Annotated Bibliography On Juvenile Justice System

THESIS STATEMENT: The Department of Juvenile Justice should provide effective diversion options as alternatives rather than incarceration to deter juveniles from committing crimes because imprisonment has done more harm than good, causing depression, suicidal thoughts and more acting out behaviors.

All societies have rules and regulations as well as penalties for those who violate them. There are numerous theories about the philosophy behind these laws and punishments, and the reasons we implement them. A short analysis of two of these perspectives can shed light on the differences between the various ideas while illustrating that, in reality, each theory carries some validity.

Today’s juvenile court system handles most cases involving those under the age of 18-year-old. This was not always the case and the ideal of a separate court system for adults and children is only about 100 years old. When looking at the differences that set juvenile courts apart, it is important to study the history and see how it developed over time.

Skip Hollandsworth candidly explores the subjects of juvenile crime and sentencing in the electronic long form newspaper article, “The Prisoner”. The purpose of the essay is to inform the reader about juvenile sentencing and to persuade the audience that there are clear problems with aspects of the U.S. prison system. The article is easily accessible to a large audience because it is online. Hollandsworth takes into account that his audience, mostly consisting of Texas Monthly readers, may already have pre-established notions about the topic, so he considers other sides while still supporting his argument. Edwin Debrow, a preteen member of the Crips, committed a murder when he was 12-years old and received a 27-year sentence through the

The juvenile justice system was subject to a lot of corruption and civil rights violations in its early stages. Juveniles did not have the same rights as adults and could be forced into terrible living or working conditions. With no child labor laws, delinquent juveniles could be sentenced to forced labor in factories or to houses of refuge. With the ruling of Ex Parte Crouse, the state took ultimate responsibility of children and send them to these institutions, even against the will of the parents. Some of these institutions, such as houses of refuge may have started with good intention, but they ultimately led to rampart corruption and abuse of juveniles.

Criminal law is a construct of the government, enforced through tangible measures. In a democratic society, the government is elected by the citizens, and as such, laws are generally conceived with the aim to reflect whatever ethical or moral standards are presently acceptable. However, in order to be truly effective, some legislation must circumvent current sociological viewpoints in order to create laws that are genuinely in the best interests of society. This results in a delicate balancing act, as lawmakers attempt to weigh the views of the majority against the need for laws to be both reasoned and objective.

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.

While the original intentions of the system was to provide rehabilitation instead of punishment, the implications of working with deserving youth as opposed to undeserving adults, the controlling tendency when addressing crime, and the unresolved debate on person or environment as a source of crime have lend itself to be in contradictions between its intent and its approach. To tell the whole story of the juvenile justice system or identify each of the 200 years

The juvenile justice system exists to separate the youth from the adults that are imprisoned. The separation exists because of the different levels of maturity that are present between the two age groups. These young offenders are not arrested for the reason of punishment; they are arrested to be rehabilitated so they do not become habitual offenders later on in life. It gives them the opportunity to see what life will be like for them if they are to be adult offenders. With that being said, there are some instances where these young adults are to be tried as an adult offender with an adult punishment. Throughout most of history, young offenders were tried by the same courts as those that tried adults and were subject to the same sanction which does include execution and incarceration. (Masters, p 450, 2013) There are some places that truly believe that young criminals shouldn’t be treated like adults, such as in England. There is a law in affect called the “infancy defense” which says that children under the age of 7 are not to be tried as adults because they haven’t yet formed criminal intent. A child that was between the ages of 7 and 14 could be prosecuted but only if the prosecutor could prove that the child knew what they were doing was wrong. (Lectric Law Library, 2003) Lawmakers and social scientists found that those who were found guilty

Early in U.S. history, children who broke the law were treated the same as adult criminals. If you are a young person under the age of 18 and you commit a crime, you will have your case heard in the juvenile justice system. The thing is that, it hasn’t always gone that way. The idea of a separate justice system for juveniles is just over one hundred years old (American Bar). Where did juvenile justice come from? The law was in the image of the common law of England. William Blackstone, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in the late 1760s, was admired by the United States founders.

Juveniles committing crimes is not a new issued being introduced to society; actually, it has been an issue for centuries. However, the big question is, should juveniles be tried in adult courts? Before answering, take into consideration every possible scenario that could have led them to commit the crime. For instance, were they the leader in the act? Did they participate in the crime? Was the juvenile even aware of what was taking place? Were they peer pressured? Did they have any other choice at the time? There are so many other questions we could consider when making a decision here.

Over the past 50 years the Juvenile Justice system has seen many changes to their philosophy and how they handle juvenile matter. Supreme Court cases like In re Gualt, In re Winship, New Jersey v. TLO, Roper v. Simmon have helped shaped the juvenile justice system. Juvenile courts can no longer ignore the constitutional rights of juveniles. Tennessee has 98 juvenile courts, 109 juvenile court judges and 45 magistrates. In 1982, The Juvenile Court Restructure Act amended Tennessee Code Annotated §§37-1-201 through 37-1-214. The purpose of this act is to provide adequate juvenile court services in every county in Tennessee. The Tennessee Code Annotated §37-1-203 states, “general sessions courts shall exercise juvenile court jurisdiction except

The government has made mandates and laws protecting the innocent and victims of these crimes and preserve justice in the society. However, if in case a person is involved in any crime of the state, they need to understand their charges and the consequences of each crime will be implemented.

This article discussed diversion programs, which helps adolescents who have been arrested for first-time misdemeanors. These diversion programs use group counseling as a mandatory component of sentencing demonstrates initial success in reducing recidivism rates in national outcome studies. The goal of these diversion programs is to keep adolescents out of the juvenile justice system whenever possible (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010). These diversion programs divert adolescents from entering the juvenile justice system and offer alternatives to formal disciplinary action (Chantoe & Manton, 2014).

If criminal law in any society represents social consensus or agreement, it is called consensus perspective. Whether the person’s behaviour is criminal or not the society will go through various talks, share fundamental values and people will reach to an agreement. Due to different cultures, religions and customs the fundamental values of the societies differ. Therefore, according to consensus perspectives some behaviours are criminalized but other are not and on the same perspective one’s behaviour criminalized in one society is decriminalized in other societies.