{br} STUCK with your assignment? {br} When is it due? {br} Get FREE assistance. Page Title: {title}{br} Page URL: {url}
UK: +44 748 007-0908, USA: +1 917 810-5386 [email protected]
  1. Future of the Juvenile Justice System Presentation 


    A brief explanation of how community involvement, law enforcement, courts, and corrections affect the juvenile justice system

    A description of how effective your state is at rehabilitating youth, providing restorative justice, and preventing recidivism

    Suggestions for how to improve all of the following aspects of the juvenile justice system in your state:

    community involvement

    law enforcement

    courts and sentencing



    restorative justice

    prevention of recidivism

    Justification for your suggestions based on history, trends, causation theories, and potential for reform; use current statistics and data to support your claims

    Juvenile Justice Interview Discussion: An executive summary of at least 2 of the ideas shared in the interviews from the cumulative discussion



Subject Law and governance Pages 4 Style APA


The American JJS is the main system utilized in handling teenagers convicted or criminal felonies. The framework comprise of a federal and several distinct state, provincial and local jurisdictions, with the national government and states sharing autonomous police authority under the mutual authority of the American Constitution.  The JJS intervenes in felonious conduct  via the police, court and correctional engagement , with the aim of rehabilitation. The teenagers and their parents can serve various outcomes comprising of adolescents detention, probation, alternative schooling, adolescent court , and community service. The JJS functions  from a notion that intervening early in felonious conduct will prevent teenagers from partaking in criminal conducts as grown-ups.

Oregon State has collaborated with school districts to initiate community-based programs that tackle school-linked challenges like excessive truancy by amending the “zero tolerance” provision. Such initiatives permit school boards not to expel a kid who committed a zero-tolerance crime or modify the expulsion terms. Also, Oregon has adopted an Oregon hub for court innovation approach where the crime victim is engaged in the restorative justice procedure. This intervention program’s objective is to offer selected adolescents offenders a chance to be questioned, adjudicated, and sentenced by a jury of friends.  Also, Oregon State has implemented diversion programs to keep adolescents from the JJS. One of the approaches is a school-based diversion because schools often use the police in handling even small discipline issues sending several adolescents into the JJS. Sometimes a learner’s unruly conduct is in part because of mental disease. Therefore, Oregon state partnered with school boards to train school staff and police officers to pinpoint and accurately react to adolescents with mental health needs to reduce referrals to JJS. Mostly when coupled with optional community-centered mental health resources, adolescents can be referred to instead.

Example of engagement include the community and adolescents’ offenders are collaborating in doing home repairs and gardening for the elderly. Also the youth offenders can  volunteer in community shelters and get trained in approaches of offenders handling population in shelters. An effective JJS must depend on the community and family-based diversion and intercession approaches , and less on detention. Hence to do this, JJS stakeholders should collaborate with community stakeholders in preventing adolescents from getting into the system, supporting teenagers whilst in the system and helping teenagers successfully re-integrate back into the society after release. One way Oregon state can promote community cooperation is by hosting community cafes to produce thoughts from JJ and community stakeholders regarding how best to meet the court-engaged teenagers needs.  Thus such café offer safe spaces for making arrangements that assist the adolescents and also suggestions on how juvenile court can better collaborate with the community.

The JJDPA initially enacted in 1974 and re-endorsed in 2002, defines the federal criteria for custody and care of court-engaged teenagers that the states voluntarily acknowledge and value. Likewise JJDPA creates a federal-state collaboration intended to decrease felonies ,  preserve community safety and avert victimization.

The most severe punishment that a juvenile court can issue is limiting an adolescent’s liberty through placement into a correctional facility. Placement happened after the teenager is adjudicated delinquent for a crime. Likewise, an adolescent might be detained after arrest or maid court proceedings. Jurisdiction over the adolescent might be transferred to the criminal court, which then implements the processing and penalizing (Tanenhaus, 2018). However, there continues to be a lot of conflict regarding facilities accreditation because of massive amounts of variability. In these teenagers’ facilities there are various specialized concerns comprising of teenager’s developmental needs, STIs, chronic diseases and different psychological health needs. also, there is much worry concerning Oregon state reduced financing resources and prioritization for the therapy, research financing, rehabilitation and execution of evidence-centred multi-model interventions in addressing the youthful offenders’ unique needs and their families irrespective of the treatment environment. In Oregon, pre-teens have no specialized credentialing programs. These kids are put into psychological health facilities, send home or a relative, and request close court-ordered follow-up and wrap-around services.

The lack of aftercare services and service synchronization indicate the requirement to formulate service framework models that better incorporate and synchronize several services for teenage lawbreakers, mainly community-centered methods. Hence policy should bolster the amalgamation, continuity, and bankrolling of these services for teenage lawbreakers both during and after their justice system engagement. To appropriate limited resources most successfully , new polices must enhance the accessibility of superior, evidence-centered therapy targeted at the sub-group of teenage lawbreakers with drug use disorders. 

Community-focused treatment for teenagers is more practical and cost-efficient  than detention. However, federal allocations to states, for primary JJP have been reduced substantially in the last decade. Federal financing to support state juvenile justice activities and enhancements safeguard the public’s security and must be perceived vital investment even in budget cutting times. States leverage on JJDPA and the  Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program (JABG) programs in prevention of recidivism and attain sustainable community security. Therefore , Oregon state should advocate for more allocations from the Senate Allocations Committee. Initiated in 2007, the Youth PROMISE Act aim was reduction of gang violence and felonies. If implemented by Oregon State, this Act will offer aimed federal investments and synchronization in supporting evidence-centered efforts at the local level such as mentoring programs, family reinforcement services, teenage leadership growth intended to decrease victimization and engage youths in pro-social actions and offer cost-effective usage of public funds.

Several states have risen financing for community-centered therapy programs as options to institutional placements.

After the 2005 Roper v. Simmons  court verdict eliminating  the teenage  death penalty, various state legislatures have revoked or are contemplating revoking , laws enforcing punishments minus parole on teenage murders. Other states have reduced always in reaction to  rising economic expenses, impulsive transfer legislation that send teenagers to the adult criminal framework by statutory omission.  In some state where adolescents are below eighteen are indicted in adult criminal court rather than teenagers court. However assuring efforts are under way to enhance the age to 18 as it is in several states. Also various states have enlarged procedural protection for teenagers in criminal court by implementing statutory requirements sanctioning findings of ineptitude to stand trial on the developmental immaturity premise. Though several retributive reforms of the 1990s still exist, a policy change seems to be taking place. 

A continued and rising concentration on reform and rehabilitation opportunities in the JJS has anticipations for reducing offenders’ numbers. Through focusing on positive youth advancement, acknowledging and giving therapy for mental sicknesses, and providing adequate educational opportunities, the JJS can attain a greater effectiveness level in the future.


  • Tanenhaus, D. S. (2018). Juvenile Justice in the United States. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History.
  • Cox, A. (2019). Challenging the logic of reformism and humanism in juvenile justice rhetoric. Critical criminology27(4), 543-558.
  • Henning, K., Cohen, L., & Marrus, E. (Eds.). (2018). Rights, Race, and Reform: 50 Years of Child Advocacy in the Juvenile Justice System. Routledge.





Related Samples

WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?