Write an essay (1,000-1,250 words) that discusses the possibility of eliminating the juvenile justice system. Your essay should clearly state your position on the following items:
- How has the juvenile justice system impacted law enforcement?
- Explain if there are benefits and/or negatives to transitioning away from the traditional juvenile justice system into simply having youth divisions of regular criminal courts.
- Compare and contrast the juvenile system to the criminal court system. Explain if eliminating the juvenile justice system is prudent or not. Support your conclusions.
- Use two to three of the research articles you located for the research assignment in Module 1 to support your claims
Below is a Sample Solution.
Remember! This is just a sample. You can get a custom paper from one of our expert writers.
Explain the societal implications of abolishing juvenile court
Juvenile court plays a significant role in the rehabilitation of juveniles because the aim of the court is not to punish the juveniles but rather to rehabilitate them.
The following are the societal implications of abolishing juvenile court:
Increase in crime rate – This is because juveniles sentence to serve with adults offenders learns more criminal skills while serving their sentence and after finishing they usually come and commit a crime (Mears, D. P., Hay, C., Gertz, M., & Mancini, C., 2007).
High re-offending rate – The rate of re-offending becomes high because juveniles are punished in a correctional institution rather than being rehabilitated. Some juveniles, therefore, becomes harden and join gang groups after their sentence.
The high number of juveniles joins gang group – This scenario happens as result of most of those who finishes their sentence influencing others juveniles to gangs and commit crimes for their benefit.
The decline in business – Some people will shift from business because the rate of crime will increase so much and no person would wish to incur losses in business.
Increase in poverty level – Poverty level increases as a result more juveniles joining gangs. Most are influence by those who are sentenced to serve their sentence with hardened offenders who learn more criminal skills to use after sentence.
Drop in academic progression – Those who will progress with their academic will be few because many shall be influenced to join gang groups and this is a disaster to the society because it is the society that suffers from the implications of only few studying.
Reference
Mears, D. P., Hay, C., Gertz, M., & Mancini, C. (2007). Public opinion and the foundation of the juvenile court. Criminology, 45(1), 223-257.
The adolescent justice framework tries to restore youngsters, as opposed to rebuff them for their adolescent criminal conduct. Since the late 1970s, faultfinders of the adolescent courts have tried to abrogate this framework, contending that it has flopped in its restoration endeavors and in not rebuffing genuine criminal conduct by youngsters. In the meantime, protectors of the adolescent equity framework fight that for by far most of youngsters, the framework is a beneficial methods for tending to issues. They keep up that a modest bunch of brutal adolescents who have carried out genuine violations ought not lead people in general to trust that the framework does not give methods for evolving conduct.
Pundits take note of that the social and social scene has changed significantly since the mid 1900s when the adolescent equity framework was built up. Medications, GANGS, and the accessibility of firearms have prompted adolescents perpetrating numerous genuine violations, including murder. Faultfinders demand that adolescent courts are no longer sufficient to address issues brought on by vicious, flippant youngsters.
Some contend that the apparent mercy of the adolescent equity framework intensifies its inability to restore by conveying to youngsters that they can maintain a strategic distance from genuine results for their criminal activities. The framework incites a spinning entryway prepare that sends the message that youthful wrongdoers are not responsible for their conduct. It is not until these rehash guilty parties arrive in grown-up criminal courts that they confront genuine discipline interestingly. In this way, it might be ideal to rebuff an adolescent in the primary case, keeping in mind the end goal to hinder future criminal movement.
Faultfinders additionally guarantee it isn’t right for adolescent wrongdoers who have carried out fierce wrongdoings to be discharged from the ward of the adolescent court at age eighteen or twenty-one. Serving a couple of years in an adolescent adjustment office for a wrongdoing that if conferred by a grown-up would bring about a ten-year sentence is uncalled for. The discipline for a wrongdoing, contend pundits, ought to be the same, paying little mind to the age of the culprit.
Due to these lacks, pundits battle, the framework ought to be disassembled. Adolescents ought to be given full DUE PROCESS rights, including the privilege to trial by jury, much the same as grown-ups. Liberated from the adolescent equity framework’s rehabilitative belief system and confinements on criminal due process rights, adolescents ought to stand responsible for their criminal activities. Once an adolescent is indicted, a trial court can decide the fitting sentence.
Safeguards of adolescent equity react that a little minority of savage young people have made the misperception that the framework is a disappointment. In spite of the fact that not each youngster can be restored, it is indiscreet to forsake the exertion. In each other circle of society, kids are dealt with uniquely in contrast to grown-ups. For the couple of adolescents who carry out genuine violations and have poor prospects for restoration, current laws give that they be exchanged to grown-up criminal courts. Permitting this option is a savvier course, protectors demand, than disassembling the framework.
Shields additionally fight that huge numbers of the charged imperfections of the adolescent courts can be followed to insufficient financing and to the earth in which numerous adolescents are compelled to live. They call attention to that savage subcultures and early adolescence injuries brought on by manhandle, disregard, and introduction to savagery make it more hard to address singular issues. On the off chance that the framework were satisfactorily subsidized, PROBATION officers and court bolster work force could all the more nearly manage youngsters and restoration endeavors. On the off chance that more vitality were put into changing the financial circumstance of groups, restoration endeavors would enhance and wrongdoing would diminish.
As indicated by framework supporters, putting adolescents in jail won’t end the cycle of criminal conduct. The inverse outcome is more probable, for a young person may feel vilified by a criminal conviction and may trust he is an acts of futility, bringing about an arrival to wrongdoing. What’s more, the colossal sums exhausted on imprisonment could be better spent on advising, instruction, and occupation preparing.
Protectors of the adolescent equity framework contend that a criminal conviction can incite troubles in getting work and in arranging different parts of life. It isn’t right, they battle, to mark a man so ahead of schedule in life, for an activity that may have been hasty or inspired by associate weight. Saving the adolescent equity framework permits numerous young people to gain from their mix-ups without prejudicing their adulthood.
At last, guards take note of that many states have changed their laws to arrangement all the more seriously with vicious adolescent guilty parties. For whatever length of time that there are methods for occupying these guilty parties into the grown-up framework, safeguards demand, the present adolescent equity framework ought to be kept up.
Reference
Rosenheim, Margaret K., et al., eds. 2002. A Century of Juvenile Justice. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Whitehead, John T. and Steven P. Lab. 1999. Juvenile Justice: An Introduction. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.