This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.
Many in the juvenile justice field have tried to understand the cause of juvenile delinquency. There are many different theories describe the cause and effect of variables and how they react. However, through much research, we have concluded there is not just one single path or journey that determines the fate of the juvenile. There are many different risk factors that build in order to increase a youth's chance of becoming an offender. This is kind of like a domino effect. Risk factors are described as the characteristics that present themselves to determine if the individual or youth will become a delinquent. These factors may include; home life, income status, gender, and social. It can either be one or all that play a part in the way the
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.
Main Post: Juvenile delinquency is a problem that affects society as a whole. Understanding Juvenile delinquency is important because it is part of trying to figure out how people in American society should react to it; specifically, in terms of law enforcement officers, their agencies, and State legislators. When deviant behavior becomes "continuous, chronic and widespread it gets perceived as a significant part of the population as threatening to the general well-being of society" (Thompson and Bynum, 2010, p. 44). This is a societal problem that requires attention from various forms of social control.
Remember doing something mischievous or wrong when you were a kid and getting the label "delinquent" slapped on you ? Did you ever wonder what it meant ? That is what my topic for today is . . . juvenile delinquency. In this report I will: define juvenile delinquency, give the extent of juvenile delinquency, give some suggestions on what causes juvenile delinquency, and what is being done in various communities to deal with this growing problem. The legal term juvenile delinquent was established so that young lawbreakers could avoid the disgrace of being classified in legal records as criminals. Juvenile delinquency laws were designed to provide treatment, rather than punishment, for juvenile offenders. Young delinquents usually are sent to juvenile courts, where the main aim is to rehabilitate offenders, rather than to punish them. But the term juvenile delinquency itself has come to imply disgrace in today's society. A youngster can be labeled a delinquent for breaking any one of a number of laws, ranging from robbery to running away from home. But an action for which a youth may be declared a delinquent in one community may not be against the law in another community. In some communities, the police ignore many children who are accused of minor delinquencies or refer them directly to their parents. But in other communities, the police may refer such children to a juvenile court, where they may officially be declared delinquents. Crime statistics, though they are often incomplete and may be misleading, do give an indication of the extent of the delinquency problem. The FBI reports that during the early 1980's, about two-fifths of all arrests in the United States for burglary and arson were of persons under the age of 18. Juveniles also accounted for about one-third of all arrests for larceny. During any year, about 4 % of all children between the ages of 10 and 18 appear in a juvenile court. The percentage of youngsters in this group who are sent to court at least once is much higher. A third or more of those boys living in the slum areas of large cities may appear in a juvenile court at least once. Girls are becoming increasingly involved in juvenile delinquency. Today, about one of every five youngsters appearing in juvenile court is a girl. In the early 1900's, this ratio was about 1 girl to every 50 or 60 boys.
The community and the courts began to view juveniles as capable of molding and rehabilitating, so thus began a modification in the court system and sentencing of juvenile offenders. In 1899, the first US court system existed in Cook County, Illinois which opened up doors to numerous juvenile court systems. “Children were no longer to be dealt with as criminals, but rather through the parens patriae power of the state were to be treated as wards of the state, not fully responsible for their conduct and capable of being rehabilitated (Davis, 1976, p. 3).” Parens patriae: the notion that grants the state power and authority to protect juvenile offenders who are unable to care for themselves is important because the court moved from viewing juveniles as criminals to juveniles as delinquents, a minor between the age of 10 and 17 who violated the law (Juvenile Delinquents). Juveniles violates laws while adults commit crimes. Instead of imprisonment of the juvenile delinquent the court assessed why the juvenile violated the law and tried to treat the child’s problem by sentencing them to an intervention program rather than placing them in prison. The judge, “the father figure,” stood dedicated to protecting the juvenile rather than punishing (Davis, 1976, p. 3) making sure to evaluate the best interest of the
Abstract: An issue that is an issue in criminal law is juvenile delinquency. Under present conditions and modes of modern day norms this area of concern demands more attention. Not only are people responsible for the community but also for all of that citizens that live in them. The current problem in respect to crime is juvenile delinquency. While an issue that more prevalent in the inner city, but an issue that reaches out into towns and sometimes reach as far into the country. Juvenile delinquency is a complex subject because there are hereditary and environmental factors that are at work that become more recognized and exhibit more in homes that lack discipline. In addition, juveniles often commit acts which, if committed by an adult, would
When discussing juvenile offenders, there seems to be a distinct divide between how they should be treated. Some believe such young citizens should be treated with leniency in court while others completely disagree. This raises the question, “Should minors be treated with more leniency than their adult counterparts due to their youth?” Despite that the judicial system has flaws, treating juvenile offenders as adults in a court of law proves to be disadvantageous.
The process of transferring juveniles to adult courts has shown no effects on decreasing recidivism or a deterrent outcome. Waiver as it is known has three means by which a juvenile can be transferred to an adult court. Judicial waiver offenses, statutory exclusions, and concurrent jurisdiction are the three methods in which a waiver can occur. This research will describe each one of these methods with detail. It will also provide statistical facts showing why waiver can be a very debatable topic within the juvenile criminal justice system. In its totality it will discuss the arguments for and against waiver.
This quote by Edward Humes sums it up the best, “The fundamental question Juvenile Court was designed to ask - What's the best way to deal with this individual kid? - is often lost in the process, replaced by a point system that opens the door, or locks it, depending on the qualities of the crime, not the child.” (No Matter How Loud I shout, 1996, p. 325). The courts need to focus on what is best for the child and finding punishment that fits the child not the crime.