Create a positive feed back with this discussion post and make it a paragraph long:

• What are the differences between appointed counsel and private counsel? Are they both equal in terms of quality?
  • Appointed counsel and private counsel are two different types of people who are in charge of defending a juvenile in court. A private counsel is someone who is retained or appointed to represent a juvenile, these people tend to cost more money, and more so, juveniles that come from a higher social class have private counsel. An appointed counsel, who is an attorney or a public defender, is appointed to represent juveniles in court. It is more often that a juvenile is represented by a court-appointed counsel due to not being able to afford private counsel. The attorneys are full-time employees on a salary, while the public defenders are chosen from a list of practicing attorneys. Both are paid by the state or county in which they are, to represent defenders who can't afford private counsel. In most places, a public defender is paid pretty low, but it does ensure that there is minimal income to be made. However, a lot of public defender systems are not funded properly compared to private counsel that are properly funded since they cost money for the defendants. There is a difference sometimes in the quality of the two. Sometimes public defenders have little interest in defending their clients, due to not being interested in the case, or not being paid enough. Due to this some clients have a disadvantage in that they are not of a higher social class. However the National Juvenile Defender Center gives some recommendations so that the public defenders are better for their defendants. Such as expansion of public and private law school learning, establishing dedicated juvenile defense committees, and expanding legal programs to promote juvenile defense (Cox 139). Since it shouldn't come down to who is wealthier, it should come down to the facts and the evidence.
• Discuss the role of the juvenile probation officer. Is this role considered ambiguous? If so, can it lead to role identity confusion?
  • A juvenile probation officer is when a minor is placed and maintained in the community under the supervision of an authorized officer of the court. These officers are placed when a juvenile is on probation, so that the juvenile can be watched and kept track of their whereabouts and what they are doing. They are also in charge of arranging a preliminary conference between certain parties that can then resort to a settlement, instead of the case going to court. Also, after having an adjudicatory hearing, the probation officer normally then has to do a social background investigation on the juvenile. Probation officers are also in charge as well for supervising the parents of a juvenile if their parents are known to have committed abuse or neglect. They are also in charge of cancelling probation if the juvenile is doing really well, or also contacting other officers or judges if a violation is occurring during the probationary period of the juvenile. I do think this role is considered ambiguous since sometimes you find that some juveniles become close to their probation officer, almost becoming a friend to them, while some are strictly professional. There are also a lot of roles that probation officers do. I do think a probation officer becoming very close to their juvenile could lead to role identity confusion, since those people are there and getting paid to work, and keep track of the juvenile (Cox 143). For example, a juvenile could get close to their probation officer, but they proceed to go steal something from a store. They do tell their probation officer, but since they are close friend,s the juvenile doesn't want the probation officer to tell anyone, so the officer agrees. It blurs the line between what the probation officer is really there for. Altogether, they are there to act as authority figures and to help discipline juveniles, and hopefully, rehabilitate these juveniles to turn a new leaf, away from crime.