Challenges of Juvenile Criminal Justice: Literature Analysis

Introduction to Literature Review 

This literature review focuses on addressing the problems and challenges surrounding juvenile crime in the criminal justice system. In that respect, there is an attempt to highlight and analyze some of the major downfalls of the juvenile system of justice in the United States. More than one century ago, the juvenile criminal justice system in the United States started experiencing considerable changes. During this time, the changes were being experienced appeared to be sweeping across the nation with the inclusion of several states that opted to adopt the policies and procedures that were designed by the federal agencies to rehabilitate their justice systems ( Feld, 2017). Besides, additional changes have been experienced in the United States over the last couple of decades regarding treatment and adjudication of juveniles in connection with matters of crime and delinquency. As people in America started to migrate to urban areas in large numbers during the nineteenth century, there were significant evolutions regarding how children were being treated and handled whenever they engaged in acceptable behaviors such as crime. Less emphasis and focus was placed on punishing the young people who engaged in criminal activities and violated other laws. Government authorities were more concerned with trying to identify and examine the factors that contributed to such instances of juvenile delinquency ( Bernard, 2015). There exist several challenges in the criminal justice system for juveniles in the United States that need to be highlighted before proposing appropriate solutions. 

Current Problem 

The findings by Vaughn, Pettus-Davis, and Shook (2012) show that part of the problems linked to the challenges of the juvenile justice system in the United States is the issue of mental health. In this respect, more than two million juveniles and young adults are reported to find themselves entangled in the juvenile justice system every year. Among them is about 60% who are experiencing at least a condition that can be diagnosed as mental health, while 25% are believed to be suffering severe emotional issues. Besides, more than 75% of those children and the adolescents who have previously come into contact with the juvenile justice system are experiencing medical conditions that affect their mental health (Laub, 2018). Most of these juveniles could be more effectively and safely treated and subjected to rehabilitative measures in various community settings as opposed to going through the punitive justice system. Another challenge that is linked to juvenile crime in the United States is the lack of adequate focus on the welfare of the children and the youth while formulating or implementing policies in the juvenile justice system. 

There is a considerable number of dually involved youth who often interact with the system of juvenile justice as well as child welfare. Besides, others are considered s as crossover youth, considering that they have previously been neglected and abused, thereby exposing them to a higher risk of early delinquency. These young people are also faced with heightened risks for mental health problems, occupational difficulties, educational problems, and safety issues in the public health system. In 2009, about 142,300 cases associated with status offenses were presented and petitioned in the United States' juvenile court (Devis, 2013). About 60% of such cases resulted in the adjudication of the young offenders as well as being found guilty of participating in a status offense. Approximately 8% of these cases involved children and adolescents who were subjected to punitive measures in the context of the criminal justice system of adults (Jackson, 2011). 

Proposed Solutions 

It is noteworthy that this nature of problems linked to juvenile crime can be overcome through the establishment and implementation of programs to correct the thinking and behaviors of children and adolescents. Another aspect of the challenge to the juvenile crime as it relates to the justice system in the United States would involve the inclusion of a multi-system and coordinated integration in holistically addressing the concerns if the juveniles (Vaughn, Pettus-Davis & Shook, 2012). In this regard, children and youth with histories linking them court involvement based on matters of dependency have a higher likelihood of recidivating if referred due to a delinquency offense compared to juveniles without a history of court involvement on dependency. Bernard (2015) opines that one of the solutions that can be used in addressing the issue of mental health as one of the challenges linked to juvenile crime in the United States is the establishment of more support systems and services based on widespread participation from the community. 

In this way, the relevant authorities in collaboration with the community and other key stakeholders should be more concerned with the promotion of systems and criminal justice policies that are more sensitive to the mental health needs of the juvenile (Moore & Wakeling, 2013). Besides, the implementation of this solution in solving the challenge of mental health within the juvenile justice system helps in the creation of an opportunity for the development of a broader understanding of unique challenges facing children and adolescents. Most of the young people associated with juvenile crime tend to face trouble since their behaviors often raise serious concerns among adults in their families and the community. According to the insights provided by Laub (2018), such criminal activities may be described as status offenses, and they may include violation of laws relating to underage liquor, violation of curfews, and truancy, among others. 

As part of the solution to the challenge of the juveniles being unfairly or irregularly accused of committing status offenses, Devis (2013) observes that it is critical to consider the immediate implementation of interventions from the local and state governments. In this regard, it is noteworthy that status offenses are often linked to the involvement of juveniles in crime. Besides, status offenses are largely indicative of deeper systemic, community, family, and personal issues affecting young people. States and local governments across the nation would be expected to engage in the implementation of family-focused options rather than focusing entirely on court intervention. Such an approach has previously proven to be more effective when it comes to the reduction of the caseloads associated with the juveniles who engage in criminal activities (Jackson, 2011). Besides, these interventions have been crucial in ensuring a reduction in the number of resources spent by the government as well as supporting the provision of lasting and meaningful solutions to young people and their families. 

Views of Critics about the Problem and the Solution 

Despite there being several solutions that have been proposed and recommended by various researchers and experts in response to the challenges related to juvenile criminal justice, critical have raised various concerns. In this respect, the have been arguments appearing to suggest that some of the proposed solutions to address the challenges in the juvenile justice system may not be realistic and are challenging to achieve in practice. Miller (2014) outlines some of the shortcomings of the proposed solutions to the challenges of juvenile criminal justice in the United States as being informalities, delays, and failure to be oriented to the juveniles. Even though juvenile courts are always established based on the perspective that less formal proceedings would be more advantageous to young offenders, it is noteworthy that the idea of informality has become less beneficial in reality. Relying on informal proceedings as a way of addressing challenges in juvenile justice may result in a situation where some of the rights of the juvenile defendants are overlooked or disregarded. According to Moore and Wakeling (2013), these proposals seemed to have overlooked the need for the juveniles and their parents to have a better understanding of their rights and be comfortable in exercising them. 

Moreover, e arly interventions that usually focus on a young offender as proposed in the solutions may not be effective or successful in assisting in preventing the involvement of children and the youth in criminal acts in the future. Devis (2013) observes that the proposed solutions would have been more useful and effective if they involved the aspects of follow-up and consistency in the execution of interventions to improve the justice system for juvenile criminal offenders. Besides, the juvenile court system is associated with the best chance of ensuring that delinquents are not involved in committing criminal offenses if the intervention becomes consistent from the earliest opportunity. For the juvenile court to develop the necessary interventions promptly, there must be expeditious efforts to process the cases presented before it (Peiffer, 2016). The delays associated with the juvenile court system are one disadvantage of the system. It has not been ascertained to determine whether the delays are usually occasioned by the courts being overloaded or due to their inefficiencies. The capability of the juvenile courts in addressing the criminal offenses linking the minors may be limited. Even though the mandate of the juvenile courts includes reforming and controlling young offenders, there is often the lack of a deeper understanding of the entire mandate of these courts among the youth and their families (Vaughn, Pettus-Davis & Shook, 2012). 

Further, critics have pointed out that some of the juvenile detention centers that are used ass part of the juvenile justice system are less effective in the sense that they contribute to the young offenders losing a crucial connection with their loved ones. Besides, such detention centers are believed to be linked to the concept of fostering institutionalization, which is less effective to the juvenile justice system. The findings by Bernard (2015) have been able to demonstrate that young offenders who serve their sentences in detention centers have a higher likelihood of being incarcerated as adults. About 75 % of the young offenders detained in these centers are usually not regarded as threats to public safety. Critics have also observed that regardless of their ages, the victims of juvenile offenders are usually left suffering since rehabilitation does not serve justice to them ( Moore & Wakeling, 2013). 

The argument by Laub (2018) indicates that juveniles should just be subjected to the criminal justice systems for adults since it tends to ensure that suitable penalties are given to the young offenders who engage in severe crimes. Although they are considered juveniles owing to their age, young people below 18 years of age are capable of committing severe crimes. More than 300 people are murdered yearly due to criminal activities and incidences of violence committed perpetrated by juvenile offenders. Close to 40% of the criminal offenses that are linked to murder involve both juveniles and adults. 

Perspectives of Literature about the Problem and the Solution 

Bishop (2015) observes that the criminal system of justice for the juveniles he United States is among the few ones around the globe where minors are sentenced to jail terms that are almost identical to those of adult criminal offenders. Even though the conduct of minors is usually regarded as being violent and could pose threats to the population. Thus, one can not be threatened out of the system if he or she is a juvenile who is tried as an adult before sentencing to prison. Approximately 25% of those who have been sentenced to jail terms as juveniles have not had the possibility of parole. According to Miller (2014), the juvenile justice system refers to the structure of the system of the legal department that is concerned with criminal offenses that are committed by minors who are usually within the range of 10 years of age and 18 years of age. Based on the criminal justice system for the juvenile, minors or young offenders are not expected to be subjected to trials that are similar to the ones used for adult offenders. 

As such, the cases or court proceedings of the young offenders are heard and determined in separate courts purposely designed for juveniles. The reformers of the criminal justice system for the juveniles in the United States were appalled by the procedures and punitive measures applied to adults, as well as the fact that young people could be subjected to long sentences in prison and mixed with different kinds hardened criminals while in jail. Those who were championing reforms the criminal justice system for the juveniles were convinced that the duty of the society to children could not be limited by the existing concept of justice ( Vaughn, Pettus-Davis & Shook, 2012). In this respect, those championing for reforms in the juvenile justice system were of the view that the role of the society did not include ascertaining whether the juveniles in criminal offenses were innocent or guilty. However, the society was expected to be more concerned with understanding how children would grow and become what they desired in their lives. As far as the society was concerned, policies and requirements of criminal procedures were not necessary or applicable in raising or correcting children. 

Jackson (2011) observes that such apparent harshness, technicalities, and rigidities that were previously observed in procedural and substantive criminal law were expected to be avoided. In this regard, the concept of punishment and crime for children was also abandoned. The society assumed that children were supposed to be rehabilitated and treated using the procedures that were linked to institutionalization rather than apprehension or clinical instead of being punitive. Juvenile crime is among the serious problems been facing the criminal justice system in the United States of the last couple of years. Concern regarding the challenges of juvenile crime has been widely shared and discussed by local, state, and federal government officials as well as by members of the public in the United States. 

In recent times, the concerns surrounding the issue of juvenile crime have experienced several dramatic changes, with a significance rise recorded in juvenile violence. Even though the rates of juvenile crime seemed to have reduced since the late1990s, such reduction did not succeed in alleviating the concerns around juvenile crime. Most of the States around the United States decided to take stricter legislative stance concerning juveniles around the mid-1980s ( Peiffer, 2016). It has been reported the rates of juvenile crime around this particular time were largely stable; thus, reformers in the federal governments tended to argue that it was necessary to have less punitive measures while putting more emphasis on preventive efforts. A major misunderstanding between the agenda of the federal authority and those of other governments such as the stage and local authorities regarding the issue of juvenile crime, may have been influenced through considerable changes in the juvenile justice system. For instance, there were some dramatic changes concerning the legal procedures that were applicable in the juvenile court processes that contributed to them becoming almost similar to ones used in the adult criminal court processes. 

One of the major responses made to the recent escalations in crimes associated with juvenile violence has been cited as the enactment of policies and laws that tend to blur or eliminated differences between adult and juvenile courts. States authorities have continued to ensure that there exit tougher requirements regarding juvenile crime laws in recent years. Such decisions have led to the conversion of sentencing from being corrective to be more punitive while facilitating the expansion of acceptable transfers to the adult criminal court process. The enactment of most of such changes war realized where there was a significant decline in the rate of crimes associated with juvenile violence across the United States. According to Moore and Wakeling (2013), a rehabilitative framework that has been supported by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, places more emphasis on the needs, concerns, and interests of the young offender appear to have lost ground. Today, punitive models have taken over the juvenile criminal justice system in the sense that more emphasis is placed on the offenses that have been committed rather than on the necessary corrective measures. 

Besides, the policies associated with such punitive models have been linked to disproportionate influence on certain groups of minorities such as the black youth. Policies of the criminal justice system in the United States have previously shown a tendency of handling and dealing with juveniles just like adults despite most of the young people continuing to be nurtured and raised in communities that are not willing to support the moral development. The observation by Feld (2017), indicate that close to forty percent of those who are classified as being poor in the United States were below the age of eighteen years. Societal and structural changes, including higher rates of maternal employment and increased single-parent homes, have continued to complicate the development of the morality of young people. In this respect, it has become more difficult for the provision of appropriate guidance to children in the course of the processes of growth and development (Moore & Wakeling, 2013). 

Gaps in the Literature that will be addressed by the Solution 

Some of the gaps in the literature that the proposed solutions of juvenile criminal justice intend to address include the need to understand whether juvenile courts treat young people who are almost becoming adults as grown-ups who are then subjected to the adult system of justice. Feld (2018) opines that the severity and nature of a criminal offense committed by the juveniles increases as they become older. Such a trend is typically prevalent regarding homicide offenses. In 2016, about 10% of the identified homicide young offenders were found to be below the age of 15 years. Within that particular set of data, it was found that approximately 80% of the young offenders were aged between 16 and 17 years at the time of committing criminal offenses (Laub, 2018). By sentencing the juveniles in ways that are similar to those in which adults are subjected, the minors may not be in a position to obtain credit for almost turning into a legal adult in the United States. While there is a gap that exists between practice and research in matters affecting the juvenile justice system is undisputed, there are still unclear solutions. 

One reason associated with the existence of this gap is the complex nature of the juvenile justice system and its operationalization in the United States. According to the perspective presented by Bazemore (2016), the justice system for the juveniles involves a multi-organizational framework that covers all the organizations and individuals charged with the responsibility of the minors and their behaviors in the society. Besides, the focus also involves keen observation of the youths from the time they are reported to have committed delinquent acts until supervision, and follow-up processes are concluded ( Moore & Wakeling, 2013). Accordingly, systems of justice for the juveniles often comprise a wide and diverse group of people working in various areas and sections of the society, such as defense attorneys, court administrators, prosecutors, police officers, probation officers, counselors, and social workers. The complexity of the juvenile justice system is largely exacerbated by the limited number of similar systems in the United States. The operation of the system of justice for the juveniles finds its basis on the practices of the local jurisdiction and state laws (Miller, 2014). 

Implications of the Research 

If successful, the implications of this research will involve enlightening society and creating more awareness among various stakeholders concerning the importance of addressing the various challenges related to juvenile criminal justice. Besides, the implication of this research will play a critical role in assisting in the presentation of evidence showing the need to reform the criminal justice system for juveniles (Feld, 2017). In this respect, reforms would be expected to occur according to certain properly established principles by the relevant local, state, and federal authorities. Government policy regarding juvenile delinquency should always be expected to focus on the attainment of a more appropriate balance when it concerns influencing the development of morally upright youth (Vaughn, Pettus-Davis & Shook, 2012). 

There has been existing tension between punishment and rehabilitation while addressing the issue of involvement in crime among children and adolescents. Besides, it is more appropriate to ensure that criminal acts among the juvenile are punished, condemned, and suppressed. Nonetheless, the adolescent and children who engage in criminal offenses should be subjected to corrective measures to ensure that they are supported in the process of development and growth. Various social and cognitive features linked to adolescence and childhood tends to influence the content of policies guiding the operationalization of the juvenile justice system (Peiffer, 2016). 

Conclusion of the Literature Review 

In summary, it is noteworthy that there exist several challenges in the criminal justice system for juveniles in the United States that need to be highlighted before proposing appropriate solutions. The majority of the young people associated with juvenile crime tend to face trouble since their behaviors often raise serious concerns among adults in their families and the community. It is worth noting that the capability of the juvenile courts in addressing the criminal offenses linking the minors may be limited. The society would be expected to be more concerned with understanding how children would grow and become what they desired in their lives. States authorities have continued to ensure that there exit tougher requirements regarding juvenile crime laws in recent years. It has also been established that the severity and nature of a criminal offense committed by the juveniles increases as they become older. According to the criminal justice system for the juvenile, minors or young offenders are not expected to be subjected to trials that are similar to the ones used for adult offenders. An inadequate level of focus has been placed on punishing the young people who engaged in criminal activities and violated other laws. The justice system for juveniles involves a multi-organizational framework that covers all the organizations and individuals charged with the responsibility of the minors and their behaviors in society. 

References 

Bazemore, G. (2016). The Juvenile Court And The Future Response To Youth Crime: A 

Vision for Community Juvenile Justice. Juvenile And Family Court Journal , 49 (4), 

55-87. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6988.1998.tb00790.x 

Bernard, T. (2015). Juvenile crime and the transformation of juvenile justice: Is there a 

juvenile crime wave?. Justice Quarterly , 16 (2), 337-356. doi: 

10.1080/07418829900094161 

Bishop, D. (2015). Juvenile Offenders in the Adult Criminal Justice System. Crime And 

Justice , 27 (6), 81-167. doi: 10.1086/652199 

Devis, T. (2013). Crime: Manifestations, Patterns, and Trends of Crime 'Traditional' versus 

'new' crime; juvenile crime; fear of crime. European Journal Of Crime, Criminal Law 

And Criminal Justice , 7 (4), 374-386. doi: 10.1163/15718179920518943 

Feld, B. (2017). Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems' Responses to Youth Violence. Crime 

and Justice, 24 , 189-261. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1147585 

Feld, B. (2018). Punishing Kids in Juvenile and Criminal Courts. Crime And Justice , 47 (1), 

417-474. doi: 10.1086/695399 

Jackson, D. (2011). The Role of Early Pubertal Development in the Relationship Between 

General Strain and Juvenile Crime. Youth Violence And Juvenile Justice , 10 (3), 292 

310. doi: 10.1177/1541204011427715 

Laub, J. (2018). Trends in Serious Juvenile Crime. Criminal Justice And Behavior , 10 (4), 

485-506. doi: 10.1177/0093854883010004006 

Miller, L. (2014). Juvenile crime and juvenile justice: Patterns, models, and implications for 

clinical and legal practice. Aggression And Violent Behavior , 19 (2), 122-137. doi: 

10.1016/j.avb.2014.01.005 

Moore, M., & Wakeling, S. (2013). Juvenile Justice: Shoring up the Foundations. Crime And 

Justice , 22 (12), 253-301. doi: 10.1086/449264 

Peiffer, C. (2016). Juvenile Crime and Violence in the United States. Crime And Justice , 

23 (7), 255-328. doi: 10.1086/449272 

Vaughn, M., Pettus-Davis, C., & Shook, J. (2012). Conducting Research in Juvenile and 

Criminal Justice Settings. Journal Of Criminal Justice , 7 (4), 132-135. doi: 

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199782857.001.0001