Intake officers decide whether juveniles should be (1) unconditionally released from the juvenile justice system, (2) released

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Intake officers decide whether juveniles should be (1) unconditionally released from the juvenile justice system, (2) released to parents or guardians subject to a subsequent juvenile court appearance, (3) released or referred to one or more community-based services or resources, (4) placed temporarily in secure confinement subject to a subsequent juvenile court appearance, (5) placed on informal probation or supervision, or (6) referred to the prosecutor or judge for formal juvenile court processing or consideration of a waiver or transfer to the criminal courts (Merlo & Benekos 2018).

Since intake officers have discretion when deciding what happens with juveniles, their recommendations should be double checked by an intake supervisor or judge if not with every case then quarterly. Assessments should be done to determine the statistics of their recommendations to make sure the officers are not biased against certain groups. Since the intake process in private and informal there is usually no one present other then the officer, the juvenile, and their guardian, it is hard to know for sure if the officer is thinking with the best interest of the juvenile or if the officer has bias in their recommendations. If officers know they were being assessed then they may be less likely to show bias. I think having too much discretion is not good any any situation, especially when determining the future of juveniles. There should always be a check system to make sure the juvenile is receiving the best recommendation for their specific situation.

Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. (2018). Juvenile Justice System, The (9th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134813295

POST 2: My recommendations to preclude any hint of bias would be to intake officers in the juvenile justice system who hold immense power, acting as gatekeepers who influence the lives of young offenders through crucial decisions. However, the sometimes informal nature of intake screening raises concerns about transparency and potential rights infringements. With broad discretion comes the responsibility to avoid bias and uphold justice. Here are some ways we can achieve that

Standardize the criteria for intake decisions. Make these criteria public knowledge and apply them uniformly to every kid, regardless of their background. This transparency builds trust and minimizes room for subjective judgment. Equipping intake officers with comprehensive training that emphasizes impartiality and cultural competence and helps them recognize and address their biases ensures decisions are based on objective facts, not personal preferences.

There are ways of implementing independent oversight mechanisms. External review boards or agencies can analyze intake decisions for patterns of bias and ensure adherence to established criteria. This adds accountability and safeguards the system's integrity.

Ensuring the criteria is clear, ongoing training, external oversight, and community engagement are crucial tools to combat bias during intake screenings. By implementing these strategies, we can work toward a system that upholds the rights of young offenders and fosters trust in the administration of justice.

Cites

Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. (2018).Juvenile Justice System, The(9th ed.). Pearson Education (US).https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134813295 Pg 182
Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. (2018).Juvenile Justice System, The(9th ed.). Pearson Education (US).https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134813295 Pg 199

POST 3: The delicate balance between confidentiality and openness in juvenile justice requires some careful consideration. While the parens patriae principle justifies state intervention for the well-being of juveniles, the erosion of confidentiality can have detrimental effects on the most vulnerable individuals within the system. Juveniles, lacking full constitutional protections, are at risk of enduring long-term consequences from public exposure.

Open proceedings may subject juveniles to stigmatization and hinder their chances of overcoming past mistakes. Labels attached during the formative years can impede rehabilitation and future opportunities. Maintaining confidentiality acknowledges the potential for reform and recognizes the developmental nature of adolescence.

While transparency is essential for accountability, especially in cases involving serious offenses, it must be balanced with the understanding that juveniles possess the capacity for change and comprehension that their actions have consequences. Striking a balance that respects the principles of parens patriae while safeguarding juveniles from unnecessary judgment is crucial. Confidentiality provisions should be upheld to protect the rehabilitative potential of the juvenile justice system and to avoid perpetuating a cycle of disadvantage for our most vulnerable youth.

Cites

Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. (2018).Juvenile Justice System, The(9th ed.). Pearson Education (US).https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134813295Pg.108
Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. (2018).Juvenile Justice System, The(9th ed.). Pearson Education (US).https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134813295 Pg. 109

POST 4: The Latin phrase parens patriae, signifying "parent of the nation," serves as the core of our youth justice system. As a consequence, the state effectively serves as a replacement parent for disturbed kids and young adults. It is also believed that people under governmental supervision are given due process, which helps them mature to the point where they can effectively integrate into society. To be successful in assisting young people, the system must respect their privacy, allowing them to feel safe from outside surveillance and censorship (Merlo, 2018). In recent years, there has been a shift favoring more open procedures and fewer restrictions on how much material may be published in terms of confidentiality. The need to promote juvenile accountability and develop novel rehabilitation approaches has helped to fuel this movement. As a consequence of open processes, juveniles may find a safe space to discuss their issues and make good adjustments in their lives. Yet, when privacy is not preserved, the system of justice can become more harsh and less conducive to young people's recovery. The implications of revealing the identity of a juvenile through the release of pictures, court documents, or knowledge about their sentencing might be disastrous. Others in the surrounding area may acquire ideas about the teenager and their family members according to what they discover. The general public might have a negative opinion of the teenager, which will make it difficult for them to find employment until they are more mature (Institute, 2013). Furthermore, when anonymity is compromised, a juvenile's record might be accessed even after they reach adulthood, potentially jeopardizing their future possibilities of attending college or the workforce. The juvenile's involvement with the judicial system may be documented on government databases such as the National Criminal Information Centre, permanently stigmatizing the kid. Because of this branding, people may find it difficult to integrate into the community and may be hampered in their private, educational, and professional pursuits. Finally, a lack of confidentiality in the justice system for juveniles can hurt an individual's future and create additional obstacles to overcome. As a community, we owe it to our youth to offer them the most secure setting in which to grow into healthy, contributing individuals. This involves following rigorous confidentiality procedures for juvenile records.

Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. (2018). Juvenile Justice System, The (9th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134813295

Institute, L. (2013, June 27). Representational standing: States and parens Patraie. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/representational-standing-states-and-parens-patraie