Review the references provided for quality, currency, relevance, and authority Review for proper APA format Review paper for proper structure and organization Review paper for proper spelling, grammar

Running Head: JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM 0

The Juvenile Justice System in Today’s Criminal Justice System

Abstract

The Juvenile Justice System in the US was established in the late nineteenth century in an effort to formulate a justice framework that is specific for the youth. The primary goal of the juvenile justice system is subject to the fact that young offenders are more ductile and thus respond better to individualized treatment as opposed to adults. Since its onset, the juvenile justice system has revolved around rehabilitation as well as responsibility. Nonetheless, this justice system has invariably tended to get similar to the criminal justice system of adult offenders. There have been several problems facing the juvenile justice system coupled with the subsequent consequences of those issues. Nonetheless, some solutions can be implemented as well as pertinent intervention programs. The US criminal justice system categorizes and defines offenders to execute a supervision strategy. The strategy offers a platform to better match the needs of an offender with the level of supervision that is a prerequisite to the offender. While the strategy offers better rehabilitative options as well as public safety, it is imbued with a series of concerns. It is important to note that there is a huge number of offenders that it is almost impossible to put all of them under observation. This paper will explore the aspects that contribute to juvenile delinquency and the appropriate strategies for addressing them within the justice system. The study will seek to find evidence that juvenile delinquency is one of the fundamental concerns in the criminal justice system. Consequently, it will be crucial to understand the underpinnings of minor offenders in taking part in criminal activities to avert future offenses by underage individuals. In establishing the correlation, this study carries out quantitative analyses of the juvenile public policies in 12 states and how these policies impact the juvenile recidivism rates. 

Introduction 

Established in the United States over a century ago, the juvenile court system had its first court sitting in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois. During the times preceding this, youth and children were considered as diminutive adults and were hence went through trial and punishment as adults. In the course of the progressive era, which was between 1880 and 1920, the social circumstances in the United States were characteristic of the dramatic rise in urbanization and huge waves of immigration. Subsequently, a large number of impoverished children sauntered the streets, and a good number were caught up in criminal activities. Originally, the young offenders that were convicted of crimes were held together with adult offenders (Reis & Guareschi, 2016). Lawmakers, social activists, and other interested parties later realized that institutionalization of children with adults resulted in the children taking up the behaviors of adult criminals and they would leave such institutions with life careers in criminality. Consequent to these negative influences, there was a need to develop separate juvenile court systems as well as juvenile correctional facilities. At the onset, the juvenile institutions in the United States were developed subject to the English Bridewell institution which focused on imparting trade and life skills. The concept of teaching life and trade skills emanated from the social environment and was invariable as a means of survival (Underwood & Washington, 2016). Teaching the youth new skills ensured that there was a likelihood of them making more significant contributions to society once they were released. A juvenile justice system is a noble approach but as it stands now calls for improvement in ensuring that the young offenders do not become like their adult counterparts who are often in and out of the correctional facilities. 

Principal Philosophy

Since its inception, the juvenile justice system has been criticized and critiqued on numerous occasions. Investigative the works of Nisar et al. (2015), Schepers (2019), and Wood (2012) show that although the development of the court system has taken various natures and has invariably been based on varying guiding principles and ideas, the general philosophical outlook of the rationale for the juvenile justice system has remained unaffected. Nonetheless, over time, the reforms have modified the juvenile justice system from the original model of an amalgam between a court of law and the social agency that is mandated with the safeguarding and stewardship of the young offenders to simply a court of law that enjoys extra flexibility in the administration of justice to juveniles (Bagley, 2017). To better appreciate the development path the juvenile justice system has taken, it is pertinent to be cognizant of the reasons for its formation. 

The ideological modifications in the cultural conceptualization of children, as well as changes in strategies of the social control in the course of the nineteenth century, resulted in the formation of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois. Terminating a 100 years’ process of distinguishing young offenders from adult offenders, Progressive reformers made use of new premises of social control to fresh ideas on childhood and formed juvenile court as a social welfare substitute to criminal courts in response to non-criminal and criminal delinquency of youths (Hertz, et al., 2010). In the US, both adults and juveniles can be charged with engaging in criminal activities. Both have a right to be made aware of the charges facing them as well as being entitled to legal representation. In addition, both juvenile and adult offenders are safeguarded from self-incrimination. Apart from these similarities, both systems of criminal justice are significantly different. While an adult is charged with a crime, a young offender is charged with a delinquent act (Schepers, 2019). The young offenders are not allowed the right to be tried publicly by jury and their cases are determined by the judge alone. Nonetheless, the proceedings for both juvenile and adult courts are considerably similar in the sense that evidence is presented in court, witnesses questioned, and testimony was given. In the majority of states, the rules governing evidence are less formal in juvenile court proceedings, which make it easier for both defendant and plaintiff in presenting their case. 

Methodology 

The research question of the research involves finding the correlation between the juvenile justice system and the social justice accentuated in the criminal justice system. There is a need for the criminal justice system to consider the aspects that lead to the minors’ choices while developing the juvenile justice system. In addressing the research question the study looks at whether the juvenile public policies in place today lessen or amplify the recidivism rates. The research paper theorizes that employment of the juvenile public policies increases the juvenile recidivism rates following the placement of young offenders in institutions that are likely to adversely impact the recidivism rates. The five juvenile public policies are statutory exclusion, prosecutorial discretion, reverse waiver, “once an adult, always an adult”, and blended sentencing (Bianco, 2016). It is also expected that the number of these guidelines employed may have an impact such that the more policies used, the higher rate of juvenile recidivism rates. 

Statutory exclusion laws provide exclusive jurisdiction to criminal courts over particular categories of cases that involve juvenile offenders. In the event that a case is categorized under statutory exclusion, it is filed initially in a criminal court (Reis & Guaraschi, 2016). Prosecutorial discretion involves a category of cases that may be presented in either criminal or juvenile court. There is no formal hearing that is carried out in determining which court is suitable, and there are no formal principles in deciding between the two (Mears & Mancini, 2015). The decision is entirely assigned to the prosecution. The laws of reverse waiver provide juvenile offenders whose cases are before the criminal court to appeal in a bid to have them reassigned to juvenile court. “Once adult/always adult” laws involve a special form of exclusion that requires criminal prosecution of any juvenile offender who has been initially been criminally prosecuted normally devoid of the seriousness of the current offense (Yu, 2014). The laws of blended sentencing may either offer juvenile courts with criminal sentencing alternatives or permit criminal courts to enforce juvenile outlooks.

Making use of data from a sample of 12 states, the dependent variable of this study is the average recidivism rate for states that employ each given policy. For purposes of this study, recidivism is considered as the number of young offenders who commit another offense after imprisonment. Normally, it is surmised that the recidivism rates for a state are comparative to the national average which the US government reports to be between 33 and 34 percent. According to reports by Juvenile Policy Institute and Juvenile Justice Information Exchange in 2017, the recidivism rates are between 32 and 37 percent, representing a wide range between a minimum of 12percent and a maximum of 59 percent (OJJDP, 2018). In-depth and descriptive statistics that include background and ethnicity are reported to account for the wide range. 

The study made use of ANOVA and t-test research techniques since they are instrumental in showing a superior representation of the sample average of the analyzed states’ rates of recidivism coupled with whether the number of policies employed impacted the means. The data tabulated below (Table I) has been obtained from the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange website. The data is a result of a web-based survey administered to the Council of State Governments’ Justice Center. 

Table I

The above table demonstrates the types of policies employed in each respective state together with the rate of recidivism. For the policy type, the following codes have been used: SE (Statutory Exclusion), PD (Prosecutorial Discretion), OAAA (Once Adult/Always Adult), RW (Reverse Waiver), and BS (Blended Sentencing). A binary indicator was formulated using R (0 or 1) to show whether each state employs each of the five policy types. Out of the 12 states sampled, 7 states use statutory exclusion, 3 states employ prosecutorial discretion, 7 states make use of Once Adult/Always Adult, 7 states use the reverse waiver, and 4 states make use of blended sentencing. 

A 2-sample t-test was conducted in a bid to establish the difference in the recidivism rate mean by whether or not the state makes use of each of the policies. An additive scale of the number of policies employs in each state was formulated. By use of this measure, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was carried out to establish whether states who execute more of these policies record higher recidivism rates. 

Results 

The discrepancy between the states that utilize the prosecutorial discretion (PD) and those that don’t are illustrated in table ii below. For the states that employ the PD their rate of juvenile recidivism stands at 0.406 while for those states that do not use the PD is 0.386. In a nutshell in the PD utilizing states about 41% of the juvenile offenders commit crimes again in the future. On the other hand, about 39% of the offenders re-offend again in states that utilize other policies. The 2% difference is small hence not statistically significant.

Table II

Table III further indicates the differences in Statutory Exclusion (SE) between states that use it and those that do not. For states that utilize the SE their juvenile recidivism stands at 0.448 while for those that do not is 0.335. About 45% of the juvenile offenders in the SE utilizing states go on to reoffend again while those that make use of other policies about 34% reoffend again in the future representing a difference of 11% which is statistically large.

Table III

Concerning the utilization of the Reverse Waiver (RW), the difference between the states that use it and those that do not are indicated in Table IV. For the states, the make use of the RW their Juvenile recidivism rate stands at 0.410 and 0.391 for those that do not. About 41% of the juvenile offenders in the RW utilizing states go on to re-offend again while those that make use of other policies about 39% re-offend again in the future representing a difference of 2% which is statistically small.

Table IV

Table V below shows the “once an Adult Always an Adult” policy (OA) utilizing states and their difference to those that do not. The rate of juvenile recidivism for the states that utilizing the “once an Adult Always an Adult” policy is 0.358 and 0.423 for those that do not. About 36% of the juvenile offenders in the “Once an Adult Always an Adult” policy utilizing states go on to re-offend again while those that make use of other policies over 42% re-offend again in the future. This indicates a difference of 6.5% which is not statistically considerable.

Table V

For states that make use of the Blended Sentencing (BS) policy and those that do not their differences are indicated by Table VI below. 0.412 is the juvenile recidivism rates for the states that utilize the BS while for those that do not is 0.368. In short over 41% of the juvenile offenders in the states that use the BS re-offend again while 37% in other policies using states re-offend again in the future. The 4% difference illustrates a statistically insignificant.

Table VI

With considerations to the various policies used by a state, Tables VII and VIII indicate the Analysis of variance results. States that employ more than one of these policies experience Juvenile Recidivism rates just as each particular policy type makes a difference in the rates of recidivism. When going through the results of the ANOVA tables- although it is not statistically significant, the mean is quite interesting between the use of 2 and 4 policies gradually increases and considerably drops when all 5 policies are implemented. In other words, more policy utilizing states do not experience higher rates of recidivism although it seems to be an exception for the states using all 5 policies.

Table VII

Table VIII

In a nutshell, the hypothesis of this study was not disapproved by my findings since four of the five types of juvenile policies- reserve waiver, prosecutorial discretion, once an adult always an adult and blended sentencing expressed statistical insignificance. However, there is a considerable difference between those states that employ the statutory exclusion and those that do not. In states that employ statutory exclusion, their juveniles are 11% less likely to re-offend compared to those that use other policies. Concerning the ANOVA results, the tentative proof is provided that the more the policies used the higher the rates of recidivism, regardless of which one is considered. With the facts indicating higher recidivism rates across the board that is a problem in and of itself, though with the negative combinations of experiences attributed the exposure of the youth to the more serious offenders, their physical and/or sexual abuse experience, as well as the evidence, deduce from the state policy research articles which implied the connection between the juvenile offenders that were placed in the adult incarceration facilities. While understanding that youth have more needs than adults, the courts, as the evidence points, may have lost sight of the juvenile justice system basis which was founded to serve the child’s interest.

Basing my research on the empirical evidence it is evident that regardless of the public policy employed, the chances of juvenile offenders placed in confinement with adult offenders have higher reoffending chances. The juvenile justice system is required to be a rehabilitative system that seeks to lower the rates of recidivism, though this research wraps up that the use of the five policies indeed increases the rates of recidivism.

Discussion and Conclusion

There is a need to explore better options when dealing with convicted juveniles. In the course of history, the punishment prescribed to juvenile offenders had changed continuously until lately, and consequently, the regular imprisonment has not been useful to the offender, their family, as well as the society at large (Layton-Mackenzie & Brame, 2015). This study serves to accentuate the fact that juvenile offenders ought not to be mechanically incarcerated, and show to the society and the criminal courts those their other available alternatives. The inundation of the court leads not only to an increased juvenile crime but also a rise in the prosecution of juvenile crime (Underwood & Washington, 2016). Today, 20 percent of juveniles who come across the police for delinquent behavior are taken through the justice system (Bagley, 2017). Yu (2014) contends that incarcerating children is not considered as the appropriate response to crime. The inferences demonstrate that the belief of the public in saving children remains sturdy and a majority of people do not agree to entirely punitive response to young offenders.

This research study breaks down the five different policies individually and weighs them against the juvenile recidivism rates. From the analysis, statutory exclusion (SE) can be considered as a considerably poor policy in the case of juvenile recidivism, and hence there is a need for lawmakers to rethink such policy before implementation. Through the ANOVA analysis, it is evident that the employment of more policies that permit transferring young offenders to adult facilities may result in an amplified level of recidivism rates, despite the policies being used together. It is pertinent to note that the results obtained in this study should not be considered statistically significant but they are nonetheless suggestive.

If there was the availability of more itemized data, such as recidivism rates of every policy used for every state, it would have been possible to get more insight that would aid in the concern of amplifying rates of recidivism in the juvenile justice system. There is a need to conduct future research to evaluate the aspects of the findings in a bid to understand more about the distinct steps that are taken while dealing with young offenders and establish if the lawmakers are aware of the rising rates of juvenile recidivism.

References

Bagley, N (2017). A Qualitative Study of Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: A 100 percent Pittsburgh pilot Project. The Pittsburgh Foundation

Bianco, L. (2016). Housing and Resettlement of Young Offenders: The Case for a Cross-Government Action Plan for Malta. Varstvoslovje: Journal of Criminal Justice &Security, 18(4), 438-450.

Herz, D. C., Ryan, J. P., & Bilchik, S. (2010). Challenges Facing Crossover Youth: An Examination of Juvenile-Justice Decision Making And Recidivism. Family Court Review, 48(2), 305-321. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01312.x

Layton-Mackenzie, D., and Brame, R. (2015) "Shock Incarceration and Positive Adjustment during Community Supervision." Journal of Quantitative Criminology J Quant Criminal (1995): 111-42. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Mears, D., Pickett, J., & Mancini, C. (2015). Support for Balanced Juvenile Justice: Assessing Views about Youth, Rehabilitation, and Punishment. Journal of Qualitative Criminology, 31 (3), 459-479. DOI: 10.1007/s10940-014-9234-5.

Nisar, M., Ullah, S., Ali, M., & Alam, S. (2015). Juvenile Delinquency: The Influence of family, peer, and economic factors on juvenile delinquents. Applied Science Reports, 9(1), 37-48.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP. (2018). Estimated Number of Juvenile Arrests, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05101.asp?qa

Reis, C. D., & Guareschi, N. M. D. F. (2016). Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: Compulsory Hospitalization as a Public Security Tool. SAGE Open, 6(2), 2158244016638391

Schepers, D. (2017). Causes of the causes of juvenile delinquency: Social disadvantages in the context of Situational Action Theory. European journal of criminology, 14(2), 143-159.

Underwood, L. A., & Washington, A. (2016). Mental Illness and Juvenile Offenders. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(2), 228. DOI:10.3390/ijerph13020228

Wood, A. (2012) "Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Confining Juveniles with Adults after Graham and Miller." Emory Law Journal 61,6, 1445-491.

Yu, E. (2014). “Juvenile Recidivism Measurement Inconsistent Across States.” Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. Web.