After a thorough examination of the existing criminal justice policies, I concluded that the most promising programs relate to the issues of youth domestic violence and young adult (16-17-years-old) criminals (Operating programs, n.d.). I consider these programs to be the most promising because they address the issues of youth that are relevant to the US community. Young adult criminals’ delinquencies are currently addressed by the Project Reset. This program allows the youngsters to evade the adverse consequences of a criminal record and is considered to be an invigorating substitute for criminal court practices (Operating programs, n.d.). The Domestic Violence Court is another program aimed at the mitigation of negative outcomes in teens. This initiative fully addresses domestic violence cases where 16-19-year-old individuals are involved in any kind of domestic violence manifestation (Operating programs, n.d.). This court features a dedicated justice of the peace that has to deal with the exceptional requests made by teens in the court.
These two programs have a serious impact on the way that juvenile justice and the police view young adults and their standing in society. The majority of the decisions in courts are aimed to mitigate the effects of the strict criminal justice system of the United States. All of the parts of the legal system (including the law enforcement agency) should comply with the keystones of these two programs and do everything to certify the successful implementation of this program. Moreover, juvenile justice essentials and the correction procedures may be dynamically amended by the legal and social needs of the programs (Shoemaker, 2013). This is one of the biggest advantages of these programs because it allows the court to plan the funding of these initiatives in an efficient manner.
The initiatives are funded based on government budget priorities. The courts tend to choose from two popular options – grants from the Department of Justice and local funding opportunities. The courts may also seek federal funding. For the most part, courts depend on federal block grants, and the support coming from the Department of Justice is irreplaceable. The commitment to the project can be signified by local funding. The budget will be allocated in a way that would allow the government to cover the basic needs of the programs and utilize reserve resources is additional expenditures are inevitable (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Because the programs linked to youth are considered to be of pivotal importance, it is safe to say that governmental decisions concerning the budget opportunities are well-thought-out and effectively address the needs of the US citizens.
The criminal justice reform depends on the revisions of the US criminal justice policies conducted by the court. The impact of the court on the criminal justice policies can be explained by the major cost cuts triggered by the initiatives passed by the courts. In other words, the decisions made by the courts across the country allowed to improve public safety while decreasing the costs of the latter (Gaines, 2014). Taking into account the fact that court funding continues to diminish slowly, the courts’ initiatives can be called redeemable. The overall state of affairs proves that the courts are directly involved in the process of the development of new criminal justice policies, and the decisions made by the court are thoroughly discussed by the US legal apparatus.
References
Gaines, L. K. (2014). Homeland security: A new criminal justice mandate. In S. L. Mallicoat & C. L. Gardiner (Eds.), Criminal justice policy (pp. 67-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Operating programs. (n.d.). Web.
Shoemaker, D. J. (2013). Juvenile delinquency. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.