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...
(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…
