Navigating the intricate landscape of dissertation writing is a formidable challenge, especially when

delving into the complex realm of juvenile justice. The arduous journey entails meticulous research,
critical analysis, and cohesive articulation of ideas. Crafting a dissertation demands unwavering
dedication, exhaustive hours of study, and a deep understanding of the subject matter.

One of the most daunting aspects of writing a juvenile justice dissertation is the extensive research
required to unearth valuable insights into this multifaceted field. From exploring legal frameworks to
examining societal implications, the breadth of knowledge required is vast and demanding.

Moreover, synthesizing diverse perspectives and empirical evidence to construct a coherent argument
presents a significant hurdle for many aspiring scholars. Balancing theoretical frameworks with
empirical findings while maintaining academic rigor requires a high level of skill and precision.

The process of writing a dissertation can be emotionally and intellectually taxing, often leading to
stress and burnout. The pressure to deliver original, insightful research within a predefined timeframe
adds to the already daunting task.

For those seeking assistance in navigating the challenges of dissertation writing, ⇒ HelpWriting.net
⇔ offers a lifeline. With a team of experienced academic writers specializing in juvenile justice, they
provide expert guidance and support every step of the way. From formulating research questions to
refining methodology, their personalized approach ensures that your dissertation meets the highest
standards of excellence.

By entrusting your dissertation to ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔, you can alleviate the burden of writing
while ensuring that your project is in capable hands. With their commitment to quality and
professionalism, they empower you to achieve academic success without sacrificing your sanity.
When it comes to tackling the complexities of juvenile justice dissertation writing, ⇒
HelpWriting.net ⇔ is your trusted partner in academia.
Defining which juveniles are high risk and therefore warrant intensive supervision, however, is a
complicated and difficult task. Traditionally, much of the system was hidden from public view.
Overall, race does not appear to have been a significant factor in influencing commitment patterns to
state prison. By 1997 only 9% of all crimes were committed by juveniles. This rose. Time spend in
the prisons just accounts for the credibility in the streets of US instead of segregating the youths
from their society (Fox, 1996). The lack of access to juries may have consequences for the outcome
of a trial because judges and juries may decide cases differently. The conservative approach emerged
as a reaction to the plummet in juvenile delinquency between 1970 and 1980, which saw an increase
in the rise of gang membership and the crack epidemic. In 1985, for example, property offense cases
represented more than half of all detained cases (126,300 of 245,800). Despite their popularity, the
available studies indicate that they actually result in delinquency increases rather than decreases. A
true diversion program takes only juveniles who would ordinarily be involved in the juvenile justice
system and places them in an alternative program. The great majority of recent changes in juvenile
justice law and practice have not been evaluated. The American Correctional Association standards
recommend that educational programs in juvenile facilities use state-certified teachers, have a
maximum student-to-teacher ratio of 15:1, and assess the educational status of juveniles to develop
individualized educational plans. The New York reformers had the perspective that establishment of
juvenile courts will not destroy the children but would rather give them a chance to learn from their
mistakes. This percentage breakdown in days because admission has been fairly constant across the
biennial survey since 1997. Lipsey and Wilson's (1998) meta-analysis suggests that programs that
provide interpersonal skill training (i.e., social skills training), behavioral contracting, and cognitive-
behavioral individualized counseling are best at reducing recidivism rates for noninstitutionalized
youth. The remainder were in states whose maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction is 15 or 16
(i.e., states in which 16- or 17-year-olds are defined as adults). Official data from law enforcement
and courts, however, allow one to appreciate the scale of juvenile crime trends and to place current
crime levels in the proper context. By 1925, a functioning juvenile court existed in every state except
Maine and Wyoming (Schlossman, 1983). As the program matured and became routinized, it
appeared to become less effective. Change among delinquents may involve some backsliding. This
paper “Juvenile Justice Authority in Maine” is aimed to research the juvenile justice authority in the
state of Maine. Standing firmly against lowering of the age criteria for juveniles accused of heinous
crimes. In the second category, the statutes presumptively require a waiver for an older child, even if
the offense for which the child was accused would not otherwise raise the presumption. Juvenile
courts nationwide report that they handled just 36,600 delinquency cases in 2008 involving 15-year-
old juveniles charged with drug offenses (Puzzancheraet, Adams, and Sickmund, 2011). The
Fundamentalist approach was famous during the years of Reagan in office that focused on promoting
family values. Evidence of significant changes in brain structure and function during adolescence
strongly suggests that these cognitive tendencies characteristic of adolescents are associated with
biological immaturity of the brain and with an imbalance among developing brain systems. This
imbalance model implies dual systems: one involved in cognitive and behavioral control and one
involved in socio-emotional processes. Judicial waiver, in which the transfer decision is left to the
discretion of the juvenile court judge, is the traditional method that juvenile courts have used for
transfer. Studies of a variety of policies and practices should be undertaken, with evaluations of
psychological, educational, and physical effects on the juveniles, as well as measures of recidivism.
The 34 chronic offenders averaged 142 crimes, which was nearly 10 times the criminal activity of
other delinquents, and this group imposed 5 to 8 times the victimization costs of nonchronic
offenders. Drug courts, gun courts, teen courts, and mental health courts were organized within the
juvenile justice system because they were seen as better able to focus on each youth’s circumstances
and to provide more treatment options.
Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than
ever to read thousands of publications on our website. Because these courts have jurisdiction over
juveniles and they follow the same general principles of juvenile law, it is conventional to refer to
them simply as juvenile courts. Youth from advantaged class backgrounds are more likely than others
to have the social capital that derives from being socially embedded in job networks. In Connecticut,
New York, and North Carolina, the highest age of juvenile court jurisdiction in criminal delinquency
cases is 15; that is, anyone age 16 and older is handled in the criminal (adult) court. This may be
because victims are included in the mediation process only if they volunteer to do so. The judge
determines whether the youth is competent to stand trial (which may lead to a separate hearing),
reviews the youth’s due process rights, and addresses the youth’s right to a jury trial if one is
available under state law. Because the judge was to act in the best interests of the child, procedural
safeguards available to adults, such as the right to an attorney, the right to know the charges brought
against one, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accuser, were thought
unnecessary. Over three-quarters of the cases served by the alternative programs successfully
avoided secure detention. The effectiveness of such programs both for the protection of the
community and the benefit of the youth in their charge should be monitored. In the end, the youth
processed by the juvenile justice system are merely a sample of all young people involved in illegal
behavior. Males accounted for 92 percent of the juveniles admitted to state prisons in 1997. The
youth is now considered an “adjudicated delinquent.” The youth may be found not guilty and the
case dismissed, or the case may be continued in contemplation of dismissal. The peak occurred
during the height of the war on drugs and the rise in youth violence, which was often associated
with drug dealing. Possession of a weapon also increased the likelihood of arrest. Experiments with
the restorative justice model point to ways in which juvenile offenders can be held responsible for
their offenses, make restitution to victims, and receive services aimed at reintegrating them into
society. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.
Many in the society believe that punishment should be exemplary so that others will not dare to
commit it. Chamberlain and Reid (1998) compared chronic delinquent boys (with an average of 13
prior arrests and 4.6 prior felonies) who were randomly assigned to treatment foster care or to group
homes in lieu of incarceration. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to
that page in the book. Studies of a variety of policies and practices should be undertaken, with
evaluations of psychological, educational, and physical effects on the juveniles, as well as measures
of recidivism. Table 5-3 summarizes the evaluations of alternatives to detention programs discussed
in this section. A meta-analysis of family-based treatments of drug abuse found that multisystemic
therapy had one of the largest effect sizes of all treatments reviewed (Stanton and Shadish, 1997).
The bias in favor of white youth returned, however, at the dispositional stage. Juvenile Crime,
Juvenile Justice presents what we know and what we urgently need to find out about contributing
factors, ranging from prenatal care, differences in temperament, and family influences to the role of
peer relationships, the impact of the school policies toward delinquency, and the broader influences
of the neighborhood and community. The act also provided for informality in procedures within the
court. They often handle dependency cases (or matters involving abused and neglected children) and
youth charged with noncriminal acts (i.e., status offenses). Other juvenile courts (especially family
courts) handle domestic violence and child custody matters (Butts, 2002). They found that, in the
early 1990s, 65 percent of juveniles in public facilities were in institutions with current court orders
or consent decrees related to programming deficiencies. If the court finds probable cause, a second
decision involves whether the court will retain jurisdiction or transfer the case. Little research exists
on the contemporary juvenile court more generally or on the philosophies and practices of those who
administer and work in it (Bishop, 2006; Tanenhaus, 2012). Sign up for email notifications and we'll
let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.
The study found that large dormitory sleeping arrangements were accompanied by high rates of
juvenile-on-juvenile injuries. The panel did not have the resources to examine all the literature
relevant to treatment of juveniles under the control of the juvenile justice system (Lipsey and Wilson,
1998, alone found 200 experimental or quasiexperimental studies for their meta-analysis). Research,
including data collection, to explain such trends remains to be done. Chamberlain and Reid (1998)
compared chronic delinquent boys (with an average of 13 prior arrests and 4.6 prior felonies) who
were randomly assigned to treatment foster care or to group homes in lieu of incarceration. Judicial
waiver, in which the transfer decision is left to the discretion of the juvenile court judge, is the
traditional method that juvenile courts have used for transfer. In North Carolina, the lowest minimum
age is 6 years; it is 7 in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York; 8 in Arizona; and 10 in Arkansas,
Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont,
and Wisconsin (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). In the Fagan et al. (1987a) analysis, the effects of race
on the judicial transfer decision were found to be indirect. By allowing criminal court judges to
consider a defendant’s prior juvenile court record at the time of sentencing, states have altered the
terms of the historical agreement that created the juvenile justice system in the first place. Unlike
adults, youth in juvenile court do not have a constitutional right to a jury trial, 1 although 20 states
do provide them as either an absolute right or a right under limited special circumstances
(Szymanski, 2008). Schneider (1986) reported a significant reduction in recidivism among offenders
in a mediation program. Also at issue is legal representation for juveniles. Yet the system’s complexity
continues to make it difficult to understand and improve system functioning. They also found prior
correctional interventions to be significant: youths with no prior program placements and those with
only a few (1 to 3) were less likely to be certified to adult court than youths with four or more
placements. Some courts oversee only the adjudication process, while others provide a full array of
preadjudication and postdisposition services. Depending on state and local law, youth may be
detained prior to adjudication to protect the community, to ensure their appearance at subsequent
court hearings, or to secure the juvenile’s own safety. Beginning in 1983, the total number of juvenile
arrests grew more than 40 percent, from 1.9 to nearly 2.9 million arrests in 1996 (see Figure 3-1 ).
Studies also indicate that presence of counsel in juvenile courts is related to differences in pretrial
detention, sentencing, and case-processing practices (Feld, 1993). Mandatory waiver proceedings
are initiated in the juvenile court; however, the involvement of the juvenile court in a mandatory
waiver case is minimal. According to the model court guidelines of the National Council of Juvenile
and Family Court Judges (2005), the youth’s counsel has responsibility for investigating all
circumstances behind the allegations, seeking discovery for all court documents, appointing an
investigator, and informing the youth and his family about the nature of the proceedings and the
consequences. About 1 percent of cases were waived by the Milwaukee Juvenile Court in the early
20th century (Schlossman, 1977). Some statutory provisions permit the criminal court to transfer a
case to the juvenile court for disposition. India is constantly looking into the implementation of this
law in Sampurna Behrua Versus Union of. In the words of one reformer, the main reason for the
establishment of the juvenile court was “to prevent children from being treated as criminals ” (Van
Waters, 1927:217). How does one define the system that responds to cases of delinquency. Some
include short-term residential placements with intensive community-based services; others rely on
frequent contact between the probation officer and the. More recent studies have equivocal findings,
with some showing differences in treatment of males and females (Pope and Feyerherm, 1982; Tittle
and Curran, 1988) and some showing no differences (Clarke and Koch, 1980; Teilmann and Landry,
1981; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995c) with regard to dispositions of status delinquency
cases. Research to date shows that juveniles transferred to adult court may be more likely to
recidivate than those who remain under juvenile court jurisdiction. The vast majority of mediation
cases are first-time offenders. The average length of stay in juvenile detention centers is 15 days, but
many youngsters may be there for only a few days, while some are there for much longer periods
(Parent et al., 1994). For marginal students, even a few days of school missed because of detention
may increase their educational difficulties. By 1997 only 9% of all crimes were committed by
juveniles. This rose.
Since 1985, juveniles have consistently made up about 2 percent of new admissions to state prisons
(Strom, 2000). The Fundamentalist approach was famous during the years of Reagan in office that
focused on promoting family values. Whereas the traditional juvenile justice model focuses attention
on offender rehabilitation and the current get-tough changes focus on offense punishment, the
restorative model focuses on balancing the needs of victims, offenders, and communities (Bazemore
and Umbreit, 1995). Seven of the studies found that the effects of the program were harmful, that is,
youngsters in treatment were more likely to commit additional delinquent acts than were those in the
control group who received no treatment. Experimentation and novelty-seeking behavior, such as
alcohol and drug use, unsafe sex, and reckless driving, are thought to serve a number of adaptive
functions despite their risks. The trend toward privatization of juvenile correctional facilities may
further complicate understanding of juveniles in custody. Punitive policies include easier waivers to
adult court, excluding certain offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction, blended juvenile and adult
sentences, increased authority to prosecutors to decide to file cases in adult court, and more frequent
custodial placement of adjudicated delinquents. Community Corrections A community correction is
something that an individual receives for a crime they have committed. Similar to criminal courts,
plea agreements between the prosecutor and the youth’s counsel may also occur during the
adjudicatory phase. Other youth are held in detention following court disposition while awaiting
placement in a long-term youth correctional facility. Nearly two-fifths of the juveniles sent to state
prison in 1997, however, were not there for violent offenses—22 percent had been convicted of a
property offense, 11 percent of a drug offense, and 5 percent of a public order offense (Strom,
2000). Register for a free account to start saving and receiving special member only perks. This
hearing is also referred to as an arraignment, initial hearing, pretrial hearing, probable cause hearing,
or plea hearing. This paper “Juvenile Justice Authority in Maine” is aimed to research the juvenile
justice authority in the state of Maine. Even for those who received appropriate treatment programs
while incarcerated, change may be difficult to maintain when they return to their old environment. It
recommended that the provisions of the IPC on slavery be amended to criminalise trafficking by. In
over half the states, juvenile courts administer their own probation services, and many are
responsible for detention and intake as well (Torbet, 1990). Beginning in 1983, the total number of
juvenile arrests grew more than 40 percent, from 1.9 to nearly 2.9 million arrests in 1996 (see Figure
3-1 ). Youth under age 10 are juveniles in the legal sense but their law violations are not defined as
delinquency. The program was originally intended for serious and violent offenders, but many
nonviolent, less serious offenders ended up in the program. Overcrowded conditions also increase
the risk of injury to both staff and juveniles. Research on adolescent development has potential
impact for a broad array of youth-related behaviors. Even apart from this statutory prescription, it is
elementary that a jail is hardly a place where a child should be kept. A similar pattern was seen in
each of the four major offense categories. The impact of these laws on ultimate sanctions for
juveniles sentenced under them will not be known for some years to come; this is an area that is ripe
for research to begin. It is even possible that some diversion programs are more intrusive than
traditional juvenile justice processing. There are too many other factors involved, some of which
stem from the youth’s behavior, but others originate in bureaucracy, fiscal and political issues, and
cultural definitions of social problems. But many jurisdictions lack political support for reforms or
the readiness to take the necessary first steps. As in the adult system, concerns have been raised that
heavy caseloads and poor quality and delivery of services affect offender rehabilitation and public
safety. Crossover youth are also of particular concern because, like youth with mental health
disorders and substance abuse problems, they are more likely to be treated harshly within the juvenile
justice system and their numbers tend to accumulate proportionately as delinquency cases move
deeper into the system (Wasserman et al., 2010).