Juvenile Justice Reform

Controversies dealing with juveniles’ age in which they can be charged as adults, giving them life sentences in prison without parole, the application of neuroscience, and the roles both the federal and state governments have played in shaping the policies towards justice reform have been discussed at length for the better half of United States (U.S.) History (755). Dating as far back as 1825, the United States of America has delved into the topic of juvenile justice (755). Today, advocates of the youth and victims’ rights still provide strong interest in criminal justice reform. From lobbying for light sentencing standards for the youth, to making them accountable for their actions, the controversies and arguments towards reforming juvenile
The Casey Foundation’s Nate Balis stated that sentencing young people to death or without ever having a chance to rehabilitate or prove that they have changed is wrong (751). After the mandatory sentencing of juveniles to life in prison without parole was decided unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama the number of states banning the life sentence without parole for juveniles amounted to 14 (751). Jody Kent Lavy, director of the fair sentencing campaign stated that a great amount of the juveniles who have been serving life sentences now show considerable growth and change. She believes that it is important that they be checked later in life to see if they have been rehabilitated. Associate Justice Elena Kagan made the point in the ruling of Miller that sentencing a juvenile to mandatory life without parole does not give a chance for the court to look into an individual’s environment which that adolescent cannot escape from (751). The ruling in the Miller case forces judges to evaluate each case individually. A dissent to the Miller case comes from Chief Justice Roberts Jr. in which he feels that decency is being confused with leniency and that juveniles who commit murder is rightfully a calamity (752). Muhammad, of Impact Justice stated that in recent years, paroled inmates that were convicted as juveniles have
In recent years the Obama administration has made an effort to put a stop to the school-to-prison pipeline where adolescents are sentenced for minor offenses and sent to prison (758). Bipartisan efforts have also tried to put into effect the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) which has not been reaffirmed since 2002. A team-up of House and Senate members has occurred in reinstating the Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention Act due to accusations that states were receiving grants by imprisoning juveniles for negligible crimes. The Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention Act will give $159 million annually to help states resolve abuse claims in the juvenile detention system and help in providing rehabilitation programs (759). Representative Robert Scott championed a measure in the House which would give funding to local communities with the purpose of keeping adolescents out of incarceration. Although not all feel that helping juveniles is a prominent issue. Problems arose when in June of 2015, Republican House members tried to get a bill to the floor which would fund the departments of Commerce. This bill would cause a reduction in spending towards the juvenile justice programs by $68 million. In response the Obama administration has threatened to veto the bill if it were not altered (759). State efforts focus on the Miller ruling and the proposals made which