A Comprehensive Overview of the Juvenile Justice System in the U.S.

This report provides an overview of the juvenile justice system in the United States, contrasting it with the adult criminal justice system. It examines the historical development of the juvenile justice system, with a focus on relevant legislation and local law in Louisiana, including the Juvenile Court Act and the Children’s Code. The report highlights the distinctions between juvenile delinquency and dependency, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality in juvenile court proceedings to protect the futures of young offenders. It also touches on the evolving approaches to juvenile justice, from rehabilitation to accountability, and the ongoing debate surrounding the treatment of young offenders in the legal system. The paper concludes by noting the importance of rehabilitation and alternative punishments for juvenile offenders.

Running head: JUVENILE JUSTICE PAPER
JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE U.S.
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1JUVENILE JUSTICE PAPER
Introduction
The system of juvenile justice in the United States works on a different basis than that of
adult criminal justice. The two ways of administering punishment and providing justice in the
current system between juvenile and adult justice are entirely different from one another. The
structure is made up of a federal and a wide variety of distinct state, territorial or municipal
authorities, and under the general authority of the US Constitution where states and the federal
government share a collective police force (Zimring, 2018). This paper mainly focuses on the
discussion of the historical development of the juvenile justice system focusing on legislation
and the local law of Louisiana. While discussing the same it also sheds light on the differences
between juvenile and adult system, dependency and delinquency, and the reason and importance
of confidentiality in juvenile court.
Discussion
The Youth Justice System of the US is the main mechanism for dealing with young
people accused of violent offenses. Courts hearings take place for youngsters outside the
traditional adult justice system, while private youth agencies offer other rehabilitation programs.
The justice system also understands the difference between adults and youngsters and makes
juvenile criminals less responsible. In most of the states of the US, youth court systems interfere
when offenses by individuals under the age of 18 years are committed, although certain state
systems accept those under the age of 21 years. If the traditional juvenile justice system has been
followed it can be observed that early juvenile justice was performed, often directly between
judges and delinquent families informally (Mistrett & Thomas, 2017).

2JUVENILE JUSTICE PAPER
Although rehabilitation and lives of the youngsters remain the priority, the state system is
regulated by laws protecting the rights of juveniles. For instance, in 1967, some provisions using
for the protection of adults, including the right to lawful representation, were expanded to
children. In the course of continuing commitments to improve and education, the youth justice
system continues to expand, shifting in response to social transformation. In the late 1980s, for
instance, juvenile offenders rose in figures, prompting the government to respond more
aggressively towards youth justice. Many criminals were then charged as adults, and certain
types of crimes were subjected to adult sentences for young offenders. The transition in the
1990s focused on an approach to regulation and integrity with fewer distinctions between adult
and adolescent offenders. The present movement has a developmental model of change, which
takes into account the particular manner in which minors view right and wrong, in comparison to
the policies of the 20th century that concentrate on juvenile prisoners (Spinney et al., 2016).
However, the trial of the 13-year-old Nathaniel Abraham has great importance in the
criminal justice system of the US. The charges of first-degree murder had been brought against
Abraham under the Michigan law of 1997 as no minimum age to prosecute children available.
Thus, children were also treated as an adult at that time for violent and heinous offenses. The age
of Abraham was 11 years only when he shot Ronnie Greene in 1997. His counsel has however
argued that he was in the six to eight-year-old child range at the time. The case of Abraham
underlines a rising trend in the US criminal justice system to prosecute and punish children as
adults. In current years, 46 States have changed laws so that juveniles can be prosecuted as
adults, 14 of which have established compulsory adult prosecution for certain wrongdoings.
Amnesty International, the organization deals with human rights, has condemned how the justice
system handles children, mainly execution relating to youth wrongdoers. The move to abolish a

3JUVENILE JUSTICE PAPER
system in which children are handled unfairly in the view of the courts is counter to decades-old
procedures and traditions. The system of juvenile justice in the USA began a century ago in a
wave of progressive reformers to stop the barbarous custom of treating children as criminals.
Therefore, the Act to Regulate the Treatment and Control of Dependent, Neglected and
Delinquent Children or the Juvenile Court Act was introduced on 1st July 1899 by the Illinois
legislature (Jaggers et al., 2016).
On the other hand, the Code of Juvenile Procedure has been formed by Louisiana in 1978
including the laws concerning the status of juveniles and delinquents which is presently known
as Families in Need of Services (FINS). No provisions for juvenile have been included in the
Code of Juvenile Procedure. To consolidate all laws affecting jurisdiction for adolescent people,
to determine ambiguity, to settle contradictory laws, to guarantee that the statutory law
represents settled jurisprudence correctly, and to allow for a single law comprising procedural
and substantive laws concern juveniles the Children’s Code came into force on 1st January 1992
(Barnert, Perry & Morris, 2016). It has been observed that several techniques for juvenile
delinquency similar to the criminal procedure of adults have been used in the Children’s Code
with varying terminology. Article 877 of this Code mandates that if an adolescent is held in
detention, a swift transition to proceedings. Title VI of the aforesaid code deals with Child in
Need of Care Proceedings as per which detention may be provided by the court with the help of
the Office of Community Services (OCS). The provision of FINS is included in Title VII. Title
VIII deals with the title of delinquency, which includes a section concerning youth civil rights
(Art. 808–811 of the Children’s Code). Article 897.1 of the Children’s Code applies to
adjudications based on the charge of first and second degree of murder, provoked kidnapping or

4JUVENILE JUSTICE PAPER
rape, and armed burglary when committed by an adolescent of 14 years or more (Walker,
Bumbarge, & Phillippi Jr).
By comparison to adult court, when a minor is convicted of a felony, he or she will be
trialed by juvenile courts. There are, however, still several variations in the legal systems of
adults and juvenile people. First, a juvenile is being investigated for ‘delinquent activities’ and
not for crimes. The vast majority of juvenile court prosecutions are regarded as small offenses. If
the suspected acts are sufficiently severe, the juvenile can be tried for crimes committed in the
adult justice system as an adult. The minor offender is not entitled to a jury trial in the juvenile
court. Another difference is that in the juvenile justice system a minor offender is sentenced to
rehabilitation instead of punishment (Wilson, Olaghere & Kimbrell, 2017). Moreover, the
juvenile courts are more relaxed than the adult court system.
Nonetheless, the difference between juvenile delinquency and juvenile dependency is that
juvenile delinquent is a young offender who has committed a crime between the ages of ten to
eighteen years. The minor does not normally face a regular trial such as an adult but instead goes
through a process of adjudication where he/she is granted a disposition and judgment. On the
other hand, a juvenile dependency is quite different. In juvenile dependency cases, numerous
children are prosecuted because they have not been taken care of or injured by their parents or
guardian. The juvenile courts usually heard these cases like delinquency cases (Ogletree, 2015).
Many criminologists, human rights workers are of the view that young people are not as
capable of making fair and reasonable choices as adults. For this reason, confidentiality is vital in
juvenile criminal proceedings and courts generally seize the juvenile criminal records to not

5JUVENILE JUSTICE PAPER
affect the chances of accused of employment or higher education. Congeniality also helps to
keep the esteem of the families of juvenile offenders ((Bohm & Haley, 2017).
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be said that behavioral research and attention
to mental disabilities are influential among many policy proponents, who want young offenders
to be supported instead of locked up. Human rights workers demand greater protection for
juvenile offenders. Rehabilitation is still a crucial component according to many social justice
philosophies (Underwood & Washington, 2016). Municipal outreach services and alternative
punishments are considered better than jail sentences.

6JUVENILE JUSTICE PAPER
Reference
Barnert, E. S., Perry, R., & Morris, R. E. (2016). Juvenile incarceration and health. Academic
pediatrics, 16(2), 99-109.
Bohm, R. M., & Haley, K. N. (2017). Introduction to criminal justice. McGraw-Hill Education.
Jaggers, J. W., Robison, S. B., Rhodes, J. L., Guan, X., & Church, W. T. (2016). Predicting adult
criminality among Louisiana’s urban youth: Poverty, academic risk, and
delinquency. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 7(1), 89-116.
Mistrett, M., & Thomas, J. (2017). A Campaign Approach to Challenging the Prosecution of
Youth as Adults. SDL Rev., 62, 559.
Ogletree Jr, C. J. (2015). A new juvenile justice system: Total reform for a broken system (Vol.
6). NYU Press.
Spinney, E., Yeide, M., Feyerherm, W., Cohen, M., Stephenson, R., & Thomas, C. (2016).
Racial disparities in referrals to mental health and substance abuse services from the
juvenile justice system: A review of the literature. Journal of crime and justice, 39(1),
153-173.
Underwood, L. A., & Washington, A. (2016). Mental illness and juvenile
offenders. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(2), 228.
Walker, S. C., Bumbarger, B. K., & Phillippi Jr, S. W. (2015). Achieving successful evidence-
based practice implementation in juvenile justice: The importance of diagnostic and
evaluative capacity. Evaluation and program planning, 52, 189-197.

7JUVENILE JUSTICE PAPER
Wilson, D. B., Olaghere, A., & Kimbrell, C. S. (2017). Effectiveness of restorative justice
principles in juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. George Mason University, & United
States of America: http://www. ncjrs. gov/App/publications/abstract. aspx.
Zimring, F. E. (2018). American juvenile justice. Oxford University Press.