Office Of Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention example essay topic

The problem of how to deal with juvenile offenders constitutes one of our countries biggest challenges. There were 13.9 million reported offenses in 1995 according to the FBI's uniform crime report. That same year over three million juveniles were arrested, 800,000 of those arrests were index crimes, which are crimes of a serious nature. In 1995 there were 69 million juveniles.

It is predicted that by the year 2010 the juvenile population will reach 74 million (Bureau of the Census 1995). The increase in the juvenile arrest rate during the last ten years is expected to continue at a steady increase until something can be done to reduce the offending rates. The statistics are staggering. The rate for juvenile homicide more than doubled from 1985-1992 (Blum stein, 1995). In this paper I will discuss the juvenile justice system from the first establishment of juvenile court in 1899, to the current responses of the juvenile justice system in reducing the amount of offenders. Finally I will address some alternative methods to the current policies regarding the juvenile justice system beginning with arrest through rehabilitation.

The first juvenile court in the United States was established in Cook County, Illinois in 1899. Delinquent juveniles were dealt harsh punishments from the adult courts before that development. Every state was with a separate juvenile court by 1945. The original intent was to focus on offenders and not offenses, rehabilitating and protecting the youth was the courts philosophy. Placing juvenile offenders in reformatories, training schools, and institutions was thought to support the theory of rehabilitation, contrary to the nice thought, these places were dangerous and unhealthy and believed to have done more harm than good. During the 1940's and 1950's reformers worked hard to improve the conditions found in most juvenile institutions.

Probation camps emerged providing a structured setting for juveniles as an alternative to incarceration. Extensive use of probation was also another alternative to incarceration. The vast majority were coming to question the ability of the juvenile courts system in succeeding, or even making visible or tangible progress in the rehabilitation process. In 1967, the recommendation that alternatives to the incarceration of juveniles be developed. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act passed in 1974 provided funding to communities from federal grants that encouraged these alternatives to incarceration, creating more foster care, group homes and formal diversion programs.

During the 1970's, supervision and electronic monitoring were also introduced. By the 1980's the public perceived serious juvenile crime increasing and the system was failing due to its lenient attitude in the juvenile courts. Laws were passed making the 1980's a transitional period that led the juvenile justice system away from its original philosophy of rehabilitation, focusing now on punishment and the safety of the public. Juvenile crime had increased, faith in treatment was on a downward spiral, the courts were becoming more and more inept to realistically address and remedy social ills and political ideology rushing towards conservative trends caused a distinct change in the policies surrounding juvenile criminals. By the 1990's legislation enacted by many states put juvenile offenders that were violent, serious, or repeat offenders accountable for their actions. Five areas of change concentrated on by state legislature include: 1.

Sentencing 2. Transfer provisions 3. Confidentiality 4. Victims rights 5. Correctional programming.

As a result of the many changes made by legislation, the building of more secure facilities and the development of more adequate solutions for rehabilitation. The real problem of our juvenile justice system is the manor in which it address' our nations troubled youth. The institutions that we have currently in place prove to serve as nothing more than an enormous meat grinder, turning out a sort of ground gangster pate e. We are taking youths whom have been charged with non-violent, and non-index offenses, and housing or placing them in group treatment situations with individuals who have committed, often repeatedly, crimes of an extremely violent nature, including aggravated assault, rape, child molestation, and even homicide. This is putting two very different classifications of juvenile offender into the same pond, so to speak.

By doing this we are not only institutionalizing them, but doing the incarcerating in a fashion which produces really only one thing: ground gangster p^at'e. We can look at this from a few different angles. The first of which is we must be having some kind of a problem, just look at our steadily growing infrastructure systems whose soul mission is to deal with these young offenders. According to a Gallup poll, Americans believe juvenile criminals are responsible for forty-three percent of violent crimes.

However, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention youths are only responsible for twelve percent of our nations violent crimes. Another issue in and of itself is that of official data relating to juveniles and delinquency. Curt and Anne Barton state in our text that comprehensive national data on youth crime and its control of do not exist (Kris berg & Schwartz, 1983). Despite attempts from a spectrum of different sources to collect and make use of data, the whole picture has yet to be put together. So please keep this in mind when statistical data is mentioned throughout my paper, I used several different sources and some conflicted with one another, so I used the data that was represented by the majority of the different sources I sought out. Another problem with the current policies which seem so quick to incarcerate offenders of the non-index type is that these youths become institutionalized at an early age.

By "institutionalized" I mean the process that occurs when individuals are incarcerated (especially long term), they become dependent upon such an institution or institutional environment to survive and feel some form of safety or security. Some of the ill affects of this "institutionalization is shown in the re-arrest rates of juveniles who are sent to rehabilitation facilities. All it seems to be doing is place various kinds of criminals into a, well, let's just say, a sort of "meet and greet" with all of these other criminals. Placing America's troubled youth into environments where they can make new and better criminal contacts is far from pragmatic, and clearly not the answer. Some suggest that more serious criminals should be housed with adult criminals as an answer to the problem. However, this is not only a poor solution, but could by many terms be considered an injustice.

Researchers Charles Frazier and Donna Bishop have conducted recent studies showing that youths tried as adults were re-arrested twice as quickly as youths who remained in the juvenile justice system. They were also thirty-three percent more frequently arrested than their counterparts, who remained in a system whose rehabilitation curriculum was designed for and housed only youths. In terms of index crimes, juveniles who were tried as adults committed serious offenses at an astonishing rate of twice that of those offenders who remained in the juvenile justice system. Trying juveniles as adults is being promoted all across the country. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the District of Columbia, along with twenty-five other states have no minimum age set for when a child can be tried as an adult. Jeffery Fagan of Columbia University has conducted extensive research which illustrates a very grim picture for youths bound over for the adult system.

Youths housed with adults are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted by fellow inmates. They are twice as likely to be beaten by staff and other correctional workers. They were also found to be fifty percent as likely to be assaulted with a weapon than youths who were not incarcerated with adults. Research funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention shows that youth offenders who are housed in adult facilities are a horrifying seven and three-quarters times as likely to commit suicide. I attached the lyrics to a song called "Institutionalized", by the artists known as the Suicidal Tendencies. At the time of the recording of this song, singer Mike Muir was around eighteen.

My parents stuck me in numerous institutions when I was around fifteen and I really can relate to this song and the importance of not fixing a juvenile with the label of their crime. Though these statistics are a crystal clear call for reform of this nations juvenile justice system the statistics and gruesome tales purported by the media make it tough for the average citizen to make a quality decision concerning these youth offenders. In Mount Morris Township, Michigan, a six year old shot and killed a fellow first grader after school one day, simply because of a misunderstanding in the school yard. In California another six year old was found guilty of killing a three month old baby, and in the southern half of the state, three teenage girls, ages seventeen, were charged with aggravated mayhem, conspiracy, false imprisonment and torture for holding a fifteen year old girl hostage and tortured her for hours on end. These tragedies are only a few mentioned of the hundreds heard on the news and read in papers every day. How does a first grader come to a decision on when it is justifiable to take another's life?

How does this child even know how to take the life of another human being? Is it the television? How about the new onslaught of explicitly graphic video games, which are marketed at today's youth? Though these seem to be plausible causes for the problems generating today's juvenile delinquent, I think the solution lay a little closer to the home front. Maybe one real cause of the problem is that we allow anyone to breed. In our country today you are required to get a license to have a dog.

You have to get a marriage certificate. Another certification to drive a car, and you have to insure the car. However there are almost no restrictions or requirements concerning procreation and child rearing. When a couple decides to adopt a child there are extensive background checks done, months of waiting and yards of red tape before they are able to bring home a child. Would it not be productive to have requirements of people who wish to take on the great task of raising a child. At least we could insist upon mandatory classes teaching proper child development techniques.

An excellent example of a program making a huge difference is the WIC program. In order for clients to receive vouchers for help with food and baby formula, they must attend classes every three months. The classes teach nutritional values, smart shopping, and an array of useful skills in raising healthy children with good eating habits while on a budget. It is pretty accepted that money motivates, a class or series of classes directed at teaching parenting and early childhood development skills could be required of any parent (s) that wish to claim the EIC (earned income tax credit) on their taxes. A three hour class on how divorce effects children is required when a couple divorcing have children together, in order to be granted the divorce. It has been done, the parents of juvenile offenders doing the time for their child's crime, but wait... what if the parents were mandated to attend a series of classes or seminars that could help teach them to more effectively handle the situation, preventing future offenses.

If the treatment and prevention come from the parents, that treatment could be considered "custom treatment" if you will, the causes believed to lead to juvenile delinquency are in abundance, how can we address each child's individual needs better than to encourage their own parents involvement. The parents live with them, are overall responsible for them, and may think twice about having any more if they are held accountable for the actions of their children. Values and integrity are learned at an early age and in the home. This has to be our foundation to building a system that can effectively prevent and treat our youth, one day they will be running the show around here.