CJUS620 CTU Week 4 Alternative Approaches Dealing with Juveniles Paper Please read this assignment all the way through This is an add on to the attachment
CJUS620 CTU Week 4 Alternative Approaches Dealing with Juveniles Paper Please read this assignment all the way through This is an add on to the attachment I have here. I will send the feedback from the previous paper.
You will receive extensive feedback related to content on your first draft of the key assignment. Your first task for your final assignment is to incorporate this feedback into your revised version of the essay.
Assignment Guidelines
Revise your Key Assignment from Week 4 by incorporating the instructor’s and peers’ feedback that you have received.
Address the following in a policy proposal of 1,5002,000 words:
Another approach to the legislatures interest in creating alternative approaches to dealing with juvenile offenders that would still be handled via the state court’s system might be a mandatory, court-ordered educational program for juveniles who have been subject to police contact on a first offense. Create a policy proposal for a court-mandated course that would be delivered in a classroom setting for youths ages 1214 with behavioral problems who are affecting the communityfor example, in the schools, in neighborhoods, or in local businesses. Within your policy, incorporate your responses to the following questions:
Would this program be limited to juveniles who have been subject to police contact only for certain classes of offenses (e,g., non-violent, property-oriented, status offenses) with more serious offenses handled through a different approach?
Would these juveniles still go through the system (i.e., be arrested, have a court date for hearing) or would this be a diversion program intended in part to side-step these individuals having a record at such a young age? Explain.
How would the administrative office of the courts be involved in the running of this program? Explain.
Would it be conducted as part of the ADR wing of the office as is a program such as truancy mediation or victim-offender dialogue programs? Explain.
Where would the course be offered? Why?
What types of people would be considered qualified to conduct/facilitate it? Explain.
Are there staff adequately trained already, or would a position have to be opened and staff hired? Explain.
Although a complete curriculum would not be part of this proposal, what are the types of topics that would need to be covered?
Would the administrative office of the courts have any role in creating the actual content?
Would the office oversee creation of the content to ensure its consistency with current law and preferred practices in the state in question?
Are there any models out there that could be used that would allow creation of such a program with minimal cost and start-up time? Running head: POLICY PROPOSAL
1
Policy Proposal
Krystal Rozier
Professor Rhonda Johnson
CJUS 620
Unit 4: IP
9/11/2019
POLICY PROPOSAL
2
Policy Proposal
The humanitarian law and justice recognize access to justice as one of the fundamental
rights to be enjoyed by all individuals regardless of their racial, ethnic, religious, and economic
affiliations. The judicial system is mandated with the responsibility of ensuring that persons
access equal justice characterized by fairness. The access to equal justice, according to Eekelaar
(2018) entails effective dispute resolutions, timely resolution of cases, and the right for the
accused and the accuser to be heard. Article 47 of the EU charter of fundamental human rights
provides that all persons are entitled to a fair and timely hearing of their cases (McCloskey,
2018). The United States Constitution also dictates that individuals are entitled to equal access to
justice which is characterized by a fair and timely hearing of cases in which they are accused.
Even though the different judicial systems provide access to justice, the courts that are mandated
with ensuring this are faced with challenges, the most notable one being case backlog. This paper
aims at suggesting a policy that will help in reducing the number of cases in courts with a
significant focus on the Juvenile Justice Division in the United States judicial system.
Juvenile Justice System
The Juvenile Justice System is one of the branches of the United States court system. The
division handles cases related to persons recognized as children under the constitution. The
claims are handled through correctional involvement aimed at rehabilitating as well as being
taken to courts for determination and conviction. However, the courts have carried the burden
since most of the plaintiffs prefer their cases being handled by the courts. This is due to the
perception that they will be accorded a fair hearing. In the last few years, the number of cases in
juvenile courts has steadily increased. In 2014, the Unites States Juvenile courts had close to one
million cases; the highest number of cases since its inception in the 1970s (Garry, 2018). It is
POLICY PROPOSAL
3
argued that the increase in the number of cases may be due to the rise in reported incidents
related to deliquescent behaviors among the young population.
The increasing accumulation of cases in the juvenile division has been attributed to
several factors. The judicial systems lack of enough court personnel to timely handle the cases is
one of them. According to Bielen et al. (2018), the ratio of a magistrate and the cases handled in
the United States as of 2015 was 1:37(Garry, 2018). The high rate means that the judges and
magistrates are subjected to the heavy workload that they cannot finalize within the desired
duration. Also, the available facilities in the judicial systems are too inadequate to meet the
increasing needs of the court. Courtrooms are limited in number, meaning that one court is
forced to handle several cases, a factor that increases the delay.
Furthermore, the magistrates and judges rely on evidence provided to make their
decisions of whether to convict the suspect or not. The judicial system has inadequate
intelligence staff in their investigative units to carry out investigations and develop evidence that
can guide the determination of the case (Bender & Fekete, 2015). Therefore, most cases have
had their decision delayed due to lack of personnel to develop evidence that is useful in courts.
Implications of Case Backlog
In most states across the globe, the United States included, the maximum time desired for
finalizing a case from the time of filing is one year. The increased cases in the division have
adverse implications on both the accused and the plaintiff. Most of the judges and magistrates
handling the cases have workloads that tend to delay the hearing process. In some instances, the
magistrates who first mentioned the case are transferred or attain their retirement age before the
hearing. Therefore, the case has to undergo the initial filling stages again. Such incidences are
likely to compromise the desired fairness bearing in mind that some of the evidence could be
POLICY PROPOSAL
4
interfered with or may not be found. Also, the delay increases the expense incurred by the parties
involved. In most cases, the lawyers charge their clients based on the number of appearances
they make in courts. Delayed hearing means that the cases will have several sessions in courts,
making the lawyers reap more with the parties being forced to pay the high expense involved.
Also, judges and magistrates subjected to heavy workload are prone to compromising the
fairness expected when making their final determination of the cases. In most cases, they are
expected to listen to and make judgments of several cases within a short duration; a strategy
aimed at reducing the number of cases (Gustafson & Pendleton, 2019). The judges and
magistrates lack the opportunity of critically assessing the evidence provided and may tend to
give determination based on perceptions and opinions as opposed to facts.
Past Strategies for Addressing Case Backlog
The American government implemented several suggestions that had been recommended
by key jurists, researchers, and scholars to ensure that the accumulation of cases is addressed.
The aim of the transformations that were made a few years ago was to ensure the speedier
determination of cases while at the same time ensuring efficient delivery of legal services
(Salkute, 2014). The first strategy was the employment of more judges and magistrates. It was
noted that the case backlog resulted from staff shortage in the courts and that increasing the
number of personnel would help reduce the accumulation of cases. The strategy worked
successfully during the initial phases of inception but was later rendered unsuccessful. The
reason was that several claims, including the petty issues that could have been resolved using the
out of court mechanism, were still brought to court.
The government later implemented another plan that required all districts in every state of
the United States to have a juvenile court that would handle the increasing cases related to
POLICY PROPOSAL
5
juveniles. Even though the plan was excellent, the lack of funds and the limited state budgets
made the courts un-operational. The instances of property crimes were on the rise calling for
adequate staff for each court, something that was inadequately addressed due to financial
constraints (Gustafson & Pendleton, 2019). The courts were established but lacked sufficient
judges and magistrates to handle the matters, making case determination a delayed process, with
the available judges complaining of heavy workload.
The other strategy that was recommended by the judicial system was out of court conflict
resolution mechanisms. Negotiation and arbitration were highly suggested mechanisms that were
adopted. Negotiation involved the conflicting parties sitting at a suitable location with each
raising its concerns about the matter and how they felt they should be compensated for the
damage caused. According to Lo, Chang & Hsies (2010), the strategy is a useful mechanism for
reaching a mutual agreement that is satisfactory to all parties. The procedure was successful but
was later rendered unusual. The parties concerned tended to make mutually binding agreements.
However, one party breached the contracts agreed on thus limiting the fairness of the process.
Also, in some instances, the conflicting parties approached the case with a win-lose approach,
hence could not relent their stand. In such situations, an agreement could not be reached, forcing
the process to be suspended and matters are taken to court for judge or magistrate determination.
Arbitration was also another strategy recommended by the United States judicial system.
According to Heine & Kerk (2017), the approach involves the two parties having their case
listened to and determined by an impartial person in an out of court scenario. The arbitration
process did not work well in most instances since the arbitrators were reported to either receive
bribes or take sides when determining the case. The strategy was, therefore, not a consideration
for most conflicting parties and has always preferred their claims to be handled in courtrooms.
POLICY PROPOSAL
6
The result of this decision is the increasing number of case backlog in courts as experienced
today. Therefore, there is a need for the development of a policy that will facilitate fairness while
determining cases on time. This aspect will not only reduce the expenses incurred in seeking
justice but also in having trust with the conflict resolution mechanism.
Suggested Policy
The suggested policy that can help in addressing case backlog in the Juvenile Justice
Division is making mediation a compulsory first stage of seeking justice before a case is filled in
the first trial courts. Most of the cases waiting for determination are petty and can be handled
through mediation if the strategy is strengthened and accorded trust in the public domain.
Mediation, according to Ibarrola-García & Iriarte (2014), is a voluntary process in which the
conflicting parties appoint an impartial mediator under the guidance of their attorneys to handle
and help them resolve a dispute. The strategy is useful since it has ground rules that are set by the
mediator, and each party is subjected to them. The approach is useful when compared to the
judicial court proceedings that have been reported to leave one party dissatisfied through
instances of delayed determination and corruption on the part of magistrates and judges.
Furthermore, a party that feels dissatisfied is likely to revenge against its counterpart through
unlawful mechanisms that are likely to bring the parties back to the courts for a fresh hearing, an
aspect that continues the cycle of case backlog.
The mediation process will work well if strengthened by both private and public
agencies. In most cases, the conflicting parties enjoy the freedom of choosing a mediator they
feel is neutral and unbias. The strategy also promotes cooperation through constant
communication and allows the opposing parties to avoid the uncertainties, stress, and the
expense incurred in attending court trails (Deng & Xu, 2014). The decisions made by the
POLICY PROPOSAL
7
mediator are mutual and acceptable by both parties. This approach helps in the continuity of the
previous relationships between the two parties, hence helping in the prevention of disharmony
that could result in other offenses such as revenge and possibly court proceedings.
For the policy to work effectively, parties filing lawsuits in the Juvenile Division should
present testimonials from the mediators showing that the mediation process failed to produce the
expected results. The mediation report should detail the case, the preferences of each party, the
decision taken by the mediator, and the reasons why either or all the parties did not well receive
the determination. Also, the court should have an arbitrator who should carry out the case
determination process before a fill is made in the courtroom. The courts under this suggested
policy should only handle cases in which mediation and arbitration have failed. The strategy is
effective in reducing the number of cases being reported in courts. It is also suitable in reducing
the lengths of time spent in determining the facts as well as the expense incurred in seeking
justice on the part of aggrieved parties.
POLICY PROPOSAL
8
References
Bender, M. A., Fekete, C. (2015). The minimum backlog problem. Theoretical Computer
Science, 605(C), 51-61. doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2015.08.027
Bielen, S., Peeters, L., Marneffe, W., & Vereeck, L. (2018). Backlogs and litigation rates:
Testing congestion equilibrium across European judiciaries. International Review of Law
& Economics, 53, 9-22. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2017.09.002
Deng, Y., & Xu, K. (2014). Strategy to motivate and facilitate compromise in Chinese
Mediation: A discourse analysis of contemporary Chinese mediation sessions.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(1), 4-20. Doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-112011-0076
Eekelaar, J. (2018). Access to justice. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 40(1), 101103. doi:10.1080/09649069.2018.1414392
Garry, M.E. (2018). Juvenile Justice Statistics: Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2014.
Retrieved from: https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/251107.pdf
Gustafson, J. L., & Pendleton, A. (2019). District court rules Omaha appeals backlog be
eliminated by 2022. The Health Lawyer, 31(3), 24-29.
Heine, K., & Kerk, M. (2017). Conflict resolution in meta-organizations: The peculiar role of
arbitration. Journal of Organization Design, 6(1), 1-20. Doi: 10.1186/s41469-017-0013-2
Ibarrola-García, S., & Iriarte, C. (2014). Socio-emotional empowering through mediation to
resolve conflicts in a civic way. London Review of Education, 12(3), 261-273.
doi:10.18546/LRE.12.3.02
Lo, C., Chang, Y., & Hsies, H. (2010). Analysis of negotiation strategies on conflict resolution
with action game. Paper presented at the 101-105. doi:10.1109/ICICIP.2010.5564293
POLICY PROPOSAL
9
McCloskey. (2018). Effective access to justice. Judicial Review, 23(4), 270-278.
doi:10.1080/10854681.2019.1565248
Salkute, S. R. (2014). Court management- to reduce the backlog of old pending cases and
increase the rate of disposal in the subordinate judicial system (research study:
S.R.salkute). International Journal of Information, Business, and Management, 6(1), 147.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
