Courts of healing justice are specialized courts that deal in specific types of offenders. The ones that will be covered here are juvenile courts, family courts, and drug courts. These courts keep these specific types of cases out of the general courts. Their goal is to try to heal the offender of what is causing them to offend instead of just locking them up. They are also referred to courts of second chance.
These courts work with social services and law enforcement agencies to provide special attention to the offender’s problems (Kinsella, 2004). The purpose of specialty courts is to reduce recidivism and treat the offenders, setting them on the road to recovery (Kinsella, 2004). Not only can they help the offender but they also provide some relief to the over-crowded general court system, provide cost savings to the public, and provide specialization to the particular court cases (Legomsky, 1990).
There are many positive aspects to having specialized courts. Courts of healing justice provide an informal setting as compared to those of general courts. By having informal hearings it hopes to seem compassionate to the needs of the individual (Paulsen, 1966). It is the mission of these courts to focus on what is in the best interest of the person needing the help they can give them (Yermish, 2009). The courts can use the law to order treatment for the offender (Davis, 2003). Specialty courts can arrange for treatment when social services have been unable to do so, thus making court the last resort in the effort to obtain help for the offender (Davis, 2003). Not only do they serve to take away some of the over-crowding of the general courts; they keep personal problems from being exposed in general courts (Davis, 2003).
The issues on the opposite side of specialty courts are just as numerous. Public opposition to the specialty courts is that they are not viewed as real courts and they do not believe that the offender is getting the punishment they deserve or that the matters at hand are being treated fairly (Legomsky,1990). In specialty courts a defendant must plead guilty in order to receive treatment services; this takes away his attorney’s right to defend him (Yermish, 2009). When an offender is placed into a treatment program a non-offender is put at the end of the line for receiving the same treatment, the court has the ability to move the offender to the front of the line (Davis, 2003).
...es and cautions of jail diversion programs include safety of the public and the potential cross-purpose goals of the treatment services industry and the criminal justice system. Public safety is paramount when discussing jail diversion programs. Whatever has caused the offender to commit crime, be it substance abuse or a mental illness, does not negate the fact that the crime was committed and the public must be protected from the offender is some form or fashion. Jail diversion programs have various tracking methods of offenders but they do provide enough freedom and opportunity for recidivism. Also, treatment services and incarceration do often work at cross purposes and unless integrated successfully can cause barriers to coordination and solutions (SAMHSA, 1993). One organization emphasizes treatment and the other emphasizes public safety and punishment.
The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now almost as an adult once more.
Juvenile court is a special court that deals with under age defendants that are charged with crimes, who are neglected, or out of their parent’s control. The average age of the Defendants are younger than 18, but juvenile court doesn’t have jurisdiction in cases in which a minor is charged as an adult. The procedure of juvenile court is to involve parents or social workers and probation officers in order to achieve positive results and prevent minors from future crimes. However, serious crimes and repeated offenses can result in the juvenile offender being sentenced to a prison, with a transfer to a state prison when they reach adulthood. According to the film “Prison States”, Christel Tribble’s was a 15-year-old from Kentucky who was diagnosed
In recent years, there has been controversy over mass incarceration rates within the United States. In the past, the imprisonment of criminals was seen as the most efficient way to protect citizens. However, as time has gone on, crime rates have continued to increase exponentially. Because of this, many people have begun to propose alternatives that will effectively prevent criminals from merely repeating their illegal actions. Some contend that diversion programs, such as rehabilitation treatment for drug offenders, is a more practical solution than placing mentally unstable individuals into prison.
The problem of dealing with juvenile justice has plagued are country for years, since the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899. Prior to that development, delinquent juveniles had to be processed through the adult justic3e system which gave much harsher penalties. By 1945, separate juvenile courts existed in every single state. Similar to the adult system, all through most of the 20th century, the juvenile justice system was based upon a medical/rehabilitative representation. The new challenges of the juvenile court were to examine, analyze, and recommend treatment for offenders, not to deliver judgment fault or fix responsibility. The court ran under the policy of “parens patriae” that intended that the state would step in and act as a parent on behalf of a disobedient juvenile. Actions were informal and a juvenile court judge had a vast sum of discretion in the nature of juvenile cases, much like the discretion afforded judges in adult unlawful settings until the 1970s. In line with the early juvenile court’s attitude of shielding youth, juvenile offenders’ position was often in reformatories or instruction schools that were intended, in speculation, to keep them away from the terrible influences of society and to encourage self-control through accurate structure and very unsympathetic discipline. Opposing to the fundamental theory, all through the first part of the century, the places that housed juveniles were frequently unsafe and unhealthy places where the state warehoused delinquent, deserted, and deserted children for unclear periods. Ordinary tribulations included lack of medical care, therapy programs, and even sometimes food. Some very poor circumstances continue even today.
I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to slamming people in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related--crime that would largely disappear if the massive profits brought on by drug criminalization were eliminated. You can reduce drug usage more efficiently, and at a lower cost, through treatment than through law enforcement.
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of
...93). Intensive probation and parole (Vol. 17). In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research. 281-335. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from http://heinonline.org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/ HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/cjrr17&id=289#289.
...aluating mental health courts as an ideal mental health intervention. Best Practices in Mental Health, 21-37.
The concept of restorative justice became a game-changer in juvenile justice system. Through the course of time, professionals explored every possible methods and approaches that could positively affect the children without the expense of harming their future and wellbeing. The idea of restorative justice is “administer justice that focuses or repairing the harm done to the victim and the community. (Save the Children-UK, 2005)” The four guiding principles are to: (1) Repair and restore the balance within the community. (2) restitution for the victim. (3) Ensure that the offender understand and take responsibility. (4) Help the offender to change and improve. In South Africa, this is practiced in their community throughout
This model of corrections main purpose was to reintroducing the offenders in to the community. This Program was invented to help offenders in the transition from jail to the community, aid in the processes of finding jobs and stay connected to their families and the community. The needs of these individuals are difficult: the frequency of substance abuse, mental illness, unemployment, and homelessness is elevated among the jail population.
For the offender, the main goal of diversion is rehabilitation. Diversion programs provide offenders with essential services that can address the underlying causes of criminal behavior, such as alcohol and drug abuse. It is hoped that diversion will allow offenders to establish a normal lifestyle, without the burden of a criminal record. Diversion may also be less costly for the offender and be less costly than other criminal justice processing. In many cases treatment or counseling is less expensive than prosecution and incarceration. The most obvious benefit of diversion programs is that they avoid the expense and harshness of the full operation of the criminal law. Rising prison populations and their associated costs have led criminal justice
...rounding individual offender needs and courtroom management and organizational concerns. Although courtroom actor reliance on different focal concerns is theorized to be uniform across jurisdictions, the relative emphasis and subjective interpretation of these considerations is likely to vary across court communities (Ulmer and Johnson, 2004). This is because "the meaning, relative emphasis and priority, and situational interpretations of them is embedded in local court community culture, organizational contexts, and politics" that vary across courts (Kramer and Ulmer, 2002: 903). From this perspective, judicial departures can be understood as the result of the complex interplay between formally rational guideline recommendations and substantively rational sentencing concerns, based on varying interpretations of different focal concerns across courtroom communities.
Over the course of the three weeks, Professor Marchi touched based on the importance of corrections in criminal justice. The main purpose of corrections in the criminal justice system is to punish offenders who commit any crimes. By punishing offenders it will deter any offender from committing any more crimes. Corrections ensure that communities are safe, the fear of crime is reduced, and it establishes the idea of getting treatment. A controversial correctional issue that interest me is giving offenders the choice to participate in a rehabilitation program so that they can gain resources needed to function in society. I chose to write about this issue because offenders need to know that there are many other options to prevent them from resulting