The US Juvenile Law and Rehabilitation System
Introduction
The juvenile justice system is a set of measures to regulate child delinquency and reduce its prevalence. It emerged at the end of the nineteenth century as special courts for children who have committed crimes. The juvenile court assumes that the crime committed by the child is not his fault but his misfortune, so he needs help to return to the community. The history of justice demonstrates the low effectiveness of the measures taken. The current system does not keep juveniles from making mistakes by not offering a fair system of rehabilitation.
Juvenile Justice History
The juvenile justice system remains flawed, but the reforms that have been introduced gradually improve and modify sentences so that juveniles remain willing to be reformed. Initially, the youth had to be incarcerated with adult criminals, and conditions were deplorable (Meng et al., 2013). They lacked attention, and a correctional system did not exist for these children. Reform efforts in the second half of the 19th century led to separate institutions and sanctuary homes for adolescents (Juvenile justice history, n.d.). This allowed youths the opportunity to be corrected through the creation of new programs.
The juvenile justice system changed gradually, sometimes making the incarceration requirements lighter and sometimes stricter to increase discipline among the youth. After a hundred years, by the second half of the 20th century, juvenile conditions had hardened again, and the new reforms now continue to be quite harsh (Juvenile justice history, n.d.). Although juvenile delinquency rates had fallen by the early 21st century, their protections remain weak. Hudson (2019) suggests that the main problem with juvenile justice is psychological pressure and creating an uncomfortable, disabling environment for rehabilitation. Consequently, this leads to fears about the effectiveness of the current juvenile justice system.
Modern Juvenile System
Fundamental rights for incarcerated juveniles have been prevalent since the mid-20th century when the issue of juvenile protection came up in every court hearing. It was not until 1967 that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the need for an attorney for juveniles and the fundamental right of keeping silent (BRIA 11 2 c Juvenile justice, n.d.). Meng et al. (2013) point out that a critical case in the juvenile system was in 1966, Kent v. United States, after which the active expansion of juvenile rights began. Nevertheless, these rights have also not been preserved long enough, and there are now some problems with how to preserve the rights of juveniles and punish them fairly (Young & Giller, 2021). Case law can be a limiting factor in juvenile cases because the justice system was unwilling to adjust to adolescent characteristics and relied on adult criminal cases. The introduction of a unified court scheme standardized sentencing procedures and gave teens a chance to have their sentences reduced (BRIA 11 2 c Juvenile justice, n.d.). However, this did not adequately reduce juvenile delinquency but left it at the same level.
Current juvenile after-crime support programs remain as low-impact as ever. Scott et al. (2019) point out that assistance programs for the substance use and mental disorders category of crime do not show a positive trend. The authors suggest that a lack of consistency in rehabilitation rather than sentencing is a crucial aspect of juvenile justice problems (Scott et al., 2019). Moreover, such problems in Europe are associated with increased awareness of crime and punishment. van der Put et al. (2020) report that juvenile awareness programs increase delinquency rather than decrease it. This is likely due to the emergence of knowledge about avoiding punishment: programs do not shape the desire not to commit a crime at all.
Changes in the juvenile system must begin with the psychological characteristics of adolescents in mind. Their rationale must be grounded in ideas about the role of juveniles in communities, so justice is required to reform responsibly. Young and Giller (2021) state the critical need to change the juvenile system. They are concerned about the increase in crime that results from the imbalance of punishment and rehabilitation. In other words, the justice system wants to punish juveniles so that they have the opportunity to reform but does not provide the conditions for doing so (Meng et al., 2013). The current sentencing mechanisms for juveniles and the juvenile rehabilitation system conflict because they are inconsistent with the very purpose of the court – to rehabilitate, not just punish.
Conclusion
Thus, the juvenile system in the United States is currently struggling to provide an environment for juveniles to return to the community. With a reasonably streamlined sentencing scheme and some mechanisms for preserving rights, the courts do not seek to understand the specifics of juvenile delinquency fully. The severe consequences of this attitude are an increase in delinquency, the prevalence of ineffective information and assistance programs, and low rates of rehabilitation. Until the juvenile justice system fully organizes and plans for, and addresses all crime conditions, the history of ineffective reforms will repeat itself. Consequently, juveniles may not receive enough help after the crime and may be unable to go on with their lives for a long time.
References
BRIA 11 2 c Juvenile justice: What should we do with children who break the law? (n.d.). Constitutional Rights Foundation. Web.
Hudson, D. L. (2019). Law review: Psychological research, juvenile justice, and the need for more reform. Insights on Law and Society, 18(2). Web.
Juvenile justice history. (n.d.). Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Web.
Meng, A., Segal, R., & Boden, E. (2013). American juvenile justice system: History in the making. In Adolescent psychiatry. Walter de Gruyter GmbH (pp. 227-232).
Scott, C. K., Dennis, M. L., Grella, C. E., Funk, R. R., & Lurigio, A. J. (2019). Juvenile justice systems of care: results of a national survey of community supervision agencies and behavioral health providers on services provision and cross-system interactions. Health & Justice, 7(1), 11. Web.
van der Put, C. E., van Solinge, N. F. B., Stams, G. J., Hoeve, M., & Assink, M. (2020). Effects of awareness programs on juvenile delinquency: A three-level meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 65(1). Web.
Young, H. & Giller, C. (2021). Juvenile delinquency in the United States of America. Journal of Sociology, 3(4), 1-7. Web.