Using pertinent theories of juvenile delinquency, this policy proposal will first highlight areas in the Illinois Juvenile Justice system that are in need of updates and modifications and secondly identify specific changes to be made in the current system. Through the application of rational choice, social control and strain theories along with an analysis of current research in the field, the submitted proposal will present one key policy change that may further reduce the number of juvenile delinquents both now and in the future. The suggested change will include the creation of the Department of Juvenile Outreach, an extension of the city's ongoing efforts at rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. This policy proposal will take into consideration social disorganization and subculture theories to explain juvenile delinquency further. The creation of the Department will coordinate and facilitate community programs and social services aimed at targeting juveniles at-risk of offending or even re-offending. For the purposes of implementation, this policy will also include budget and personnel requirements as well as different measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the suggested changes in reducing criminal activity among juveniles in Illinois and possibly even the United States. INTRODUCTION The following policy proposal will briefly glance at the current state of juvenile justice and delinquency in the United States of America before zooming in on the Illinois Juvenile Justice System. This proposal has the express purpose of indicating changes to the current policies and serving as a model for the entire country. More specifically, the Principal Investigator (PI) suggests the creation of the D... ... middle of paper ... ...to be enrolled in the program, the process will begin of engaging the teens for their social development, providing alternatives to crime like sport activities, enrichment workshops on topics like science and technology, and partnering teens with mentors and role models to hold them accountable and counsel them on their life choices. Phase Five is the actual implementation of the plans to reduce juvenile crime by attacking the problem on the front lines: at home and in the community. This phase of the proposal will continue long into the future with significant implications for community involvement and civic participation. This approach has been instituted in California and the PI believes it should serve as a model for the entire country’s juvenile justice systems to help teens discover the alternatives to crime and to prevent offending or re-offending in youth.
Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.
When our thoughts turn to the criminal justice system it is only a natural instinct to assume everyone associated with policing, courts, and corrections will have to deal with juveniles sometime in their career. Young people in today’s society can be so easily influenced by social situations, peer pressure, and family members. The courts in the United States are faced with difficult decisions on a daily basis. Sentencing juveniles to adult facilities for their crimes is becoming a common trend in the justice system today; however it is not a deterrent whatsoever. “The current policies of juvenile bind over to adult criminal court and severe sentencing have been unsuccessful
Low self esteem, poor-decision making, dysfunctional families, poor communication skills, and associations with negative peer groups are all characteristics of delinquent youth (Journal, 1993). The Ohio Cooperative Extension Service Juvenile Diversion programs were designed to address these characteristics in juveniles. The family unit and peer association are the primary social influence on juvenile behavior and the Ohio Extension program focuses on educating families and placing juvenile offenders in programs with positive peer influences.
In 1899, the juvenile justice court system began in the United States in the state of Illinois. The focus was intended to improve the welfare and rehabilitation of youth incarcerated in juvenile justice system. The court mainly was focused on the rehabilitation of the youths rather than punishing them being that they still have immature ways and still growing. Specialized detention centers, youth centers, and training schools were created to treat delinquent youth apart from adult offenders in adult facilities. “Of these, approximately 14,500 are housed in adult facilities. The largest proportion, approximately 9,100 youth, are housed in local jails, and some 5,400 youth are housed in adult prisons” (Austin, 2000).
A movement has started in our country to renovate the juvenile justice system. This movement wants to erase any differences between young offenders and adult criminals. Almost all fifty states have changed their juvenile justice laws, allowing more youths to be tried as adults...
Crime rates across the U.S. for juveniles is at all time high. Juveniles across all demographic have been punished more severely than those of the past. Contributing factors including lower socioeconomic areas such as the Detroit Metropolitan Areas & Chicago. This paper will discuss the apparent issue within the system focusing on juveniles in urban areas.
Never before had the Courts been met with the astounding number of juvenile offenders. Courts were being inundated with juvenile offenders and until this program was established and implemented they had limited alternative sentencing options available to them. By creating this program this allowed the Courts an option to “sentence” juvenile offenders into a meaningful supervised setting rather then placing them in a detention center. This also opened up space in the detention centers for more serious offenders. The offenders most commonly come to work for the day and are released to go home after the day’s end.
Jenson, Jeffrey and Howard, Matthew. "Youth Crime, Public Policy, and Practice in the Juvenile Justice System: Recent Trends and Needed Reforms." Social Work 43 (1998): 324-32
When juveniles commit crimes, it is critical that society finds a successful way to divert their criminal actions into good behavior. The main purpose of this essay is to find the different outlets the juvenile justice system is using to rehabilitate juveniles, how well those strategies are working, and personal suggestions for improvement that might result in a more effective juvenile justice system.
The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased juvenile delinquency? Simply put, we must create a means of measuring juvenile’s level of risk and in turn, form an effective rehabilitation program that will decrease their risk level for future recidivism.
The modern teen court concept began in the early 1970’s when a small number of local communities in America began to establish the first Global Youth Justice programs (Peterson, p. 2). In 1994 there were 78 youth court programs in existence. As of March, 2010, there are over 1,050 youth court programs in operation in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Teen courts serve as a “diversion” program used to divert first time offenders away from a lifetime of criminal activity. The primary function of most teen court programs is to determine a fair and restorative sentence or disposition for the youth respondent. Although the primary function of teen courts is to rehabilitate offenders, some may wonder if teen courts are actually beneficial to young offenders.
The dilemma of juvenile incarceration is a problem that thankfully has been declining, but still continues to be an ethical issue. The de-incarceration trend has coincided with a decrease in crime. It is hopeful that our nation is changing the approach to the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. It means we know what to do and what is working, now just to follow through and continue the change to creating a juvenile justice system that is truly rehabilitative and gives youth tools to be able to be positive members of
Juvenile delinquency is one of the major social issues in the United States today. Juvenile delinquency, also known as juvenile offending, is when “a violation of the law committed by a juvenile and not punishable by death or life imprisonment” (Merriam-webster.com). Although we have one justice system in America, the juvenile system differs from the adult juvenile system. Most juvenile delinquents range from as low as the age of seven to the age of seventeen. Once the delinquent or anyone turns the age of eighteen, they are considered an adult. Therefore, they are tried as an adult, in the justice system. There are many different reasons why a child would commit crime, such as mental and physical factors, home conditions, neighborhood environment and school conditions. In addition, there are a variety of effects that juvenile justice systems can either bad effects or good effects. Finally there are many different solutions that can reduce juvenile delinquency. As a result, juvenile delinquency is a major issue and the likeliness of it can be reduced. In order to reduce juvenile delinquency there has to be an understanding of the causes and the effects.