REFORM FOR THE JUVENILE 

JUDICIAL SYSTEM 
An Examination into the Current Juvenile Judicial System 

Chris Usher 
09.11.2018 
UCSB, WRIT 109ST 
 
 
 

 
 
ABSTRACT 2 

INTRODUCTION 2 

CRIME RATES 3 

SURVEY 4 
METHODS 4 
RESULTS 5 
DISCUSSION 5 

WHY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 5 

JUDICIAL FLAWS 7 

ADOLESCENT FACTORS 9 

CONCLUSION 9 

REFERENCES 10 

   

1 USHER 
ABSTRACT 
The juvenile judicial system has been representing the youth of this country incorrectly 
for a few years now. It has recently become apparent that the juvenile crime rates are 
increasing with no signs of slowing down and with this brings the need to reform our 
judicial system because it is the best way of reaching out troubled youth. Through the 
Uniform Crime Reports, National Crime Victimization Survey and Self-report data, we 
can see how and where juvenile crime is rising and why change should be sought. The 
juvenile judicial system would be the best place to enact change because while schools 
and other outreach programs do play a part, it is solely the judicial system that is 
involved with those who need help and guidance the most. But our current juvenile 
judicial system no longer benefits the youth it serves and in some cases even fuels their 
at-risk behavior. Juvenile courts now process juveniles in a general way instead of 
approaching them individualistically, handing out ineffective sentences in the process. 
They have strayed away from the effective community based sanctions used in previous 
year due to the increase in crime when in reality it is doing the exact opposite of helping. 
The youth are at critical ages, finally being able to interpret the world for what it is while 
trying to figure out who they are. This plus all the pressure of school and social life, the 
youth are vulnerable to at-risk lifestyles. And with the juvenile judicial system playing a 
role in their lives as well, if you are living the at-risk lifestyle, letting the weight of an 
unjust system rest on the youth as well is unacceptable and could lead to even more 
spontaneity of character. Thats is why reform from either generalistic to individualistic 
approaches, more community based sanctions, or limiting the juvenile court’s 
jurisdiction.  
 

INTRODUCTION 

The concept of justice has been engraved in the rise of the United States of America. It is 
now on of the main branches of the United States Government, playing the role of 
balancing power between the other two branches, the executive and legislative branches 
and interpreting the law impartially and fairly, guaranteeing the rule of law and 
ensuring the punishment fits the crime. In the judicial branch fall the supreme court and 
other federal courts. Now these are all connected through a judicial system, which sets 
guidelines for both the supreme court and federal courts to function within in order to 
keep the judicial branch true to its nature. ​“​The judicial system is the most expensive 

2 USHER 
machine ever invented for finding out what happened and what to do about it,” Irving R. 
Kaufman. Which it is. The judicial system, whether evident or not, is depended on 
everyday, and plays a crucial part in present day society. It protects the people’s freedom 
and rights. 
Knowing this, it should be a well oiled and efficient machine. However, in recent 
studies and investigations, while almost sound, it in fact does fail in certain areas. Just 
because something still generally works doesn’t mean it cannot be improved. As many 
have claimed, the current judicial system has a way of not serving out the youth 
correctly. It picks them up and spits them out as if they were an average criminal when 
that is far from the case. The fact is that there is a need to address this inconsistency in 
our judicial system and solve the problem to how the youth of this country are being 
prosecuted, sentenced and processed. Reevaluation and reform is needed. 
“​The strength of the juvenile justice system lies in its ability to balance policies of 
prevention, rehabilitation, and punishment” (Jenson and Howard 2005). ​The juvenile 
judicial system should be reconstructed on a basis that it is dealing with the youth who 
are, generally, first time offenders at most. Its should take a more individualistic 
approach when it comes to the youth and truly handout sentencing that would actually 
prove effective, instead of allowing them to fall into set and presentenced categories. 
Only after this will there be a change in the trending juvenile crime rates. 

CRIME RATES 
During the 1970s and 80s, juvenile crime wasn’t a big concern. While still prevalent and 
process in a serious matter, it never was a of the utmost importance for society. However 
since those times the juvenile crime rates have increased. With the introduction of 
harder drugs, rebellious culture and more violence and being at such a young age, 
juvenile crime rates were able to flourish to new heights. This brought researchers to the 
conclusion that there are “well-documented [fact] in criminology that (1) individuals are 
most likely to commit crimes during adolescence and young adulthood” (Huizinga et al., 
2003; Sampson & Laub, 1992). 
With this new apparent problem a solution began to be sought after to try and 
decrease the juvenile crime rates to what they once were. “Policy change was swift 
during the early 1990s, when several states held special legislative sessions to address 
youth crime” (Jenson and Howard 1998). Most of the changes brought about were a way 
of speeding up the whole judicial process for the youth, taking away from the 
effectiveness of the sentencing. Juveniles were going in and coming out unaffected, and 
occasionally more resentful and prone to criminal activities than before, other times 

3 USHER 
simply staying incarcerated. As shown in the figure above, the number of state jail 
inmates under the age of 18 skyrocketed from 1990 to 2004.  
In some cultures now it’s practically glorified to spend time ‘locked up’ or ‘in the 
pen’ because of how commonly the youth are sentenced to harsh punishments. With 
advancements in social networking, the music industry, etc. the youth have been 
exposed to practically everything and most of it isn’t ideal, making it easy to see that the 
crime rates have no intention on stopping their current rise.  
To present day there is not any one sole cause to the increase in juvenile crime 
rates, many factors attribute to the increase. Poverty, young mothers, family disruption, 
social environment and even abortion rates have all been brought into question when 
discussing the topic of juvenile crime rates. While all having reason to why they attribute 
to the increase, there is no definite way of testing to find the true cause. And even if it 
were, there would be no theoretical way to truly affect any of those causes. United States 
poverty cannot simply be influenced and solved because money has its on monetary 
value that can be changed, i.e. inflation. Planned Parenthood and other safe sex 
organizations are currently trying to attack the problem of young/teen pregnancies, and 
without even considering their success rates they have already come to be victims of 
defunding thanks to the Trump administration. Family disruption cannot be corrected in 
anyway due to the fact that there are various ways a family can be separated, i.e. 
divorce, deportation, etc.. Social environments are occasionally tailored to a person’s 
financial situation, for example a person would less likely partake in criminal activities if 

4 USHER 
they grew up in Beverly Hills compared to Chicago. And abortion rates have even came 
into discussion simply for that the fact of more abortions, less children to care for, but 
that brings up a whole nother ethical argument that strays away from actually solving 
anything. 

SURVEY 

METHODS 

Since the 1930, the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has been collecting data from 
police agencies around the country called the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR are 
compiled data on crimes known to the police and on arrests. Being collected since 1930, 
its allows a study of crime and arrest trends to be conducted relative to time. The UCR 
can provide data ranging from a national level to a city level scale upon request, 
including information varying from crimes cleared by arrest to characteristics of a 
person’s arrests. “However, UCR reporting is voluntary, and the total number of 
reporting police agencies varies from year to year. The accuracy and completeness of the 
data are affected by the voluntary nature of UCR reporting” (Maltz, 1999) 
Additionally, further information about crimes committed is also available from 
surveys of crime victims. Starting in 1973, the National Crime Victimization Survey 
(NCVS) collects data on crime victimization from a nationally representative sample of 
approximately 43,000 households, ranging from people ages 12 and up. “The NCVS 
includes crimes whether or not they were reported to the police. Detailed information is 
collected on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, personal 
robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle 
theft” including the victim's perception of the age of the offender (Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, 2000). However because of the difficulty to estimates a person’s age, caution 
must be exercised in using NCVS to estimate juvenile crime. 
The final way to collect data is through self-report. Self-report data is based off of 
surveys of young people and is data on the commission of delinquent acts and crimes, 
including crimes not known by the police. This type of data collection is frequently used 
for examining juvenile crimes and is usually conducted in schools. Flaws of this type of 
data collection include students who did not participate in the survey, i.e. absent 
students, dropouts, etc. in particular with the school dropouts since they have higher 
rates of delinquency than those who remained in school.   

5 USHER 
RESULTS 

The table above shows the means and standard deviations of juvenile arrest rates per 
100,000 Juveniles from 12 City-Counties from 1985 to 1996.  

Of the most recent survey, and on a more national level, it reported about 27% of 
juveniles had illegally entered a residence or building and 9% had taken something 
worth more than $50. Between 18-22% of juveniles reported fighting in the previous 
year. In all adolescents had accounted for roughly 14.2% of violent crimes committed 
annually in the United States. Violent crime arrest rates did not change significantly 
between 1973 and 1983 but increase by 57% since 1983, and approximately 500 arrests 
were made for every 100,000 juveniles in the United States since 1995. 

DISCUSSION 

This shows that juvenile crime is trending, leading to the predicament society faces 
today. Evidence has proven that the youth must be dealt with in a way that positively 
affects them, bettering their future and steering them clear of a life a crime. However, 
just as mentioned in the methods, we cannot affect the youth in any which way. There 
will always be factors in a young child’s life that are incapable of being changed or 
controlled. 
Now while there are factors that fall into that category there are somethings that 

6 USHER 
society does control, i.e. school systems, community recreations, and the judicial systems. 
All are present during adolescence but the juvenile judicial system stand above the 
others because unlike the rest it generally deals with at-risk youth, the ones causing the 
increase in crime and needing of them most help. 

WHY THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 

The juvenile judicial judicial system is where change should come to best help our youth. 
That is what gives the needed reform such importance. The judicial system is the earliest 
point in a person’s life that we can actually help those who would need it and possibly 
‘save’ them from a life of crime. 
The earliest exposure a child has is from their parents and, as stated, not every 
parent is ideal. There are those born to parents that don’t care, are too young, financially 
unstable, addicted, etc. This is not where to look for reform because most of the time 
there is simply nothing to be done about it without encountering an even bigger 
problem. It is impossible for someone to keep track of all the neglecting parents out there 
and to actually do something about it. To this day children grow up under abusive parent 
as a role model and are unknowingly set up on a path for failure. And to help addicted 
parents the problem of drug use, trafficking and distribution would have to come into 
play.  
However not always do juveniles stay on this path. There is another influence 
brought up in almost every child’s life, schooling. The school system plays a dramatic 
role in a child’s life as well, they are practically their for over 70% of their life by the time 
they should graduate high school, disregarding the choice of going to college or trade 
school all together. Some people argue reform is definitely needed in the school systems 
while other would say it isn’t needed. The thing that excludes the school system from 
enacting such a change on youth that would yield the most results is the school system 
handles too many students. In other words it isn’t focused solely for those who need 
help. It contains stellar straight A students, athletes, musicians, etc. and while it does 
contain the delinquents and at risk youth it simply does not contain enough of them in 
the bigger picture to justly change the whole school system. What if this change affects 
the other not at risk students, possibly even diverting them to the path juveniles should 
stray from most. Furthermore it is shown that a part of this at risk group of juveniles 
would have even dropped out at this point, making a reform to the school system 100% 
ineffective to those who fall into that category.  
With the juvenile judicial system, it is solely dealing with juveniles that need the 
help. And those who happen to go in for unjust charges or that have amazing life’s on 

7 USHER 
paper can receive fair punishments, because the youth are still at the tender enough age 
to still need a proper sentencing to not traumatize them in any way. One must “recognize 
the multiple aims of the system, rather than sweep them under the carpet. Once these 
aims are acknowledged, it becomes clear that they do not have to be expressed in the 
same way everywhere” (Smith 2005). Take the time to full assess why a juvenile is there 
that day, and come to a solution that would actually prove effective at preventing the 
juvenile from doing the wrongs committed again and learning from them. For example it 
is shown the simple interventions held by the community of said juvenile yields greater 
effects than those with offenders in institutions. Reverting back to the community based 
punishments our juvenile judicial system once revolved around would be ideal because 
“communities can prevent delinquency by designing programs that address known risk 
factors for antisocial behavior” and other influences (Jenson and Howard 1998). 

JUDICIAL FLAWS 
There is more that enough evidence to prove that the juvenile judicial system should be 
reformed. This dilemma has been allowed to go on for to long and it is time that it be 
addressed because not only will this help solve our increasing juvenile crime rate, but 
also help discover how to effectively divert a person from their at-risk lifestyles. 
The major concern that should be addressed in the juvenile judicial system is the 
fact that its gone from an individualistic based system to a generalized one. The youth 
are being categorized by their charges and nothing else, no longer looking in depth to the 
why and how of their original situation. It now relies on policies stressing “punishment 
and control of young offenders,” even policies lowering “the age at which juveniles can 
be tried as adults [enacting] stricter punishments for drug- and gang-related offenses, 
and [introducing] stringent treatments such as boot camps for all juvenile offenders” 
(OJJDP, 1996; Jenson and Howard 1998). Previously the judicial system would try and 
assess each case as one in its own, and lean away from severity and more to efficiency, 
efficiency in helping the juvenile in particular to better themselves by implementing 
community-based program sentencings including workshops and classes that were made 
specifically for the adolescence. Now, “community-based programs have been eliminated 
in many jurisdictions, and institutions combining different types of juvenile offenders 
have been reintroduced” (Jenson and Howard 1998) showing that the juvenile judicial 
system are no longer looking individualistically but more generally.  
They are beginning to look at the youth as adult prisoners, trying to base a 
juvenile judicial system off a adult prison system. As Will Singer stated, “​comparisons 
with the adult system are inevitable, and the reemergence of the notion that serious 

8 USHER 
offenders should be punished severely no matter their age has returned with profound 
effects on juvenile justice” (2012). Now first time juvenile offenders are being sentenced 
harshly, putting them through systems and situation they’d never thought of facing 
before. The juvenile justice system has gone from trying to rehabilitate delinquent 
juveniles to punishing them as if they were hardened criminals, molding them into the 
exact opposite of the intended. For example, “​From analysis of a cohort of 411 boys who 
grew up in a working-class [area]… Farrington (1977) found that those first convicted 
between the ages of 14 and 18 increased their self-reported delinquency compared with 
a matched group of unconvicted boys. The same result was obtained in studying the 
effect of first convictions between the ages of 18 and 21 (Farrington et al., 1978)” (Smith 
2005) proving that and the current flawed judicial system can not only be ineffective, but 
also harmful to the youth. Leading to the question of deterrence. 
Deterrence, being on of the “most used and most abused terms in the law and 
practice of sentencing in criminal cases,” is that idea that because of the consequences 
following a certain activity a person partook in, said person would no longer wish to 
undertake in said activity (Renke 2001). This means that judicial system would have to 
“engage in calculations ​of the anticipated costs and benefits of the conduct” of an 
individual after their criminal sentencing (Renke 2001). Deterrence can be broken up 
into two main parts, the certainty of the punishment and the severity of the punishment. 
As explained best by Wayne N. Renke, “certainty of punishment concerns the likelihood 
that an offender will be caught, arrested, convicted, and punished by the sanction in 
question. Severity concerns the degree or type of sanction in question” (2001). Seeing the 
importance of both, it can be recognized that either the certainty or severity of a 
punishment, or both, can be modified to suit a certain case for best effects on future 
behaviors. So there is no excuse for why a system cannot be tailored to the needs of the 
youth. The juvenile judicial system should be able to process each case and give the 
adequate punishment, fitting the offender’s situation in certainty, severity, and 
effectivity.  
Counterintuitively, “​many states have introduced policy reforms based only on 
the characteristics of violent juveniles,” meaning most delinquent youths who are mostly 
comprised of property offenders “who never commit crimes against persons” must deal 
with “strict punishment [meant] for violent offenders” (Jenson and Howard 1998). This 
then ignores the needs of most adolescents referred to the juvenile justice system, 
leaving the judicial system in the exact same place, if not a worse place, that it is 
currently at. 
Multiple different researcher have also came down to the same conclusion that 
the juvenile judicial system needs to be changed. As stated best by Will Singer “​after 

9 USHER 
extensive discovery and briefing” ​approaching the same problem discussed and coming 
up with a type of reform to implement, ​ “the parties agreed to a consent decree based on 
three general principles: (1) youths should be housed in the least restrictive setting 
consistent with public safety, their individual needs, and constitutional and statutory 
requirements; (2) youths should not be held in secure confinement when a 
community-based placement is suitable; and (3) detained youths placed in secure 
confinement while awaiting trial should remain there for the shortest possible time” 
(Singer 2012). 

ADOLESCENT FACTORS 
Community based punishments would be more effective because they are more hands 
on, they deal with the juvenile one on one, and that is essential to helping them 
understand and correct their wrong, especially at that age. As Skip said “these boys are at 
a tender age, they tense easily” (Lords of Dogtown 2005). While at the age they begin to 
enter the judicial system they may not be at the most critical part of brain development 
in their lifetimes, but they are still experiencing brain maturation. They are finally 
getting to an age where they can have a personal opinion on life and the real world begin 
to forge their own personalities and identities. This time, spanning from the onset of 
puberty to the end of physiological and psychological maturity, is sometimes referred to 
as a three phase life stage; preadolescence (ages 19 - 13), middle adolescence (ages 14 
-16), and the late adolescence (ages 17 - 20) (The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology). 
Regularly, the traditional problems of teenage years used to affect 15 and 16 year olds 
however, over the past few decades, 11 12 and 13 year olds have been been facing these 
problems. Peer interactions, sexual awakenings, being popular, etc. now affect the youth 
earlier than ever before leaving them very susceptible to influence. 
Social media and technological advancements as well put the youth in a more 
vulnerable position. Social media use has skyrocketed in the past decade, with more than 
100’s of new platforms to connect through the world wide web. This has allowed social 
media and the internet to develop a new persuasive characteristic that hasn’t been seen 
before. A study from the Pew Internet & American Life Project reported that about “17 
million youth ages 12 through 17” use the internet (​www.pewinternet.org​). That is an 
astounding 73% of teens who fall into that age group. 
Other circumstances, such as the sky rocket in sexual freedom and the 
normalization of violence in everyday life, have too played a part in leaving the youth in 
the state of mind they are in now. So it would make a considerable amount of sense to 
make sure that any other factor of the youth’s adolescent life, the judicial system 

10 USHER 
specifically, be sound and beneficial to the youth, as not to add to the turmoil cause by 
the other factors stated above. 

CONCLUSION 
In conclusion, based on the study results and the topics discussed it is easy to see that 
some type of reform is needed in the juvenile judicial system. The youth have been 
unjustly represented and served by this system for too long, to a point were it not only is 
proving ineffective in making offenders learn from their mistakes, but also showing 
signs of pushing the offenders to a path that the juvenile judicial system was suppose to 
divert them from. 
To prevent the youth from getting involved with the juvenile judicial system in the 
first place, implementing more community based outlets such as after school programs 
or sports leagues and possible scheduling interventions for at-risk families would present 
themselves as solution including many similar outreach programs. However, while doing 
all these things would help, with the increase in crime and how long it’s been able to 
grow we have far to many youth passed the reach of these programs, leaving only one 
plausible way to affect them, the juvenile judicial system.  
In research and study, it has been accepted that there is not only a single answer 
to the situation we are in. Many researchers and people argue different way to approach 
this problem, different solutions to the problem, and what the problem is itself. 
However, no matter what a person may argue, state or defend, it is clear that reform is 
needed. Whether it be implementing more community based punishments, approaching 
each case in a more individualistic manner, or limiting the juvenile courts jurisdiction 
something has to change.  

   

11 USHER 
REFERENCES 
1. Peck, Jennifer H, and Wesley G Jennings. “A Critical Examination of ‘Being Black’ 
in the Juvenile Justice System.” ​Law and Human Behavior​, vol. 40, no. 3, June 2016, 
pp. 219–232. ​PsycARTICLES,​  
doi:​http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:2048/10.1037/lhb0000180​. 
 
2. von Hirsh, Andrew, et al. “PUBLICATIONS.” ​1999 National Report Series, Juvenile 
Justice Bulletin: Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System -- The Juvenile Justice 
System Was Founded on the Concept of Rehabilitation through Individualized 
Justice​, 1999, ​www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=182046​. 
 
3. Ford, Julian D, et al. “PUBLICATIONS.” ​1999 National Report Series, Juvenile Justice 
Bulletin: Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System -- The Juvenile Justice System Was 
Founded on the Concept of Rehabilitation through Individualized Justice,​ June 2007, 
www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=254218​. 
 
4. Singer, Will. “JUDICIAL INTERVENTION AND JUVENILE CORRECTIONS REFORM: A 
CASE STUDY OF JERRY M. V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.” ​Journal of Criminal Law & 
Criminology​, vol. 102, no. 2, July 2012, pp. 901–964. ​AN 84700604.​  
 
5. Riggs Romaine, Christina, et al. “Traumatic Experiences and Juvenile Amenability: 
The Role of Trauma in Forensic Evaluations and Judicial Decision Making.” ​Child 
& Youth Care Forum,​ vol. 40, no. 5, Oct. 2011, pp. 363–380. ​AN 65797199​, 
doi:10.1007/s10566-010-9132-4. 
 
6. Ciccariello C. Defunding Planned Parenthood—The Stakes for America’s Women. 
​ 017;177(3):307–308. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0178 
JAMA Intern Med.2
 
7. Smith, David J. “The Effectiveness of the Juvenile Justice System.” ​Philosophy of the 
Social Sciences​, 1 May 2005, 
www.journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1466802505053497​. 
 
8. Bright, Charlotte L, et al. “Diversion From the Juvenile Justice System: 
Observations of a Teen Court Program.” ​Journal of Community Practice,​ vol. 22, no. 

12 USHER 
 3, 13 Aug. 2014, pp. 385–401., doi: 10.1080/10705422.2014.929061. 
 
9. Troutman, Brooke. “A MORE JUST SYSTEM OF JUVENILE JUSTICE: CREATING A 
NEW STANDARD OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR JUVENILES IN ILLINOIS.” ​Journal of 
Criminal Law & Criminology,​ vol. 108, no. 1, 2018, pp. 197–221. A
​ N 128153684.​  
 
10. Jenson, Jeffrey M, and Howard O Matthew. “Youth Crime, Public Policy, and 
Practice in the Juvenile Justice System: Recent Trends and Needed Reforms | 
Social Work | Oxford Academic.” ​OUP Academic,​ Oxford University Press, 1 July 
1998, ​www.academic.oup.com/sw/article-abstract/43/4/324/1884946​.  
 
11. Stokes, Marquita L, et al. “Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Youth in the Juvenile 
Justice System.” ​A Review of the Literature,​ 17 June 2015, 
doi:​https://doi-org.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:9443/10.1177/1078345815587001​. 
 
12. Tsui, Judy C. “BREAKING FREE OF THE PRISON PARADIGM: INTEGRATING 
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TECHNIQUES INTO CHICAGO'S JUVENILE JUSTICE 
SYSTEM.” ​Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,​ vol. 104, no. 3, 2014, pp. 
634–666. ​AN 98169144.​  
 
13. Fabelo, Tony, et al. “PUBLICATIONS.” ​1999 National Report Series, Juvenile Justice 
Bulletin: Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System -- The Juvenile Justice System Was 
Founded on the Concept of Rehabilitation through Individualized Justice,​ July 2011, 
www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=266653​. 
 
14. Chaiken, Marcia R. Effects of Crime on After-School Youth Development Programs 
in the United States, 1993-1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for 
Political and Social Research [distributor], 2005-11-04. 
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06791.v1 
 
15. "Patterns and Trends in Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice." Institute of Medicine 
and National Research Council. 2001. ​Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice.​ Washington, 
DC: The N​ational Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9747.  
 
16. Beck, Linda. "Beyond Proms: Teen Psychology Today." ​Library Journal​, vol. 126, 
no. 16, 10/1/2001, p. 69. EBSCO​host,​  
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5310723&site=ehost-liv

13 USHER 
 e. 
 
17. Snyder, Howard N. and Melissa Sickmund (1995). ​Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A 
National Report​. National Center for Juvenile Justice.  
       
18. Paternoster, Raymond (1987). The Deterrent Effect of the Perceived Certainty and 
Severity of Punishment. ​Justice Quarterly​, 4:173-217. 
 
19. Fagan, Jeffrey. "Juvenile Crime and Criminal Justice: Resolving Border Disputes." 
Future of Children​, vol. 18, no. 2, Fall2008, pp. 81-118. EBSCO​host,​  
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34905177&site=ehost-l
ive. 
 
20. Sweeten, Gary1, gary.sweeten@asu.edu, et al. "Age and the Explanation of Crime, 
Revisited." ​Journal of Youth & Adolescence​, vol. 42, no. 6, June 2013, pp. 921-938. 
EBSCO​host,​ doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9926-4. 
 
21. Coker, Kendell L., et al. “Crime and Psychiatric Disorders Among Youth in the US 
Population: An Analysis of the National Comorbidity Survey–Adolescent 
Supplement.” ​Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,​  
vol. 53, no. 8, Aug. 2014, doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2014.05.007. 
 
22. Jenson, Jeffrey M. and Matthew O. Howard. "Youth Crime, Public Policy, and 
Practice in the Juvenile Justice System: Recent Trends and Needed Reforms." 
Social Work,​ vol. 43, no. 4, July 1998, pp. 324-334. EBSCO​host,​  
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=804655&site=ehost-liv
e. 
 
23. Ingram, S. C. (2017, Nov 24). Juvenile justice forum addresses youth crime, 
prevention.​ Baltimore Jewish Times, 359​, 18-19. Retrieved from 
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1973003869?accountid=14522 
 
 
 
 
 
 

14 USHER 
   

15 USHER 
 I’d definitely say this is the most I have ever invested into a single paper. It was 
super cool though, I’ve never really felt this satisfied with finishing a paper ever beside 
maybe once but that way in middle school. What I think helped me most with my paper 
was honestly the feedback of my group. Both Marco and Lindsey had a good grasp of all 
the reading so they were really able to catch on to little things wrong with my paper like 
my first person sneaking in or how I’d kind of go off on a tangent or just the layout of my 
paper so it was a blessing to have a smart group. From markel I mostly use the chapter 
on writing research papers. I didn’t really stick to his guidelines word for word because 
it was a bit hard to do that while also trying to really get into writing the paper. The 
biggest challenge I’d say I face was trying to find a good study to use. It was insanely 
hard, especially since I was trying to find one I could use legally. Thankfully I found a 
few that were very similar and kind of summed them all up into just what I needed. The 
easiest thing, surprisingly was the word count. Before I even knew it I was breaking 4500 
words, and especially since I did feel the word count for the first draft it was nice not 
feeling obligated to meet the 5000 because no matter what I was going to reach it, even 
without a super long author’s note. On a side not thank you for your teaching Dr. Frank, 
your a super dope teacher and I hella like your style. It feels more like your one of us 
than compared to like an old professor or something and that definitely not easy to say 
about most professors here at ucsb. 

16 USHER