Juvenile Court System: Perspectives Police Officers (Essay Sample)

Juvenile Court System
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Abstract
This paper uses a case scenario of a 15-year-old theft offender to explain the juvenile justice system using the prism of law enforcement agencies, the state attorney, and the judge. The paper not only discusses the roles of these critical components of the juvenile justice system, but also makes suggestions for punishing the offender as well as the appropriate judicial finding for the offence. While police officers must document the crime and process the offender, the state attorney can enter a guilty plea with the juvenile to minimize the seriousness of the offence and make a case for a rehabilitative sentence.

Juvenile Court System
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 on the basis of individualized treatment, scholars are in agreement that this model has lately been overshadowed by a desire to punish and incapacitate juvenile offenders (Moak, 2000). 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.
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 offence. 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 norms of 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 offence, 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).
Perspective of State Attorney
The state attorney has jurisdiction to review the charges against the juvenile, make a decision on whether to charge the offender, and offer plea bargains aimed at minimizing the seriousness of the charge in exchange of 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 due to the fact that the accused is a first offender (Moak, 2000). 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 successfully 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 holistic behavior modification of the offender.
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 juvenil...