Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
" But unlike Lehigh County, Cook County, on its website, provides a mission statement consisting of the aim to recognize the welfare of all children and their families based on public safety; it also is committed to "providing the guidance, structure and services needed by every child under its supervision" (2005, Internet). Thus, both of these juvenile probation departments have very similar goals, namely, to protect society from repeat offenders while providing equal and fair justice to the offenders, due to their age and, at times, negative social positions.
Eight specific objectives are also included in this mission statement -- to meet the special needs of each offender; to provide services to the community via sending probation officers into homes, schools and neighborhoods; to create strong relationships between probation officers and minors; to recognize the complexities of today's world and help parents to relate to their children in positive ways; to serve the needs of the minor offender while also maintaining the needs of the community; to use flexible supervision of offenders, either at home or in detention; to strengthen family relationships, and lastly, to "instill in all children a sense of responsibility for their actions and a belief in their own innate value and potential through a combination of individualized attention and community networking" (2005, Internet).
And like Lehigh County, Cook County has developed a number of innovative programs to combat juvenile crime; some of these programs have received much recognition from judges, probation officers, police organizations and community-based help organizations created to assist juveniles in a very complex and confusing world. Eight specific programs are listed on the Cook County website -- first, Station Adjustment Collaboration which makes it possible for all Youth Divisions within the Chicago Police Department to work together for delinquency prevention and intervention; the Community Liaison Program which identifies "local delinquency issues" and facilitates "community participation in a variety of programs;" the Diversion Compliance Program which interlinks the Cook County attorneys and probation officers; the Choices Program, a type of screening conference that offers advice on peer pressure related to drugs, alcohol, gang violence and the impact of one's actions on the community; the Violence Intervention Program, an educational system to inform offenders about gun violence and the victims of their offenses; the Victim Impact Panels for Minors, similar in nature to a mandatory course on the dangers of drunken driving; the Jump Start Program which gives young offenders a new head start in life after committing their crimes and serving time in jail, and finally, the Victim Advocacy Program whose goal is to "help reduce the immediate and long-term impact of being a victim while promoting the accountability of the offender" (2005, Internet).
The successes and failures of these two prominent programs is difficult to determine, mostly because the individual websites do not offer any statistics as to success or failure of their specific programs. However, it is clear that any juvenile probation program, no matter how intricate or complex, contains aspects for failure, due to the overall nature of juvenile crime and its impact on society. Both of these programs appear to be highly effective in eliminating or deterring juvenile crime, no doubt as a result of their national recognition for true achievement in this subject. As to improving these programs, a dose of good, old-fashioned reality in the form of harsh imprisonment and the so-called "tough love" approach would surely help to minimize juvenile crime by showing exactly how brutal and callous reality can sometimes be, especially in the life of a young offender who, in most cases, must be forced to confront his/her own mortality and have some remorse for their illegal actions against society.
"Court of Common Pleas -- Lehigh County, Pennsylvania." (2005). Juvenile Probation Department. Internet. 2005. Accessed August 30, 2005. http://www.
"Court Programs -- Juvenile Probation & Court Services -- Cook County, IL."
(2005). Internet. Accessed August 30, 2005. http://www.cookcountycourt.org/services/[continue]
"Juvenile Probation Programs A Comparison Contrast" (2005, August 28) Retrieved December 4, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/juvenile-probation-programs-a-comparison-contrast-67222
"Juvenile Probation Programs A Comparison Contrast" 28 August 2005. Web.4 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/juvenile-probation-programs-a-comparison-contrast-67222>
"Juvenile Probation Programs A Comparison Contrast", 28 August 2005, Accessed.4 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/juvenile-probation-programs-a-comparison-contrast-67222
What is significant about youth court is that the attorneys, jurors and even the judges are themselves adolescents and many times former defendants (Butts, Hoffman & Buck, 1999). The foundational premise or ideology behind youth courts is that the youth's judgment from their peer cohorts may be more convincing and in the long run beneficial than judgment handed down by officials and adults in the judicial system. Because many
For example, Cook County, IL, has built a network of support for juvenile female offenders within the local community. The county has developed its own gender-specific assessment and treatment guidelines and has trained youth-facing community workers on assessing juvenile offenders and recommending programming. (Juvenile Justice Journal, 1999, p. 30). Also, the county designed a pilot network of social service agencies in order to provide a community-based continuum of care. (Juvenile
In numerous states, specific laws which govern how juvenile offenders are treated in the court and prison systems are separate "from the criminal code used for adult offenders," a situation which can often be found in other state correctional systems. Of course, all those convicted of crimes against society "must be held accountable for their actions," yet when dealing with young offenders, most state courts seems to stress this idea
There are, for example, great differences among states regarding the way in which these systems are managed and the rights and responsibilities of officers for both sectors of the legal system. In New Jersey, the goal of probation is to promote the reintegration of offenders into the community, while encouraging a responsible, law-abiding lifestyle for such a person (New Jersey Courts, 2013). In total, probation officers are responsible for more
Mixed Methods Approaches Although some researchers may believe that only one method of research is valid when studying human behavior, in general it is more useful to view different research approaches as part of the varied 'instruments' in a researcher's toolbox, rather than denigrate one type of research at the expense of other kinds. Whether quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approaches are selected determines on the nature of the research;
Adolescent Sex Offenders: Early Development and Transition to Adulthood (Ages 15 -30) The objective of this study is to examine the early development of sex offenders and the adolescent activity that fosters the abnormal behavior. This study will relate to lifespan development where the focus must explain the abnormal development over a period between ages 15 and 30. Adolescents who commit sex offenses are in many states listed on a sex offender
Crime On March 9th, 2013, two New York City police officers shot and killed a sixteen-year-old Kimani Gray, and claimed afterward that he had brandished a handgun at them after being told to show his hands (Goodman, 2013). More remarkable than the New York Police Department's killing of a young black male, however, was the outpouring of community grief and anger that followed the shooting. The following Monday, March 11th, saw