NCJ Number
160997
Date Published
1993
Length
36 pages
Annotation
Three papers propose different approaches for addressing deficiencies in the current juvenile justice system.
Abstract
The first paper, prepared by Barry Feld, argues that for several decades, juvenile courts have deflected, co-opted, ignored, or accommodated constitutional and legislative reforms with minimal institutional change. Despite its transformation from a welfare agency into a scaled-down, second-class criminal court, the juvenile court remains essentially unreformed. Public and political concerns about drugs and juvenile crime encourage repressing rather than rehabilitating young offenders. Fiscal constraints, budget deficits, and competition from other interest groups reduce the likelihood that treatment services for delinquents will expand. Feld advocates abolishing the juvenile court and processing juveniles in adult courts, where they will receive appropriate procedural safeguards and be sentenced under legislation that takes into account age and treatment needs. The second paper, composed by Irene Merker Rosenberg, argues that although the current juvenile court system has deficiencies, they cannot be remedied by processing all juveniles in adult courts. She doubts that adult courts can make the proper adjustments to sentence and treat juveniles according to age and treatment needs. She argues for renovating the juvenile court to ensure that the juvenile's dispositional needs are met, as the court serves a coordinating function that ensures the provision of a wide range of services that benefit the child. Procedural parameters should also ensure that the rights of juveniles are protected. The third paper, prepared by Gordon Bazemore, argues for the retention of a separate juvenile court system, but one that has broader and more balanced performance measures than previously. Performance measures would emphasize accountability, whereby victims and communities would have their losses restored by the actions of offenders making reparation and victims are empowered as active participants in the juvenile justice process; competency, whereby offenders make measurable improvements in their ability to function as productive, responsible citizens; community protection, whereby the public/community is protected during the time the offender is under juvenile justice supervision; and balance, whereby community, victim, and offender receive balanced attention and gain benefits from their interaction with the juvenile justice system. References accompany each paper.