Juvenile Crime Statistics

On the data presented by Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (2007), in calendar year 2006, police agencies in Texas suited 140,189 juveniles arrest between the ages of 10 and 16. Of this number, 60,657 were advised and unconfined, handled in justice and municipal courts, or redirected and 79,532 were submitted to juvenile probation departments. In addition to this, rural society and the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) has referred another 24,329 cases, for a total of 103, 861 referrals to juvenile probation departments.
Consequently, compare to TJPC report, South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (2008) has substantially report a lesser number of cases are constituted in reference to juvenile cases. According to DJJ (2008) report, in fiscal year 2007-2008, 23,826 new juvenile cases were suited, in which revealed a 4 percent reduction from preceding year (2006-2007) and a 13 percent cut as of the five-year baseline of 2003-2004. Moreover, the juvenile cases as categorized by DJJ into violent and serious, fiscal year 2000-2001 and 2007-2008 was the year to remain the stability of cases. That is, the constant trend considerably below the max out years of mid-1990s.
Finally, in the annual report released by Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs, there are approximately 978 juveniles who have been convicted as Youthful Offenders counting 95 ruled directly to the Department of Corrections (DOC), 786 placed in the custody of OJA, and 97 placed under the supervision of OJA. Of the 786 Youthful Offenders placed in OJA custody, 158 have been bridged to DOC and of the 97 Youthful Offenders sited on probation, 12 have been bridged (Office of the Juvenile Affairs State of Oklahoma, 2008, p.18). That is, it reflects that the system process in Oklahoma has substantially materialized in the juveniles, as their cases were evidently lowered down compare to preceding years of process.
Juvenile justice is an umbrella term for the exceptional measures arrange by each state to sort out young people whose cases succeed for handling in juvenile court. Courts play a critical role in assisting juvenile offenders accused of committing crimes in presence of alcohol and drug. Generally exist about getting tough on crimes, minors execution has come to conflicting opinion-dealings. A grasp of the existing conflict besetting the authority and control of juvenile justice system has become more procurable when one takes into concession how the system has continued since its inception. In nineteenth century, children who committed crimes were punished by mostly rural society and it was then that juvenile justice system was created in order to amend U.S. policies concerning youth offenders. Since that time, a number of changes – intended at both up keeping the due process of law in rights of the youth, and procreating an abhorrence proceeding to jail among the young – have engendered the juvenile justice system more commensurate to the adult system.
Based on the developed principles of English common law, “children under the age seven are to be legally incapable of forming the “mens rea” or the guilty of state of mind, necessary to be morally to blame and therefore subject to criminal punishment (Bergman, Berman, & Berman-Barrett, 2008, p. 55).” That is, offenders under the age of seven were usually exempted, if they have committed acts that fall under the crimes of adults. In lieu, the parents of youth offender may have to pay restitution to the victims. Such had been the model over the past; however in 18th and 19th centuries, the actions of political and social reformers along with psychologists’ research, a major