The Juvenile Justice System - Coursework Example

and Number of the Teacher’s Juvenile Delinquency THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN COMPARISON WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Introduction Globally, the number of children deprived of liberty as an outcome of conflict with law enforcement agencies is estimated to be around one million. Children may be arrested for committing an offence, for being found at risk of delinquency or in an “irregular situation”, because of law enforcement authorities acting in an arbitrary or improper manner, or other reasons. The juvenile justice system consists of the laws, policies, guidelines, customary norms, institutions, professionals, systems and treatment focused on children in conflict with the law. The adult criminal justice system consists of the laws, procedures, professionals, authorities and institutions which are applicable to witnesses and victims and to adults accused of, alleged to have, or recognized to have committed a criminal offence (United Nations Office: 1, 54). The purpose of this paper is to give an overview of the juvenile justice system and the criminal justice system, compare both types of systems: their similarities and differences, identify the reasons why the juvenile justice system was originally created and examine the ways in which the family and juvenile court can be improved. Discussion The Juvenile Justice System Government systems that deal with children in conflict with the law may vary in different countries. Such systems as the court, welfare system or administrative system may operate within the adult criminal justice system, or may function outside the judicial system through committees, commissions or administrative panels. Wherever the justice system includes a degree of specialization for children, whether the system is based on courts, the welfare system, or an administrative system, it is termed as a juvenile justice system. In countries where there is no specialization to any extent, children in the criminal justice system are treated in the same way as adults (United Nations Office: 1). Even while specialized procedures for children in conflict with the law may be used, an assessment of the varying needs of children, reference of the children to appropriate services, offer of care and assistance with support for reintegration into the community are important actions that need to be taken. Further, according to the United Nations Office (p.1-2), the juvenile justice system should provide a child-friendly environment, using appropriate language and the minimum possible employment of physical restraints. In a justice system that is not responsive to a child’s needs, children under detention are at increased risk of abuse, violence, exploitation and consequent impact on health by injury, HIV/ AIDs. Preventive action against deep-rooted causal factors such as poverty, broken homes, lack of education, drug abuse, etc. are required to be undertaken for children who are at risk of encounters with law enforcement authorities. Prevention will help reduce the costs which will otherwise need to be incurred in correctional facilites (United Nations Office: 1). The Criminal Justice System Crime control agencies make up the structure of the criminal justice system. The structure of criminal justice consists of “a series of decision points in the three major crime control agencies: police, courts and corrections” (Samaha: 8). Each criminal justice agency is a point where decisions are made on whether to keep or release individuals from the criminal justice system. The system being a collection of parts that make up a whole, the parts of the criminal justice system consist of the public agencies of crime control which are law enforcement, courts and corrections; and all three agencies are present at the three levels of government: local, state and federal. Federal law enforcement, courts and corrections often function as role models for state and local criminal justice agencies. Criminal justice is the framework for inter-dependent decision making by criminal justice professionals. Like all processes, criminal justice makes products, processing people to change their legal status. Law enforcement officers produce suspects when they make arrests or otherwise focus their investigation on a person. Prosecutors produce defendants when they charge suspects with crimes. Courts produce offenders when they convict defendants. Corrections produce ex-offenders when they release them from custody (Samaha: 8). The Similarities and Differences Between the Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems Both adult criminal justice systems and juvenile justice systems may frequently use the deprivation of liberty as the predominant method of sentencing (United Nations Office: 1). Deprivation of liberty through confinement in custody or incarceration is the main similarity in the functioning of the juvenile and the criminal justice systems. Both systems may also fail to take into consideration the needs and best interests of the child or adult and to address the root causes of conflict with the law. Thus, the offence is under focus, and justice is required to be established through processes that also do not allow for discrimination on the basis of color, gender, status or age. One main difference between the criminal justice system and the juvenile justice system is that incarceration of serious juvenile offenders requires criminal procedural safeguards that juvenile courts do not provide. Criminal procedural safeguards are provided only in the criminal justice system, due to which serious juvenile offenders are transferred to the latter. Another difference is that the juvenile courts focus on child and youth rehabilitation, in the case of comparatively minor offenders, to a greater extent than that provided to adult offenders by the criminal courts. Further, punishment is lighter in view of the younger age of the juvenile offenders, which is also the reason for changes in legislation for the transfer of violent juvenile offenders to the adult criminal justice courts. The Original Reasons for Creating the Juvenile Justice System The first juvenile court in the United States was established in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899 (National Report: 94). The movement that resulted in the establishment of the juvenile court in the U.S. had it roots in the 16th century European educational reform movements. These reform movements changed the perception about children from one of miniature adults to that of persons with less than fully developed moral and cognitive abilities. Even as early as 1825, the separation of juvenile and adult offenders was advocated by the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. Facilities were establised exclusively for juveniles, in most major cities. By the middle of the nineteenth century, these privately operated youth prisons were being criticized for various abuses. This was followed by the governmental initiatives in many states, for taking the responsibility of operating juvenile facilities. The state took up the responsibility to provide protection to children whose natural parents were not providing appropriate care or supervision. A key element was the focus on the welfare of the child. “Thus, the delinquent child was also seen as in need of the court’s benevolent intervention” (National Report: 94). Transfer from juvenile to criminal court based on the principle of “best interests of the child and public” could be conducted only if the juvenile court waived its jurisdiction in a case, and were in the sphere of individualized justice. Ways in which the Family and Juvenile Court Can be Improved Feld (p. 249), states that by trying youth in one integrated court, the need for transfer hearings can be avoided, as also inconsistencies produced by offense exclusions, assures similar sentences for similarly situated offenders, removes punishment gap. Further, a single criminal justice system allows for the keeping of integrated criminal history records, which help to identify and increase the sentences of chronic offenders. However, the author states that the sentencing policy requires a graduated social control system that is consistently based on the developmental process of the individual. Incarceration of serious juvenile offenders requires criminal procedural safeguards that juvenile courts do not provide. Eliminating separate juvenile courts does not require incarcerating youth in adult jails and prisons. Separate age-segregated facilities are available at existing training schools and institutions. For younger offenders of less serious crimes, support can be provided at separate juvenile facilities, which will not be possible if they are incarcerated at adult correctional places. Flowers (p.1) and Feld (p.189) assert that in recent years the juvenile justice system has come under attack as a system incapable of responding to the serious, violent, adult-like adolescent offender. According to Fagan & Zimring (p. 357), New York’s crime commission officials proposed the use of harsher punishments for juvenile offenders of serious crime. Every American jurisdiction has provided for the transfer of serious cases from the juvenile justice to the criminal justice court, because of the limited capacity of the juvenile court to punish, restricted in both kind and amount of punishment that can be administered (Flowers: 207). Thus, the main way in which the juvenile court can be improved is to allow the segregation of only minor juvenile offenders under the juvenile court system. Were the perpetrators to be of adult age the behavior of juveniles would not be considered as legal offences, in some cases, though they may not always be acceptable to the law enforcing authorities. Further, there are charges that sexual and racial discimination are practised in juvenile justice systems (Flowers: 1). The serious cases of crime committed by children, adolescents or youth need to be considered only by adult criminal justice courts. However, this can be converted into an umbrella criminal justice system which deals with serious crime committed by youth as well as adults, and has all the rehabilitation processes that are normally provided to juveniles. This is supported by Hirschi & Gottfredson (p.262) who believe that a single criminal justice system should be operated for both adults as well as juvenile offenders, “special treatment of juveniles is based on an erroneous image of developmental sequences, and misrepresents differences between juvenile and adult crime”. Crimes are committed by individuals with a tendency towards committing crime, who are low on self-control and are also faced with suitable opportunities. The tendency for crime varies continuously with age, but the age of the offender does not determine the meaning of criminal acts. Hence, distinctions based on age are groundless and cause difficulties in dealing with criminal issues. Conclusion This paper has highlighted the juvenile justice system, and compared it with the criminal justice system, identified their similarities and differences, and discussed the reasons why the juvenile justice system was originally created. Examining the ways in which the juvenile court can be improved, it has been found that an optimal system of integrating both juvenile and adult courts would have the most successful outcomes. However, a segregation of delinquent juvenile offenders of comparatively minor crimes is necessary, through a special juvenile court. This will help in re-integrating minor offenders into society through the use of appropriate interventions, counseling, vocational training and the teaching of life skills. Works Cited Fagan, Jeffrey & Zimring, Franklin, E. The changing borders of juvenile justice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 2000. Feld, Barry C. Juvenile and criminal justice systems’ responses to youth violence. Crime and Justice, 24 (1998): 189-261. Flowers, Ronald B. The adolescent criminal. The United States of America: McFarland Publishers. 1990. Hirschi, Travis & Gottfredson, Michael. Rethinking the juvenile justice system. Crime and Delinquency, 39.2 (1993): 262-271. National Report. Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National Report. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved on 6th October, 2008 from: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf Samaha, Joel. Criminal justice. California: Thomson Wadsworth. 2005. United Nations Office. Manual for the measurement of juvenile justice indicators. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Austria: United Nations Publications. 2007. Read More