008). Despite the fact that detentions help prevent the listed situations, it has been found to accelerate juvenile delinquency and hence in recent years, diversion has been preferred as a better option since it reduces the delinquency rates of youths awaiting trial. Transfer to adult court. Among the initial decisions made after pretrial is whether to transfer a juvenile case to the adult criminal justice system. In a number of cases, a juvenile case may be moved to an adult court depending on the chances of rehabilitation, the age of the youth, and the severity of charges. Waiver to adult courts has been very common for cases involving violent crimes such as armed robbery, rape, and murder. Harder ways of dealing with juvenile crimes were introduced in the 1970s, since it was during this time that some crimes were moved from the jurisdiction of juvenile courts due to their seriousness (Cole & Smith, 2010). According to Cole and Smith (2010), “the likelihood of waiver varies by offense, offender age, and offender race. In all, violent offenders make up the majority of those transferred to adult court (43 percent)” (p. 621). The main reason for transfer of specific juvenile cases to adult courts was in order to give punishment that is as serious as the crime committed. The topic has been rather controversial, as critics argue that the aim of the juvenile justice system to reform youths and handle them in non-adversarial ways is undermined, when they get exposed to adults who may influence them with their attitudes and sometimes exploit them sexually, and where they face very harsh punishments. It is from this perspective that the benefits of juvenile waivers are questioned. “Many states now place on the youth the burden of proving that he or she is amenable to treatment in the juvenile instead of the adult court” (Cole & Smith, 2010, p. 622). Adjudication. At this phase, a juvenile faces trial either in a juvenile court or an adult court, depending on the severity of his or her crime. Cole and Smith point out that “if the child has not admitted to the charges and the case has not been transferred to the adult court, an adjudication hearing is held to determine the facts in the case, and if appropriate, label the juvenile as delinquent” (2010, p. 622). Although juvenile proceedings today are still informal, they are more formal compared to past juvenile proceedings. Disposition. Findings of delinquency by a juvenile court lead to dispositional hearings scheduled by judges in order help in making decisions on the next course of action. The probation officer in this phase is charged with the responsibility of preparing a dispositional report, in order to help the judge in deciding on the best action to take on the youth to his or her best interests. Most of the juveniles are usually prevented from reaching this phase during the intake and pretrial phases, where less serious cases are dismissed or solved through other means, such as community treatment, alternative dispositions, custodial care, and probation. Corrections. Juvenile offenders found to be dangerous to the public are most held in juvenile corrections. Most juvenile corrections just like adult corrections mix retributive and rehabilitative methods of support. Juvenile offenders may be kept in secure placements such as training and reform schools, or non-secure placements such as schools, camps, foster homes, ranches or group homes (Cole & Smith, 2008). Secure facilities are used to hold juveniles found to have severe personal problems and who commit serious crimes, while non-secure facilities mostly hold youths facing emotional disturbances, and victims of neglect and abuse. Since the juvenile justice system places emphasis on reforming youths, they have a number of institutional programs aimed at achieving this. Examples include different psychotherapeutic methods, vocational training, education, and counseling. Conclusion In conclusion, the juvenile justice system relies on the juvenile justice process to administer justice to juveniles. The juvenile justice system comprises of informal and formal juvenile justice institutions that have different subsystems. Each subsystem has different personnel and a role to play in administering juvenile justice. The juvenile justice process on the other hand, consists of different stages aimed at processing juvenile cases, and offering rehabilitation as discussed in this paper. Reference List Burfeind, James W., & Bartusch, Dawn. (Eds.). (2011). Juvenile Delinquency: An Integrated Approach. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, LLC. Cole, George F. & Smith, Christopher E. (Eds.). (2008). Criminal Justice in America. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education. Cole, George Fraser & Smith, Christopher E. (Eds.). (2010). The American System of Criminal Justice, International Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Cox, Steven M., Allen, Jennifer M., Conrad, John J., & Hanser, Robert D. (2011). Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory, Policy, and Practice. Californai, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Martin, Gus. (2005). Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems. California, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Siegel, Larry J. (Eds.). (2010). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Read More