Juvenile Justice Process and Corrections
Juvenile Justice Process and Corrections
Terri Jinks
CJA/374
October 15, 2012
Jerry Kilgo
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
Terri Jinks
CJA/374
October 15, 2012
Jerry Kilgo
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
References: Champion, D. J. (2010). The juvenile justice system: Delinquency, processing, and the law. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Greenwood, P. (2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders.. Future of the Children, 18(2), 185-210. Retrieved from http://www.futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/18_02_09.pdf Oregon Youth Authority. (2012). About us. Retrieved from http://cms.oregon.gov/OYA/Pages/about_us.aspx Tennessee. (2012). Juvenile Justice State Profile. Retrieved from http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/State%20Profile%20Reports/TENNESSEE%208-28-11.pdf