The American Juvenile Justice System

Juvenile Justice System: Contemporary Juvenile Justice System and Juvenile Detention Alternatives
Past Issues and Historical Trends in Juvenile Justice
Contemporary juvenile justice is in trouble. For nearly a century, the juvenile justice system was designed to protect young people and provide them with rehabilitation programs and services that would mitigate problems and prevent further delinquency. Young offenders would be treated less as criminals and more as persons in need of assistance, with the state often serving as parens patriae, a de facto parent for wayward youth (Marcus, 2004, p. 1). As effective and compassionate as the juvenile justice system in America was, recent trends in criminal justice have shifted away from separate juvenile proceedings. “Tough on crime” and rhetoric of intolerance has fueled the rise of punitive measures. Punitive measures, such as trying young people in the adult justice system, undermines the core values and intentions of juvenile justice. In fact, research in psychology and brain development show that adolescent brains are structurally different from adult brains. The rehabilitation and prevention model of juvenile justice reflects scientific evidence showing that juveniles are “less blameworthy” and “have a greater capacity to change,” (Juvenile Law Center, 2017).
Originally, the American juvenile justice system was created as a distinct and separate system in order to respond to the need for more sensible treatment for young people. The first formal juvenile justice system evolved in Chicago in 1899. By 1925, most states had some sort of separate juvenile justice structure, system, and process (ACLU, 2017). Throughout the 20th century, juvenile justice processes in the United States were informal in nature, “often nothing more than a conversation between the youth and the judge,” (Juvenile Law Center, 2017). Instead of focusing on the crime or delinquent behavior, the system would focus on the child’s situation including home life. Juvenile justice was also based more on a rehabilitation model. Often, young people would not need an attorney and the judge would make decisions in the best interest of the child (McCord, Widom & Crowell, 2001). Far from being lenient, the traditional model of juvenile justice was designed to advocate on behalf of all young people, while also achieving the public safety goals of the criminal justice system.
The Structure of Juvenile Justice Systems
Although the United States Department of Justice maintains the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, juvenile justice structures and proceedings vary from state to state. The federal government only has direct jurisdiction over cases in which the juvenile committed the offence on federal property like a national park, or within the boundaries of an Indian Reservation (McCord, Widom & Crowell, 2001). Moreover, the federal government and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention can withhold funds from states that do not comply with some juvenile justice provisions. For example, states that house juveniles with adults in detention or incarceration facilities, or which hold juveniles for longer than necessary may not receive the funding allocated under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (McCord, Widom & Crowell, 2011).
The structure of juvenile justice systems varies from state to state. Generally, states maintain a distinct juvenile court system that is the most central and important structure. Law enforcement officers, state attorneys, probation officers, and juvenile detention centers are also common juvenile justice structures and institutions. Foster care and child protection services may also be involved in the juvenile justice system. With states in control of juvenile justice within their jurisdictions, there is considerable variation in the ways law enforcement will respond to juvenile delinquency, and how delinquents are prosecuted. Furthermore, there is variation between municipalities or counties within the same state (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017). The system generally begins with intake and screening, proceeds through investigations and assessments, and finally results in the court decisions related to sanctions. According to Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers,& Schuck (2013), “the juvenile justice process is organizationally complex, value-driven, and often politicized,” (p. 50).
Generally, the juvenile justice systems are specifically designed to divert minors away from the adult criminal justice system. Law enforcement has the discretion to assign a juvenile to an adult court, but state law enforcement officers send the majority of juvenile cases (62%) to juvenile court with another 27% being released (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017). Moreover, the local, county, or state law enforcement officers are the ones most frequently entrusted with the responsibility of sending juvenile delinquents to a juvenile court. Parents, legal guardians, and teachers do occasionally refer young people directly to the juvenile justice system. However, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2017), law enforcement referrals account for a full 82% or more of all juvenile court referrals.
The structure of the juvenile justice system is designed around the principle of diversion. A probation department or a state prosecutor’s office might get involved, usually with the intent of diverting the juvenile’s case away from harsh measures and towards informal ones that are least intrusive. Intake officers may be assigned to each case, to assess the situation and the evidence. About 44% of all cases assigned to a juvenile court end up being handled informally. Informal proceedings may include things like community service, victim restitution, or attendance in drug counseling programs. Formal options like juvenile detention are handled differently depending on the situation and the state. A judge is usually entrusted with the responsibility of determining whether detention is warranted. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2017), only about 22% of all delinquency cases result in detention. Juvenile detention and juvenile correctional facilities are separate from their adult counterparts, but are core structures of the American juvenile justice system. Unlike adults who are prosecuted for crimes, juvenile records are typically expunged to permit second chances. Expunging the record prevents the young person from having problems getting into school, serving in the military, or being employed (Juvenile Law Center, 2017).
Contemporary Trends
Contemporary trends in juvenile justice are increasingly punitive. According to the ACLU (2017), almost all states have recently reformed their juvenile justice laws and proceedings to make it easier for prosecutors to try juveniles as adults. Attention has been moving away from rehabilitation and prevention, and more towards harsher treatments. Funding has also been diverted from crime prevention and more toward severe sentences in some states. Status offences, such as underage drinking, running away from home or being truant from school, are almost always processed through the juvenile and not the adult criminal justice system. More severe or violent crimes might be processed through the adult criminal justice systems in some states, with age, gender, race, prior offences, and a host of other variables often being taken into consideration. States also have different cutoff dates for the age at which a juvenile can be tried as an adult, with some as young as 16 years of age (Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers,& Schuck, 2013).
In spite of the shift towards punitive practices in juvenile justice proceedings, the responses to juvenile offences are most often alternatives to adult prosecution and sentencing. What would be considered alternative sentencing in the adult justice system, like probation and parole, are commonplace when addressing juvenile offences. Intensive supervision and other intense monitoring methods by probation or parole officers may be used in some situations. Community organizations and programs may also be recommended, and parents or family members may sometimes be included in the sentencing procedures to reflect a systemic approach to juvenile justice (McCord, Widom & Crowell, 2001). One of the most important issues in contemporary juvenile justice is how to best maintain the balance between informality and the need for due process. Landmark Supreme Court cases like In re Gault (1967) helped to resolve some of these issues, ensuring that all juveniles still have access to due process and equal protection. Even when they are processed informally, young people need to have access to attorneys, and be protected against cruel and unusual punishment.
Conclusions: The Future of Juvenile Justice
Rehabilitation should ideally remain the cornerstone of juvenile justice. As the ACLU (2017) points out, the costs of prevention are far less than the costs of imprisonment. Therefore, the juvenile justice system should continue to reflect the historical preferences for crime prevention and rehabilitation of troubled youth. Research in developmental psychology and neuroscience do show that adolescents should not be held to the same judicial standards as adults, but they still do need protections. Mental health and social welfare needs also need to be addressed when a child comes into contact with the law. Often, law enforcement officers are the first to recognize and respond to delinquent behaviors. Juveniles who exhibit delinquent behaviors do not necessarily turn into criminals, which is why the juvenile justice system needs to pay closer attention to contextual variables and how to prevent future offences.








References

ACLU (2017). ACLU fact sheet on the juvenile justice system. Retrieved online: https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-fact-sheet-juvenile-justice-system
Bonnie, R.J., Johnson, R.L., Chemers, B.M. & Schuck, J.A. (2013). Current practice in the juvenile justice system. In Reforming Juvenile Justice. Washington: National Academy Press.
Juvenile Law Center (2017). Youth in the justice system: An overview. Retrieved online: http://jlc.org/news-room/media-resources/youth-justice-system-overview
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2017). Juvenile justice system structure and process. Retrieved online: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/case.html
Marcus, P. (2004). The juvenile justice system in the United States. Revue Internationale de Droit Penal 75(1): 535-552.
McCord, J., Widom, C.S. & Crowell, N.A. (2001). The juvenile justice system. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.