Introduction
The justice system in the early 20th century was different from the current justice system in terms of the goals held paramount by the system. Over the past 60 years, there have been tremendous changes in laws governing the justice system. While some people have a negative attitude toward the changes, it is apparent that the justice system has shifted its goals to the best of society’s interests. Most of the changes in the goals of the justice system emanate from decisions made by the Supreme Court, the federal government, and the state authorities. This paper looks into the evolution of the goals of the justice system over the past 60 years.
Juvenile Court System
The juvenile court has experienced tremendous changes over the years in terms of the goals of the justice system. Sixty years ago, the system used to focus on each juvenile case individually, and there were chances of having a juvenile offender sent to criminal incarceration centers depending on the gravity of the crimes committed. The goals of the justice system fifty years ago focused on attaining the best decision that would fulfill the interests of society. The Justice system focused on individualized justice for the juvenile offenders, and their interests came second after those of the public (Barnosky, 2006).
In the 1950s and the 1960s, the juvenile justice system did not major in using formal hearings to deal with delinquent children. The public felt that the system was quite ineffective in rehabilitating children, and the Supreme Court was forced to rule for the courts to use formal hearings in juvenile cases. The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act became effective in 1968, and it protected juveniles against inappropriate incarceration (Butts & Mitchell, 2000).
By the 1970s, the juvenile justice system had shifted from focusing on the interests of the public to focus on the offenders. The shift influenced the system to develop rehabilitation goals. These goals are actualized through the elimination of punishment-oriented justice. Most juvenile courts had the power to overlook the provisions of the judicial system based on the nature of the juvenile cases presented. The juvenile courts had to look into the legal issues surrounding the case before making a decision.
The courts also relied on some factors outside the legal framework in their decisions. By the 1980s, State authorities had developed laws that allowed some cases involving juveniles to be addressed in the criminal courts because the public felt that the juvenile court system was too lenient in its decisions in serious cases. The goal was to punish juvenile offenders accused of serious crimes. This approach was implemented differently in different states, but the goal was to eliminate juvenile criminals from the public.
The 1990s saw the upholding of the laws developed in the 1980s, which influenced punishment for juvenile offenders in criminal courts. In the 2000s, the justice system in the juvenile field has received different laws from the federal government and the Supreme Court, as well as the State authorities. The current system focuses on rehabilitation, but it also has strict laws against serious offenders in the juvenile bracket. The incarceration of Juveniles remains a big debate in society (Schmalleger, 2008).
Criminal Courts
Criminal courts between the 1950s and 1970s focused on sending criminals to incarceration centers, where they would serve long sentences to reform. By the 1980s, it became apparent that cases of recidivism were increasing; hence, the Supreme Court and the Federal government revised sentencing policies. Between the 1980s, the justice system focused on sentencing criminals to longer jail terms to influence more efficient rehabilitation.
By the 1990s, there was clear evidence that holding criminals for longer jail terms yielded better results in the prevention of recidivism. Over the past twenty years, the Federal authorities, the Supreme Court, and the State authorities shifted their goals in the criminal justice system from harsh punishments to being smart on criminals. This approach is currently active, and it entails the development of special approaches toward rehabilitation and punishments for criminals.
The Federal and State authorities invest hefty amounts of their budgets into research work to identify the most effective punishments for various criminals. The main goal is to rehabilitate criminals as fast as possible and to eliminate cases of recidivism. Part of the main reason for using this approach in criminal justice is to reduce the cost of running overcrowded prisons in different states (Schmalleger, 2008).
Conclusion
The justice system has always focused on reducing crime in society, and it develops policies aimed at helping in the reduction of recidivism. Punishing criminals is part of the most difficult tasks for the justice system because the law has to apply accordingly. The federal authorities, Supreme Court, and State authorities are instrumental in the development of goals in the justice system. Over the past 60 years, both the juvenile courts and the criminal courts have shifted from focusing on wiping out criminals from the streets to helping in rehabilitation rather than punishing criminals.
References
Barnosky, J. (2006). The violent years: Responses to juvenile crime in the 1950s. Polity, 1(1), 314-344.
Butts, J. A., & Mitchell, O. (2000). Brick by brick: Dismantling the border between juvenile and adult justice. Criminal justice, 2(1), 167-213.
Schmalleger, F. (2008). Criminal justice: A brief introduction. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.