The American Juvenile Justice System Essay

Juvenile Justice System: Contemporary Juvenile Justice System and Juvenile Detention Alternatives

Past Issues and Historical Trends in Juvenile Justice

Contemporary juvenile justice is in trouble. For nearly a century, the juvenile justice system was designed to protect young people and provide them with rehabilitation programs and services that would mitigate problems and prevent further delinquency. Young offenders would be treated less as criminals and more as persons in need of assistance, with the state often serving as parens patriae, a de facto parent for wayward youth (Marcus, 2004, p. 1). As effective and compassionate as the juvenile justice system in America was, recent trends in criminal justice have shifted away from separate juvenile proceedings. “Tough on crime” and rhetoric of intolerance has fueled the rise of punitive measures. Punitive measures, such as trying young people in the adult justice system, undermines the core values and intentions of juvenile justice. In fact, research in psychology and brain development show that adolescent brains are structurally different from adult brains. The rehabilitation and prevention model of juvenile justice reflects scientific evidence showing that juveniles are “less blameworthy” and “have a greater capacity to change,” (Juvenile Law Center, 2017).

Originally, the American juvenile justice system was created as a distinct and separate system in order to respond to the need for more sensible treatment for young people. The first formal juvenile justice system evolved in Chicago in 1899. By 1925, most states had some sort of separate juvenile justice structure, system, and process (ACLU, 2017). Throughout the 20th century, juvenile justice processes in the United States were informal in nature, “often nothing more than a conversation between the youth and the judge,” (Juvenile Law Center, 2017). Instead of focusing on the crime or delinquent behavior, the system would focus on the child’s situation including home life. Juvenile justice was also based more on a rehabilitation model. Often, young people would not need an attorney and the judge would make decisions in the best interest of the child (McCord, Widom & Crowell, 2001). Far from being lenient, the traditional model of juvenile justice was designed to advocate on behalf of all young people, while also achieving the public safety goals of the criminal justice system.

The Structure of Juvenile Justice Systems

Although the United States Department of Justice maintains the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, juvenile justice structures and proceedings vary from state to state. The federal government only has direct jurisdiction over cases in which the juvenile committed the offence on federal property like a national park, or within the boundaries of an Indian Reservation (McCord, Widom & Crowell, 2001). Moreover, the federal government and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention can withhold funds from states that do not comply with some juvenile justice provisions. For example, states that house juveniles with adults in detention or incarceration facilities, or which hold juveniles for longer than necessary may not receive the funding allocated under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (McCord, Widom & Crowell, 2011).

The structure of juvenile justice systems varies from state to state. Generally, states maintain a distinct juvenile court system that is the most central and important structure. Law enforcement officers, state attorneys, probation officers, and juvenile detention centers are also common juvenile justice structures and institutions. Foster care and child protection services may also be involved in the juvenile justice system. With states in control of juvenile justice within their jurisdictions, there is considerable variation in the ways law enforcement will respond to juvenile delinquency, and how delinquents are prosecuted. Furthermore, there is variation between municipalities or counties within the same state (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017). The system generally begins with intake and screening, proceeds through investigations and assessments, and finally results in the court decisions related to sanctions. According to Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers,& Schuck (2013), “the juvenile justice process is organizationally complex, value-driven, and often politicized,” (p. 50).

Generally, the juvenile justice systems are specifically designed to divert minors away from the adult criminal justice system. Law enforcement has the discretion to assign a juvenile to an adult court, but state law enforcement officers send the majority of juvenile cases (62%) to juvenile court with another 27% being released (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017).…