Introduction
Juvenile courts have been an integral component of the American juvenile justice system due to the increasing number of adolescent offenders and associated social dynamics (Champion, Merlo, & Benekos, 2012). Although the juvenile court system was initially designed around the medical model of rehabilitation based on individualized treatment, scholars agree that this model has lately been overshadowed by a desire to punish and incapacitate juvenile offenders (Moak, 2003). The present paper uses a case example of a 15-year-old larceny offender to delineate the perspectives of police officers, the state attorney, and the judge in the juvenile court system.
The perspective of Police Officers
The police comprise the law enforcement agency that the juvenile first come into contact with after the commission of the larceny offense. The police are expected to interview the juvenile and other witnesses with the view to not only establishing the facts, causes, and motives for delinquency but also to document the personality, behavior, background, educational status, family relations, and associates of the offender (Feld, 2006). This documentation should be done according to existing Juvenile Law and other forms of a criminal investigation that are sensitive to the age of the offender and his constitutional liberties (Taylor & Khan, 2013). Depending on the nature and scope of the theft offense, the police might arrange for a warrant of arrest to detain the juvenile for processing and referral to a public prosecutor within 48 hours of arrest (Feld, 2006). Police can use their power of suspicion (e.g., assessing the adolescent’s prior offending record, physical appearance, and fit with known offender profiling types) and power of prosecution to make an informed decision on whether to release the juvenile or place him on a judicial processing trajectory (Taylor & Khan, 2013).
The perspective of State Attorney
The state attorney has jurisdiction to review the charges against the juvenile, decide on whether to charge the offender, and offer plea bargains aimed at minimizing the seriousness of the charge in exchange for a guilty plea or other types of cooperation requested by the prosecution (Pennington, 2015). Although the state attorney represents the interests of the state in the case (Champion et al., 2012), it is prudent to focus on the individualized rehabilitation of the offender rather than punishment because the accused is a first offender (Moak, 2003). To balance the interests of the wronged community and/or victims with those of the juvenile, a good suggestion would be to consider a plea agreement where the juvenile agrees to the charges for onward integration into a rehabilitation process. The attorney might request the judge to consider imposing several conditions that may provide restitution and reinforce good behavior, including requiring the offender to pay a fine or attend school and complete all classes. In addition, the offender may be required to write a letter of apology to the wronged party for the state attorney to make a dispositional recommendation to the judge. Such rehabilitation-oriented practices, according to Cose (2010), are less costly, more effective, and contribute significantly to the holistic behavior modification of the offender.
The perspective of the Judge
The facts of the case show that the juvenile is a first offender and is yet to attain the minimum age for criminal prosecution according to the state’s juvenile justice system (pegged at 18 years). The value of the stolen property is put into consideration to make a sentencing determination as opposed to categorizing the offense since juveniles are not charged with misdemeanors or felonies (Pennington, 2015). Due to the plea agreement entered between the juvenile and the state attorney, the judge is certain to find the juvenile delinquent and make a disposition to place the youth on informal supervision or in a housing facility. Additionally, the judge may order the juvenile to pay a predetermined fine, compensate for the damages caused, or attend counseling or therapy to reinforce good behavior. Depending on state-specific juvenile justice procedures and the agreement between the parties involved, the judge has the discretion to impose mandatory minimum sentences in youth service programs, weekend detention programs, or full-time detention in a state-sanctioned juvenile detention facility (Kratcoski & Edelbacher, 2009). The delinquent finding reached by the judge is also enough to order the juvenile to attend a probation program for several months and to comply with all the terms and conditions set by the court, including meeting with a probation officer regularly and participating in behavior modification programs.
Conclusion
This paper has used a case example of a 15-year-old larceny offender to explain the juvenile justice system through the prism of police officers, the state attorney, as well as the presiding judge. The roles of these critical components of the juvenile justice system have been elaborated, in addition to providing balanced suggestions for punishment and appropriate judicial findings.
References
Champion, D.J., Merlo, A.V., & Benekos, P.J. (2012). The juvenile justice system: Delinquency, processing, and the law (7th ed.). New York City, NY: Pearson.
Cose, E. (2010). Rehabilitation beats punishment for juveniles. Newsweek. Web.
Feld, B.C. (2006). Police interrogation of juveniles: An empirical study of policy and practice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(1), 219-316. Web.
Kratcoski, P.C., & Edelbacher, M.M. (2009). Juvenile justice in Austria and the United States: Similarities and differences. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11, 203-216. Web.
Moak, S.S. (2003). Attitudes of Louisiana practitioners toward the changing juvenile court system. Journal of Juvenile Justice & Detention Services, 18,113-123. Web.
Pennington, L. (2015). A case study approach to procedural justice: Parents’ views in two juvenile delinquency courts in the United States. British Journal of Criminology, 55, 901-920. Web.
Taylor, M.F., & Khan, U. (2013). A comparison of police processing reports for juvenile graffiti offenders: Societal implications. Police Practice and Research, 14, 371-385. Web.