This chapter examines the juvenile justice diversion as an alternative to formal adjudication of juvenile justice and the placement of children, particularly residential placement. Juvenile Diversion is based on the premise that youth exposure to justice may be more harmful than beneficial (Shelden, 1999).
It has been argued that the diversion of low risk, non-violent offenders of minor crimes justice system in the treatment and community-based interventions to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior (Whitehead and Lab, 2001).
The idea of deviation as a process in which problems are solved in the context of crime and official action are defined and managed by other means, with "minimal penetration" in the juvenile justice system. Another characterization of diversion is when young people an alternative community that offers appropriate services (Lemert, 1981) are known.
Diversion can also refer to "the use of a wide range of interventions as alternatives to either initial or formal processing" (Kammer, Minor, and Wells, 1997, p. 51).
It has been argued that the deviation can decrease the load on the juvenile courts, reduce system costs juvenile justice, reduce the degree of social control exercised by the juvenile justice system, and reduce the stigma associated with participation Justice (McCord, 1999; Shelden, 1999; Whitehead and Lab, 2001). Forwarding services and referral means implies that young people are removed from the justice system and placed in alternative programs. Lemert (1981) has also argued that the deviation corrects a number of shortcomings in juvenile justice. These include (a) the denial of juveniles of civil rights or fair dealing, (b) delays in the courts, so for inefficiency, (c) the labeling a...
... middle of paper ...
...nctions and provisions with juveniles who commit more serious adult crimes is based in part on the assumption that teenagers and other children who commit more serious crimes are more mature in their cognitive, social and emotional development operation, thus justifying that requires the punishment of adults (see also Mrozoski Redding, ch. 11, this volume, and Otto and Borum, 2004). However, the severity of the offense rate is not a good predictor of recidivism, nor is it a reliable sign of a young cognitive, emotional, or social functioning and maturity (Cauffman and Steinberg, 20003). What factors, then, should
USA (2000), the Supreme Court reaffirmed Miranda. A challenge to the Miranda holding arose based on a 1968 law passed by Congress (18 USC 3501) requires that confessions must be obtained without coercion and eliminating criteria knowingly and intelligently.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »