Sam Cook

Juvenile Justice: MWF 9AM - CJC124 AC01

4/19/14

Analysis of the Juvenile Justice Systems

Due to practical restraints involving funding, there is no federal juvenile justice

system. Almost all juvenile justice policy, practice and funding occurs at state and local

levels. Even in this aspect, the juvenile justice system is not a self-contained unit operated by

any one entity. Every state has a different mix of decision-making officials as well as

services, and each divides power over juveniles in different ways. Within the states and their

own individual laws, there are wildly varying policies and practices across county lines. It is

rare that a coherent philosophy governs the key components, seeing as juvenile justice is an

interesting mix of supervision, determination, monitoring, punishment and rehabilitation.

Juvenile delinquency has always posed as a threat to the current and future safety of

American society. Although the results of criminal offenses are the same, some people would

argue that the problem is much more complicated and demands more consideration than that

of adult criminals. However, the nature and circumstance of juvenile delinquency bring into

discussion several consistent moral and ethical dilemmas which are typically due to a youth’s

maturity level, atmosphere, home life, and social status.

 First, since all children and adolescences are much more susceptible and responsive to

peers and environmental pressure, law enforcement should carefully consider the motives of

a young criminal mind. Second, minors are usually less experienced in their chosen criminal

paths, therefore, their perception of what is good and what is bad differ greatly from adults,

and they are much more sensitive to impulsive decisions that could drastically effect their

future. Third, one must weigh the benefits and losses between punishment and/or isolation of

a young criminal against the effects of imprisonment on a teenager, who would, most

probably, integrate in a society with a developed criminal culture. It is a plausible assumption

that many of the young prisoners are growing up into a life of crime due to labeling.

“Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, sociologist Howard Becker (1963) states the

central thesis of labeling theory: All social groups make rules and attempt, at some times and

under some circumstances, to enforce them.” 1

The labeling theory is recognized as one of the most important approaches to

understanding deviant and criminal behavior, primarily in the youth. It stems from the work

of W.I. Thomas who, in 1928, wrote, "If men define situations as real, they are real in their

consequences."2

Once a person (in this case, a juvenile) is labeled as delinquent, it is extremely

difficult to remove that label from the child’s own ego and social status. The juvenile then

becomes unnecessarily stigmatized as a criminal is likely to be viewed as, and in turn, treated

as untrustworthy by their friends, family, future employers, etc. The individual is typically
more likely to accept the label that has been attached, seeing himself or herself as a

delinquent, and act in a way that fulfills the expectations of that particular label given to

them. Even if the labeled “criminal” does not commit any further illegal acts than the one

that caused them to be labeled, getting rid of that label and proving to act otherwise can be

very difficult and time-consuming, thus causing most to simply give up and retire to their

original deviant ways. For example, it is usually very rare for a convicted criminal to find

employment after release from prison because of their label as an ex-inmate who committed

a felony. Since they have been formally and publicly labelled as less than reputable

individuals, these people are often treated with judgement and suspicion for the rest of their

lives.

All of the existing factors listed above imply that the juvenile justice system should be

noticeably different from the adult criminal justice system. The reason behind giving a sort of

“fragile handling” with young offenders is the idea of the Parens Patriae (Latin for "parent

of his or her country." The power of the state to act as guardian for those who are unable to

care for themselves, such as children or disabled individuals. For example, under this

doctrine a judge may change custody, child support, or other rulings affecting a child's well-

being, regardless of what the parents may have agreed to.)3

The Parens Patriae doctrine has been around for a long time and suggests that it is the

responsibility of the government to protect it’s children when their parents fail to do so (due

to abuse, drug addiction, absence or neglect) Therefore, when a minor commits a crime, he or

she should receive a treatment rather than a punishment.

 Bibliography

1.) http://www.personal.psu.edu/exs44/406/becker_outsiders_from_weitzer.pdf

2.) http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/becker.htm

3.) http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/parens_patriae