The Juvenile Justice System
$29.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
The paper discusses the flaws in traditional court systems and juvenile justice courts alike and then shows how alternative adjudication, restoration and rehabilitative processes have proven to have positive outcomes in reducing recidivism. The paper focuses on peer courts, family group counselling (FGC) and the Behavior Management Through Adventure project (BMTA). The paper considers the past and potential recidivism rates for youth processed through the juvenile justice system, and opines that if our goal is to impact crime rates and provide hope for future generations, a punitive approach should never be the first method of control.
From the Paper:"The criminal justice system has grappled with various approaches to dealing with delinquency and fluctuated over time with prevention methods, limiting or altering exposure to formal courts systems, rehabilitative, restorative, or retributive strategies. Preventative measures have typically been community-based, non-justice turf approaches aimed at teaching children the woes of deviance and directing them in more healthy lifestyles. Alternative adjudication processes have diverted youth away from traditional stigmatizing systems that serve to reinforce the deviant label. In attempting to develop a suitable sentencing structure for deviant youth, three basic approaches have evolved: the retributive or punitive perspective that maintains a stance based on just deserts and argues a tough-on-crime agenda as a means of effectively dealing with delinquency. Another is the rehabilitative approach, which focuses on repairing behavioral conditions and creating individuals who contribute positively to society; while restorative justice perspectives seek resolution between offenders and victims."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Baffour, T. D. (2006). Conferencing interventions among at-risk adolescents. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(5), p.557.
- Dick, A. J., Pence, D. J., Jones, R. M., & Geertsen, H. R. (2004). The need for theory in assessing peer courts. The American Behavioural Scientist, 47(11), 1448-1462.
- Jones, D. R. (2008). Fixing the juvenile justice system. New York Amsterdam News, (99)9, p.5.
- Nagin, D. S., Piquero, A. R., Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, E. (2006). Public preferences forrehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Evidence from acontingent valuation survey. Criminology & Public Policy. 5(4), p.627.
- Siegel, L. J., Welsh, B. C., & Senna, J. J. (2003). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, PracticeAnd Law. Thomson,Wadsworth.
Cite this Persuasive Essay:
The Juvenile Justice System (2009, August 23) Retrieved May 25, 2013, from http://www.academon.com/persuasive-essay/the-juvenile-justice-system-115965/
"The Juvenile Justice System" 23 August 2009. Web. 25 May. 2013. <http://www.academon.com/persuasive-essay/the-juvenile-justice-system-115965/>