Punishment, Accountability, and the New Juvenile Justice

Abstract

The juvenile justice system has undergone radical change in the past three decades. The procedural revolution that began at the end of the 1960s with the Gault decision has more recently evolved into a substantive revolution. The changes in juvenile justice have been many and in some instances drastic, particularly in the apparent demise of the rehabilitative ideal. New theories or models have emerged, incorporating terminology such as punishment, justice, and accountability into the vocabulary of juvenile justice practitioners and the lexicon of state juvenile codes. The transformation in the philosophy and underlying goals of the system has been well‐documented over the past decade or so. It is now time to ask critical questions about the significance and meaning of this transformation and to bring attention to unresolved issues. This article suggests the issues that need to be addressed in order to make both practical and philosophical sense out of the changes in the mission of “juvenile justice.”

Examining the predictors of juvenile probation officers' rehabilitation orientation

“…In response to these changes, the emphasis of the juvenile justice system shifted from helping 'wayward and misguided youth' to making sure that juvenile offenders were punished for their delinquent acts. Under this new model, probation officers were expected to make sure that offenders were made accountable for their actions (Forst & Blomquist, 1992). To achieve this, probation officers had to incorporate more punitive methods as a mechanism for preventing juveniles from re-offending (Fulton, Stichman, Travis, & Latessa, 1997).…”

Attitudes toward Rehabilitation and Punishment Orientations among Juvenile Detention and Probation Officers

“…For juvenile detention officers, this translates into perceptions of the purpose of detention, and for juvenile probation officers, as to the purpose of probation. A rehabilitation/treatment purpose generally focuses on believing the juveniles are malleable and can change with proper support and resources (Butts & Mears, 2001;Lopez & Russell, 2008), while a punishment purpose generally reflects the belief that juveniles need to be held accountable for their delinquent acts (Forst & Blomquist, 1992;Lopez & Russell, 2008).…”

Prediction of Adult Criminal Careers from Early Delinquency Offense Characteristics in the 1958 Philadelphia Birth Cohort

“…ювенальные суды были в основном нацелены на реабилитацию несовершеннолетних преступников, стремясь оградить их от преступного мира взрослых. Однако хрестоматийный образ «типичного несовершеннолетнего преступника» и «благодетельной» ювенальной судебной системы пошатнулся под влиянием множества противоречащих этому образу примеров, которые заставили пересмотреть философию и процедуры ювенальной юстиции [43]. Все более распространенным становилось убеждение, что многие несовершеннолетние преступники не подходят под стереотипное представление о них и что на самом деле их характеристики те же, что и у взрослых преступников, за исключением возраста.…”