INSTRUCTIONS

Drop box Special Access: Week 8 – Assignment: Assess a Possible Restructure of the Juvenile Justice System – Availability

CJ-7002: Delinquency and Criminal Justice

Develop an assessment of combining the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems, from law enforcement to corrections, with a focus on the following:

Explain what could happen to juveniles if they are introduced to the adult system. Is it already happening? Think of how juveniles differ from adults in terms of gender, family life, and peer pressure as you formulate your response.

Identify the sociological and Life Course Theories leading juveniles to become delinquent.

Interpret how drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and peer pressure influence a juvenile’s participation in deviance.

Determine how effective the DARE program, Scare Straight, and Boot camps are in rehabilitating and deterring juvenile delinquency.

Interpret how the original theoretical foundation of juvenile justice translates to the practices occurring today.

Explore differences in prevention and treatment programs for juveniles as compared to adult offenders.

Provide an example for prevention and treatment programs for both juveniles and adult offenders.

Support your paper with a minimum of seven scholarly resources. In addition to these specified resources, other appropriate scholarly resources, including older articles, may be included.

Length: 12-15 pages, not including title and reference pages

Your paper should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure to adhere to North Central University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

The following rubric applies to the grading for this Signature Assignment.

Criteria Content

Differentiated between the adult and juvenile correction systems including mental care, physical safety, and rehabilitation

Identified and explained at least one sociological and one life course theory and analyzed the effects of drugs and alcohol abuse and peer pressure as factors leading to juvenile delinquency.

Demonstrated good understanding of the prevention and treatment programs in regards to rehabilitation and deterrence of crime, providing an example of each.

Described the changes in today’s juvenile justice system compared to the original juvenile justice rhetoric in the early 1900s

Organization

Included a minimum of 7 scholarly references within the required 12-15 pages, applied appropriate APA formatting, in text citations, and included the NCU assignment cover sheet, title page, and references page.

Upload your document and click the Submit to Drop box button.

Week 8 – Assignment: Assess a Possible Restructure of the Juvenile Justice System Week 8 – Assignment:

Assess a Possible Restructure of the Juvenile Justice System

JUVENILE VS ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

In most of the countries, the facets involved when dealing with the justice system are two, one dealing with the juvenile offenders while the second one is primarily for the adults. The adult justice is common and is also known as the criminal justice system. Under this system, the lawbreakers are apprehended, taken to the court for trial, sentenced and eventually jailed. Under the juvenile justice system, which is common for children under the age of eighteen years, it is aimed at rectifying the behaviour of the offender. The juvenile system can be traced far back as in the year 1925. Understanding the two systems is very important especially for people in criminal justice careers. Although the laws governing the juvenile system vary from one state to the other, some common aspects are making them universally different (Bishop et al, 2016).

To stand in a position of explaining what would happen to juveniles if introduced to the adult system of justice, the bases of the scrutiny should be the existing difference between these two systems (Bishop et al, 2016). For instance, how the offences committed by the offenders in both are viewed. An adult who is involved in an offensive act is considered a crime under the perception of state law and the justice system. This person is taken to court and put under trial which is closely followed by a prosecution based on the crime he or she is accused of (Bishop et al, 2016).

This is contrary to a juvenile who has been caught under the same circumstance. First of all, the offence is considered as just a delinquent act, defined as an action that is a felony offence, misdemeanour or just a law violation done by a child or a minor. No strict processes followed as seen in the case of an adult system (Bishop et al, 2016). Assuming that the juveniles were taken through the strict processes, the outcome is likely to be worse than even the offence which had been committed. In consideration of the immaturity factor, they are likely to undergo depression conditions which may eventually make them commit suicide. These cases are not rare in modern society and cases which have analyzed can confirm the validity of the statement (Bishop et al, 2016).

Looking for Academic Writing Help Visit :  Academic research experts

Under the criminal justice system, the person accused is always accorded the right to trial by the jury comprised of his or her peers. The jury is then liable for deciding whether the defendant is either guilty or not based on the evidence which is presented by the prosecution sector (Bishop et al, 2016). Contrary to this case scenario, the adolescent offender rarely faces the trial or jury in the juvenile system and this point to the fact that he or she will never be termed as guilty under such circumstances. The judge only rules that he or she is delinquent. One thing and for sure, if the juveniles were to be taken through the trial session as it is the case with the adults, out of much tension and anxiety, they would be guilty in any prosecution raised against them. This is considering their tender age and the ability to withstand pressure which is the case when it comes to the criminal justice system. Cases of youths taken through these processes are not rare and have led to the suffering of these minors innocently. Just because they fail in trials due to the inability to withstand the pressure geared towards them (Levitt, 2012).

The goals behind these two systems highly differ. For instance, in the juvenile system, it is always assumed that the youths can be influenced in a positive way to change their offensive behaviours (Levitt, 2012). Regarding this reason, rehabilitation has been the major goal for the youths who are taken through the juvenile system. This is achieved through programs such as education and counselling. On the other hand, the criminal system does not generally consider rehabilitation as a goal. Instead, it aims at deterring future crime occurrences (Levitt, 2012). If the youths were to be taken through the criminal justice system, they would come out worse than before. Revenge would be the priority out of the mistreatments while in custody (Levitt, 2012).

Secondly, they will have not learned anything which can help them responsible on their own. This is unlike in the juvenile systems where they are taken through mentorship programs to assist them to gain good morals which make them shy away from the offensive actions (Levitt, 2012). Also, education which has been one of the major programs inside the juvenile system has helped the youths leave a better life than before. Technical skills that they acquire assist them secure job opportunities and shy away from offensive actions like robbery and prostitution (Levitt, 2012).

Juvenile’s motivation to becoming delinquent can be easily explained by several sociological theories; this paper considers the life course theory to scrutinize the delinquent behaviour of the youths and how relates to the theory. Before getting into this relationship, it is of much importance to understand what life course theory entails (Levitt, 2012). This theory is also commonly referred to as a life course perspective. It refers to a multidisciplinary archetype mainly concerned with the lives of people, their structural contexts and the social changes. The approach accommodates ideas and basic observations from different disciples like sociology, developmental psychology and economic changes (Levitt, 2012).

Particularly, more attention is narrowed down to a powerful connection existing between individual lives and the social-economic contexts in which these lives unfold (Pope& Feyerherm, 2015). Conceptually, a life course has been defined as the sequence of socially defined roles and the events that different individuals enact over time. These roles and occasions do not necessarily progress in any given order, but rather constitute the total of an individual’s real experience. The concept hence implies age differentiated social portents distinct from uniform life cycle stages (Pope& Feyerherm, 2015).

So how does this theory relate to delinquency in youths? Well, it has been outlined before that the approach accommodates ideas and basic observations from different disciples like sociology, developmental psychology and economic changes. Peer pressure is part and parcel of developmental psychology and one of youthful motivation to committing offences when compared to the adults. An adolescent is always eager to try anything in life and therefore under peer influence is likely to get involved even in offensive actions (Pope& Feyerherm, 2015).

Economic fluctuations will either bring about hardships in life or favourable economic conditions. Most of the time, hardships make life very difficult and without persistence based on experience, people find themselves in offensive actions such as robbery to meet their basics (Pope& Feyerherm, 2015). Youths are mostly victims of this circumstance. This is out of a lack of persistence and experience in life. Experience entails being in a position to save for future in the current state, compared to adults who have experience from their past life regarding fluctuations in the economy, youths will always approach life blindly and this makes them victims of economic fluctuations. Geared by their energetic status, they are likely to get into a robbery to meet their basic needs (Pope& Feyerherm, 2015).

Peer pressure has been a common influence on juvenile’s participation in deviance. Considerable evidence has supported the hypothesis the peer relationships play a major role in the growth of problem behaviour in adolescents. Developmental research has also documented the alarming levels of covariation between the peers and youthful deviance even controlling for selection effects (Pope& Feyerherm, 2015). One of the major ways through which deviant adolescents tend to become more deviant is by being exposed to unrestricted interactions with other deviant peers. Ironically, most common treatments for deviant youths have violated this rule. Adolescents after being caught in deviant scenarios are being placed in settings that aggregate them with other deviant youths. The main concern is the iatrogenic effects of such placements. Let’s take a review of the developmental evidence regarding peer influences (Pope& Feyerherm, 2015).

This review has been unfolded in steps. The first role of deviant peer influence has been examined with much emphasis on assessing the empirical evidence for this phenomenon as simply homophily. Homophily is the tendency for the like-minded people to seek each other out (Pope& Feyerherm, 2015). Sociological studies have depicted that offensive behaviours are concentrated in certain youthful groups. Peer groups, gangs and cliques vary in their general rates of deviance and if one member of the group takes part in deviance behaviour, there is a high possibility that the other members will do the same (Pope& Feyerherm, 2015).

Other studies have shown that gang members, although constituting only a small portion of these samples, the justification for a disproportionately large share of offensive behaviour reported. Findings have further shown that association with deviant peers can be directly linked with growth in delinquent behaviour is among the robust findings based on the juvenile delinquency literature (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013)

Drug use and abuse bring about both public health and social problems in most of the countries worldwide, resulting from these negative effects, it affects people’s physical and emotional development. Out of this, it becomes very easy for the person to unknowingly commit offences. Research has indicated a close association between drug abuse cases and antisocial behaviours. As already pointed out, using drugs introduces an individual to the world of delinquency, a term commonly referring to antisocial behaviours such as criminal offences (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

Since the 1980s, evidence has shown that drug use and abuse among adolescent offenders relate highly to the severity of antisocial behaviours. For instance, the research undertaken based on 506 youths at the adolescent stage on abuse the abuse of alcohol and marijuana indicated that the illegal acts which took place under the motivation of these drugs were more prevalent among adolescents with more severe antisocial practices. Nevertheless, more current evidence has shown that conduct problems and delinquency commonly precede the onset of drug abuse. A similar study was undertaken to assess whether drug abuse predicted antisocial behaviours such as family conflicts and violence, proved to be the only mild predictor of delinquency taking five of the every twenty-one behaviour types assessed (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

In rehabilitating and deterring juvenile delinquency, several programs have been adopted to regulate the behaviour of the offenders. These programs include but not limited to the DARE program, Scare Straight, and Boot camps. Out of their different approaches followed by each of them, their effectiveness tends to differ from each other (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

In most countries, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program has been widely used as a drug abuse prevention program targeted to juvenile justice systems. In current society, D.A.R.E has become the largest juvenile-based control program in terms of government expenditure. Although its effectiveness to prevent drug abuse has been questionable, its application in the juvenile program remains extensive (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

Given the recent upsurge in alcohol and hard drug abuse among teens in modern society, continued use of D.A.R.E and other programs seems likely. The research undertakes aimed at examining the effectiveness of the D.A.R.E program has indicated a negligible yet positive impact when the results expected immediately after the completion of the program were put into consideration. However these studies have been affected by two major limitations, firstly, the post-intervention assessment was carried out immediately after the accomplishment of the program and secondly, the research was carried out majorly from non-reviewed sources such as the annual reports presented by agencies associated mandated to provide D.A.R.E services (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

Scare straight is another common program which has been initiated in juvenile system settings. The program aims at deterring at-risk juvenile delinquents from being involved in future offences. The program works to bring the at-risk juvenile delinquents directly into custody so that they can gain first-hand experience in prison. The idea behind this program is to scare and shock the participants to an extent that will make them refrain from being involved in future crimes to avoid the consequences of prison. The program encompasses a variety of scenarios for the participants but the common ones are; prison tours, being exposed to harsh conditions, and interaction with the inmates or prison guards (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

As much as this program may appear to be a good idea, some studies have indicated that the program is unsuccessful in most of the cases. Some reviews have shown that not only do these programs fail to discourage crime, but they also lead to severe offending behaviours. Besides, the program has been faced with widespread scrutiny. For instance, a study undertaken by Campbell in the year 2002 indicated that participants in the programs have a seven percent increase in the risk rate to committing crimes after they are taken through the program when compared to those who do not take place in such programs (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

Boot camp is the third program that has been put into place to reduce recidivism in juvenile justice system settings. It is also referred to as intensive incarceration out of its tendency to use military paradigm. The program often makes use of physical exercise, ceremonies and uniforms intending to instill discipline and respect in criminal defendants. But the burning discussion has been emphasized on whether a person who has committed a crime should be taught the value of discipline yet all the people learned the value as children? (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013)

Systematic research carried out to come out with an answer to this question found no difference in the recidivism levels between the offenders who undertook the program and those who did not participate in the program. Offenders who did not undergo this program did not have lower rates of recidivism than the non-participants. The conclusion, therefore, indicated that the program did not have any effect on one way or the other when it came to recidivism (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

The researchers cautioned that when the offenders are effectively treated under the boot camp program, this effective treatment highly encourages criminal behaviour. The only question which has not been answered yet is whether the program leads to any further reduction of recidivism beyond the lone effects of the treatment. The research further depicts that there are some benefits of the program such as reduced requirements for prison beds, an improvement in pro-social attitudes and reduced impulsivity. Despite the benefits, it is clear that the program did not result in less offensive behaviours (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

Interpretation of the original theoretical foundation of juvenile justice translation

What has been lacking in dialogues involving adolescent offenders is the acknowledgement that those youngsters are not recently little grown-ups, nor is the world where they are experiencing the universe of adults. Both the physical and the passionate advancement advance all through the puberty stage, teenagers are capable of approaching choices just like adults under few conditions, many of the choices teenagers make are influenced by conditions that are hardest for the adults to make, new errands, decisions which bring about dubious results and uncertain circumstances (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

Adolescents are subjects to overestimating their comprehension capabilities and think little of the possibilities of realizing negative results. This makes them come up with judgments in light of inadequate facts. Even though grown-ups are likewise inclined to similar misperceptions, youngsters’ and youths’ absence of experience expands their defenselessness. Studies have shown that high-hazard youths were more probable than white-collar class adolescents to have mistaken data about dangers while being amazingly certain about their data (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013).

Emotions can influence basic leadership for the two young people and grown-ups. At the point when individuals are encountering positive feelings, for example, energy, bliss, cherish, they tend to disparage the likelihood of negative results to their activities. While encountering contrary feelings, for example, outrage, desire, bitterness, individuals tend to concentrate on the close term and dismiss the 10,000-foot view. This is especially significant for young people, who have been found to encounter more extensive and faster emotional episodes than grown-ups (Rosenblatt, Rosenblatt& Biggs, 2013)

Investigations of youngsters’ comprehension of legitimate preparing and the results of different lawful decisions, for example, relinquishing the privilege to stay quiet or to have a lawyer, demonstrate contrasts between those more youthful and more established than around 15 years Those under age 15 frequently misconstrue the idea of a privilege, by and large, and Miranda rights, specifically. They anticipate fewer option blueprints in lawful procedures and tend to focus on here and now as opposed to long haul results. For instance, more youthful youth frequently confound the privilege to stay noiseless, trusting it implies they ought to be calm until the point when they are advised to talk. Nor do they comprehend the privilege to have a lawyer show, without charge, before they talk (Rawal et al, 2014).

These mistaken assumptions bring up worries about kids’ and youthful young people’s fitness to stand trial in grown-up court. Youngsters and teenagers from distraught financial foundations and those with low IQs toll more regrettable in understanding the legitimate procedure and their rights than do other kids and youths of practically identical ages (Rawal et al, 2014). Moreover, involvement with the equity framework does not guarantee that youngsters completely comprehend the procedure, their rights, or the ramifications of the choices they make. Research has shown that pre-adult delinquents had significantly poorer comprehension of their rights than did grown-up litigants (Rawal et al, 2014).

Developing examination utilizing attractive reverberation imaging of the mind exhibits the subjective and passionate contrasts amongst young people and grown-ups. Youngsters and teenagers’ process sincerely charged data in the piece of the mind in charge of intuition and gut responses. Grown-ups process such data in the “sane” frontal segment of the mind. Youngsters and teenagers might be physiologically less skilled than grown-ups of thinking intelligently notwithstanding especially forceful feelings (Rawal et al, 2014). In a current report, I found that the cerebrum keeps on creating and change through, in any event, mid-adolescence, with the most dynamic parts of the mind-changing amid improvement. These new experiences on mental health may have suggestions for considering youngsters and youths criminally capable similarly as grown-ups and raise worries about activities to exchange more youthful and more youthful litigants to grown-up courts (Rawal et al, 2014).

There are several differences in the prevention and treatment programs when the juvenile system is put into comparison with the adult system setting. For instance, how the offences committed by the offenders in both are viewed. An adult who is involved in an offensive act is considered a crime under the perception of state law and the justice system. This person is taken to court and put under trial which is closely followed by a prosecution based on the crime he or she is accused of (Rawal et al, 2014).

This is contrary to a juvenile who has been caught under the same circumstance. First of all, the offence is considered as just a delinquent act, defined as an action that is a felony offence, misdemeanor or just a law violation done by a child or a minor. No strict processes followed as seen in the case of the adult system (Bishop, 2015). Assuming that the juveniles were taken through the strict processes, the outcome is likely to be worse than even the offence which had been committed. In consideration of the immaturity factor, they are likely to undergo depression conditions which may eventually make them commit suicide. These cases are not rare in modern society and cases which have analyzed can confirm the validity of the statement (Bishop, 2015).

Under the criminal justice system, the person accused is always accorded the right to trial by the jury comprised of his or her peers. The jury is then liable for deciding whether the defendant is either guilty or not based on the evidence which is presented by the prosecution sector. Contrary to this case scenario, the adolescent offender rarely faces the trial or jury in the juvenile system and this point to the fact that he or she will never be termed as guilty under such circumstances (Bishop, 2015). The judge only rules that he or she is delinquent. One thing and for sure, if the juveniles were to be taken through the trial session as it is the case with the adults, out of much tension and anxiety, they would be guilty in any prosecution raised against them. This is considering their tender age and the ability to withstand pressure which is the case when it comes to the criminal justice system. Cases of youths taken through these processes are not rare and have led to the suffering of these minors innocently. Just because they fail in trials due to the inability to withstand the pressure geared towards them (Bishop, 2015).

The goals behind these two systems highly differ. For instance, in the juvenile system, it is always assumed that the youths can be influenced in a positive way to change their offensive behaviours (Petrosino, Guckenburg& Turpin, 2013). Regarding this reason, rehabilitation has been the major goal for the youths who are taken through the juvenile system. This is achieved through programs such as education and counselling. On the other hand, the criminal system does not generally consider rehabilitation as a goal. Instead, it aims at deterring future crime occurrences (Petrosino, Guckenburg& Turpin, 2013).

Secondly, they will have not learned anything which can help them responsible on their own. This is unlike in the juvenile systems where they are taken through mentorship programs to assist them to gain good morals which make them shy away from the offensive actions (Petrosino, Guckenburg& Turpin, 2013). Also, education which has been one of the major programs inside the juvenile system has helped the youths leave a better life than before. Technical skills that they acquire assist them secure job opportunities and shy away from offensive actions like robbery and prostitution (Petrosino, Guckenburg& Turpin, 2013).

References

Bishop, D. M. (2015). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. Crime and justice, 27, 81-167.

Bishop, D. M., Frazier, C. E., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Winner, L. (2016). The transfer of juveniles criminal court: Does it make a difference?. NCCD news, 42(2), 171-191.

Levitt, S. D. (2012). Juvenile crime and punishment. Journal of political Economy, 106(6), 1156-

1185.

Petrosino, A. J., Guckenburg, S., & Turpin-Petrosino, C. (2013). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency (Vol. 9). US Department of Justice, Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services.

Pope, C. E., & Feyerherm, W. (2015). Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System. Research

Summary.

Rawal, P., Romansky, J., Jenuwine, M., & Lyons, J. S. (2014). Racial differences in the mental health needs and service utilization of youth in the juvenile justice system. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 31(3), 242-254.

Rosenblatt, J. A., Rosenblatt, A., & Biggs, E. E. (2013). Criminal behavior and emotional disorder: Comparing youth served by the mental health and juvenile justice systems. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 27(2), 227-237.

X