Answer each question minimum of 300 words. Must use provided material (PDF book) as well as 2 other

  

Answer each question minimum of 300 words. Must use provided material (PDF book) as well as 2 other sources to complete assignment. Please use in-text citations and reference/cite in APA format. Here is the reference for the PDF: Elrod, P., & Ryder, R. S. (2014). Juvenile justice: a social, historical, and legal perspective (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.1.) Use your text and the internet to research the case of Roper v. Simmons. 543 U.S. 551 (2005). In a narrative format, outline the case. Give the facts, issue, and court holding.2.) What was the standard for the death penalty for juveniles in your state? Research and report the last time a convicted juvenile was executed in your state.3.)What are your state’s standards for transferring a juvenile to adult court for trial?4.) If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons, would you have voted with the majority or dissent? Give your rationale.ed
bethel_courses_ccj_4300_unit_4_read1.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Answer each question minimum of 300 words. Must use provided material (PDF book) as well as 2 other
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Preadjudication Processes
in Juvenile Justice
L
I
Chapter Objectives
D
After studying this chapter, you should be able to
D
• Describe the intake process in juvenile court
E
• Describe the role of discretion in the intake process
L
• Describe recent trends in intake decision making
L
• List the screening criteria commonly used in making intake decisions and explain the
,
uses of case conferences in intake screening
• Explain the use of and need for the detention hearing or preliminary hearing and
describe the due process issues surrounding the detention
T of juveniles
• Explain the functions that plea bargaining and sentence
I bargaining play in the intake
and preadjudication process
F
F
A
N
Y
Chapter Outline
Introduction
The Juvenile Justice Intake Process
Additional Juvenile Justice Preadjudication Processes
Legal Issues
Chapter Summary
Key Concepts
Review Questions
Additional Readings
1
5
6
8
T
S
Notes
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592
chapter
8
190
chapter 8
Preadjudication Processes in Juvenile Justice
■■ Introduction
This chapter examines a variety of pretrial or preadjudication processes that occur in juvenile
courts. These pretrial processes include a variety of hearings, conferences, and decision-making
events in which determinations about the best methods of handling juvenile court referrals are
made. Like the decision to arrest a juvenile, decisions made at this stage of the juvenile court
process are critical for a number of reasons. First, they play a major role in determining which
youths penetrate further into the juvenile court process. Second, they have a direct bearing
on the freedom of juvenile offenders because they often focus on youths’ placement pending
further court action. Third, they can lead to formal court processing and assignment of formal
labels, such as “delinquent” or “undisciplined child.” Finally, they can halt or set in motion a
variety of responses to juvenile offenders that have the potential to exacerbate or reduce the
likelihood of subsequent delinquent behavior.
L
The preadjudication processes that
I are examined in this chapter come between two
important events in the juvenile justice process: the police (arrest) or social agency referral to
D
the juvenile court and the trial or adjudication
hearing in which the court decides whether
to take formal jurisdiction of a case. One
purpose
of the preadjudication process is to screen
D
out cases that may be better handled outside
E of court, meaning youths and their families (and
even the victims of their misbehavior) will be spared any harm associated with court involveL screen cases, more youths and their families will
ment. Conversely, if they do not effectively
be subject to possibly unnecessary and L
expensive court intervention. Another purpose of the
preadjudication process is to determine which cases are appropriate for adjudication. Thus,
,
the decisions made at this stage of the juvenile justice process determine which youths become
“official juvenile delinquents.”
arrest
The deprivation of
a person’s freedom
by legal authority;
the apprehension of
the juvenile by the
police; the physical
seizing of a person
by the authorities
for the purpose of
making that person
answer for a criminal charge.1
© jean gill/iStockphoto
intake
The process of introducing youths who
come to the police
and court’s attention into the juvenile
justice system and
determining how
far they go into the
system.
T
■■ The Juvenile Justice Intake Process
I
When the decision to arrest a youth is made
F or when a social agency or a public school refers
a youth to the juvenile court, several things
F occur. Although most people probably picture
suspects being handcuffed, taken to the station to be booked, and placed in a lockup when
A a juvenile is arrested, the youth is released into the
they are arrested, in many instances when
custody of his or her parents or guardian.
N The police officer then completes the juvenile arrest
report, which is forwarded to the intake unit of the juvenile court for screening. Similarly,
Y
when social agencies, schools, or in some jurisdictions parents or citizens make a referral to
the juvenile court, it is the intake unit that initially receives the referral.
1 The purpose of the intake unit is to determine
most appropriate way to handle cases that are
5the
referred for possible juvenile court action. As noted
6earlier, juvenile codes are constructed so broadly that
8a wide range of juvenile behaviors are potentially subto juvenile court jurisdiction. As a result, comTject
plaints alleging that juveniles have thrown snowballs
Sat a school bus, broken a window during a baseball
game, engaged in a petty property dispute, disobeyed
their parents, stayed out past curfew, or been involved
in a minor altercation in the neighborhood, as well as many more serious matters such as
aggravated assaults, burglaries, and property damage cases, are regularly referred to juvenile
courts for action. It is the intake unit of the court that has the responsibility of determining
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592
The Juvenile Justice Intake Process
191
which of these many types of complaints warrant formal court action and which might be
better handled in some other way.
intake screening
The process of determining whether
youths should be
diverted from the
juvenile system or
referred for ­formal
or informal services.
Screening criteria
usually include
seriousness of the
offense(s), ­family
history, prior delinquency record or
court contacts, legal
mandates regarding
diversion, attitude,
age, school performance, ­parental
­cooperation,
employment
­history, and
­restitution issues.
­Unfortunately,
screening criteria
may also include,
despite their inappropriateness, race,
gender, socioeconomic status, and
whether the child
lives in a single- or
two-parent family.
F YI  Because a Youth Is Arrested Does Not Mean He or She Is Guilty of
an Offense
It should be kept in mind that being arrested does not mean that one is guilty. Guilt or innocence is determined by the juvenile court at the adjudication hearing (i.e., the trial stage of the juvenile justice process).
Thus, even though a juvenile is arrested for an offense, he or she is not guilty of that offense until the alleged
offense has been proven at the adjudication. Moreover, youths are not considered “official” delinquents until
they have been adjudicated.
L
I
M yth vs Real ity  Formal Court Action Is Not Necessary in Every
D
Juvenile Case
D
Myth—Juveniles should always receive some type of formal sanction when they engage in delinquent
E
behavior.
Reality—Delinquency encompasses many types of offenses, many
L of which do not represent a substantial
threat to public or individual well-being. Moreover, most youths engage in delinquency and are not caught, yet
they manage to grow up to become healthy adults. Also, there isL
an informal juvenile justice process, as well
as diversion programs, that effectively handles many cases each,year. It should be remembered that although
formal court action can and does serve the best interests of children and the community in many cases, there
are other instances when the effects of formal court actions are far from positive.
T
I
Traditionally, intake screening was performed by probation
officers employed by the juvenile court or separate state agencies responsible for performing
probation and intake funcF
tions, although it is common for a member of the prosecuting
attorney’s office to review most
F
complaints for legal sufficiency . The purpose of this review is to determine if the elements of
A attorney makes a determination
a chargeable offense are present. Essentially, the prosecuting
that there are legal grounds for the court to proceed and
Nthat the prosecuting attorney’s office
is prepared to represent the state’s interests at the adjudication. This model, which places a
Y
probation officer or similar caseworker at the center of the intake process, is still used in many
states. However, as a result of the “get-tough” movement and efforts to criminalize the juvenile
court, prosecutors have begun to play more dominant roles
1 in making intake decisions in many
2
jurisdictions. Moreover, in some jurisdictions, such as South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming,
5
Florida, and Indiana, the prosecuting attorney’s office has the primary responsibility for most
6 Mexico, Virginia, and Texas) manor all intake decision making. Other states (Arizona, New
date that cases involving youths with prior records be8screened by the prosecutor, and still
others (California, Maryland, and Texas) require that serious offenses and weapons offenses
T
be reviewed by the prosecutor.3 Also, in Michigan, as in a number of states, the prosecuting
attorney is the only person who can petition the juvenileS
court in delinquency matters.4 Because
prosecutorial screening decisions are based on explicit criteria such as offense seriousness, prior
record, and the age of the youth, it removes traditional discretionary decision making from
the probation staff. It may also be related to a tendency to rely on more formal processing of
juvenile cases. For example, an increase in formal case processing across all offense categories
has been noted in juvenile courts since the mid-1980s.5
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592
legal sufficiency
The requirement
that an alleged
criminal offense and
the alleged perpetrator meet certain
criteria before the
alleged ­perpetrator
can be charged
with a criminal
act. A prosecuting
­attorney, district
attorney, or state’s
attorney assesses the
criminal charges and
the characteristics of
the alleged perpetrator to ensure that the
criteria are met.
192
punitive model of
juvenile justice
A model of juvenile justice that
is intended to act
as a counter to
what are believed
to be traditional
“soft” approaches
to juvenile crime
and supports more
severe sanctions
for illegal behavior,
particularly for
more serious forms
of delinquency.
The punitive model
of juvenile justice
employs the same
criteria used in
charging adults, and
the focus is on punishment rather than
rehabilitation.
chapter 8
Preadjudication Processes in Juvenile Justice
The increasing involvement of prosecuting attorneys in the intake process reflects the
increasing legalization and punitiveness of the juvenile justice process found in a number of
jurisdictions. The increased use of prosecuting attorneys in juvenile justice decision making
is an example of a shift toward a punitive model of juvenile justice intended to respond more
forcefully to youths who violate the law and to circumvent the discretion employed by probation officers in the traditional intake screening model.
After the complaint is reviewed for legal sufficiency, an intake officer (a probation officer, caseworker, or attorney) screens the complaint in order to make a decision about how
the case should be processed. This screening often involves a consideration of the type and
seriousness of the offense alleged in the complaint (e.g., harm to the victim) as well as factors
such as the age of the youth and his or her offense and court history (if available). In addition, information in the complaint regarding parental response to the offense, the reaction of
L
the youth, and the behavior of the youth in the community, at school, and at home may be
considered. Another trend seen in someI jurisdictions is the use of more formalized screening
or assessment instruments in making D
intake decisions and the use of assessment centers to
screen youth. For example, some states have established juvenile or community assessment
D
centers that have several goals:
E
• To provide a central entry point for youth coming into contact with the juvenile justice
L
process
• To provide immediate and comprehensive
assessments of youths’ needs
L
• To establish a management information
system capable of monitoring youths to ensure
,
that they are receiving needed services and to avoid service duplication
• To establish an integrated case management system that ensures that youths receive
needed services and to allow forTperiodic follow-up and assessment
I
The primary goal, then, of the juvenile assessment
center is to assess and coordinate efforts to
address the social, mental health, substance
use,
educational,
and family needs of the youth.6
F
Unfortunately, many jurisdictions do not have single-entry assessment centers that are able to
F
coordinate multiple resources to address youths’ needs. In too many communities, there is a
A To better understand one intake officer’s perspeclack of good-quality resources for children.
tive of his job, see Box 8-1.
N
Y
FY I  A Variety of Factors Discourage Police from Making Arrests in
Juvenile Cases
1
There are a number of reasons police might5
decide not to arrest a juvenile. First, many police believe that
juvenile courts are ineffective in dealing with delinquents and that all of the work required to complete a case
6 review, contacting witnesses, and testifying in court) is not
(i.e., writing up a police report for prosecutorial
worth the likely outcome. Second, police are not
8obligated to make arrests in every case in which they come into
contact with a juvenile who has engaged in illegal conduct, and although they are likely to make an arrest if
T make “informal adjustments” in instances involving minor
a serious offense has been committed, they often
delinquent activities. Third, the lack of secureSdetention beds for juveniles in some jurisdictions places limits
on the number of youths who can be detained. A major problem confronting many juvenile detention facilities,
like adult jails, is chronic overcrowding. In 2008, one in four juvenile facilities reported that they had more
residents than standard beds.7
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592
The Juvenile Justice Intake Process
BOX 8-1 Interview: Frank Weichlein, Administrator,
Kalamazoo County Juvenile Home, Ninth Judicial
Circuit Court, Family Division, Kalamazoo, MI
Q: What is your educational and employment background?
A: I received a BA in sociology from Western Michigan University in 1978, and an MA in public administration
from WMU in 1992. I started out my work in juvenile justice by interning at the Kalamazoo County Juvenile
Home, and upon graduation I was hired to work there as a child guidance worker. I moved to probation
after two years and did that from 1980 to 1986. I was the intake supervisor from 1986 until 2005. I am
presently the administrator of the Juvenile Home.
Q: What were your duties and responsibilities as intake supervisor?
L process, which includes accepting and
A: First of all, I was responsible for overseeing the entire intake
screening of all complaints and petitions that come to the court.
I I made or oversaw the initial decision as
to whether a child or family receives diversion or gets referred to the formal docket. Second, I supervised
11 intake staff. Third, I was responsible for the development, D
implementation, and supervision of diversion
programs run by the court. Also, with the unification of courts
D in Michigan, I had added responsibilities
related to domestic cases and personal protection orders. For example, we screened all domestic case
E time, custody, and change of domicile.
motions and conducted case reviews on motions regarding parenting
And we reviewed requests from citizens for personal protection
L orders.
Q: In addition to your education and employment background, have
L you had any specialized training?
A: One thing the court has been very good about is providing staff training opportunities. I have been able to
,
attend numerous seminars and training sessions, all of which have been helpful in my work.
Q: What part of your job in intake did you find the most rewarding?
A: Giving young people the opportunity to change behaviors inTdiversion without having to have a formal
delinquency record gave me the most satisfaction. Also, with the added responsibilities that have resulted
I
from court unification, I had an opportunity to be responsive to a broad range of people who come to the
F
court for assistance.
Q: What part of your intake job did you find the least rewarding?F
A: Responding to, and working under, legislation requirementsA
that are not well thought out. The political
posturing that results in legislation being passed without consulting the people that will be responsible
N of this is the victim rights legislation
for implementing it causes a great deal of frustration. An example
involving restitution. Although I’m in favor of restitution, you
Y cannot treat juveniles like adults in that
regard—but that’s what the legislature has tried to do. Other questionable legislation, in my opinion,
includes the registration of sex offenders, school safety legislation, changes in waiver statutes, and the
development of “designation cases.” While these efforts may be1well intentioned, they can produce outcomes
that are detrimental to young people, and changes should be considered.
5
Q: What skills and abilities would you tell college students they should cultivate to work in your field?
6
A: Patience, resiliency, the ability to accept diversity, and flexibility are some of the main personality features
anyone going into the field needs to cultivate. In addition, those
8 who work in juvenile justice need to be able
to think on their feet and have excellent oral and written communication skills. An intake worker spends
T
a great deal of time communicating with the public, police, victims, juveniles, family members, and the
Sindependently, but work under supervision.
court. Finally, an intake officer must be a person who can think
Q: What particular strengths and abilities do you feel you brought to your work in intake?
A: Patience and the ability to see the “big picture,” and I am flexible enough to respond to a changing work
environment. I believe I have good communication skills and an ability to lead and motivate people without
being coercive. It is also important to understand the fundamentals of each of my employees’ positions,
which is needed for effective supervision.
(continues)
© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592
193
194
chapter 8
Preadjudication Processes in Juvenile Justice
BOX 8-1
(continued)
Q: What were the major challenges that you faced as intake supervisor?
A: Certainly my most challenging problem was dealing with serious delinquents on the one hand, while
continuing to advocate for prevention and diversion programs. I genuinely believe in the importance and
the effectiveness of prevention and rehabilitation, but serious delinquents take the public’s focus off diversion. In addition, the development of domestic case intake processes has certainly been one of the biggest
challenges we have faced.
Q: Who did you report to, and where are you in the court administration when you were intake supervisor?
A: I reported to the associate court administrator, who is in charge of intake and probation services. I was
considered a department head and I was solidly in middle management.
L
Q: What unique programs were offered in intake that you believe were particularly effective?
I it is run by the court, not a youth services bureau outside of
A: Our youth diversion program is unique in that
the court. With good caseworkers and the backup
D of the court, it has proven to be very effective. Our inquiry
process also works very well. We have four workers with nonlegal backgrounds, but who have been specially
D
trained, and meet with youth and parents to discuss pending delinquency charges. There are a full range
of alternatives available, including formalEcourt actio …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more