Daniel Solis

SOLIS

Connie Douglas
ENG 112-78
October 20, 2014

Annotated Bibliography
Campaign for Youth Justice (CFYJ). "Placing Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Justice
System Is Counterproductive." Juvenile Crime. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Jailing Juveniles: The
Dangers of Incarcerating Youth in Adult Jails in America."

The viewpoint submitted by the CFYJ addresses its support to end the incarceration of youth under eighteen in the adult criminal justice system. It mentions that t adult
jails do not have, neither provide the education adolescents need. CFYJ mentioned that
juveniles incarcerated in adult jails increases the possibility that they will later be rearrested for more serious crimes.
Placing Juveniles in adult jails is not safe for them, not only they do not have the
training adolescents need, they are always exposed to be victims of other adult prisoners and guards of physical and sexual assault. Teenagers can be frequently locked
down for hours in a small cell, which causes anxiety, paranoia, and increases the risk of
suicide.
I think the information on this viewpoint is essential for my final paper, because
the information supports my topic of inquiry. The author is providing the reason why incarcerating juvenile in an adult jail is counterproductive for youth, and for me this view
point suggests that juvenile offenders may never be placed on an adult jail.

SOLIS2
"Juvenile offenders serve sentence in community, not in juvie." New
Amsterdam News July 2004: 18. Academic Search Complete.

York
Web. 20 Oct.

2014.

This article talks about how many juvenile offenders were given out of juvenile
detention centers through a program called community custody, and detention staff
supervised the juveniles while they do community services for outside organizations. Its
very interesting how this article presents the different points of views of juvenile aggressors on this program. According to these comments coming from the juveniles on probation, these is a much better way to treat juvenile offenders and make them understand that what they did was a mistake. They are learning from their mistakes and realizing, that is much better to be safe at him than being in jail surrounded by danger and
people that could hurt them.
I think these is a good way to give them a chase to rehab, and think twice what
they did in order to realized that they did something wrong. Also being so close to going
to jail, makes them realized their mistakes and appreciating all they have, because now
they know that they can loose everything in their lives for a stupid mistake.
Mendel, Richard A. "Juvenile Detention Is an Ineffective Teen Sentencing Policy."
Teens at Risk. Ed. Stephen P. Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Introduction." No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing
Juvenile Incarceration. Vol. 2. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Oct.
2014.

Mendel argues that the juvenile detention system is a badly broken, because
these institutions do not have what its needed to rehabilitate the youth within them, and
the violence inside these facilities is bad enough. He states that incarcerating youth

SOLIS2

SOLIS3
does not reduce crime. In fact, teenagers that have been incarcerated before,
tend to commit more serious crimes. Also the incarceration of youth does not provides
any benefits for public safety, and it wastes vast sums of taxpayer dollars.
Mendel sees the option of a radical changing on the system, and the idea of
shutting the youth corrections facilities to increase the number of youth in jail for only a
dangerous few. Which seems to be working on the east coast, west coast, and Middle
America, because there is no observable increase in juvenile crime rates.
I agree with Mendels viewpoint, because from my point of view youth needs education. If teenagers are committing crimes, is because they do not have good values
and a good education. Placing these juveniles on these facilities that lack of tool to treat
trouble teenagers, wont do any better on them. I also agree that time has come to
change the way adolescent offenders are treated, in a more humane, cost effective, and
protective of public safety.
National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN). "Efforts to Reduce Juvenile Incarceration
Have Led to Positive Outcomes." Juvenile Crime. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Bringing Youth Home: A
National Movement to Increase Public Safety, Rehabilitate Youth and Save Money."
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

On the following viewpoint NJJN states that programs designed to decrease the
number of youth in prison have in fact, cut costs and increased public safety. It says that
no matter if they pose a risk to public safety, they should be placed in programs that fit
their needs. NJJN claims that removing a juvenile from their families should be the last
resort.

SOLIS4
NJJN addresses that the reduction of youth in adult jails or juvenile detention
centers is promising, because the not just the teens will have better treatment and programs to improve their behaviors. The states will have better result for budget, public
safety, and treat youth inappropriately.
The author concludes that not only the states will have better results for budgets;
also youth will be treated in a more appropriate and effective way. Which is more than
enough to keep incarceration as a last resort for juvenile offenders. I agree with his
point of view, and depending on the crime its the sentence. It is very enlightening and it
makes me look the incarceration process not only as beneficial for the youth, also as
budget friendly for the state. Obviously depending on the crime Im pretty sure the Juvenile Justice System will be faire on the sentence.
"Preface to 'How Can Society Deal with Teenage Crime and Violence?'." Teens at
Risk. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

This article examines the reasons why teenagers shouldn't be sent to an adult
prison, and how it affects them. It addresses how a research showed that the adolescent brain is not mature enough in their judgments, problem solving, and decisionmaking capabilities. Also states how teens sentenced as adults tend to do more violent
crimes when they grow up. Which made reconsider state lawmakers how to treat juvenile offenders. Rather than imprisoning teens focus the juvenile justice system on rehabilitating them. This article is not opposing to the incarceration of teens, but its giving
valid argument on how the juvenile justice system can change for better. It states different point of views of different judges, attorneys, and psychologists, and they all agree

SOLIS5
on something. That juveniles are flexible and they can change their behavior, violent
teenagers do not necessarily turn into violent adults if he is treated right.
In my opinion, this article could be very useful, because the voices in it are very
powerful and with a lot of experience. Having the points of view of several judges, state
attorneys, and psychologists, is very helpfully because now you get to see the way these people see this problem, and how the way they try look for a solution.
Rozic, Nily. "Court hears argument determining fate of 72 juvenile offenders on death
row." New York Amsterdam News 14 Oct. 2004: 18. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

This article reports how the United States is one of the few country that executed
offenders for crimes committed as minors. The Supreme Court is knows what is going
happening, and besides that it keeps sentencing minors to death row. On this article
you can read several stories of juveniles that have been sentence to death row, like how
they grew up, the way they were raised, the crimes they committed and how, above
other things. Its unbelievable that after listening to these stories the supreme court
keeps sending juvenile offenders to life without a parole or to death row.
I completely disagree to death row for juvenile offenders, because after reading
their cases, its unbelievable that the supreme court do not understand that these kids
need help. They dont have a good education, which is why they dont know the difference between good, and bad, they learn the bad way. Instead of sending them to prison, putting them into a juvenile detention center were they could learn from their mistakes,

mature,

and

grow

to

be

better

men.

SOLIS6
Rozzell, Liane Gay. "Alternatives to the Punishment-Oriented Juvenile Justice Model
Are Necessary." Juvenile Crime. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press,
2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "These Are Our Children: New Models Are
Transforming Juvenile Justice." Sojourners Magazine 38 (June 2009): 7. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

Rozzell states in the following viewpoint, that punishment-oriented juvenile justice

responses to trouble youth increases the chances of reoffending and more violently.
Prisoners and guards always expose youth to abuse, and many of them are imprisoned
for non-violent crimes. Rozzell addresses that the only thing these youth learn is how to
be more criminals. Giving the opportunity for these young men to be on a communitybased and restorative justice models give youths the opportunity to learn to be productive adults. The author believes on giving youth a second chance to change, and by using a cost effective, evidence based programs that give youth a chase to change, heal,
take responsibility, and to develop into positive, productive adults.
In my opinion this viewpoint one hundred percent focused on changing abused
by pioneers an guard inside adult jails for juvenile offenders, for a healthy environment
for them to grow, take responsibility for what they did, and mature into productive good
men.
Stimson, Charles D., and Andrew M. Grossman. "It Should Be Possible to Sentence
Juveniles to Life Without Parole." Juvenile Crime. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Adult Time for Adult
Crimes: Life Without Parole (LWOP) for Juvenile Killers and Violent Teens." Heritage
Foundation, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.

SOLIS7
This article states that LWOP is a faire, effective, appropriate, and lawful punishment for some types of juvenile offenders. It describes these juveniles as remorseless killers, and violent. LWOP I just for certain type of juvenile offenders, like juveniles
that commit rape, murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and other serious crimes. Fortythree states set the maximum penalty of juveniles offenders to life without a parole in
2012.
This article has good arguments, but from my point of view is bias, because
they're just seeing the bad part of each teen and robbery shouldn't be part of this law.
Not every juvenile do things being consequent of the consequences, and not giving the
opportunity to a 14 year old to rehabilitate is not fair at all. In some cases I agree; like
murder, if this is the case well, the judge and the jury will know what to do.