The Juvenile Justice System: How It Works

The juvenile justice system is critical in any society that aims to grow. The system helps to align children behaviors with the societal and constitutional norms. It facilitates errant children to recorrect their conducts for them to become useful members of the society. However, the juvenile justice system encounters various challenges that sometimes hinder its purpose. For instance, in countries such as the United States, there is the issue of jailing youths alongside adults. In such cases, they encounter various problems such as physical abuse and emotional abuse and eventually get out of the prison worse. Countries such as Scotland and Jamaica have a more reliable juvenile justice system. They both embrace a model that allows juveniles their space while in incarceration. They teach them reliable skills such as welding and carpentry and enroll them in communal activities. As a result, it becomes easier to recorrect the youths through the educational opportunities and community interactions. If the US would adopt such an approach, it would achieve the ultimate purpose of its juvenile justice system. The author explains the thesis explicitly. For instance, they elaborate on the impacts of screen exposure on children's sleep patterns. The author states that enhanced media attention places juvenile justice on the frontline of debates regarding the criminal justice system. Violence amongst juveniles is at its lowest over the past two decades. The U.S. constitution faces juvenile justice in a way that does not serve children's best interests and fails to address juvenile criminal deeds. The juvenile justice system needs to articulate the expanding requirement for protecting and caring for young criminals and the larger society. The author explains the takes of various states regarding the issue and explains them thoroughly regarding the theoretical assumptions. Some states recommend that young offenders to be taken to adult courts. The content is well articulated to expound on the content and reflect on the thesis. He compares various treatments accorded to juveniles in multiple places. In some incidences, they are put in adult prisons, and in others, they are exposed to communal activities and school systems that teach them valuable skills to apply hen out of prison. The author seems unhappy with the American model that often jails children alongside adults and exposes them to various forms of torture. This is a reflection that juveniles have distinct requirements than adults and ought to be treated distinctly. However, this movement's supporters fail to justify their dismissal of the psychological growth distinctions between adults and juveniles. As opposed to the present trend, attention should remain on the disparities between children and adults and the significance of applying means tailored to the needs of the young generation (The Harvard Law Review Association, 2002). Jamaica and Scotland use alternative approaches to implementing a juvenile justice system that helps juvenile offenders become reliable citizens. Scotland and Jamaica have a similar legal tradition to the U.S. but embrace a different approach to juvenile justice. Scotland applies a Children's Hearing System while Jamaica's policy is community-focused, as elaborated in the article review. The paper consists of parts I, II, and III. Part I emphasizes the justifications for having juveniles in adult prisons, while part II focuses on rehabilitation. Eventually, part III critically examines Scotland's and Jamaica's juvenile justice system. The author embraces alternative models of arguments such as the ones employed in Jamaica and Scotland. He advocates that America should adopt such strategies, as discussed in the following parts. Over the last decade, various states have brought changes that reduce the age at which juveniles may be judged as adults. Some have increased the classifications of crimes under which one may be persecuted. Some states have offered prosecutors the total authority to dictate the juveniles that ought to be handled as adults. Other states regulate the discretion of judges to counter decisions by law enforcement officials and prosecutors. Such mechanisms fall into the categories of statutory exclusion, judicial waiver, and prosecutorial transfer. Statutory exclusion and prosecutorial transfers erode juvenile legal process protections, particularly regarding minority youth offenders. Transfers are commonly associated with racial bias as 60% of the youths admitted to adult jails are African-Americans, and 17% emanate from minority groups (The Harvard Law Review Association, 2002). Prosecutorial discretion establishes another avenue for pre-determined prejudices to happen. The irregular treatment of youthful minority criminals should be addressed in time. Some youths are transferred to jails entirely accused of nonviolent crimes. While transferring juveniles to adult prisons, factors considered are a crime's sophistication, the probability for danger, and treatment amenability. Even in cases where the likelihood of incarceration is higher, such juveniles should be transferred into special prisons designed for youths. Based on the high energy to shifting juveniles into adult prisons, it is advisable to consider the children's situations. Placing children in adult prisons even while awaiting trial may have detrimental effects on youthful offenders. For instance, while in adult prisons, there are increased rape, beatings, and severe weapon attacks. As a result, such youths have a higher tendency to committing suicide than those in juvenile prisons. Taking youths to adult prisons negatively affects how they view the outside world once they are out of prison as they get to learn adult way of life early. It is time that the justice system changes its way of thinking. The greatness of an offense does not always indicate the probability of repeating the crime. Transfer of juveniles should only happen to critical repeat offenders and not every junior getting into the court system. It seems as though the juvenile system fails to correct youths and make them reliable members of society once they are out of prison. To have a better community, people need to get rid of the juvenile justice system. Alternatively, it is advisable to apply a blended sentence whereby juveniles receive a disposition till a given age. When they are not rehabilitated as they reach the specified period, they may be transferred into an adult prison. However, this option is inadequate as it should answer why the rehabilitation is failing in its mandate. Eventually, a community-based treatment initiative would be helpful. It is essential to address juvenile crimes from the households as the majority of the children who engage in juvenile crimes are victims of domestic abuse. The rehabilitation programs need to acknowledge that youths who engage in heinous offenses such as murder suffer various personality disorders and physical brain damage besides parental neglect, emotional and physical abuse, and poverty. Addressing juvenile rehabilitation eventually makes a brighter society when they prepare youths for the future. The majority of the criminals tend to reform as their brains are gradually developing, leaving only a minor percentage to progress with criminal deeds. As much as the youths deserve to pay for their crimes, their reliably lower psychological and social development levels permit different justice systems oriented to account for the disparities (The Harvard Law Review Association, 2002). For the long term, rehabilitation of youths in community-based initiatives would be much affordable than repetitive incarceration. Youth sentencing should incorporate community-designed initiatives that cater to the youths' comparative assessment via case management, various forms of group, individual, and family counseling focused on youth needs. Jamaica and Scotland are the ideal examples of juvenile justice reform. They have distinct approaches to rehabilitation. For instance, Scotland provides an innovative approach that could help the U.S. juvenile court system. When considering detention, Jamaica offers better correctional facilities that could be applied for future reforms. The present juvenile justice system produces devastating outcomes. However, juveniles may be rehabilitated using various rehabilitative models. For instance, Scotland offers children's hearings by embracing a welfare method to child justice and adjudicated issues affecting youths distinctly from adult matters. Scotland's schooling approach spares youths from the tedious adult criminal justice systems by handling them separately. The model offers children and parents a different setting that helps define appropriate solutions. The model allows volunteer parents' jury to decide the child's fate after establishing guilt. The system is reviewed annually and assesses the child's progress to make changes, thus enhancing the "individualized justice citizens" panel that assesses the child's environment and makes appropriate societal changes to establish a crime-free atmosphere. Such a system does not label or accuse but instead motivates the social development and growth of the youth. All outcomes of disposition are of the youth's best interest instead of retribution and punishment as the objective. Such a panel effectively assesses various factors in defining its decision, such as findings from school officials, social workers, psychiatrists, and children's homes. The committee also considers the youth's opinions and views, retaining maturity and age in mind. Although the hearing is not aligned with the welfare approach, child hearings are based on their best interests. When the child requires "compulsory" measures, they are placed in children's homes, foster care, or list D schools entitled to change the youth's conduct, educate them, and offer effective physical care (The Harvard Law Review Association, 2002). The U.S. can learn from Jamaica's correctional facilities. Jamaica's juvenile courts prioritize the child's welfare when handling a juvenile offender. As much as Jamaica's laws give room for direct transfer to adult prisons for particular crimes, it abides by given criteria for the protection and care of youths. Jamaica stipulates that anybody below 17 years must be placed in a 'Place of Safety' while in custody (The Harvard Law Review Association, 2002). POS is effective in that it safeguards juveniles from adult criminals. Jamaica embraces a juvenile correctional facility that allows youths to learn and grow. While in the facilities, children are taught activities such as welding, woodworking, tailoring, and farming. The youths attend classes as their colleagues and directly engage in communal activities. In conclusion, no modification of the youth justice system should be unidirectional. As children are dissimilar and commit distinct crimes, the systems should not deal with them similarly. Scotland's and Jamaica's reintegration initiatives are ideal as they foster the possibility of recidivating through the set programs (The Harvard Law Review Association, 2002). The obligation of personalized justice should consider the age of offenders and the factors that perpetrated their deviant conduct. The author indicates that the U.S. has a lot to learn from Jamaica and Scotland to make juvenile prisons more acquainted with juveniles and their mental capacities. He advocates for measures that will enable young people to become better members of society out of jail and avoid the re-occurrence of similar crimes from the same people. 

References 

The Harvard Law Review Association. 2002. For the Good of the Child, for the Good of Society: Using Scotland and Jamaica as Models to Reform U.S. Juvenile Justice Policy.