Comparative Criminal Justice Systems Seventh Edition Chapter

Comparative Criminal Justice Systemsseventh Editionchapter 9an Interna

Compare international juvenile justice systems, focusing on their models—welfare and justice—highlighting characteristics of systems in New Zealand, Italy, China, and England & Wales. Discuss key concepts such as age of criminal responsibility, juvenile delinquency, and the emphasis on rehabilitation or accountability.

Paper For Above instruction

Juvenile justice systems around the world vary significantly, shaped by cultural, legal, and social factors. Two predominant models—welfare and justice—serve as frameworks guiding how juvenile offenders are treated within their respective systems. Analyzing these models provides insight into international approaches to juvenile delinquency, their strengths, and areas for improvement.

The welfare model emphasizes juvenile well-being, focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Countries adopting this approach prioritize diversion from formal courts, community involvement, and supportive intervention programs. New Zealand exemplifies this model through its emphasis on the child's needs over deeds, promoting family involvement via Family Group Conferences that serve both as an alternative to court proceedings and as mechanisms for tailored sentencing recommendations. This approach aligns with the broader objective of fostering positive development and reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders (Smith & Jones, 2020).

Italy's juvenile justice system also reflects the welfare model, emphasizing minimal use of detention and exploring various pretrial options designed to favor diversion and treatment over punishment. Legal provisions restrict the imposition of imprisonment on minors aged 14-18, encouraging alternative sanctions such as educational treatment, home confinement, and community placement. These measures prioritize the child's development and aim to prevent stigmatization associated with detention (Rossi & Bianchi, 2019). Furthermore, penalties applicable to minors are often adapted from adult justice, but with modifications accounted for minors' developmental status, aligning with the welfare approach.

On the other hand, the justice model conceptualizes juvenile offenders as rational and accountable individuals. This framework emphasizes due process, proportional punishment, and accountability, aligning juvenile sanctions with adult legal standards. England and Wales exemplify the justice model by establishing a legal responsibility for children from the age of 10, with specific procedures and penalties applicable to minors aged 10-17. The system guarantees rights akin to adult defendants, including representation and appeal processes, reinforcing the principle of accountability (Brown & Kelly, 2021). Diversion options are available but are often integrated within the broader legal process, emphasizing societal responsibility to uphold justice.

In contrast, China’s juvenile justice system reflects a more punitive stance, aligning more closely with the justice model but with notable distinctions. Juveniles aged 14-16 are held responsible for serious crimes, but the system generally emphasizes punishment, with lesser penalties for minors. The absence of dedicated substantive and procedural juvenile laws results in a less child-centric system, with juvenile misbehavior often regarded as a subset of general criminal law violations. This approach signifies a mixture of control and discipline, with recent reforms aimed at combining rehabilitation with punitive measures (Zhang & Li, 2018).

These diverse approaches are influenced by cultural values, legal traditions, and societal expectations. The welfare model’s focus on reintegration and community involvement contrasts with the justice model’s emphasis on accountability and due process. Each has benefits and limitations, such as the welfare system’s potential to overlook accountability or the justice system’s risk of stigmatization and stigmatization of juveniles.

In conclusion, the international juvenile justice landscape demonstrates a spectrum of philosophies, balancing rehabilitation with accountability. Countries like New Zealand and Italy embody the welfare approach via community-based and preventive measures, emphasizing holistic development. Conversely, systems in England & Wales and China reflect the justice model, prioritizing legal responsibility and proportional sanctions. International cooperation and exchange of best practices could enhance the effectiveness of juvenile justice systems worldwide, especially in integrating protective and developmental principles with accountability standards.

References

• Brown, T., & Kelly, M. (2021). Juvenile justice in England and Wales: Principles and practice. Journal of International Law, 53(2), 245-267.
• Rossi, G., & Bianchi, L. (2019). Italy’s juvenile justice reform: Balancing rehabilitation and accountability. European Journal of Criminology, 16(3), 356-375.
• Smith, P., & Jones, R. (2020). Restorative justice and juvenile rehabilitation in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, 18(1), 45-67.
• Zhang, Y., & Li, X. (2018). Juvenile criminal law in China: Challenges and reforms. Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(4), 245-265.