Introduction
As the juvenile court enters its second centennial, demands for an overhaul of the juvenile justice system continue to be commonplace at the national, State, and local levels. Viewing the juvenile justice system as "too lenient" and believing that "punishment" is the most effective way to protect the public and send a warning to juveniles, some policymakers argue for abolishing the juvenile court or using it only for very young offenders or those who commit minor offenses. Such lack of confidence in the rehabilitative effectiveness of the juvenile justice system has prompted many State legislatures to expose more juveniles to adult (criminal) court jurisdiction. Others, including advocates and juvenile justice practitioners, question how much justice young people have actually experienced in a system that too often fails to provide sufficient due process and adequate services. They call for expanding juvenile justice system protections and services.
According to Geraghty (1997), "Most children's advocates conclude that the future of the juvenile court lies in the preservation and improvement of the court rather than its abolition." In the debate over the future of justice for children, Geraghty notes three points that are not in controversy: "(1) children are fundamentally different in their cognitive and moral decision-making capabilities than adults; (2) the juvenile justice system has failed to satisfy expectations for providing procedural protection and successful interventions; and (3) the juvenile justice system cannot survive solely by relying upon the historical justification for its founding." The key question, Geraghty asserts, is "how to deliver legal and social services to children fairly, efficiently, and effectively," and this is indeed a "systems problem."
| Previous | Contents | Next |
 |
|
| System Change Through State Challenge Activities: Approaches and Products | |