Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice (2001) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Introduction
Introduction
Pages 13-24
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 13... ...
Many such changes were enacted after the juvenile violent crime rate had already begun to fall. The rehabilitative model embodied in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, focusing on the needs of the young offender, has lost ever more ground over the past 20 years to punitive models that focus mainly on the offense committed.
|
From page 14... ...
By the age of 16 or 17, most adolescents are deemed to have sufficient cognitive capacity and life experience to be held accountable for intended wrongful acts. How to deal appropriately with those who commit crimes between the ages of 10 and 17 is the issue faced in juvenile crime policy.
|
From page 15... ...
This study reviews literature in all of these areas to provide an objective view of juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system in the United States. CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT: NOT JUST LITTLE ADULTS What is often missing from discussions of juvenile crime today is recognition that children and adolescents are not just little adults, nor is the world in which they live the world of adults.
|
From page 16... ...
Children and adolescents from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and those with low IQs fare worse in understanding the legal process and their rights than do other children and adolescents of comparable ages (Grisso, 1997~. Furthermore, experience with the justice system does not ensure that young people fully understand the process, their rights, or the implications of the decisions they make.
|
From page 17... ...
have no special courts for juveniles. Table 1-1 depicts some of the differences among countries, showing the range in variability for the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the age at which full responsibility as an adult can be assumed, the type of court that handles young people committing crimes, whether such young people can be tried in courts that also try adults, the maximum length of sentencing for a juvenile, and policies regarding incarcerating juveniles with adults.
|
From page 18... ...
bAge of full criminal responsibility differs by state
|
From page 19... ...
INTRODUCTION IS 19 Transfer to Maximum Adult Length of Court Sentence for Separation of Incarcerated unites Allowable? a Juvenile Juveniles from Adults ch are Yes, for 2 to 7 years Not mandatory, generally separated in Lice serious practice juveniles felonies ~1 and No 1/2 adult sentence Yes courts Yes No juvenile Not mandatory, generally separated in incarceration practice N/A 8 years Yes Yes 2 years Yes outh No 1/2 adult sentence Yes venile Yes 10 years Yes or ular No 15 years Yes ts No 1/3 adult sentence Yes Yes Lifetime sentence Yes Yes Lifetime sentence Yes Yes No juvenile No (some exceptions)
|
From page 20... ...
The 1988 Youth Court Law of Austria, for example, describes juvenile offending as a normal step in development for which restorative justice, not punishment, is the appropriate response. The Belgium Youth Court Protection Act specifies that the only measures that can be imposed on a juvenile are for his or her care, protection, and education.
|
From page 21... ...
CHARGE TO THE PANEL The Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control was asked to identify and analyze the full range of research studies and datasets that bear on the nature of juvenile crime, highlighting key issues and data sources that can provide evidence of prevalence and seriousness; race, gender, and class bias; and impacts of deterrence, punishment, and prevention strategies. The panel was further asked to analyze the factors that contribute to delinquent behavior, including a review of the knowledge on child and adolescent development and its implications for prevention and control; to assess the current practices of the juvenile justice system, including the implementation of constitutional safeguards; to examine adjudication, detention and waiver practices; to explore the role of community and institutional settings; to assess the quality of data sources on the clients of both public and private juvenile justice facilities; and to assess the impact of the deinstitutionalization mandates of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 on delinquency and community safety.
|
From page 22... ...
The panel commissioned three papers: "International Comparison of Juvenile Justice Systems" by Elmar Weitekamp, Hansfuergen Kerner, and Gernot Trueg; "Police Encounters with Juvenile Suspects" by Robert Worden and Stephanie Myers; and "The Indeterminancy of Forecasts of Crime Rates and Juvenile Offenses" by Kenneth Land and Patricia McCall. Several members of the panel made site visits to juvenile detention and correctional facilities in Texas and New York.
|
From page 23... ...
In some states, status delinquents are referred to the child welfare or social service systems, while in others status delinquents are dealt with in the juvenile justice system. PLAN OF THE REPORT Following this introduction, Chapter 2 discusses the datasets commonly used to measure juvenile crime rates, examining the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.
|
From page 24... ...
Chapter 4 focuses on preventive interventions aimed at individuals, peer groups, and families, interventions delivered in schools, and communitybased interventions. Chapter 5 describes the juvenile justice system process in the United States and discusses treatment and intervention programs delivered through the juvenile justice system.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.