Liberal Philosophies of Criminal Justice and Conservative

Liberal philosophies of criminal justice and conservative philosophies of criminal justice are often compared. In general the two philosophies are associated with the purpose and therefore type of result one might expect from arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentencing. In the liberal philosophy of criminal justice the general idea is that any sentence that is handed down to the offender should be one that supports reformation and rehabilitation while in the conservative philosophy the ideation is that sentences should be punishments with an emphasis on protecting the public and making sure the offender feels the repercussions of his or her actions. This can also be applied to juvenile justice and has since its inception near the time of the civil war in the U.S. (Tanenhaus xiii-xvi)

The early inception of this separate judicial system is that children who fall in the category to end up in juvenile court should in fact be parented by the state. The idea being that children cannot be "reformed" by punishment as they have yet to be "formed." (Tanenhaus 23) Many also link juvenile justice at its inception to the progressive era thinkers and reforms that demonstrated a marked attempt to protect children from those issues in their live that were out of their control, such as poverty of their origin family, the necessity to work or even steal to survive and other issues faced by some youth in a culture that did not protect children but instead treated them in much the same way as they did adults who commit crimes or are generally troubling for the broader society. (Willrich 716) The previous legal ramifications for juvenile delinquents were the same or in some cases even harsher on children than adults and the progressive era, a markedly liberal period brought about the idea that children had less culpability than adults for actions as they were not mentally mature enough to make good or bad decisions independent of their environment.

The tough on crime era beginning in the 1980s has had the tendency to rekindle the idea that children (and their parents) should be both held accountable as culpable individuals for their criminal actions and should be punished in some way that left a lasting mark. (Krajicek 4-5) Criminals both juvenile and adult have since been held to legal and penal standards that are harsher and in many ways devoid of rehabilitative services. Though it should be made clear that much of the juvenile legal system still demonstrates the legacy of protection for children and limitations on both the perception of full culpability and an emphasis on rehabilitation, or intervention that attempts to challenge the "path" the individual has begun to tread. (Dodge 51) It might also be for this reason that the biggest challenge to juvenile systems recently, i.e. since the inception of the tough on crime era, a markedly conservative trend juveniles have been more and more frequently charged as adults, particularly for heinous and/or violent crimes.