Juvenile justice systems and reform

¶ … juvenile justice system in the United States, a system that has gone through many changes, has received a great deal of criticism, and is represented by myriad strategies and polices throughout the 50 states. What is the best answer to the problem of juvenile crime? The answer depends on the setting, the crime, and the wisdom or lack of wisdom in the justice system involved.

Question one (a): Is it possible to balance "individualized sanctions / offender-based treatment" for juveniles with "proportionate / consistent sanctions"? Yes, it is possible to make treatment more individualized rather than a kind of "one-size-fits all" approach. James C. Howell (Howell, 2003) explains in the journal Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice that offenders can be classified with a "structured system of graduated sanctions" that still protects the citizens and yet puts offenders in programs that are "appropriate" vis-a-vis the treatment they need. "Graduated sanctions," suggests flexibility -- not leniency -- in determining the punishment and/or rehabilitation that would be the best fit for the youthful offender.

Daniel Mears explains that instead of zeroing in on the juveniles that perhaps should be sent to adult facilities -- because of the seriousness of the crimes they allegedly have committed -- the field of juvenile justice should focus on the "creation of blended sentencing options" (Mears, 2002) with a serious attempt to treat these offenders rather than just punishing them and keeping them locked up.

Question one (b): Why is this true? Any governmental program that seeks to protect the public from misbehaving youths engaged in criminal behavior must approach the problem with thoughtful strategies, not just a hammer to punish the person. As Marty Beyer points out young adults are immature emotionally, and because their thinking is not the same as adults, they need flexible, compassionate treatment from the justice system. They need to be held accountable, yes, Beyer explains, but held accountable "…by a legal system that balances the protection of the community" with the most appropriate system of correction for the youthful offender (who has rights and needs) and with the "legitimate rights" of any victims of juvenile crime (Beyer, 2003).

Question one (c): Sentencing guidelines can offer a reasonable solution, though the guidelines in juvenile justice systems vary dramatically from one state to the other. Some of the guidelines have, as Mears indicates, "…veered strongly toward retribution and incapacitation." To wit, politicians run for office on promises to get tough on crime, and hence they pass laws like "three strikes" and "zero tolerance" that do not allow for sentencing that is based on the offender's age, his background, and his previous record (Riestenberg, 2006). The solution that should be sought would be having the court "consider the needs of the offender" and how to go about meeting those needs (Mears, 2002).