Law Homework Help

Recommendations for Diversion Programs for Juveniles

Juvenile diversion programs are initiatives that are designed to house and rehabilitate juveniles who are directed from the juvenile justice system. This can take place when juveniles are either diverted before being processed by the juvenile justice system or are transferred after the formal adjudication or when the juvenile admits the offense. In this regard, the scope of juvenile diversion programs can be understood from the point of initial contact up to the point where a juvenile court disposition is made. It is within this range that a juvenile can be redirected from formal processing in the juvenile court system, this diversion helps youths to avoid detention or incarceration. There are fundamental principles on which the ecology of human development is based and which are particularly important in understanding the foundation of diversion. Juvenile delinquency and diversion programs are based on the belief that there are more effective processes that are less criminogenic and which make the most predictable contribution to the juvenile’s long-term development (Ferguson, 2006). By establishing informal platforms to direct juveniles from incarceration, diversion programs create opportunities for addressing antisocial behavior by integrating the mediating role of families and the community. This is well aligned with the concept of social capital as discussed by Sherman and Jacobs (2011). This analysis of juvenile delinquency and diversion programs will not only explore the conceptual and practical viewpoints of juvenile diversion programs, but also enumerate and assess assumptions fundamental to these programs.

The concept of social capital as highlighted by Sherman and Jacobs (2011) relates to the effect of social support and networking that takes place at individual and community levels. To contextualize the value of social capital as a basis for juvenile diversion programs, one must begin by understanding the value of the community. The community is understood as a platform that can be used to communally address certain social problems. This is because the community creates a contextual environment where various contributors can influence the development of the child or avail resources with which to address a given social problem. In this regard, dispersion programs utilize the interactional nature of social capital to expose juveniles to a variety of relationships and transactions that help to model their behavior.

Diversion programs are contextualized around the rehabilitative or corrective nature of juvenile justice. As a result, these programs are designed to enhance accountability as it relates to individual behavior. In this regard, these programs have specific goals contextual to rehabilitating the juvenile and reducing the likelihood of criminal socialization. Rehabilitation is achieved through coordinated processes of school engagement and enhancing their level of functioning through programs that address specific behaviors. On the other hand, the risk of criminal socialization is addressed by exposing juveniles to positive peers and role models (Cox et al., 2018). Given that behavior is highly variable, diversion programs also vary widely depending on the typology of the program. These variations can manifest in a number of dimensions including the point of contact, setting, juvenile population, typology of interventions used as well as methods engaged in the formal and informal processing of the juvenile.

There are assumptions fundamental to the conceptual and operational framework of juvenile diversion programs that should be understood to establish a holistic view of their effect on juvenile justice. First, juvenile delinquency and diversion programs purpose to reduce the case load in juvenile courts by establishing an alternative platform for processing cases that do not warrantee juvenile justice resources. However, the reality is that diversion programs actively expand the states influence in the lives of more young people by expanding the number of juveniles processed within and out of the system. Secondly, the assumption that children are lesser adults with the capability of making decisions in a similar fashion as an older adult remains fundamental to juvenile delinquency and diversion programs. For as long as research has documented understandings about criminal justice, children or juveniles have been understood to behave and think different as compared to adults. However, the establishment of diversion programs has effectively expanded the scope of juvenile justice, hence, ensuring that the demands for behavioral accountability among children match similar expectations among adult offenders (Sherman & Jacobs, 2011). Thirdly, it is assumed that juvenile delinquency is the consequence of a few bad children. However, this positioned is informed by official statistics maintained by the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) among other sources. In this context, the perception of juvenile delinquency as held by the system is informed by statistics and self-reported studies that have inherent limitations such as reliability and completeness.

To a big extent, these assumptions are justified by the performance of diversion programs and their effects on youths in the United States. For instance, the population of juveniles held within the system is large. This is the result of the scoping effect highlighted above and the perception of juvenile delinquency which increases the likelihood that youth in the United States can easily get into the system and remain within its processing timeline for quite some time. As a result, there is sufficient practical evidence justifying the degree to which these assumptions affect the juvenile justice system. Even though diversion programs are informed by the concept of social capital and theories like labeling theory and differential association theory, the public is often unwilling to finance these programs. One of the reasons behind this is the overemphasis placed on individual rights and the rule of law (Cox et al., 2018). Given that many diversion programs operate within an external sphere of influence beyond which formal processing in the juvenile courts is active, many juveniles are informally processed without adjudication. As a result, some of these programs penetrate the socioeconomic framework that make up the community, which positions the programs against the very public they are designed to support. Secondly, some of these programs. This resistance is rather unfortunate because it not only denies diversion programs the multidisciplinary input that community support brings, but also the financial support and consent needed to avail resources to service these programs.

Prevention and diversion are concepts that are supported by the scripture. We are encouraged to conform to the image of God which emphasizes the very values that juvenile diversion programs purpose to promote. We are encouraged to pursue this conformance in Romans 8:29-30, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Holy Bible, English Standard Version, 2001/2016). The sentiments made in Romans 8:7-9 emphasize the need to ensure that our flesh is able to submit to God’s law, for this is necessary in nurturing young people in God’s word and with the social order prescribed in the scripture.

References

Cox, S.M., Allen, J.M., Hanser, R.D., Conrad, J.J. (2018). Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory, Policy, and Practice. (9th ed). Sage Publications.

Ferguson, K. (2006). Social capital and children’s well-being: A critical synthesis of the international social capital literature. International Journal of Social Welfare, 15, 2–18.

Sherman, F.T. & Jacobs, F.H. (2011). Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2016). (Original work published 2001).