The juvenile justice system in the United States strives to hold young people responsible for delinquent behavior while providing remedial care and behavioral modification programs. Nevertheless, others believe the present system is unfair and too harsh, and does not address the causes of juvenile crime. The critics claim that the system’s concentration on punishment instead of rehabilitation was responsible for the high recidivism rates and was also a determinant for poor results in youth. This paper will examine the juvenile justice system, describing one state, New Jersey, analyzing its shortcomings, and pointing out the reforms needed to build an equitable and efficient system that supports positive youth development. Discussing the current system, analyzing it in terms of adult justice, and providing possible solutions will help us design a juvenile justice system that benefits young people and society.
In the U.S., the juvenile court system has its own system, which bears no relation to the adult criminal courts. It came into existence in the later part of the 19th century with the acknowledgment that children and adults are at different stages of development and childhood offenses require different treatment, that is, rehabilitation and not punishment (Leiber & Fix, 2019). The logic behind making a specialized juvenile court system was to furnish a targeted zone of individualized and treatment-oriented attention to the assessment and management of juvenile delinquency.
In New Jersey, those 10 to 17-year-olds who commit delinquent acts are under the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Juvenile Court. Responding to a juvenile delinquent can include a series of actions such as diverting, probation supervision, out-of-home placement, and safe confinement in juvenile facilities (OJJDP, 2024). N.J. has accepted community-based help and reduced the use of secure confinement facilities in the last few years. Such a change reflects that society is beginning to understand that community-based programs produce better-resocialized youth. They have fewer chances of committing the same crime again.
However, since the state has achieved some successes by enhancing such measures, punitive measures still form the central policy used by the state. 2018, with a total of 3,000 NJ youth placed in secure confinement or residential facilities (Scott et al., 2019). Black youth are over-represented. They account for 38% of all admissions in the contact facilities, but these facilities have 14% of the state youth population (Hockenberry, 2022). That aligns with the fact that this trend indeed exemplifies the problem of racial inequalities in the country’s juvenile justice system in general. The fact that this unevenness creates unacceptable fairness and equity in the system signifies the importance of reform.
Compared to critics, who point out that the system is just too retributive in its current form, there should be a shift to an approach emphasizing rehabilitation. Although they are probably given the goal of rehabilitation, the states in the practice of New Jersey often use incarceration and punitive measures instead (Hockenberry, 2022). Yet studies show that instead of incarcerating youth, it worsens the situation and enhances the possibility for that youth to commit crimes again. This, in addition to the effect that confinement of minors has on the course of the natural adolescent development, where they might be exposed to the hostile environment and trauma created by it.
Incarceration negatively affects typical adolescent development, with teens being estranged from circles of support, experiencing violence and traumatic events, and also being denied education opportunities (Duron et al., 2022). However, the U.S. shuts away 48,000 juveniles each year in facilities that resemble adult jails. Such facilities, except for offering educational and mental health services, face the problem of helping youth get back on track after their confinement. In addition, the effect of incarceration may haunt the youth for years to come, like a phantom that blocks the ways of employment and education.
Additionally, the system creates an unbalanced circumstance that young people of color, LGBTQ youth, and people with mental health disorders have witnessed the most in their lifetime. These are the ones who, at every step, from arrests to sentencing, are likely to face such meaner treatment. This has worsened an already unequal system, which is inherently biased to the advantage of the rich (Leiber & Fix, 2019). As an example, researchers established that black youths are less likely to be arrested, locked up, and sent to juvenile facilities than their white peers. However, they have been convicted of equal felonies and had the same prior record. These imbalances exist even though scientists cannot establish that African-American and other youth groups are committing more delinquent acts than the white counterpart group.
Besides that, the system does not nearly touch the fundamental problems of youth delinquency, poverty, broken families, trauma, and lack of opportunities. Crowning personal accountability above the social-ecological context overlooks youth behavior’s entire context and nature (Hockenberry, 2022). A reaction rather than a preventive system is the more appropriate style. Many teens in the juvenile justice system have had adverse childhood situations, and they have experienced a lot of misuse or neglect. They also may have been victims of abuse and violence. It is necessary, therefore, to focus on these root matters as they are critical to the establishment of healthy youth development as well as taming delinquency situations.
While the juvenile system was initially intended to be a separate entity, different from the adult system, which is more punitive, it has now been blended into the adult system. The late 1990s witnessed nearly every state passing laws facilitating the transfer of youthful offenders to adult correctional facilities (Benekos & Merlo, 2016). On any given day, youth are locked up in adult jails or prisons all around, the average being 4,000. Concerningly, this gradual effort to prescribe adult characteristics for youth is a reality of the adult criminal justice system, which is not meant to meet their developmental needs.
Conversely, though, empirically established evidence signifies the drawbacks of criminalizing juveniles as adults. Unlike youths who are kept in the juvenile system, the young people who are tried as adults have poorer mental health outcomes and a drastically high rate of recidivism. The juvenile system is also dangerous, as it does not consider the developmental needs of adolescents as the adult system does (Robinson & Kurlychek, 2019). Youth in adult prisons have a higher rate of sexual abuse, assault, and suicide. In addition, they are restricted from education, mental health treatments, and other inmates’ educational programs, which are essential to their development process.
The criminology system should be proactive instead of passive in its approach to the youth. It means that punishment must be done away with, and instead, it must focus on performing its functions to prevent future delinquencies, facilitate the rehabilitation process for those convicted, and help build positive youth development, all of which are in the entire criminology system. Though blame is crucial, the prominent stance should be the improvement of delinquents obtained due to complex cases and not just their punishment (Celinska et al., 2018). The solution covers a wide range of issues, and the essence of the problem lies in the factors that comprise an individual’s family upbringing and community exposure.
Incarceration should be the last resort. When it is inevitable, the facility should be small, therapeutic, and close to home so that families can maintain other viable options. Education, treatment of mental disorders, teaching of skills, and making plans to transition from homelessness to normalcy should be offered (Leiber & Fix, 2019). One of the staffing issues is that they should get unique training to work with teens. The application of the case of solitary confinement and restraint is to be abolished. We will make them an ideal environment by providing the required environment for them to benefit and acquire the necessary skills and abilities needed after being released.
Consider conducting frequent assessments for racial disparities in the system, imparting periodic classes on non-biased staff attitudes and cultural competence, and designing strategies to promote equity (Celinska et al., 2018). Expand offending choices and include community-directed alternatives for white youth of color. Resolving this divide is a task for everyone to work toward building a just and fair system.
The most current juvenile justice system of New Jersey and the United States is overly punitive and highly unjust. It does not provide the youth with a real opportunity to be rehabilitated. The system is unequal and has the effect of harming the most vulnerable youth in our society, where it also disproportionately impacts minorities and does not tackle the root causes of delinquency. It interferes with the normal development of healthy adolescents, makes teens face traumatic experiences and bad influences, and diminishes their chances of having a bright future. In order to have a fairer and more effective juvenile justice system, we need to shift away from severe punishment to prevention, rehabilitation, and positive youth development. This needs a fundamental change in the approach to the juvenile justice system, which acknowledges that the needs and potentials of young persons are totally different from those of adults. Justice demands nothing less. There is a need to act swiftly and reshape the juvenile justice system by ensuring the welfare of youth and the community.
OJJDP. (2024). Age Boundaries of the Juvenile Justice System | Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Ojjdp.ojp.gov. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/age-boundaries-of-the-juvenile-justice-system
Scott, C. K., Dennis, M. L., Grella, C. E., Funk, R. R., & Lurigio, A. J. (2019). Juvenile justice systems of care: results of a national survey of community supervision agencies and behavioral health providers on services provision and cross-system interactions. Health & Justice, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-019-0093-x
Duron, J. F., Williams-Butler, A., Mattson, P., & Boxer, P. (2022). Trauma exposure and mental health needs among adolescents involved with the juvenile justice system. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(17-18), NP15700-NP15725. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211016358
Celinska, K., Sung, H.-E., Kim, C., & Valdimarsdottir, M. (2018). An outcome evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for court-involved youth. Journal of Family Therapy, 41(2), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12224
Robinson, K., & Kurlychek, M. (2019). Differences in justice, differences in outcomes: A DID approach to studying outcomes in juvenile and adult court processing. Justice Evaluation Journal, 2(1), 35-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2019.1585927
Benekos, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (2016). A Decade of Change: Roper v. Simmons, Defending Childhood, and Juvenile Justice Policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(1), 102–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403416648734
Hockenberry, S. (2022). Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2019. Juvenile Justice Statistics: National Report Series Bulletin. NCJ 303593. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED624657.pdf
Leiber, M. J., & Fix, R. (2019). Reflections on the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Juvenile Court Outcomes and Efforts to Enact Change. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(4), 581–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09479-3