Critique of Diversionary Juvenile Justice (From Juvenile Delinquency - A Justice Perspective, P 95-108, 1985, Ralph A Weisheit and Robert G Culbertson, eds. - See NCJ-99489)

• NCJ Number: 99497
• Author(s): B Bullington; J Sprowls; D Katkin; M Phillips
• Date Published: 1985
• Length: 14 pages
• Sale Source: Waveland Press, Inc.
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Reprinted from Crime and Delinquency, V 24, N 1 (January 1978), P 59-71

Annotation

This examination of juvenile diversion programs contends that they are potentially as abusive as the programs they seek to reform because of ambiguity in program definitions, impracticable goals, and potential denial of due process.

Abstract

Reasons underlying the contemporary interest in diversion include widespread criticism of the juvenile courts, dissatisfaction with the quality of treatment programs for adjudicated delinquents, and public dismay about the high cost of institutional services. Because parents, teachers, shopkeepers, social workers, police, and the courts frequently decide not to invoke the legal process to deal with delinquent behavior, it appears that the juvenile justice systems are already in the business of diverting young offenders from formal adjudication and institutional treatment. Little evidence is available to support the beliefs that social service agencies are currently providing advocacy and other services to large numbers of young offenders and that those offenders and the community benefit from the arrangement. The widespread popularity of diversionary programs is due to their offering the appearance of significant reform without any major modification of the traditional parens patriae values underlying the juvenile system. Opposition to diversionary programs lies in three related concepts: (1) the ambiguous definition of diversion; (2) no evidence supports the argument that youngsters currently adjudicated delinquent would benefit from the types of formal supportive services currently available to diverted youths; and (3) because diversionary programs involve disposition without adjudication, they may be incompatible with concepts of due process and fundamental fairness. The article contains 46 footnotes.