You just basically responding to the student of what you felt compelling and enlightening

Student paper down below:

Demonstrate understanding of what the authors meant by “diversion-oriented” vs. “punitive or punishment-oriented” systems

I believe the authors were trying to capture findings that would explain how a diversion based or punitive based approach to juvenile justice and delinquency prevention would be best to influence future delinquency and criminal activity. That through diversion you can deter a juvenile from becoming a serious career criminal. Whereas, the “get tough” approach further perpetuates criminalization of juveniles, even-re-criminalizing juvenile offenders (Huizinga, Schumann, Ehret, & Elliot, 2004). However, the punitive punishment approach is to ensure juveniles are accountable for their criminal activity, because the thought is that diversion is not enough to warn away criminal activity. In either case the findings were that it may not be the severity of sanctions, rather the simple certainty of a response from delinquent acts that is of importance both for the offender and for the general deterrence in society at large (Huizinga, Schumann, Ehret, & Elliot, 2004). They also found that arrest was not a successful intervention strategy.

Offer your perspective on whether a shift toward a “diversion” and away from “punishment” model for dealing with juvenile offenders would be effective in the U.S. juvenile justice system

I like that Germany adopted a bottom up approach to juvenile justice reform. Many public officials support initiatives for programs for social treatment of juveniles in the community and diverted them to such programs rather than the court (Huizinga, Schumann, Ehret, & Elliot, 2004). They take the stance of educate rather than punish juvenile offenders. They use the least intrusive sanction as possible, while deterring rather then labeling, which is less likely to stigmatize the juvenile offender and lessens the likelihood of re-offending (Huizinga, Schumann, Ehret, & Elliot, 2004). I believe that we need more programs for diversion and deterrence, as well as focus on mental health and cognitive restructuring. There has been much research done that supports diversion vs. locking them up and throwing away the key.

Example of diversion-oriented model that has been applied by the U.S. state or county juvenile justice system, and describe the main features

San Diego has many great diversion programs; however, my favorite is SAY San Diego’s Teen Court. The system is designed to provide delinquency prevention and youth development. Youth have typically offended for the first time and are willing to accept responsibility for their offense/s. They agree on a binding sentence selected by a jury of their peers. Upon successful completion of the program the youth’s charges will not be moved to Juvenile Court and the minor will not have an arrest on their record. Statistically, 93.9% of cases that go through the teen court were successful at closure (SAYSanDiego, 2019). What’s more is that they have trained and educated over 168 youth on the juvenile justice system and restorative justice practices to be on the jury panels. Many of the youth who enter into this program will have case manager that they will check in with and monitor progress, hold youth accountable for themselves and the community at large.

Suggest how you think a diversion-oriented shift might impact case processing and case flow management

I believe that a shift from punitive and punishment practices to a diversion-oriented approach would have a positive impact on the amount of cases that are sent court. The backlog would be significantly less and court administration would not be as weighed down by record keeping, schedules, cases, etc. In terms of a diversion-oriented approach, it could mean a more intensive management style. In other words, there could be more for individual case managers or social workers, depending on who the state decides to monitor youth progress and mentoring throughout the diversion program. I think it really depends on how the diversion program was set up, and what the flow of juvenile offenders looks like as it pertains to cases going forward to court.