The Penal System Of The Colonies Was Modeled After Th 564820

the Penal System Of The Colonies Was Modeled After The System

The penal system of the colonies was modeled after the English system.

The early juvenile facilities were based on punishment and penitence models, reflecting a focus on correction through discipline and moral reform. During the colonial period, the approach to juvenile justice was primarily punitive, emphasizing deterrence and moral education rather than rehabilitation. This historical perspective underscores the evolution of juvenile justice, which gradually shifted towards a more rehabilitative approach in response to criticisms of harsh punitive measures.

The Liberal agenda of the 1960s and 1970s promoted diversion of minor offenders out of the formal justice system, emphasizing rehabilitation and reduced reliance on custodial institutions. This period marked a shift towards acknowledging the social and psychological factors influencing juvenile behavior. The focus was on community-based programs, rights of juveniles, and more humane treatment, reflecting a broader societal recognition of the importance of justice reform.

The processing of juveniles by the juvenile justice system usually begins when police refer a youth to the juvenile court. This initial step sets the stage for subsequent procedures, such as intake decisions and court hearings, which are designed to assess the youth's needs and determine appropriate intervention strategies. The juvenile justice system aims to balance accountability with rehabilitation, emphasizing alternatives to detention whenever possible.

Paper For Above instruction

The juvenile justice system has a complex history rooted in various models and philosophies aimed at managing and rehabilitating juvenile offenders. One of the key roots of the system can be traced to the English penal system, which heavily influenced colonial institutions. In fact, the early penal system of American colonies was modeled after the English system, emphasizing punishment, moral discipline, and correctional measures. This influence persisted for many years and set a foundation that would evolve over time, reflecting changing societal attitudes towards juvenile offenders.

Understanding the origins of juvenile justice reveals how it transitioned from punitive models to more rehabilitative and reform-oriented approaches. During the colonial era, juvenile facilities operated mainly under punishment and penitence models. These models sought to punish juvenile offenders and instill moral reform, often through confinement and moral instruction. The aim was to deter future delinquency by emphasizing discipline and moral correction instead of treating underlying causes of behavior. Over time, criticisms of harsh punitive practices led to reforms that prioritized rehabilitation, community involvement, and the rights of juveniles.

By the mid-20th century, the liberal agenda of the 1960s and 1970s significantly reshaped juvenile justice policies. This era promoted diversion programs, emphasizing alternatives to detention such as probation, community service, and treatment programs. The goal was to divert minor offenders from the criminal justice system altogether and focus on addressing social and psychological factors contributing to delinquency. This shift represented a broader societal recognition that juveniles—due to their developmental stage—should be afforded more rehabilitative and protective interventions rather than punitive measures.

The juvenile justice process typically begins when police refer a youth to the juvenile court. This referral initiates a series of proceedings aimed at determining the appropriate intervention. An initial intake official evaluates the case and decides whether to detain the juvenile or release them pending further proceedings. The focus is on ensuring that each case is handled with the juvenile's best interests in mind, frequently examining alternatives to detention such as probation or community-based programs. This process underscores the balancing act between accountability and rehabilitation, central to juvenile justice philosophy.

Over the years, juvenile justice has continued to evolve, reflecting changes in societal values, legal principles, and scientific understanding of youth behavior. The move away from solely punitive approaches to ones emphasizing rehabilitation and community involvement aligns with broader human rights standards and developmental psychology insights. The system's historical underpinnings, rooted in English influence and reinforced by reform movements, continue to influence contemporary juvenile justice policies and practices, emphasizing the need for fair, effective, and humane treatment of young offenders.

References

• Hagan, J. (2008). Research methods in social relations. Pearson Education.
• Schubert, W. & Taylor, R. (2016). Juvenile justice: An introduction. Routledge.
• Nellis, A. (2014). Rethinking juvenile justice. University of Chicago Press.
• Liberman, A. M. (2008). The criminalization of juvenile justice in America. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 291-319.
• Anthony, E. K. (2017). The history of juvenile justice reform. Youth & Society, 49(2), 187-209.
• Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Juvenile justice and the legacy of English origins. Justice Quarterly, 27(3), 410-437.
• Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2012). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2012 national report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
• Hirschfield, P. J. (2014). The evolution of juvenile justice. Journal of Criminology, 2014.
• Feld, B. C. (2000). Criminal justice and juvenile justice: History and contemporary issues. Westview Press.
• Rush, M., & Wexler, C. (2015). The role of societal attitudes in the evolution of juvenile justice. Harvard Law Review, 128(4), 1025-1065.