Introduction
In the past, the literature that dominated discourses on handling delinquent behaviors was highly based on the response, “tough on crime.” However, these measures seem to have had little effect, as there has been a perceptible shift about juvenile justice. In principle, policymakers seem to have acknowledged the need to uphold the first principle of juvenile justice, that children are right within their biological development cycle.
In this regard, policymakers are emphasizing that the youths should be subjected to alternative corrective measures that encompass treatment, rehabilitation, and positive reinforcement. A brief overview of the US juvenile fact sheet indicates that thousands of children have been subjected to lifetime jail terms. In the US, there are several efforts in this regard, such as advocacy, legislation, and reallocation of resources to reduce the number of children behind bars. This report explains the role and duties of an intake officer in the juvenile court system by analyzing it within specific contexts of judicial jurisdictions (Redding, 2013, p. 92). Further, it compares the juvenile system to the adult justice system.
Responsibility of an Intake Officer
The principal duty of an Intake Officer is to evaluate a juvenile who has been accused of committing a crime to establish the appropriate disciplinary measures. In specific, intake officers factor in the juveniles history, mental health, family situation, as well as other factors that they may deem relevant (Mayzer & Ertelt, 2009, p. 796). The intake officer is contacted by the family of the minor or by law enforcement. Some of the common issues they handle include, but not limited to, drugs and substance abuse, destructive behavior, misdemeanors, and felonies.
The intake officer conducts thorough background check on the juvenile, then reviews available facts against standard juvenile procedures before recommending punishment as well as treatment procedures. Moreover, the Intake officer assists law enforcement with particular duties such as admission as well as placement and screening of juveniles. The intake office has a duty to transport the juvenile to court, collaborate with all stakeholders, as well as intervene during crisis. Moreover, the intake office is responsible for serving summons to the juvenile. An intake officer must conduct all background information to determine whether a juvenile court has any jurisdiction over the issue at hand. In addition, the Intake officer must evaluate the facts before him or her to establish whether the evidence is adequate to commence and sustain a juvenile action (Mason, Chapman, Shau & Simons, 2013, p. 205). The intake office then considers the age of the child before they can conclude on the best judicial action to be implemented. Given that the Intake Officer collaborates with the child, parents, guardians, caregivers or any other person or individual responsible for the minor, he or she can resolve to pursue one of the following decisions based on their age: 1) resolve the matter by either proposing an informal adjustment period where the minor is required to abide by specific conditions or 2) petition the local States Attorney office for review.
The final duty of the Intake officer is to determine whether it would be safe to release the juvenile or not. He or she may propose that the Juvenile be placed in detention or shelter care. When the intake office is satisfied that the child will voluntarily participate in community detention, he might consider leasing the juvenile without imposing sanctions.
Juvenile dispositions
A delinquent act occurs with certain parameters that researchers view as either individual or community. However, the classification of delinquent behaviors has attracted considerable scholarly attention without an established common ground in this regard. For this report, three dispositions will be reviewed: nominal, conditional and custodial, upon which anyone can be provoked to mitigate a given act. This section is organized around three case scenarios, which will assist us to classify some of the delinquent behaviors.
In simple terms, disposing of minors can be perceived to be similar to sentencing an adult offender. That is, adults are convicted but juveniles are disposed of as a way of punishing them. Court relies upon 12 different dispositions when convicting juveniles including but not limited to nominal, conditional, and custodial disposition.
Case scenario 1
The nature of the offense committed in this case was violent in nature as the victim suffered serious body injuries. The most appropriate disposition action in this scenario would be a conditional concept. The most common form of conditional disposition practiced is probation. The victim was injured, and the offender had to perform a restitution act because of their offense. This concept relies on psychological counseling as well as clinical evaluation to determine the best cause of action. Howell and Hutto (2012) argued that given that the victim suffered extensive burns on his body, which made him to undergo medical treatment might trigger another dimension of loss/cost (p.786). For instance, property offenders are required to make restitution to the victims, which should also apply in this case. The offender should be compelled to make restitution in order to secure his release. Moreover, many jurisdictions emphasize on pursuing the concept of restorative justice, where offenders and the victims share a platform to allow them to mediate (Siegel & Welsh, 2014). The victim is required to take responsibility for his action that will heighten responsibility. As the offender is an eighth-grader, he may not be required to make financial restitution. However, for the offender to appreciate the gravity of his actions, he may be required to perform a light duty in the hospital where the victim was treated.
Case scenario 2
The delinquent behavior, in this case is theft. The disposition that is best suited in this case would be nominal concept. Tsui (2014) noted that these dispositions could be provoked when the delinquent behavior under review is low risk, first offense, or recidivate (p.636). Stealing a bicycle is a delinquent behavior that does not guarantee extensive judicial attention. In this concept, after Kenny had been subjected to verbal reprimand, he would be returned to his parents. The parents of the offender were shocked when they realized their child was responsible for stealing a bicycle. It would then be expected that they would counsel the kid to avoid occurrence of such behavior in future. Nominal disposition enables juvenile rehabilitation by creating a positive relationship between the offender, victim, and the community at large.
Case scenario 3
The case in this study is underage driving. In the US, most states have individual age limit upon which a child is allowed to be issued with a temporary driving license. One of the states is Iowa where the minimum driving age limit is 14 years. Therefore, a minor at the age of nine has not attained the minimum age at which they can be issued with a driving license. At the age of 14, the instruction permit can be issued while awaiting the intermediate license if they have not been involved in delinquent behavior. If a minor gets into a traffic incident in Iowa, it amounts to a misdemeanor. The most appropriate disposition is conditional concept. This disposition requires offenders to perform a specific action due to their actions. The most form of conditional disposition practiced is probation. The victim was injured, and the offender had to perform a restitution act as a result of their offense. This concept relies on psychological counseling as well as clinical evaluations as a corrective mechanism on the victim (Pope, Luna, & Thomas, 2012, p. 8). The child driving the car can be charged with misdemeanor, and his parents may be ordered to pay a fine. This disposition is the most appropriate as it relies on psychological processes that are essential to understanding the behavioral traits of the child. After understanding the nature and source of the problem, a corrective mechanism can be implemented to ensure the child does not repeat the same mistake again. The case would then be disposed of if the teenager agrees and commits to undergo individual counseling.
The Juvenile system (JS) vs. the Adult justice system (AJS)
There are several distinguishing factors between the JS and the AJS. In the JS, juveniles are not prosecuted for committing crimes; they are instead disposed of while in the AJS, an adult is prosecuted for committing an offense. In addition, in the JS, juveniles are served by an intake officer while in AJS; offenders are subjected to a public trial where they must:
- Know the nature of allegations leveled against them,
- be presented by a counsel
- have the right to speedy trial
- confront witnesses.
In a JS, law enforcers preserve the right to preventative action against the juvenile for his/her benefit while an adult has a constitutional right to apply for a bond or bail. Moreover, in the juvenile system, public access to juvenile records is limited to minimize instances of stigma. In an adult system, the public has access to criminal records. Additionally, the basic rationale of the juvenile system is to rehabilitate and integrate the child back to the society. In an adult system, the CJS operates on the basis that criminal sanction mirrors the offense. That is, criminal sanction is an effective deterrence.
Personal reflection
The profession chosen in this regard is the position of a defense attorney. In my capacity as a defense attorney, the primary duty is to ensure that a child receives the best judicial outcome. The recommendations of the Intake Officer bear substantial effect on the direction of the case and as such, their influence is enormous. Their influence stems from the duties they perform such as determining if a certain court carries any jurisdiction on the juvenile suspect. The officer then recommends punishment as well as treatment procedures and performs other duties that will benefit the life of the juvenile (Pytash & Jian, 2014). In most cases, the Intake Officer and the defense attorney act at different spectrums of the paradigm. If the recommendations are in the best interest of the juvenile, then the influence is appropriate. There have been cases where juveniles have been tried as adults, and if such a case occurs on the based on the recommendations of an Intake officer, then the influence is inappropriate, as the juvenile may not get the much-needed corrective measure that may only be guaranteed in the juvenile system.
Application of insights and knowledge’s gained
This report gives students in diverse fields such as criminology and legal studies the ability to understand juvenile delinquencies and its causes (VonAncken, 2013, p. 58). Additionally, it enables them to understand prevention studies that can be affected and other prevention mechanisms in this respect. Since juveniles are still in their biological development cycle, their acts against the law are not regarded as criminal acts, but rather delinquent acts. The merit of this study enables aspiring researchers in this field to determine causes that motivate delinquent behavior and what can be done to reverse this trend. The society is dynamic, and the trajectories that motivate delinquent acts are continuously evolving. This report and other related academic researches offer an ample platform to keep abreast with them.
Conclusion
Delinquent behavior is not regarded as a criminal act because children do not have the capacity to make the right decision. An intake officer is a law enforcer who is given a special mandate to serve the juveniles. He / She conducts background checks on the juvenile and the nature of the crime. Moreover, he offers recommendations to that effect. The purpose of the juvenile system is to ensure that children are re-integrated into the society as quickly as possible. The difference between juvenile systems is based on the scope, structure, and purpose. The merit of these studies enables aspiring researchers in this field to determine causes that motivate delinquent behavior and what can be done to reverse the trend.
References
Howell, R. J., & Hutto, T. S. (2012). Sentencing Convicted Juvenile Felony Offenders in the Adult Court: The Direct Effects of Race. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 30(6), 782-799.
Mason, C. A., Chapman, D. A., Shau, C., & Simons, J. (2013). Impacting Re-Arrest Rates Among Youth Sentenced in Adult Court: An Epidemiology Examination of the Juvenile Sentencing Advocacy Project. Journal Of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32(2), 205.
Mayzer, R., & Ertelt, T. W. (2009). Juvenile competency to stand trial in criminal court and brain function. Journal Of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20(6), 785-800.
Pope, K., Luna, B., & Thomas, C. (2012). The role of developmental neuroscience in the disposition of juvenile offenders. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 28(6), 8.
Pytash, K. E., & Jian, L. (2014). The Writing Dispositions of Youth in a Juvenile detention Center. Journal Of Correctional Education, 65(3), 24-42.
Redding, R. E. (2013). Examining Legal Issues: Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court and Adult Prison. Corrections Today, 61(2), 92.
Siegel, L. & Welsh, B. (2014). Juvenile delinquency : the core. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Tsui, J.C. (2014). Breaking Free Of The Prison Paradigm: Integrating Restorative Justice Techniques Into Chicago’s Juvenile Justice System. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104(3), 634-666.
VonAncken, E. E. (2013). Due Process: Understanding the U.S. Criminal Justice System - Evidence and Forensics. School Library Journal, 59(1), 58.