Question

Juvenile justice policies play an important role in the criminal justice system. The goal is to assist juveniles who drift in and out of potential delinquent activity and to avoid harming the juvenile. A juvenile's first contact with the judicial system begins with some interaction with law enforcement. Please explain juvenile justice policies, make an argument for the rationale of maintaining the juvenile-justice system, and evaluate whether treatment and rehabilitation are suitable goals for juveniles.

Answer 1

The juvenile justice system, although slightly different from the regular criminal court system, has undergone changes that have made it seem as though it would be better to eliminate the juvenile justice system altogether. The United States places less emphasis on rehabilitation and more emphasis on severe punishment, and juvenile offenders are falling under this ideal as well (Waller, 2009). More and more juvenile offenders are being transferred to adult criminal courts, where the likely outcome is a sentence that would send them to adult prisons. The purpose of this essay is to address the eliminationof the juvenile justice system. While there may be negatives associated with eliminating the juvenile justice system, adding specific youth departments in criminal courts, may help to eliminate many of those negatives.

Since its inception in 1899, the American juvenile justice system has been under constant scrutiny as to whether or not the ideals enforced, address the specific needs of children (McMillin, 2014).While this early system sought to highly emphasize rehabilitation for youthful offenders, as time progressed, the system was in clear need of reform. During this time, in Cook County, Illinois,the Illinois Juvenile Court Act was created, along with the first juvenile court and had “jurisdiction over delinquent children under sixteen who committed criminal offenses” (McMillin, 2014, p. 1489). With this court in place, the assumption was, that an evaluation of the juvenile offenders’ needs by the court and outside specialists would result in the best rehabilitative solution possible. Less emphasis was placed on the severe rules that the law enforced and more on the best interests of society and the children (McMillin, 2014). Compassion and understanding were perceived as the correct route to go and the judge would often only converse with the juvenile about the offense charged, in an attempt to gain their trust. These procedures were a sharp contrast to the procedures in adult criminal courts, which often lacked compassion and understanding. Aside from creating a separate juvenile court, the Illinois act focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment and “mandated that juveniles be separated from adults when placed in the same institution” (McMillin, 2014, p. 1490). The ideal of rehabilitation instead of punishment was good in theory, however, the effect of this ideal, led to the denial of certain constitutional and procedural rights for juveniles; one in particular being due process.

Juvenile crime was on the rise in the early 1940’s and this led to juvenile delinquency becoming an important public issue and eventually seen as a national problem after WWII (McMillin, 2014). As the juvenile justice system was falling into disrepair, the United States Supreme Court took action in 1967 with In re Gault, entitling juveniles with the “right to notice of charges, counsel, confrontation and cross examination, and protection against self-incrimination” (In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1. 1967). The Court criticized the justice system and noted “how the absence of procedural rules, which were originally believed to inhibit juvenile justice, served only to produce unfairness and arbitrariness that amounted to denial of due process” (In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1. 1967). Following In re Gault, focus shifted to a system favoring punishment and control of young offenders as opposed to concentration on rehabilitation. In 1994, “the amount of juvenile court caseloads and juvenile detention and correctional facilities admissions reached record highs” (Jensen & Howard, 1998). “In 2003 about 2.3 million youth under the age of 18 were arrested and over 130,000 are placed in detention and juvenile correctional facilities” (Underwood, von Dresner, & Phillips, 2006, p. 286).Clearly, these numbers indicate that some form of action needs to take place, as they are only going to increase as the population increases and grows up. There are those that are in favor of abolishing the juvenile justice system and there are those that feel another round of reforms would benefit the system more.

“The critics that are most in favor of abolishing the juvenile justice system are often motivated by a concern for youth” (Waller, 20009, p. 323). These critics feel that the juvenile courts have never provided adequate rehabilitation procedures and never will. “Contemporary juvenile courts operate much like criminal courts with strict rules of evidence, adversarial procedures, and official goals that include incapacitation and retribution” (Waller, 2009, p. 323). Since the majority of juveniles are punished according to the severity of their crimes, abolitionists believe juveniles should be tried in criminal courts with full due process rights (Waller, 2009). The traditional system of focusing on rehabilitation is no longer valid and is not worth saving. Abolishing the juvenile justice system could allow for other methods to be employed and would also allow for current methods to be improved upon.

“Transferring juveniles to the adult court system is the most widely recognized method of increasing the severity of sanctions for young offenders, but it is not the only method” (Waller, 2009, pg. 327). The American concept of justice includes what is called “blended sentencing;” a juvenile or criminal court can impose sentences to either juvenile or adult facilities and programs (Waller, 2009). This form of sentencing can allow courts to hand down harsher sentences to juveniles. The judge can sentence the juvenile to a juvenile facility until they reach age 18 and then sentence them to be transferred to an adult prison. These blended sentences could be less harsh than transferring immediately to an adult criminal court and the judge would, at times, have the option of suspending the adult prison sentence if juvenile rehabilitation has gone well (Waller, 2009).

The juvenile justice system has already begun to replicate regular criminal courts and has established mandatory minimums in many states. With this in mind, the procedures and policies appear to already be in place to start eliminating the juvenile justice system and create and improve on youth divisions in regular criminal courts. As offenders of all ages appear to be getting more violent in their actions, it would seem only fair and just that the punishment should still fit the crime. Although we are a society that believes our youth can be controlled and rehabilitated, this is more often than not, not the reality. As we progress with social media and technology, new courses of action need to be considered and individuals, regardless of age, need to be held accountable for their actions.