Annotated Bibliography: Juvenile Courts Use The Following So

Annotated Bibliographyjuvenile Courtsuse The Following Sources 150 T

Analyze the role, effectiveness, and implications of juvenile courts based on various scholarly sources, focusing on aspects such as their impact on juvenile offenders, racial and ethnic disparities, treatment programs, victims' rights, and children's custody cases.

Paper For Above instruction

The juvenile justice system plays a pivotal role in addressing offenses committed by minors, aiming to balance rehabilitation with public safety. The article by Petitclerc, Gatti, and Vitaro (2013) examines how exposure to juvenile courts influences future criminal behavior, finding that early court exposure can have long-term effects—either deterring or, in some cases, inadvertently encouraging criminal activity. This underscores the importance of rehabilitation-oriented practices within juvenile courts to promote positive developmental outcomes.

Andretta et al. (2016) explore emotional distress among African American juveniles in court and emphasize the significance of culturally sensitive therapeutic jurisprudence. Their pathway model suggests that culturally tailored interventions can mitigate emotional and behavioral issues, highlighting the need for juvenile courts to consider ethnic diversity in their procedures to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism among minority youth.

Lehmann and colleagues (2017) investigate the transfer of juveniles to adult criminal court, revealing that such practices often lead to harsher sentencing and potentially increased recidivism, especially among youth involved in violent offenses. Their findings call for critical evaluation of policies that transfer juvenile cases to adult courts and advocate for age-appropriate rehabilitative measures instead of punitive sanctions.

Research by Cochran and Mears (2015) illuminates racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in juvenile sanctions and interventions, indicating systemic biases that influence court decisions. Their analysis suggests reforms are necessary to ensure equitable treatment for all youth, emphasizing the importance of consistent, bias-free decision-making processes within juvenile justice systems.

Zottoli, Daftary-Kapur, and Zapf (2015) discuss attitudes towards statutory exclusions, where certain juveniles are removed from juvenile jurisdiction, often based on offense severity or perceived risk. They argue that such exclusions may conflict with rehabilitative ideals and advocate for more nuanced approaches that consider individual circumstances and potential for reform.

Zan and Dannerbeck (2011) examine how gender and mental health needs influence treatment orders, revealing that female juveniles and those with mental health issues often receive different court responses. Their findings stress the necessity for juvenile courts to adapt treatment strategies that address distinct needs based on gender and mental health status, promoting fairness and effective intervention.

Henning (2009) critiques victims' rights within juvenile courts, contrasting retributive and rehabilitative justice models. She contends that the current system often fails to adequately balance victims' needs with rehabilitative goals, implying that reforms could foster a more just and restorative approach that benefits both victims and offenders.

Stein, Homan, and DeBerard (2015) assess juvenile treatment drug courts, revealing mixed efficacy results but emphasizing their potential in reducing substance abuse and related criminal behavior through specialized treatment programs. They advocate for continued research and refinement of these courts to maximize their rehabilitative capabilities.

Peck, Leiber, and Brubaker (2014) focus on how gender and race influence court outcomes for youth, finding that minority and female juveniles often face disparate sanctions. Their study urges the development of equitable policies to counteract biases and support fair treatment across demographic groups.

Bartlett (1975) discusses the expanding role of juvenile courts in child custody disputes, highlighting their increasing involvement beyond delinquency cases and raising concerns about the appropriateness of juvenile courts handling such sensitive matters. The author calls for clearer jurisdiction boundaries to prevent overreach and ensure specialized care for children.

Writings by Mack (1909) and Paulsen (1966) provide historical perspectives on juvenile courts, exploring their origins and evolution, especially in relation to social control and juvenile welfare. These foundational texts underscore ongoing debates about the appropriate scope and functions of juvenile justice and related family courts.

Ross (2012) advocates for limiting social control powers of juvenile courts, arguing that excessive intervention can undermine youth autonomy and perpetuate systemic inequalities. His critique supports reforms aimed at reducing juvenile court's reach to foster a more just and community-based approach to youth offending.

Recent empirical studies by Mears et al. (2014) investigate age effects and sanctions, emphasizing that age significantly impacts court decisions and rehabilitation prospects. Recognizing developmental differences is essential for tailoring interventions that effectively reduce juvenile recidivism and promote positive growth.

Finally, Applegate, Davis, and Cullen (2010) examine public attitudes toward excluding youth from juvenile courts, emphasizing the debate over how exclusion policies influence juvenile justice outcomes and public perceptions. They suggest that thoughtful, evidence-based policies are vital to balancing public safety with developmental needs of youth.

Overall, these varied scholarly insights depict juvenile courts as complex institutions tasked with navigating rehabilitation, justice, and social control. Reforms aimed at addressing disparities, cultural sensitivities, and developmental differences are crucial to enhance their effectiveness and fairness in juvenile justice administration.

References

• Petitclerc, A., Gatti, U., & Vitaro, F. (2013). Effects of juvenile court exposure on crime in young adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
• Andretta, J. R., Worrell, F. C., Ramirez, A. M., Barnes, M. E., Odom, T., & Woodland, M. H. (2016). A pathway model for emotional distress and implications for therapeutic jurisprudence in African American juvenile court respondents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.
• Lehmann, P. S., Chiricos, T., & Bales, W. D. (2017). Sentencing transferred juveniles in the adult criminal court. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice.
• Cochran, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2015). Race, ethnic, and gender divides in juvenile court sanctioning and rehabilitative intervention. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency.
• Zottoli, T. M., Daftary-Kapur, T., & Zapf, P. A. (2015). We don’t always mean what we say: Attitudes toward statutory exclusion of juvenile offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice.
• Zan, J., & Dannerbeck, A. (2011). Exploring the relationship between gender, mental health needs, and treatment orders in a metropolitan juvenile court. Journal of Child & Family Studies.
• Henning, K. (2009). What's wrong with victims' rights in juvenile court?: Retributive versus rehabilitative systems of justice. California Law Review.
• Stein, D. M., Homan, K. J., & DeBerard, S. (2015). The effectiveness of juvenile treatment drug courts: A meta-analytic review of literature. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse.
• Peck, J. H., Leiber, M. J., & Brubaker, S. J. (2014). Gender, race, and juvenile court outcomes: An examination of status offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice.
• Bartlett, K. T. (1975). The expanding role of the juvenile court in child custody disputes. California Law Review.
• Mack, J. W. (1909). The juvenile court. Harvard Law Review.
• Paulsen, M. G. (1966). Juvenile courts, family courts, and the poor man. California Law Review.
• Ross, D. A. (2012). Rethinking the road to Gault: Limiting social control in the juvenile court. Virginia Law Review.
• Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Stults, B. J., Greenman, S. J., Bhati, A. S., & Greenwald, M. A. (2014). The ‘true’ juvenile offender: Age effects and juvenile court sanctioning. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
• Applegate, B. K., Davis, R. K., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). Reconsidering child saving: The extent and correlates of public support for excluding youths from juvenile court. Crime & Delinquency.