Punishment, Accountability, and the New Juvenile Justice (From Criminal Justice in America: Theory, Practice, and Policy, P 356-369, 1996, Barry W Hancock and Paul M Sharp, eds. -- See NCJ-160206)

• NCJ Number: 160230
• Author(s): M E Blomquist; M L Forst
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 14 pages
• Sale Source: Prentice-Hall, Inc
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

The authors identify and discuss the issues that must be addressed to make both practical and philosophical sense out of the emerging changes in the mission of the juvenile justice system in America.

Abstract

The procedural revolution in juvenile justice that began at the end of the 1960's with the U.S. Supreme Court's "Gault" decision has more recently evolved into a substantive revolution. The changes in juvenile justice have been many and in some instances drastic, particularly in the apparent demise of the rehabilitative ideal. New theories or models have emerged, incorporating terminology such as "punishment," "justice," and "accountability" into the vocabulary of juvenile justice practitioners and the lexicon of State juvenile codes. The new terminology reflects the view that juveniles must bear individual responsibility for their crimes, particularly serious crimes, just as do adults who commit the same types of crimes. This view conflicts with traditional concepts of juvenile responsibility and compelling legal precedent. In Eddings v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court held that juveniles have a lower level of maturity than adults. On the one hand, juvenile law traditionally holds that juveniles should not be "punished," because they are not responsible actors. On the other hand, some authorities now hold that juveniles should be "punished" in order to make them more responsible. The issues that remain unresolved under the latter philosophy are whether juveniles are fully responsible for their criminal actions; under what conditions, if any, they are as responsible as adults; and how punishment is related to levels of responsibility. The new models in juvenile justice may not have stemmed from an evolving jurisprudence of juvenile justice, but rather from a political expediency designed to give juveniles longer and harsher sentences. Whatever the motivations for moving to new models, policymakers must clarify the goals and mission of the juvenile justice system and specify how the system should respond to various types of offenders and offenses. 53 notes, discussion questions, and suggested student applications of the chapter material