Juvenile Justice Running Head Debate 17

Running Head Debate 17 Juvenile Justice1debate 17 Juvenile Justice

This week in debate 17 the topic juvenile justice was discussed. The topic of juvenile justice systems is essential to American society because the country has a massive population of youths. The youths have the potential to influence the direction the future of the country will take. It becomes essential to emphasize the role of the juvenile systems in guiding the youths even when they are involved in crime. The American Criminal Justice System is directly affected by youth delinquency, engagement in crimes, and other aspects of criminal activities.

Jeffrey A. Butts has shown strong support for implementing changes in juvenile systems, citing recent trends where current systems tend to punish rather than rehabilitate (Butts, 2009). Similarly, Hon. Arthur L. Burnett advocates for strategies that utilize the juvenile system more effectively, even as reforms are needed (Burnett, 2009).

Leve et al. (2015) highlight changes in the juvenile system, especially concerning girls. The most significant shift has been from rehabilitation to punitive measures. Juveniles are now often blamed and punished rather than helped to reform, based on reports of violent youth behavior. The authors discuss different approaches: some believe harsh punishments deter crime among youths, while others argue that minors’ rights are inadequately protected under current juvenile justice practices.

Regarding rights protection, there is a debate over transferring juveniles to adult facilities—some as young as 14 or 15—and whether their rights are sufficiently safeguarded. The authors recommend reforming juvenile system management. Zajac et al. (2015) suggest that some argue for abolishing the juvenile system altogether, transferring youth offenders to adult courts, but they clarify that abolishing juvenile delinquency jurisdiction does not mean eliminating juvenile courts entirely. These courts would continue to handle abuse cases, neglect, truancy, and curfew violations as divisions of the criminal court system.

Contrarily, Korchmaros et al. (2017) point out that 90% of states have toughened juvenile laws, including setting the minimum age for adult facilities, and argue for better resource allocation to juvenile courts to fulfill their rehabilitation role. They emphasize empowering juvenile judges with innovative approaches to utilize resources effectively and reduce recidivism.

Robst (2017) advocates for better integration of rehabilitation efforts, especially concerning mental health treatment, rather than complete systemic overhaul. He emphasizes that many juveniles with mental health issues continue delinquent activities if rehab efforts are inadequate. Improving rehabilitation procedures within the current system could enhance societal reintegration.

In conclusion, the juvenile justice system in America requires substantial reforms focused on rehabilitation and tailored interventions. Such reforms should include operational independence of juvenile courts, empowering judges to make flexible decisions based on individual circumstances. Judges should also be able to summon families to improve accountability and treatment outcomes.

Paper For Above instruction

The juvenile justice system in the United States has long been a subject of debate, reflecting ongoing tensions between punitive measures and rehabilitative ideals. Historically rooted in a desire to provide minors with tailored justice that considers their developmental status, the system faces increasing scrutiny due to evolving societal perceptions, overcrowding, and disparities in treatment based on race, gender, and socioeconomic status.

One of the core issues lies in whether the juvenile system should be primarily punitive or rehabilitative. Proponents of reform, like Jeffrey A. Butts (2009), argue that the current system focuses too much on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation. While punishment may have a deterrent effect, evidence suggests that rehabilitative approaches yield better long-term social outcomes, reducing recidivism and aiding youth reintegration into society. Conversely, critics advocate for a more punitive stance, emphasizing accountability and protecting community safety, especially given the rise of violent juvenile offenders (Leve et al., 2015).

The debate over the transfer of juveniles to adult facilities exemplifies this tension. Critics argue that minors, especially those as young as 14 or 15, are inadequately protected by such transfers, leading to increased risks of reoffending, mental health deterioration, and exposure to adult inmates' violence (Zajac et al., 2015). Nonetheless, some states have relaxed juvenile protections, advocating for harsher sanctions, justified by concerns over public safety and accountability.

Significant reforms propose shifting focus to community-based interventions, mental health treatment, and educational programs as alternatives to incarceration. Evidence indicates that community supervision and targeted rehabilitation reduce recidivism more effectively than detention (Robst, 2017). Furthermore, integrating mental health and social services within juvenile courts can address underlying issues that contribute to delinquency, such as trauma, substance abuse, and behavioral disorders.

However, the question remains whether completely abolishing the juvenile justice system is feasible or desirable. While some scholars call for reforming the system into a division of adult courts, others see value in maintaining specialized courts that cater to youth's unique developmental needs (Korchmaros et al., 2017). Maintaining juvenile courts allows for age-specific intervention, which humanizes the justice process and offers a second chance for young offenders.

Implementing reforms that balance punishment with rehabilitation involves multidisciplinary cooperation, adequate funding, and policy innovation. For example, juvenile judges equipped with discretion can tailor sanctions that promote accountability without sacrificing rehabilitative opportunities. Family involvement, mental health services, educational support, and community engagement are critical components in reducing youth recidivism (Leve et al., 2015).

In conclusion, the juvenile justice system must evolve to meet contemporary challenges. Prioritizing rehabilitation, safeguarding minors' rights, and employing evidence-based practices can produce more equitable and effective outcomes. Reforms based on empirical research and progressive policies will help create a system that nurtures youth potential while protecting societal interests.

References

• Burnett, A. L. (2009). The juvenile justice system must be improved and preserved. In B. N. Waller (Ed.), You decide! Current debates in criminal justice (pp. 6–8). Pearson Education.
• Butts, J. A. (2009). The distinct juvenile justice system should be eliminated. In B. N. Waller (Ed.), You decide! Current debates in criminal justice (pp. 10–12). Pearson Education.
• Korchmaros, J. D., Thompson-Dyck, K., & Haring, R. C. (2017). Professionals' perceptions of and recommendations for matching juvenile drug court clients to services. Children and Youth Services Review, 73, 44–55.
• Leve, L. D., Chamberlain, P., & Kim, H. K. (2015). Risks, outcomes, and evidence-based interventions for girls in the US juvenile justice system. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 18(3), 199–213.
• Robst, J. (2017). Disposition of charges, out-of-home mental health treatment, and juvenile justice recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(11), 1222–1240.
• Zajac, K., Sheidow, A. J., & Davis, M. (2015). Juvenile justice, mental health, and the transition to adulthood: A review of service system involvement and unmet needs in the US. Children and Youth Services Review, 56, 1–13.