Juvenile Justice Policy

The Juvenile Justice Policy Jason Austin The juvenile justice system in dealing with juvenile offenders has cyclically gone from a rehabilitative approach to a punitive approach a number of times since its inception (Jenson & Howard, 1998). Research by Bernard (1992), as cited in Jenson and Howard (1998), examined the history of the juvenile justice system from 1820 and found that when juvenile crime is determined to be high, the justice system responds with severe punishments and few rehabilitative approaches. This approach forces officials to either respond with harsh punishment or doing nothing at all. Eventually, the system is reformed and a greater amount of leniency takes effect. This continues until the final phase, as
A merger would eliminate the differential treatment; the tendency of officials to want “to set an example” of the almost adult juvenile; and the difficulty of knowing the offender’s true age, which is often misrepresented in order to be handled in one system over the other (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1993; Dawson, 1990). Merging the two systems would have the benefit of “providing for continuity of services”. At present, juvenile records are sealed so it is difficult to determine if the juvenile is headed toward serious problems. Furthermore, the juvenile, upon reaching the age of majority, has a clean slate, regardless of past record. But, even if the record were disclosed, there would be a tendency to discount the information in making a decision when viewing the individual as an adult (Roth, 1997; Dawson
A possible approach would be a system of graduated sanctions, whereby the offenders are matched to appropriate punishments and treatments based on history and needs of the individual. This approach keeps in mind the founding philosophy of the juvenile justice system and can adequately address the present day offenders by balancing rehabilitation and punishment (Jenson & Howard,