Juvenile justice systems and reform

Juvenile Justice

Scott & Steinberg (2008) state that "the traditional rehabilitative model of juvenile justice and the contemporary regime have failed to measure up to the conventional demands of fairness and cost-minimization" (p 223). The current system is just too costly and unfair, leaving many youngsters to have fall victim to its inefficiencies. Thus, within their work, Scott & Steinberg present a more developmental model for the reform of the current juvenile system.

The authors make the argument that the current system is both too costly and unfair. It is judges and prosecutors that decide whether or not a juvenile will be tried as an adult in cases of serious crimes (Crippen 1999). This then places a potential bias in the decision, depending on the nature of the crime. Often times, these decisions are made only on the matters currently at hand, with little regard to long-term impacts on cost, and so these decisions can end up being extremely expensive in the long run both in terms of money and sanctity of punishment. Thus, the main reform issue here is not the integration of the juvenile system into the most cost-effective adult system, but rather "a regime that maintains a firm boundary between the juvenile and criminal systems and excludes from the juvenile court's jurisdiction only a small number of older youths charged with serious crimes" (Scott & Steinberg 2008 p 229). Only those youths charged with violent felonies would be considered open for being tried as an adult. Scott & Steinberg (2008) are taking a rehabilitation model, rather than the punishment structure seen in most adult criminal sentencing. This provides cost efficiency, but also fairness in how punishment is administered to many juveniles who might not have understood the severity of their crime and will most likely mature out of such behaviors. The clear benefits of this type of reform are the improvements made to the fairness and cost-effectiveness of the juvenile system. Yet, there are some limitations as well. It does limit the power of the state in how punishment is enacted. Moreover, it could allow some recidivists to get out of punishments without any hope for rehabilitation.

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 to handle youths ensures a greater degree of flexibility within the system. Scott & Steinberg argue that most juvenile defenders will eventually mature out of their criminal behaviors, and so long-term punishment for crimes committed before adulthood becomes impractical. This, therefore, makes the approach not too far of a cry from how things are currently done today.