The Future of Juvenile Justice

There has been a question plaguing the minds of today’s society for a while now. What does the future have in store for the Juvenile Justice System? Some say that more responsibility needs to be placed on the parents, while others say it is society's responsibility to help control youth from entering the justice system. The fact is, the Juvenile Justice System in the United States is over 100 years old. This age is old for a person and maybe also for a social-legal institution. There are signs it may be time to begin thinking about ways to amend the system, to fix what doesn’t seem to be working to the best of its ability, to reform the system to be more effective.  

 

Juvenile justice is transforming throughout America. Though there is a long road ahead to reform these systems into effective, rehabilitative programs that no longer make children worse, there is great promise in jurisdictions across the country, that are changing how they work with youth. According to David Muhammad;

“California, Texas, Washington, DC, New York, and many other jurisdictions have seen significant juvenile justice reform efforts take root. These reform efforts seek to protect the public safety by providing effective, rehabilitative services and supports to young people who have engaged in delinquent behavior” (Muhammad, 2012).

Investing in successful delinquency-prevention programs can save taxpayers seven to ten dollars for every dollar invested, primarily in the form of reduced spending on prisons. This is a highly beneficial option compared to the billions of dollars that the states spend per year to arrest, prosecute, incarcerate, and treat offenders. As stated in Reform Juvenile Justice Programs Today, “Researchers have identified a dozen "proven" delinquency-prevention programs. Another twenty to thirty "promising" programs are still being tested” (Donahue, 2009). The most effective programs are those that stop youth from engaging in delinquent behaviors in the first place, redirect first-time offenders from future encounters with the justice system, and stress family connections.

Prevention programs are imperative in decreasing juvenile crime. Children need to know how their actions and behaviors can affect the harshness of their punishment even ages as young as seven years old. Dean Champion states that, “The more a child is educated and provided alternatives to crime, the less likely s/he is to commit criminal or deviant acts” (Champion, 2004). Some programs that have proven to be successful in this area include:

• Boys’ and Girls' Clubs of America
• Family support services
• Youth Community Centers
• D.A.R.E.
• Mentoring programs
• Youth Leadership programs
• After-school programs (Issues, 2012).

According to Coalition for Juvenile Justice: Issues and Facts, all these programs offer a positive alternative to crime for children, particularly those who are considered underprivileged and who do not have sufficient parental supervision. Part of taxpayers’ money should be spent on preventing crime rather than incarceration (Issues, 2012).

When it comes to detention and reform programs we have to identify what works and what does not work. According to the article written by Kristina Jones, “Effective detention programs need to be tailored to the type of deviant act being committed. There must be several different programs made readily available that will contribute to the rehabilitation efforts of each juvenile” (Jones, 2006). Some programs that need to be implemented are:

• Drug and alcohol treatment
• Family support services
• Mental Health services (Princeton, 2012).

Jones continues to state that, these programs, mentioned above, should be the primary step in rehabilitating delinquent youth. “When a juvenile fails to respond to these types of intervention, s/he should then be placed under the care of the juvenile courts” (Jones, 2006). Within the juvenile courts, we as a society should see the occurrence of incarceration levels decrease dramatically and focus efforts on community-based rehabilitation programs.

The bottom line remains that not only do the courts, but all of society and youth’s families as well, need to aid in the intervention and rehabilitation of today’s youth in order for the juvenile justice system to produce positive changes. We need to identify areas of opportunity and provide treatment and other supportive services to youth and families in family‐ and community‐based settings. Youth are different from adults. They have different needs, and different capacities for transformation and development. Where necessary, youth need to be held accountable in developmentally and age appropriate ways, in keeping with findings of adolescent brain science that not only seek to correct their present conduct, but also to provide stepping stones for their future.

Reform of the juvenile justice system makes sense no matter what way a person looks at it. Many states are ready to begin this work today, if for no other reason than to save taxpayer money that is being spent on building prisons, when it can go to better use. We need to build a system that lowers the amount of juveniles from becoming delinquent in the first place and prevents those youth who do drift from becoming adult criminals.

 

Works Cited

Champion, Dean J. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing, and the Law. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice-Hall, 2004. Print.

"Coalition for Juvenile Justice: Issues and Facts." Issues. N.p., n.d. Web. Dec. 2012. <http://www.juvjustice.org/media/issues.html#three>.

"A Comprehensive Juvenile Justice System: The Community Role of the Juvenile." Princeton University. N.p., n.d. Web. Dec. 2012. <http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=77853>.

Donahue, Elizebeth H. "Reform Juvenile Justice Programs Today." The Future of Children. N.p., 6 Mar. 2009. Web. Dec. 2012. <http://blogs.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/2009/03/reform-juvenile-justice-programs-today.html>.

Jones, Kristina. "The Future of the Juvenile Justice System." Yahoo! Contributor Network. N.p., 30 Dec. 2006. Web. Dec. 2012.

Muhammad, David. "A Roadmap to the Future of Juvenile Justice." New America Media. N.p., 28 Aug. 2012. Web. Dec. 2012. <http://newamericamedia.org/2012/08/a-roadmap-to-the-future-of-juvenile-justice.php>.

JUVENILE PROBATION

Juvenile probation is the oldest and most widely used “vehicle” through which a variety of court-ordered services are offered. Probation is a nonpunitive, legal disposition of juveniles emphasizing community treatment in which the juvenile is closely supervised by an officer of the court and must abide to a strict set of rules to avoid incarceration. It has taken many years for juvenile probation to develop into what it is today. Like any other law enforcement program, juvenile probation has strict rules that the youth under its care are required to follow. Same goes for the officers. Probation officers have guidelines and duties that have to be followed in order for the department to be functional.

The juvenile probation system urbanized with the evolution of the juvenile justice and court system in America as means to divide young lawbreakers from adult criminals. In response to the severity of the criminal law system during the 1800s, was the attempt to keep young lawbreakers out of institutions. “In the early 1840s, Boston shoemaker John Augustus identified a way of keeping people out of jail: he bailed them out and asked the court to continue their cases while he kept a close eye on them. In most instances, Augustus did not know these people personally” (Livers, 2012). Mr. Augustus would assure the judges that if released, the adults and children that he chose, would be under close supervision where he would note their general conduct, and make sure they were attending school or was supplied with some type of honest employment.

Over the next 50 years, probation supervision of juvenile delinquents became more frequent.

“In 1899, the Illinois legislature established a special court in Cook County that relied on informal procedures to assist children in trouble and is regarded as the world’s first juvenile court. It was in this court that the practice of probation and the role of the Probation and Parole Officer (PPO) took form. The National Probation Association was formed in 1907” (Livers, 2012).

Traditional probation is the backbone of community-based corrections. According to Siegel and Welsh, “In most jurisdictions, probation is a direct judicial order that allows a youth who is found to be a delinquent or status offender to remain in the community under court-ordered supervision and under strict rules and regulations” (Siegel, 2012). A probation sentence implies a contract between the court and the juvenile. The rules of probation vary, but typically involve the same type of conditions such as attending school and work, remaining in the jurisdiction, and staying out of trouble. If the rules set by the “contract” are violated, and especially if the juvenile commits another offense, the probation may be revoked which means the contract is terminated and the original commitment order may be enforced.

 

Rules mandating that a juvenile on probation behave in a particular way are the conditions of probation. As stated by Siegel and Welsh, “The conditions can include restitution or reparation, intensive supervision, intensive counseling, participation in a therapeutic program, or participation in an educational or vocational training program” (Siegel, 2012). Although probation conditions vary, they are never supposed to be impulsive, cruel, or beyond the capacity of the juveniles to comply with. Conditions should also relate to the crime that was committed and to the conduct of the youth.

 

The official duties of juvenile probation professionals vary from State to State and can even differ between jurisdictions within a single state. According to the Office of Juvenile Probation, “Juvenile Probation Officers are responsible for the guidance and supervision of juveniles between the ages of 10 through 17 years who are referred by local police departments, agencies or private citizens as a result of having committed a crime which is considered to be a misdemeanor or a felony” (Lancaster County, 2009).

According to Tom C. Rawlings, author of Juvenile Probation: History, Duties, Liabilities and Immunities,

“A probation officer:

(1)   Shall make investigations, reports, and recommendations to the court as directed by this article;

(2)   Shall receive and examine complaints and charges of delinquency, unruly conduct, or deprivation of a child for the purpose of considering the commencement of proceedings under this article;

(3)  Shall supervise and assist a child placed on probation or in the protective supervision or care of such probation officer by order of the court or other authority of law;

(4) Shall make appropriate referrals to other private or public agencies of the community;

(5) May take into custody and detain a child who is under the supervision or care of such probation officer as a delinquent, unruly, or deprived child if the probation officer has reasonable cause to believe that the child's health or safety or that of another is in imminent danger, or that the child may abscond or be removed from the jurisdiction of the court, or when so ordered by the court pursuant to this article” (Rawlings, 2012).

In summary, Juvenile Probation Officers are officers of the court, who assists the court and supervises juveniles placed on probation.

 

Developing along with the evolution of the juvenile justice and court system in America, the juvenile probation system was created as means of separating young lawbreakers from adult criminals. Thanks to the Illinois legislature in Cook County, the practice of probation and the role of the Probation and Parole Officer (PPO) took form. Probation can be seen as the “front end” of the juvenile justice system for first-time, low-risk offenders or as the “back end” as an alternative to institutional confinement for more serious offenders.  Officers are a vital part of juvenile probation. Officers are the ones who are involved in all four stages of the court process including; intake, predisposition, postadjudication, and postdisposition.  

Works Cited

Livers, Dr. Mary. "U.S.History." State of Louisiana. State of Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice, 2012. Web. Dec. 2012. <http://ojj.la.gov/index.php?page=sub>.

"Office of Juvenile Probation." Lancaster County, PA Court of Common Pleas. County of Lancaster, 2 July 2009. Web. Dec. 2012. <http://www.co.lancaster.pa.us/courts/cwp/view.asp?a=472>.

Rawlings, Tom C. Juvenile Probation: History, Duties, Liabilities and Immunities. 2012. Power Point. Office of the Child Advocate. State of Georgia.

Siegel, Larry J., and Brandon Welsh. "Chapter 16 Juvenile Corrections:Probation, Community Treatment and Institutionalization." Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law. Andover: Cengage Learning, 2012. N. pag. Print.

 

Social, Community, and Environmental Influences on Delinquency

In today’s society, adolescents are on the rise to becoming delinquents by committing crimes. Officials of the juvenile justice system are attempting to understand what it is that provokes adolescents into committing these crimes and turning to a delinquent lifestyle. It is believed that “social, community and environmental relations exert a powerful influence on an adolescent’s involvement in delinquent activities,” (Siegel, 2012). Youth are considered in danger of following a delinquent lifestyle if they are unsuccessful at school, have a poor home life and no support from their neighborhood. Those who are socially awkward, bully or are bullied and/or engage in substance abuse are often characteristics of chronic offenders. Officials and scientists alike have been endeavoring to find ways to understand if it is biological, environmental or a combination of both that turns these to crime.

 

Some psychologists believe that biology and ethics could be the answer as to why there are more males than females in juvenile centers. Psychologists attribute it to the ways males and females develop in the social world. Males typically have a more aggressive attitude than their counterparts and spend less time in relations with the opposite sex due to bonding with their current friends that happen to be delinquents themselves. Becoming a delinquent causes these social issues to arise. According to the text “Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law,” female delinquency is less than male delinquency because of morals, not wanting to harm others and they are less violent” (Siegel, 2012). How they then are treated and adapt to being in a juvenile delinquent center determines their path.

 

Studies have found a correlation between delinquent behavior and involvement with fellow delinquents. According to McCord and colleagues, "Factors such as peer delinquent behavior, peer approval of delinquent behavior, attachment or allegiance to peers, time spent with peers, and peer pressure for deviance have all been associated with adolescent antisocial behavior" (NAP, 2001).Researchers have acknowledged that peer delinquency is one of the strongest candidates for choosing a delinquent lifestyle due to their influence. Influence from others and then acceptance of delinquent behavior coupled with little interaction and positive influence from their parents is indicative of becoming a delinquent. Negative influence from one’s parents is also a factor.

 

Family dysfunction is the key to understanding deviance and delinquency. Good, strong, functional families focus and pride themselves on protecting their children from risk factors and social deviance. As stated by the National Academies Press “Without help from extended family members, unstable families can be dangerous and more likely prone to negative emotions” (NAP, 2012). The majority of dysfunctional families rely on television and babysitters/nannies/daycares to raise their children instead of taking the responsibility for themselves. Having a disturbed home environment has a significant impact on delinquency since the nuclear family is the primary unit of socialization. According to the text Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law, “family breakup is one of the most enduring controversies in the study of delinquency, and a strong determinant of a child’s law-violating behavior” (Siegel, 2012). Siegel and Welsh also state that,

“Children who have experienced family breakup demonstrate behavior problems and hyperactivity, and are also often associated with conflict, hostility, and aggression. Because blended families are less stable than families consisting of two biological parents, an increasing number of children will experience family breakup two or three times during childhood” (Siegel, 2012).

Children of divorce are suspected of having a lack of supervision, weakened attachment, and greater susceptibility to peer pressure. Due to this, it is understandable that children raised in broken homes are more likely to become delinquent.

 

Research and studies over the past few decades on normal child development and on development of delinquent behavior have shown that individual, social, and community conditions as well as their interactions influence behavior. There is general agreement that behavior, including antisocial and delinquent behavior, is the result of a complex interplay of individual biological and genetic factors and environmental factors, starting during fetal development and continuing throughout life. Clearly, genes affect biological development, but there is no biological development without environmental input.

 

Works Cited

Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control, Committee on Law and Justice, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, National Research Council, Institute of Medicine. "The Development of Delinquency."  Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2001.Retrieved November 20, 2012. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9747&page=80

Siegel, Larry J., Brandon C. Welsh. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2012.

The National Academies Press. “Chapter Outline”.  Cengage Learning. 2012. Retrieved November 18, 2012. http://academic.cengage.com/resource_uploads/downloads/0495095427_96482.doc

 

 

Juvenile Justice, A Century of Development

Before the nineteenth century, the U.S. treated juvenile delinquents the same as adult criminal offenders. During colonial times, children over the age of five were treated as small adults and property due to the fact that no juvenile court existed. A number of different events led to reforms that aided in the eventual growth of the juvenile justice system, including the child saving movement and the further development of institutions for the care of delinquent and neglected children.

 

Early on in the nineteenth century, many pieces of legislation were introduced to aid in the civilization of treatment of children. In spite of heightened public interest in juvenile care, nothing existed specifically for the care of delinquent children.  In addition, there were no laws or courts to control delinquents beyond those established for adult offenders. At one point the U.S. established facilities to change delinquents through the use of prayer, study and hard work; this did not stop the punishment of whipping or leg irons on the youth. However, many highly criticized these punishments, calling them abuse. As psychologists and sociologists began to recognize the rising concept of adolescence as a developmentally separate period of life, reformers argued for the movement of children out of the adult prisons.  The idea of children as a group separate from adults became an increasing popular social ideology.  This ideology became more prevalent as society became increasingly aware of children’s needs and rights.  

 

Urbanization and industrialization of the nineteenth century generated the belief that certain groups of the population were susceptible to the influence of their decaying environment, and needed to be rescued and “saved”. The youth of these classes were considered a group that might be “saved” by a combination of state and community intervention (Siegel & Welsh, 475). Contemporary programs of delinquency-control can be traced to the reforms of the child-savers who, at the end of the nineteenth century, helped create special judicial and correctional institutions for the labeling, processing, and management of “troublesome” youth (Platt). Privately funded by mid-nineteenth century charitable organizations, the child-saving movement established roots in these organizations for protection and the benefit of children. According to faqs.org,

“In the height of the movement, between 1890 and 1920, child savers worked in such diverse reform efforts. Fighting child abuse, regulating child labor, founding kindergartens, building playgrounds, establishing the juvenile court, campaigning for mothers' pensions, and reducing infant mortality rates” (McAmant).

Child savers believed they could secure a better future for their nation by alleviating the perils of poverty for the young and working to Americanize the immigrant children. Groups like the Child Savers who pushed for reforms relating to “at risk” youth are one of the big reasons that juvenile reformatories such as the New York House of Refuge were created. 

 

The first juvenile reformatory in the nation was the New York House of Refuge. The reformatory was the product of a humanitarian organization in 1816. Originally referred to as the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism, the group was dedicated to the idea of protecting poverty-stricken children, who were at risk for crime by taking them off the streets and having them raised in a family-like environment. During the early years, the Society was dominated by Quaker merchants and other influential political leaders, such as Cadwallader Colden and Stephen Allen (New York State Archieves).  According to Larry Siegel and Brandon Welsh,

“Although the New York House of Refuge was privately managed, the state legislature began providing funds, partly through a head tax on arriving transatlantic passengers and seamen, plus the proceeds from license fees for New York City’s taverns, theaters, and circuses” (Siegel & Welsh, 475).

A majority of the children, under the care of the reformatory, were sent to the reformatory because of vagrancy and petty crimes and were committed indefinitely until they turned 18. Once they became a resident, the youth’s daily schedule was mainly dedicated to supervised labor, which was viewed as beneficial to the education and discipline of the adolescent. This labor also aided in the operating expenses for the reformatory. In order to segregate each child according to their behavior, a badge system was created (Siegel & Welsh, 475). The New York House of Refuge was not the only organization centered on bettering the lives of the youth in the United States, The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children also focused on protecting children.

 

The first child protection agency in the world was the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Since its establishment in 1875 the NYSPCC has strived to create and put into practice new mental health, legal, and educational programs that aims to protect youth from injury and guarantee their healthy development. As stated on nyspcc.org

“In its first eight months of operation, the NYSPCC received and investigated several hundred complaints, prosecuted 68 criminal cases and rescued 72 children from abuse and neglect. So many harmful conditions existed that the NYSPCC realized new laws were needed and worked for their enactment” (NYSPCC).  

NYSPCC is an advocate for almost all the laws involving child protective legislation. At the end of the nineteenth century, the fundamental idea of organized child protection had been established and resulted in the use of it across the world. According to the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s website, “In New York City, specifically Manhattan and the Bronx, the NYSPCC had investigated over 130,000 complaints, aided 370,000 children, sheltered 84,000 of them at its own expense and prosecuted 50,000 cases at a conviction rate of 94%” (NYSPCC). Not only were new laws being implemented, with the help of a rising number of agencies enforce them, but the recognition of society's responsibility for the protection of children also continued to grow.

 

In 19^th century America, little distinction was ever made regarding the criminal culpability of children versus adults. As a result, children as young as 5 were treated the same as adults for criminal offences. Society slowly began to recognize the need for changes to be made in the treatment of delinquent, mistreated, and runaway children. Organizations such as the New York House of Refuge and the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children were groups best recognized for their advocacy and actions dedicated towards protecting at risk youth and striving to better the lives and future of the children under their care. Without organizations like these along with help from groups like the Child Savers, who pushed for reforms in juvenile justice and the protection and benefit of children, Juvenile Justice would not be where it is today. It is because of these types of groups and organizations that the United States today has distinguished a difference between how juvenile delinquents should be treated, and how adult criminals should be treated in a justice system.

 

Works Cited

McAmant, Caroline Hinkle. "Child Saving." - Child Abuse and Neglect, Child Labor, Education, Youth Organizations and Child Leisure, Juvenile Delinquency.Web. 22 Oct. 2012. <http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ch-Co/Child-Saving.html>.

New York State Archives. New York House of Refuge -A Brief History. Web. 22 Oct. 2012.<http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_ed_reform_history.shtml>.

NYSPCC. The NYSPCC Story. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. <http://www.nyspcc.org/nyspcc/history/the_story/>.

Platt, Anthony. The Rise of the Child-Saving Movement: A Study in Social Policy and Correctional Reform. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. <http://ann.sagepub.com/content/381/1/21>.

Siegel, Larry J., and Brandon Welsh. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law. Andover: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.

 

At Risk Youth, a Menace to Society?

Rising juvenile delinquency rates are becoming more of a world issue. Juveniles today are greatly influenced by their peers and the social environments of school, work, and home. As social media networks become more technologically advanced adolescents are receiving less physical and emotional contact. As a result, the next generation is becoming less personal. Due to the lack of contact, juveniles look for something to stimulate themselves.  Often times this leads juveniles to participate in drug use unprotected sex, violence or thievery. Juvenile delinquency is on the rise and programming is necessary in order to provide children with the skills they need to avoid crime and delinquency.

 

Juvenile delinquency as defined by Legal Dictionary, is “a person who is under age, typically under 18, who is found to have committed a crime in states which have declared by law that a minor lacks responsibility and thus may not be sentenced as an adult” (2012). Those at the greatest risk of becoming juvenile delinquents typically come from underprivileged and unhealthy home environments exhibiting alcoholism, poverty, divorce, foster care, or abuse (World Youth Report, 2003). Juvenile delinquency affects society, the victim, victim’s family, the delinquent’s family, and the community in which they live. Nationwide, juvenile delinquency costs society “tens to hundreds of billions of dollars annually” (Juvenile Crime, 1995).

 

 

Figure 1: Statistics of males verses females pertaining to the four general offense categories (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010)

Despite the great impact juvenile delinquency has upon society there some groups who benefit and contribute to the delinquency problem. Judges are just one example of people who benefit from juvenile delinquency. A New York Times article from 2009 states, “Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit,” and  describes how two judges took more than “2.6 million dollars in kickbacks” to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers (Hamill, 2009). Those that contribute to rising rates of juvenile delinquency are the failing economy, pressures of unemployment, increases in rent, poverty and overcrowding of urban areas, rapid population growth, inadequate public education, and a decline in community support (World Youth Report, 2003). All of these examples and more create a negative impact on adolescents and can increase their likelihood of delinquency.

Preventative action for juvenile delinquency includes organized individual and group approaches. One approach can focus on delinquency prevention through providing frightening images and terrifying accounts of what happens to juvenile delinquents. Other approaches include explaining the negative characteristics of certain offenses and how they affect the victim and surrounding community (World Youth Report, 2003).  Providing after school activities, youth centers, internships, jobs, tutoring or mentoring services to the next generation is likely to lessen the rate of juvenile delinquency. Getting youth interested in extracurricular activities helps them to abstain from illegal activities   In addition; extracurricular activities help to keep juveniles off the streets and out of gangs.  Decreasing delinquency can help juveniles get a better education, scholarships through sports, and to better themselves and their community. Growth and expansion of these programs and cooperation between community and law enforcement are becoming increasingly important in the effort to prevent juvenile delinquency.

 

The future of juvenile delinquency will only get worse if nothing positive is done. Comprehensive programs including more than the negative impacts of crime and the outcome of juvenile delinquent are needed in order to truly make a difference in the lives of juvenile offenders. Creating alternative programs directed away from crime is the best deterrence and helps youth create a better future for themselves and others.

 

Works Cited

"Chapter 7 Juvenile Delinquency." Un.org. World Youth Report, 2003. Web. Sept. 2012. <http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/ch07.pdf>.

"Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 2007." Ncjrs.gov. U.S. Department of Justice, 2010. Web. Sept. 2012. <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/230168.pdf>.

Hamill, Ian Urbina And Sean D. "Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Feb. 2009. Web. Sept. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?pagewanted=all>.

"Juvenile Crime--Outlook for California." Legislative Analyst's Office. N.p., 1995. Web. Sept. 2012. <http://www.lao.ca.gov/1995/050195_juv_crime/kkpart6.aspx>.

"Juvenile Delinquent." TheFreeDictionary.com. N.p., 2012. Web. Sept. 2012. <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/juvenile delinquent>.