The Juvenile Justice System

Annotated Bibliography
Clark, A. B. (2017). Juvenile solitary confinement as a form of child abuse. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(3), 350-357.
The article explains that juvenile solitary confinement as a punitive measure in juvenile justice is equal to child abuse because of the negative impact it can have on the child’s mind. The article explains that it should be reported as child abuse and the system should not permit it. This article is relevant to the thesis because it shows that juvenile justice needs to be geared towards the fact that these are children not adults. The article’s main strength is its ability to show that juvenile solitary confinement is in fact damaging to the child’s psyche, but its weakness is that it does not provide much discussion of an alternative correctional method. Clark seems to imply that a treatment perspective is needed, but the overall focus of the study is on the punishment perspective and how this particular punishment is unhealthy and abusive.
Johnson, T., Quintana, E., Kelly, D. A., Graves, C., Schub, O., Newman, P., & Casas, C.
(2015). Restorative Justice Hubs Concept Paper. Revista de Mediación, 8(2), 2340-9754.
This article reveals how restorative justice can help to lower recidivism rates. It shows specifically that for those convicted who were put through a restorative justice program, the recidivism rate fell by 26% when compared with a 10% drop in recidivism rates for people put through the traditional justice system that focuses on punishment. Thus, this article is relevant because it provides proof that restorative justice has a 15% greater effectiveness rate than punitive justice at rehabilitating people. The article’s main strength is when it reveals that “victims report greater satisfaction when sentencing is diverted from the traditional justice system to restorative sentencing” (p. 2349). In other words, victims prefer to see juvenile offenders reform rather than simply be punished: “victims reported higher perceptions of fairness and greater feelings of justice through the restorative justice programs as opposed to victim reports of traditional justice programs” (p. 2349). The article has no legitimate weaknesses other than that it does not address the potential negative side of restorative justice the way other researchers have. Instead it highlights the positives of restorative justice and how people in the community can feel a sense of empowerment when helping to produce a change for good in their community on their own terms without relying on the courts. Thus, this article will be helpful for the thesis by showing that restorative justice may be a good way to prevent juvenile from becoming recidivists.
Mears, D. P., Kuch, J. J., Lindsey, A. M., Siennick, S. E., Pesta, G. B., Greenwald, M. A., & Blomberg, T. G. (2016). Juvenile court and contemporary diversion: Helpful, harmful, or both?. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 953-981.
The article shows that diversion programs can be helpful but that they can also put undue strain on juveniles and that the strain could be avoided if probation were used instead. The authors noted that juveniles who go through diversion programs will be more likely to have to address “drug testing, restitution, participation in mentoring efforts, community service, counseling” and so on, all of which can stress them out (p. 960). The strength of the article is that it does highlight the negatives of diversionary programs, but the big weakness is that these negatives do not seem that bad considering the positives that can come—such as actual rehabilitation. The study is thus helpful for the thesis in that it gives the other side of the argument.
Troutman, B. (2018). A more just system of juvenile justice: Creating a new standard of accountability for juveniles in Illinois. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 108(1), 197.
The article shows that accountability theory can be used by the state of Illinois to convict a person of a crime for simply being there and not doing anything to prevent the crime from being perpetrated by another. It shows that adolescents and juveniles do not understand the notion of accountability because they do not have that level of maturity yet, and yet the state will hold them accountable anyway just for having a mere presence. The article is relevant to the thesis because it highlights big problem in the system with how the law sees youths as the same psychologically as adults even though they are not yet adults. The strength of the article is that it highlights this difference and the weakness is that it does not provide a lot of discussion on alternative theories for the state to adopt instead.
Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2016). Can at-risk youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1310-1329.
The article was helpful in showing that diversionary programs are effective at reducing the rate of recidivism for juvenile offenders “with a pooled odds ratio of 1.28” (p. 1310). In other words, juveniles entering diversionary programs will be 1.28x more likely to avoid engaging in criminal behavior in their adult lives than youths who do not enter into such programs. The strength of the article is that it does prove that diversion works. The weakness is that it only conducts a meta-analysis of existing data and does not provide any new evidence to make the case. The article is relevant to this thesis is it supports the idea that punitive justice is inferior to rehabilitative justice and the use of diversion.
References
Clark, A. B. (2017). Juvenile solitary confinement as a form of child abuse. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(3), 350-357.
Johnson, T., Quintana, E., Kelly, D. A., Graves, C., Schub, O., Newman, P., & Casas, C. (2015). Restorative Justice Hubs Concept Paper. Revista de Mediación, 8(2), 2340-9754.
Mears, D. P., Kuch, J. J., Lindsey, A. M., Siennick, S. E., Pesta, G. B., Greenwald, M. A., & Blomberg, T. G. (2016). Juvenile court and contemporary diversion: Helpful, harmful, or both?. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 953-981.
Troutman, B. (2018). A more just system of juvenile justice: Creating a new standard of accountability for juveniles in Illinois. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 108(1), 197.
Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2016). Can at-risk youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1310-1329.