Of the total number of cases involving minors resulting in imprisonment in 1996, 26 per cent involved personal offences, 38 per cent related to property offences, 21 per cent to public order offences, 12 per cent to drug offences and 3 per cent. In 15 states, the laws designate the cases in which an adult criminal court waiver is deemed appropriate (deemed waiver). In these cases, the burden of the waiver hearing rests with the child, not the state. If a child who meets the age, offence or other criteria established by law does not prove that he or she is fit to receive treatment or that his or her continued stay in the juvenile court does not endanger public safety, the case must be referred to the criminal court. The full implementation of the PYD`s approaches to juvenile justice faces many challenges. Philosophically, however, the PYD`s framework resembles the ideals of the progressive era that shaped the creation of the first juvenile court. Butts, Mayer and Ruther describe: “The concepts underlying the PYD are similar to those that led to the creation of the American juvenile justice system more than a century ago. […] The organizers of the first juvenile courts saw the solution to crime in better schools, community organizations, public health measures and family support. They believed that a better social environment would encourage young people to adopt pro-social norms.
[40] The multitude of interventions that fall under the term diversion makes it difficult to generalize them or their effects. Some researchers have found significantly lower recidivism rates among diverted juveniles than among witnesses who received normal treatment through juvenile justice (e.g., juvenile justice). Henggeler et al., 1993; Pogrebin et al., 1984). (For an overview of the studies covered in this section, see Table 5-2.) Other studies have found no difference in recidivism rates between juveniles removed from juvenile justice and those who remained (Rausch, 1983; Rojek and Erickson, 1982) or more recidivism among juveniles diverted (Brown Department, to accommodate juveniles convicted by a criminal court. Nevertheless, some of the juveniles convicted as adults are incarcerated in adult prisons, where the emphasis is on punishment and few services are available. by: careful selection and interview of youth eligible for safe custody; intensive monitoring and surveillance; small number of cases receiving individual support; strict rules on compliance and curfew; contact at night and on weekends; verification of compliance at home and school; the involvement of community resources in support; and, if necessary, prompt accommodation in a safe place. Land and colleagues (1998) found that programs provided less restrictive options for ensuring detention in a cost-effective manner without compromising public safety. More than three-quarters of the cases handled by alternative programs managed to escape safe detention. The vast majority (80-90%) of cases that failed in the alternative program and were remanded in custody involved violations of technical programs, not new crimes.
Less than 5% of all alternative placements committed new crimes during the program. At the same time that the federal agenda and the voices of reformers called for deinstitutionalization procedures and more prevention, states seemed to be moving in the opposite direction (Schwartz, 1989). Between 1978 and 1981, legislators in nearly half of the states enacted some form of stricter laws regarding the treatment of serious and chronic juvenile offenders. In a handful of states, inter alia, the prosecution of juveniles in adult courts has been facilitated by lowering the age of judicial waiver (three states); Intensive follow-up programs have evolved over the past 10 years from the probation movement of adult supervision to probation programs with intensive supervision of adolescents (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994a). The intensive follow-up model developed by Altschuler and Armstrong (1994b) represents a reintegrative alternative to placement and release into the community under traditional probation supervision. From first captivity to transition to the community, the goal of intensive follow-up programs is to prepare the offender for a pro-social adjustment to life in the community and social networks (e.g., family, peers, school, and employment). The follow-up component combines supervision and control of offenders in the community with the provision of treatment and services based on the offender`s needs and an assessment of factors that may increase the offender`s risk of re-offending. The combination of treatment and monitoring is crucial for the intensive follow-up model. Research reviews suggest that community correctional programs that focus solely on supervision and control may not be sufficient (Byrne & Brewster, 1993; Parsilia, 1997; Parsilia and Turner, 1993).
Community correctional programs that include the provision of treatment and rehabilitation services (i.e., individual and family counselling, substance abuse treatment, and vocational or professional training and support) with supervision and supervision of offenders (i.e. Drug testing, curfews and electronic monitoring) must be carefully evaluated to determine which mixture is effective.
Recent Comments