Annotated Bibliography.
Burke, Alison S. “Under Construction: Brain Formation, Culpability, and the Criminal Justice
System.” International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, vol. 34, no. 6, Nov. 2011, pp. 381–
385. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.10.001.
Alison Burke’s text discusses the outlaw of the juvenile death penalty and waiver practices to prove trying adolescents as adults is too harsh a punishment. The juvenile death penalty was abolished based on juvenile’s lack of moral culpability. However, juvenile cases can be waived and tried as adults. Burke states that behavioral discrepancies between teenagers and adults is the result of the brain “still forming and changing during the teenage years” (382). Adolescents not having fully developed brains can affect their ability to think rationally and suppress impulsive behavior. Burke’s use of scientific evidence to emphasis the differences between adolescents and adults creates a fair argument that supports her claim (284). Her ideals of trying juveniles as adults coincides with the American Psychological Association, therefore I can use her logic to build a counter argument against the claims of other stakeholders.
Kim, Bitna, et al. “Effective Correctional Intervention Programs for Juveniles: Review and
Synthesis of Meta-Analytic Evidence.” International Journal of Police Science &
,vol. 15, no. 3, Sept. 2013, pp. 169–189. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1350/ijps.2013.15.3.310.
Kim Bitna and her colleagues assess what intervention programs are most effective in preventing juvenile offenders from reoffending. In their assessment, they conclude the most effective interventions for juveniles are not equivalent to the most effective interventions for adults. Specifically, “drug-treatment programs, educational, vocational and work programs and cognitive-behavioral programs” prevent adults from recidivism (Bitna et al., 182-183). However, Bitna and her colleagues analyzed recidivism rates among juveniles exposed to different programs and determined “the most successful treatment for youth is sex-offender treatment” (184). Kim Bitna and her colleagues, Alida Merlo and Peter Benekos, include their credentials at the beginning of the case study to add credibility to their conclusions. I believe this study can benefit my digital forum because it proves that the best programs for adults do not yield the same results for juveniles. Therefore, the research can be used as evidence to support a stakeholder’s claim that the adult criminal justice system is not designed for adolescents.
Nunez, Narina, et al. “Trial Venue Decisions in Juvenile Cases: Mitigating and Extralegal
Factors Matter.” Legal & Criminological Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, Feb. 2007, pp. 21–
39. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1348/135532505X73768.
Narina Nunez and her colleagues preformed an experiment to assess what factors affect the decision to try an adolescent as an adult. In this study the age, sex, abuse history and victim type served as variables in a murder case. The participants read varied cases and determined if the juvenile should be tried as an adult. Once decisions were made, participants rated the variables based on how influential they were in their decision. The results proved older defendants are more likely recommended for adult court and victims of child abuse are less likely to be tried as an adult. The statistical data proved, the public consensus doesn’t coincide with current policies. Nunez includes her credentials as a University of Wyoming Professor to establish herself as a credible source for data. In my digital forum, I can use the data to create an effective argument from one stakeholder’s perspective.
Scott, Elizabeth S., and Steinberg Laurence. “Adolescent Development and the Regulation of
Youth Crime.” Future of Children, vol. 18, no. 2, Fall 2008, pp. 15–33. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=34905174&site=ehost-live.
Elizabeth Scott and Laurence Steinberg’s text addresses the need for reform in the juvenile justice system. Scott and Steinberg explain the change in juvenile justice policies over the last century, stating the twentieth century rehabilitation model was revised due to an increase in adolescent crime (15). This established a “justice system in which age and immaturity often are ignored in calculating criminal punishment” (Scott and Steinberg 17). Scott and Steinberg express their disapproval of the current policies and suggest a developmental method built from “scientific evidence about adolescence and criminal activity” (1). I believe Scott and Steinberg’s developmental method is a fair solution that isn’t bias towards government policies or children’s rights. Also, programs to assimilate adolescent offenders into adult society could be effective in preventing repeat offendering. For my digital forum, I can use their developmental method as an alternative system to refute current juvenile justice policies.
Shook, Jeffrey J. “CONTESTING CHILDHOOD IN THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM: The Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Criminal Court.” Childhood, vol. 12, no. 4, Nov. 2005, pp. 461– 478.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=asn&AN=19124109&site=ehost-live.
Jefferey Shook suggests rethinking the transfer of youth to the adult criminal justice system to prevent juveniles from being unfairly tried. He addresses the influence of race, ethnicity, class, geographical location and citizenship in the decision to prosecute juveniles as adults. Shook believes the process needs to be standardized so minorities aren’t implicated based on their lack of privileges (473). By highlighting current flaws in the justice system, Shook hopes to promote re-evaluation. Shook is a professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Pittsburgh where he researches the rights of children. Therefore, he could be bias towards children’s rights and less likely to agree with prosecuting adolescents as adults. However, I like his argument because it addresses a different deficiency in the criminal justice system than prior sources. I can use his perspective in my digital forum to develop a different stance than other stakeholders.
System.” International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, vol. 34, no. 6, Nov. 2011, pp. 381–
385. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.10.001.
Alison Burke’s text discusses the outlaw of the juvenile death penalty and waiver practices to prove trying adolescents as adults is too harsh a punishment. The juvenile death penalty was abolished based on juvenile’s lack of moral culpability. However, juvenile cases can be waived and tried as adults. Burke states that behavioral discrepancies between teenagers and adults is the result of the brain “still forming and changing during the teenage years” (382). Adolescents not having fully developed brains can affect their ability to think rationally and suppress impulsive behavior. Burke’s use of scientific evidence to emphasis the differences between adolescents and adults creates a fair argument that supports her claim (284). Her ideals of trying juveniles as adults coincides with the American Psychological Association, therefore I can use her logic to build a counter argument against the claims of other stakeholders.
Kim, Bitna, et al. “Effective Correctional Intervention Programs for Juveniles: Review and
Synthesis of Meta-Analytic Evidence.” International Journal of Police Science &
,vol. 15, no. 3, Sept. 2013, pp. 169–189. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1350/ijps.2013.15.3.310.
Kim Bitna and her colleagues assess what intervention programs are most effective in preventing juvenile offenders from reoffending. In their assessment, they conclude the most effective interventions for juveniles are not equivalent to the most effective interventions for adults. Specifically, “drug-treatment programs, educational, vocational and work programs and cognitive-behavioral programs” prevent adults from recidivism (Bitna et al., 182-183). However, Bitna and her colleagues analyzed recidivism rates among juveniles exposed to different programs and determined “the most successful treatment for youth is sex-offender treatment” (184). Kim Bitna and her colleagues, Alida Merlo and Peter Benekos, include their credentials at the beginning of the case study to add credibility to their conclusions. I believe this study can benefit my digital forum because it proves that the best programs for adults do not yield the same results for juveniles. Therefore, the research can be used as evidence to support a stakeholder’s claim that the adult criminal justice system is not designed for adolescents.
Nunez, Narina, et al. “Trial Venue Decisions in Juvenile Cases: Mitigating and Extralegal
Factors Matter.” Legal & Criminological Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, Feb. 2007, pp. 21–
39. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1348/135532505X73768.
Narina Nunez and her colleagues preformed an experiment to assess what factors affect the decision to try an adolescent as an adult. In this study the age, sex, abuse history and victim type served as variables in a murder case. The participants read varied cases and determined if the juvenile should be tried as an adult. Once decisions were made, participants rated the variables based on how influential they were in their decision. The results proved older defendants are more likely recommended for adult court and victims of child abuse are less likely to be tried as an adult. The statistical data proved, the public consensus doesn’t coincide with current policies. Nunez includes her credentials as a University of Wyoming Professor to establish herself as a credible source for data. In my digital forum, I can use the data to create an effective argument from one stakeholder’s perspective.
Scott, Elizabeth S., and Steinberg Laurence. “Adolescent Development and the Regulation of
Youth Crime.” Future of Children, vol. 18, no. 2, Fall 2008, pp. 15–33. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=34905174&site=ehost-live.
Elizabeth Scott and Laurence Steinberg’s text addresses the need for reform in the juvenile justice system. Scott and Steinberg explain the change in juvenile justice policies over the last century, stating the twentieth century rehabilitation model was revised due to an increase in adolescent crime (15). This established a “justice system in which age and immaturity often are ignored in calculating criminal punishment” (Scott and Steinberg 17). Scott and Steinberg express their disapproval of the current policies and suggest a developmental method built from “scientific evidence about adolescence and criminal activity” (1). I believe Scott and Steinberg’s developmental method is a fair solution that isn’t bias towards government policies or children’s rights. Also, programs to assimilate adolescent offenders into adult society could be effective in preventing repeat offendering. For my digital forum, I can use their developmental method as an alternative system to refute current juvenile justice policies.
Shook, Jeffrey J. “CONTESTING CHILDHOOD IN THE US JUSTICE SYSTEM: The Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Criminal Court.” Childhood, vol. 12, no. 4, Nov. 2005, pp. 461– 478.EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=asn&AN=19124109&site=ehost-live.
Jefferey Shook suggests rethinking the transfer of youth to the adult criminal justice system to prevent juveniles from being unfairly tried. He addresses the influence of race, ethnicity, class, geographical location and citizenship in the decision to prosecute juveniles as adults. Shook believes the process needs to be standardized so minorities aren’t implicated based on their lack of privileges (473). By highlighting current flaws in the justice system, Shook hopes to promote re-evaluation. Shook is a professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Pittsburgh where he researches the rights of children. Therefore, he could be bias towards children’s rights and less likely to agree with prosecuting adolescents as adults. However, I like his argument because it addresses a different deficiency in the criminal justice system than prior sources. I can use his perspective in my digital forum to develop a different stance than other stakeholders.