Law Homework Help

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND DIVERSION PROGRAMS

Over the course of time, the criminal justice system has continuously evolved to be better equipped to handle juveniles brought into the system. This inevitably led to the creation and the evolution of the juvenile justice system. The juvenile justice system is responsible for punishing individuals who have committed crimes, but it also has the responsibility of providing difference services to at risk juveniles, with the attempt of rehabilitating these individuals and preventing further criminal activity. The following will discuss some of the assumptions associated with juvenile delinquency and diversion programs, as well as if these assumptions are justified for the given programs. A review of evidence to determine why individuals and communities are unwilling to finance these delinquency and diversion programs, as well as to the consequences of failing to fund these programs. Lastly, a Christian world view as it applies to these programs will be discussed and analyzed.

In the realm of the juvenile justice system, a diversion program can referrer to two separate types, formal and informal diversion programs (Schlesinger, 2018). The author explains an informal diversion can be a law enforcement officer giving a warning, rather than writing a ticket, a probation officers decision to give a warning for a violation and a prosecutor or judge’s decision not to move forward with a case. She explains all of these informal. diversion release the offender from the custody or control of the government, sending them back to their residence. On the other hand, a formal diversion program moves an offender from the traditional criminal court system to programs designed to provide some type of assistance, but which have stipulations the offender must accomplish, as explained by the author. Schlesinger explains a recommendation to pursue a formal diversion program can come from a law enforcement officer, school officials, prosecutors, and judges. If the individual fails to complete the prescribed requirements, they face the possibility of being removed from the diversion program and transferred back to the traditional court system.

One of the first assumptions associated with juvenile delinquency and diversion programs is a lack of faith in the ability of the program to have a positive influence on the individual and crime trends in the area (NeMoyer et al., 2020). The authors explain a large portion of the community and government officials see these programs as a waste of resources, largely due to the fact that they believe it does very limit to prevent juvenile offenders from reoffending after completing the program. NeMoyer and her associates conducted research into individuals, which showed that approximately 70% of the programs participants who successfully exited the program were not rearrested within 36 months. The authors closely examined the remaining 30% of participants who reoffended within 36 months of exiting the program. The most common factors found in offenders by the authors, specifically the individuals who reoffended were individuals from poor neighborhoods or families who lived at or below the poverty level. These factors are similar to the factors discussed when explaining how social capital effects youth (Sherman, 2011). Sherman continued to discuss how ethnic groups; specifically disproportionate members of ethnic groups were at a higher risk of being negatively involved in the juvenile justice system.

Another assumption commonly found in juvenile diversion programs is the program is focusing on high-risk offenders (Schlesinger, 2018). The author examined a large amount of diversion programs, which often had law enforcement officers and social workers as the gate keepers for the program. She determined that despite the programs intent to target high-risk offenders, they commonly placed low-risk individuals into the program. The author determined this took place for the following two reasons. First, law enforcement officers and social workers are commonly taught to intervene on an issue before it becomes a real problem. The second reason the author determined the program often encountered low-risk offenders revolved around the families of these offenders. Low-risk offenders commonly came from families who were not accustomed to delinquent behavior and were comfortable seeking assistance from law enforcement organizations, per the author. The author further explained high risk families were more likely to be accustomed to dealing with delinquent behavior and were less likely to be comfortable seeking assistance with law enforcement organizations.

The assumptions listed by the author, as well as the reasoning behind the assumption, appear to make the assumption justifiable. First, the idea that the programs do not work is a feasible belief for those individuals who are presented with the data to make an educated decision. After compiling the data, the author was able to determine that individuals who successfully completed the program had a recidivism rate of 30% or less (Schlesinger, 2018). This absolutely shows the diversion programs are success to a majority of individual who complete the program. The second assumption presented by the author shows the programs are not reaching the individual who are at the highest risk of becoming offenders. This assumption is justifiable based on the area where the highest number of high-risk offenders will reside. High crime, high poverty areas often have little positive interaction with law enforcement officials. The idea that a large number of families who reside in these communities would willingly seek law enforcement assistance is less feasible.

It appears that a major reason as to why the public would be hesitant to finance juvenile diversion programs revolves around the belief the programs are not achieving the desired intent or they are being underutilized (Schlesinger, 2018). The author explains these programs are often funded on a state level, taking the community influence out of the decision. Unless individuals making the decision are educated on the need for programs like this, they are likely to be convinced the programs are not functioning properly or not being adequately utilized. When these programs are removed or downsized, the ability to provide services to the community and the people residing in the area are greatly affected. Juvenile offenders who enter the juvenile justice system are presented with less formal diversion options or the overall availability to community is eliminated or reduced. This can decrease a community’s chance of intervening on high-risk offenders, preventing them from being placed back on the correct path.

Christian World View

Throughout the bible, the scripture speaks about how the lord provided assistance to those in need, as well as spread the word. The intent of the juvenile diversion programs is to provide resources and guidance to troubled youths, bringing them back onto the path which conforms to social controls. The intent of the juvenile diversion program is similar to the intent of God’s word, bringing people onto the path of righteousness. A specific verse emphasizes this point, Philippians 2:4, which states that an individual should look beyond their own self-interests and do what will aid the interests of others (King James Bible, 1769/2017, Philippians 2:4). The creation and operation of various diversion programs are ways a community can look past their own self-interests and provide aid to an individual in a time of need.

Conclusion

In conclusion, information has been provided which describes what a juvenile delinquency ad diversion programs is and the role they play in the current juvenile justice system. Over the course of this information, several of the assumptions associated with juvenile delinquency and diversion programs were discussed. During the discussion of these assumptions, we determined if the assumptions were justifiable as they pertained to the specific program. Also, some of the reasonings why individuals and communities are hesitant to finance these delinquency and diversion programs were explained, along with the consequences if these programs fail receive adequate failing to keep these programs operating. Lastly, a Christian world view as it applies to these programs was discussed and analyzed.

Reference:

King James Bible. (2017). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1769)

NeMoyer, A., Gale-Bentz, E., Goldstein, N. E. S., & Pema Harvey, L. (2020). Factors Associated with Successful Completion of a Community-Based, Post Arrest Juvenile Diversion Program and Subsequent Rearrest. Crime and Delinquency, 66(5), 603-626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719842377

Schlesinger, T. (2018). Decriminalizing racialized youth through juvenile diversion. The Future of Children, 28(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2018.0003

Sherman, F. T. (2011). Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy and Practice. John Wiley.