October 15, 2012
Juvenile Justice Process and Corrections
The juvenile justice system contains a thorough selection of systems and combined facilities intended to assist the youths that enter the system and the community, by extension (Champion, 2010). Nevertheless, the age limits are defined by federal laws and characteristically consist of juvenile wrongdoers seven-18, states regulate the methods of judgment, juvenile deviation, involvement, and deterrence programs and the circumstances thereof (Champion, 2010; DJJ, 2012). Consequently, each state must examine and evaluate community needs, juvenile needs, and offenses. It must consecutively calculate its associative deviation, involvement, and sub-ordinate deterrence programs and distinguish whether wider request or modification is necessary. Because many of these deviation programs and the terms thereof as well as chances for participation in these “second chance” programs chiefly depend upon the unhindered controls of law enforcement, its capacity to inspire the state prosecutor to agree upon the terms and the acceptations of the county court systems, most states engage these deviation programs within the strictest set of circumstances or wrongdoings (Tennessee Department of Juvenile Justice, 2012). Nevertheless, intervention programs joined with diversion programs or secondary deterrence programs may also persuade reduced juvenile wrongdoings and reduced probabilities that youth wrongdoers would commit acts that require diversion or diversion/intervention in amalgamation form (Greenwood, 2008, p. 187). After all, Tennessee has executed diversion for many offenses and its juvenile offenders have greatly declined. Moreover, reoffending or failure to complete the diversion programs has been minimal (Tennessee Department of Juvenile Justice, 2012). Therefore, diversion and diversion/treatment programs like those used in Tennessee for youth gang connected events or substance abuse offenses might also prove more useful to the public and the offenders’ long-term (Greenwood, 2008). Although criticizers charge that diversion and diversion/treatment programs evade the judgment procedure, such programs necessitate law enforcement, state prosecutor, and probation officer support (Greenwood, 2008). Therefore, these conflicts are false. Of equal importance, such diversion or diversion/treatment choices also provide youths with protected custody in treatment or juvenile centers, protect them from adults in the jail or prison systems and stimulate lesser need for unusual work projects for juveniles in the adult correctional system or other security procedures (Champion, 2010). It also defines criminal assimilation in such settings and resignation. Tennessee is a combination state, which means that delinquency services are organized by state and local levels (ncjj.2012). Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) oversees the state probation services in 91 counties, state juvenile corrections, and aftercare services in all 95 counties. Four counties (Nashville, Hamilton, Chattanooga, and Knoxville) administer their own juvenile probation departments (ncjj, 2012). The only transfer laws Tennessee has is Discretionary Waiver, Reverse Waiver, and Once, and Adult, Always and Adult (ncjj, 2012). Tennessee’s Purpose paragraph is engrained in an ostentatious, multi-part article enclosed in the Legislative Guide for Drafting Family and Juvenile Court Acts (ncjj, 2012). The Legislative Guide is attached by four purposes: (a) to arrange for the care, safety, and nourishing mental and physical growth of children, (b) to eradicate from children committing criminal acts the penalties of felonious conduct, and to replace with a program of observation, attention, and reintegration, (c) to remove a child from the family only when essential for his reintegration, and (d) to guarantee all parties their...