The Nature Of The Juvenile Justice System Process

The subject of this article is the nature of the juvenile justice system process and the trends it has taken over the years. Furthermore, alternatives measures in place in dealing with juvenile offenders is also a primary matter in this article. It is seen that until the 1970s, the juvenile justice system employed the use of training schools to be able to rehabilitate and bring reformed individuals back into the society. In 1971, the then head of the “Department of Youth Services” (DYS), Jerome Miller, took it upon himself in the state of Massachusetts to remove most of the youths from state-owned facilities and placed them in institutions which were being run by the community. To this very day, the juvenile justice system still upholds the same measures to deal with juvenile offenders in the state. Due to this the relapse into crime as compared to other states such as “California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wisconsin” has been seen to be lower.
After almost more than a decade into the Massachusetts experiment, the issue of the most effective way of dealing with high-rated juvenile offenders is still lingering in people’s minds. It is seen that Maryland made an attempt to implement the ingenious Massachusetts experiment with the shutdown of “Montrose Training School” which was one of the juvenile institutions operated by the state. It was observed that youths who were to be taken to the facility had higher recidivism rates compared to those who had completed in the program or were present during its closing.

Even though states are being urged to adopt the Massachusetts experiment, most of the states, for example, California which stands out, still continues to use their large correctional facilities to manage serious juvenile offenders.
The author employed the help of research articles and other prominent literature in the field of juvenile crime and the various methods emerging to act as alternatives to the already existing system so as to review and conduct the analysis. The methods used by the author were efficient and thorough. The primary purpose of the author was to merge the findings that had already been investigated and published and compile them into one article that can act as the the first step for future research. Greenwood (1996) found that due to the small number of carefully evaluated programs, little is known of the suitable methods for correction that are best suited for each type of youth.
Although a number of judges and correctional experts have taken it upon themselves to try and assess the effectiveness of a given method or program, their evaluations have seen not to bore any significant fruits. The improved behavior and respectful acts have been seen to disappear in the event the youth goes back to his or her previous neighborhood. Furthermore, the small number of youths who eventually pay a visit to their previous correction program or juvenile court are very minimal to be used as a sample of the typical individual in a program. Hence, the effectiveness of any program is unknown until evaluation is done and the recidivism data is thus used as the minimal method of measure, where a good number of participants’ data must be compared alongside the suitable control sample as the objective of juvenile corrections is the safety of the community (Greenwood, 1996).
Greenwood (1996) also investigated the development of the delinquent behavior and found that to be able to devise intervention programs, it was necessary to have a critical understanding of the patterns involved in the behavior development. He explained that theorists in the field have come up with theories to be able to explain juvenile irrational and violent activities. These theories include; strain, control, and social theories. In respect to the different theories, many prominent theorists have come to embrace the combination of the theories together with others to be more efficient.
The objective of the juvenile justice system is to be able to save the youth from the path of self-destruction by engaging in crime. With the changes over the years, many states have adopted the public’s safety as part of the system’s major goals. These two objectives are to be achieved by the system having to be able to make a change in the behavior of the individual to one which will allow him or her to be accepted into the society (Puzzanchera, 2003). Therefore, the enforcing of threatening punishments to be able to achieve results in the quickest time possible is discouraged. As to date, no research supports the view that increasing more rules and sanctions will reduce crime but the evidence available states that the manner in which the sanctions are applied, that is, with certainty, is what gets the job done.
After the ruling of a youth being delinquent, it is the responsibility of the juvenile court to order and administer the proper disposition to the youth (Puzzanchera, 2003). Greenwood (1996) found that there were a couple of principal intervention alternatives present in the juvenile justice system. Firstly, the waiver or the movement to an adult court. The transfer to an adult court was seen to be more used due to the assumption that it had more severe punishments as compared to the juvenile court. Secondly, the use of large custodial bases. Despite the efforts to shut down these facilities, a number of states were seen to continue still operating them as the community-based programs were seen to be not effective regardless of their advantages. Thirdly, the use of wilderness programs have been effective in the correction process due to their remoteness which provides a sense of security, and also the challenges posed by the environment are hence dealt with. Finally, for youths who do not pose a major risk, the group homes were seen as the best possible fit due to the resources they provide to the youths such as education, skill training, health services and also the cost-effectiveness to the juvenile justice system.
Finally, to be able to achieve a form of balance between providing efficient treatment, public safety and being responsible, the study recommends that the juvenile justice system should have a wide range of intervention alternatives to suit the behavior of almost every youth coming into the system. The study also suggests that to be well suited to run such institutions and programs, one has to develop the required skill and gain the necessary experience. For the efficient operation of any program, a regulator should oversee its running and compare it with others which are in the same line of work. Promising areas of future research are seen for youths who show characteristics of being at risk of relapsing into criminal activities. No quick solutions exist, so experiments and research will be vital areas to finding appropriate solutions to the delinquent youths’ problem.

References
Greenwood, P. W.  (1996). Responding to Juvenile Crimes: Lessons Learned. The Juvenile Court, 6, 3, 75-85.
Puzzanchera, C. (2003). Juvenile Court Placement of Adjudicated Youth, 1990–1999. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention