Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Research Paper:
Ideally, diversion should take place at the earliest stages of juvenile justice processing, to refer a youth to essential services and avert further involvement in the system. On the other hand, diversion mechanisms can be put into place at later stages of justice processing, to avoid further penetration into the system and expensive out-of-home placements. Efforts to keep youth out of the juvenile justice system who otherwise would be processed by the courts have existed since the creation of juvenile courts. "During the 1960's, increasing levels of delinquency and crime, coupled with criticisms of the juvenile justice system, led to the development of alternatives for responding to youth outside of the traditional justice system. As such, the 1970's reflected considerable growth in diversion programs, bolstered by significant federal investments in these initiatives. Rising juvenile crime rates in the 1980's and early 1990's caused the political pendulum to swing in the opposite direction, fueling fears that the country was under assault by a generation of violent youth" (Skowyra & Powell, 2006). In response, a lot of educational and rehabilitative options, including diversion programs, were discarded in favor of strict zero-tolerance policies and augmented law enforcement reply to typical adolescent.
Jail diversion refers to two kinds of initiatives which are comparable to pretrial diversion. The most normally known jail diversion programs unite arrestees and defendants with serious mental illnesses and often co-occurring substance abuse issues to community-based treatment and support services. People may be diverted either at arrest or at a variety of points throughout criminal justice processing. These programs' sequential intercept model, identifying and moving mentally ill persons to alternative programming throughout the arrest, adjudication, and judgment, parallels the pretrial diversion promising practice of offering alternatives to adjudication throughout the pretrial stage. Nevertheless, many jail diversion programs uphold regular case processing and cases move to traditional judgment and sentences based on the offense committed (Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion, 2006).
Jail diversion also frequently describes pretrial programs that target those who can be supervised safely in the community pending trial. These pretrial supervision programs seek to reduce the short-term risk of missing scheduled court appearances and re-arrests during case processing. Since defendants under these programs continue under regular case adjudication, these are not measured true pretrial diversion. Under post-plea diversion, courts hold guilty pleas or convictions in abeyance pending a defendant's completion of community-based supervision and treatment or service programs. Pleas and convictions are vacated following successful program completion. Post-plea diversion programs incorporate supervision, service, and treatment similar to that offered under pretrial diversion (Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion, 2006).
Strategically matching youth with needed programming requires a cross-system pledge to the objective assessment, classification, and placement of youth. Assessment and classification tools designed for this purpose necessitate buy-in from multiple stakeholders in various youth-serving agencies. New public-public and public-private partnerships need to focus on the common goal of expanding the use of alternatives to detaining or confining youth. Jurisdictions must create new relationships with program providers and other state agencies to make sure the delivery of a comprehensive continuum of care and to fill gaps in service delivery. Further, integrating new methodologies into juvenile justice decision making processes will rely on key systems change strategies, especially in the use of data and scientific research to structure those decisions (Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion, 2006).
Every pretrial diversion program requires an understanding among itself, the prosecutor, the court, and other appropriate partners about program eligibility, requirements, and outcomes. The earliest diversion programs relied more on informal understandings of such details, but found these arrangements highly person-dependent and thus potentially subject to different interpretations by successive actors. Today, successful programs collaborate with partner agencies under formalized written agreements that provide more clarity and continuity (Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion, 2006).
Austin, J., Johnson, K.D. & Weitzer, R. (2005). Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208804.pdf
Diversion Programs: An Overview. (1999). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9909-3/div.html
Juvenile Diversion Guidebook. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/301
Promising Practices in Pretrial Diversion. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.pretrial.org/Docs/Documents/PromisingPracticeFinal.pdf
Skowyra, K. & Powell, S.D. (2006). Juvenile Diversion: Programs for Justice-Involved
Youth with Mental Health Disorders. Retrieved from http://www.ncmhjj.com/pdfs/publications/DiversionRPB.pdf[continue]
"Juvenile Justice The Need And" (2012, March 19) Retrieved December 7, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/juvenile-justice-the-need-and-55167
"Juvenile Justice The Need And" 19 March 2012. Web.7 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/juvenile-justice-the-need-and-55167>
"Juvenile Justice The Need And", 19 March 2012, Accessed.7 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/juvenile-justice-the-need-and-55167
In principle, the United States should follow international treaties only if it is a signatory to that specific treaty. However, the Supreme Court of the United States cannot ignore international standards completely either. There are several reasons for this. The world is becoming more and more globalized. Large numbers of immigrants have flocked to the United States in the last several decades and likewise American military and the FBI increasingly
Juvenile Justice Juvenile delinquency is the misdemeanors or the breach of law that is committed by an American or a person living in America but still under the age of 18 years old. This is the common age limit that exists across most states except in Wyoming where the age is 19 years or younger (Whitehead & Lab, 1999). It is worth noting that by 2006, there were 92,854 juvenile delinquents
Criminals in the adult criminal justice system are often likely to be career criminals. Moreover, simply to survive in an adult institution, juveniles may have to adopt increasingly anti-social behavior. If the goal is to keep these children from reoffending, putting them in the same system as more experienced criminals, which does not have a deterrence effect on the adults in that system, simply seems like the wrong approach. The
This Act was more focused on preventing juvenile delinquency and separating the juveniles from the adults in the correction facilities. It was argued that the juveniles learnt even worse crimes and became more radical criminals if detained together with the adult offenders. This was more pronounced during the 'Progressive Era' with proponents like Morrison Swift suggesting that the juvenile delinquents only benefited to learn more criminal tactics from the
Essentially, the authors focus on keeping the separate juvenile court active within the context of American states. Therefore, Scott & Steinberg (2008) are not proposing the abolition of the juvenile court entirely, like what Feld (1998) is proposing. Scott & Steinberg (2008) believe rather that the adult system would be unable to provide any additional benefits beyond what is provided through the juvenile courts. Keeping up with a separate system
Juvenile Justice System Ireland The objective of this work is to examine the juvenile justice system in Ireland and then to compare it with the juvenile justice system of the United States. Additionally, the strengths and weaknesses of the juvenile justice system in Ireland will be examined as well as what improvements might could be made to the system, what the U.S. could learn from Ireland, and what aspects of each
Juvenile Justice Policy regarding juvenile crime and justice has moved to the center of public attention and political debate in recent years. Increases in youth crime, stories of frustrated parents seeking help for their troubled children, and criticisms of juvenile justice programs have led to demands for change in the way young offenders are charged, punished, and treated (Howell, Krisberg, & Jones, 1995). Public concern about violent juvenile crime is also