Juvenile justice, Administration of

Two distinct models have guided the juvenile justice system during the past century---individual treatment/rehabilitation and retributive justice. While its historical orientation has been individual treatment, in recent years it has become predominately punitive (Bazemore and Day, 1998; Bazemore, 1993). The organizational mission and goals of the juvenile justice system have become internally inconsistent as it tries to satisfy competing goals, such as punishment, treatment, and protection of public safety. Currently, justice professionals have sought to clarify the aims of juvenile justice management and policy. Several possibilities exist for the future of the juvenile justice system. One proposal for the future of the juvenile justice system is to abolish the juvenile court by combining it with the adult court to create one criminal court (Feld, 1993; 1999). Another proposal is to reaffirm the individualized treatment/rehabilitation model. Finally, restorative justice holds promise as a transformative, guiding philosophy for the future of the juvenile justice system, a departure from the traditional thinking about the role of juvenile justice in society (Bazemore, 1993; Bazemore, 1999; Daly and Immarigeon, 1998; Hahn, 1998). Justice professionals are considering a new approach to the justice system, a reorientation of how to think about crime and justice (Zehr, 1997). Restorative justice provides an alternative "lens" for viewing and developing new responses to juvenile crime. This alternative perspective may potentially have a profoundly, positive effect on the justice system by incorporating community participation, victim involvement and restoration (Dunlap, 1998; Zehr, 1990; Zehr, 1997). This study includes the results of a national telephone survey of key juvenile justice professionals who have been identified by key informants in each state as possessing knowledge and experience related to the status of restorative justice in the fifty states. A significant number of states and local juvenile justice systems are setting policy for the development and implementation of innovative programs and practices based on restorative justice principles. Case-study analyses of two states were also included. The case-study states are Minnesota, a government initiated, community-driven model, and Pennsylvania, a government-driven model. Each state has successfully developed and implemented a restorative justice approach using its respective model.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court found the execution of juvenile offenders to be unconstitutional, based in part on a "national consensus" against the death penalty for juveniles. The purpose of this project was to demonstrate the flaws in existing methods of measuring public opinion and to determine the correlation between the age of an offender and the sentencing recommendation received. It was the hypothesis of my project that there would not be a statistically significant correlation between the offender's age and sentencing recommendation. To test this hypothesis, I asked 156 Florida Atlantic University students. This method of analysis was considered the best way to accurately determine public sentiment towards the juvenile death penalty, after a thorough review of existing methods revealed significant flaws. My results suggest that there is no correlation between the age of an offender and sentencing recommendations.