NCJ Number
154065
Date Published
1995
Length
333 pages
Annotation
Criticisms of the juvenile justice system have encouraged a re-examination of the system's structure and functioning; it is now clear that the juvenile justice system has conflicting goals, specifically for juvenile justice officials to do what is in the best interest of both juveniles and society.
Abstract
Based on criticisms of the juvenile justice system, several interrelated proposals for change have been advanced. First, there has been a growing interest in procedural justice for youth. Until the late 1960's, courts held that most due process rights were not constitutionally required. Critics of this view, however, contended that abuses in the juvenile justice system had their roots in inadequate procedural safeguards for alleged juvenile offenders. More recently, courts have provided greater procedural protections, and many protections accorded adults in the criminal justice system are also provided in the juvenile justice system. Second, some authorities have advocated more substantive justice for children who come under juvenile court jurisdiction. The call for substantive justice was originally advanced by those who were concerned that, in the name of treatment, juvenile offenders were being incarcerated for extraordinarily long periods of time. These concerns intensified when compelling evidence showed that treatment was not provided or failed to achieve the desired results. Ultimately, proponents of substantive justice sought the deinstitutionalization of juvenile offenders and the removal of status offenders from the juvenile court's jurisdiction. These efforts were consistent with the notion that the sanction a youth receives in the juvenile justice system should be proportional to the seriousness of his or her conduct. Many authorities now endorse a shift in the philosophy of juvenile justice from treatment and rehabilitation to punishment, justice, accountability, and public protection. Some conservatives have allied with liberals to promote determinate sentencing for adjudicated delinquents, stressing harsher, fixed terms for serious or repeat offenders. Various interest groups continue to advocate more restrictive policies for controlling and sanctioning juvenile crimes. The authors consider salient issues in the juvenile justice system by looking at the traditional juvenile justice model, due process and procedural protections, the changing philosophy of juvenile justice, juvenile sentencing policies, juvenile transfer to adult courts, rehabilitation and corrections, and the death penalty for juveniles. Notes and tables