NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY JULY 1, 2019.  ATTACHED IS ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND OUTLINE OF PAPER TO ASSIST WITH FINAL PAPER. When looking at the relationship between social justice and juvenile justice

NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY JULY 1, 2019.  ATTACHED IS ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND OUTLINE OF PAPER TO ASSIST WITH FINAL PAPER. When looking at the relationship between social justice and juvenile justice
Running head: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 Annotated Bibliography Tamara Golson CRJ 301: Juvenile Justice Instructor Brian Robison June 10, 2019 Annotated Bibliography Feld, B. (1990). Just Deserts for Juveniles: Punishment v. Treatment and the Difference It Makes. Int’l Rev. Crim. Pol’y. In this article, Feld (1990) analyzes the contemporary changes in the sentencing policies and practices courts in the United States. According to the article, the principle of crimes, instead of personal determination of teenager’s interest is becoming prevalent in the juvenile courts and sentencing decisions. Additionally, the court’s decision involving Gault has dynamically changed the juvenile courts into very different institutions from the initially envisioned ones. As such, the due processes have imposed conventionalism in the juvenile courts. Juvenile courts have substantively depart from the original rehabilitative model into criminally punitive model. This article gathered historical justification for different sentencing procedures and the philosophical trade roads in the juvenile courts hence making the data reliable, Nonetheless, it holds juveniles are still responsible, if not less culpable, for their criminal behaviors. This article is relevant to my thesis because it does not just define my topic, but gives an in-depth analysis of the same. In addition, the quality of the outlined procedural justice in juvenile courts examined in this article is crucial in understanding the punitive and treatment sanctions available for juveniles. Young, S., Greer, B., & Church, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic interventions: a global perspective. BJPsych bulletin, 41(1), 21-29. This article considers justice and juvenile delinquency from international view. According to Young and colleagues, crime among the youth is an increasing concern that requires special attention from the justice department. Notably, most juvenile offenders are victims of various complex needs that calls for a justice models and the welfare of the victims. United States and other high-income economies have incorporated multifaceted disciplinary actions alongside psychiatric and development fields. This article is essential to my thesis because the information within is an evidence-based therapeutic intervention, which advocated for treatment as a way of handling juvenile offenders. It also advocates from reduction of in punitive approaches to preventing or minimizing crimes among the youth as does my paper. Nonetheless, the discussion in this article is navigated along ethical and clinical data making it an important contribution to the justice and welfare needs to the offenders. Narkvichetr, K., (2016). Juvenile Crime and Treatment of Serious and Violent Juvenile Delinquent in Thailand. While this article majorly focuses on juvenile delinquency in Thailand, it offers in-depth insights about juvenile delinquency. According to Narkvichetr (2016), the number of youths (7 to 18 years old) getting arrested and sent for observation by the police across the country have increased by 100% over the past 20 years. The article owes this rapid increase to the social problems and the globalization in the recent decades. I specifically chose this article because it does not only focuses on the complex personal needs of the youths that might force them into criminal activities, but also focuses parallel growth of globalization, urbanization, and industrialization, especially in unstable economies. Along with the expansion of economies, younger people commit serious crimes. The paper also supports my thesis that treatments play essential role in designing strategies to mitigate crimes among the youth. This position is supported by the reliable data gathered from the Thai criminal justice system, which include juvenile justice and performances. Geeraets, V. (2018). Two Mistakes about the Concept of Punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics, 37(1), 21-35. In this article, Geeraets (2018) delves on the concept of punishment. He criticizes punishment as a way of reprimanding juvenile offenders and cites the most commonly mistakes associated with it. First, there is a confusion between the understanding of punishment as a retributive way, and justificatorily as a neutral way of dealing with juvenile offenders. In particular, the article claims to analyze punishment in a restrictive though with a positive intention. While there are justifiable reasons for restrictions, there are perfectly other possible ways of interventions such as treatment deemed better than punishment. To establish my claim for treatment as the most effective for reducing recidivism in juvenile offenders, I examine, using this article, what I consider as the most appropriate way of providing a justificatorily neutral analysis of punishment. This paper also supports my view that perhaps, some legal philosophers that punishment without justification is impossible to distinguish from misappropriation. The evidence in this article provide a methodological comment on analysis of punishment, which I argue is quality and reliable. Feld, B. C. (2018). Punishing Kids in Juvenile and Criminal Courts. Crime and Justice, 47(1), 417-474. This article provides analysis of institutional confinements for the youth offenders and the role that such institutions has played in the lives of the teenagers, especially in the American society. It focuses on how the United States has responded to delinquent behaviors since 1980s up to date. Outfitted with various security measures, the pretrial delinquency and detention dispositions have been found to having disproportionate adverse effects on the youths. The article contends that the State has provided less procedural safeguard to teenage offenders. As such, developmental policies and the psychologists assert that the youth’s compromised rights require greater concerns. The information in this paper is an evaluation of alternative interventions such as dialectical behavior therapy among juvenile violent and non-violent offenders. The evidence-based treatment or rehabilitation advocated for in this paper recognizes key factors, which significantly reduce incidences of aggression among juvenile offenders. When compared with the conventional practices in the judicial system, I find the multisystem therapy in this article more appealing and significant in reducing the likelihood of reoffending. References Feld, B. (1990). Just Deserts for Juveniles: Punishment v. Treatment and the Difference It Makes. Int’l Rev. Crim. Pol’y. Feld, B. C. (2018). Punishing Kids in Juvenile and Criminal Courts. Crime and Justice, 47(1), 417-474 Geeraets, V. (2018). Two Mistakes about the Concept of Punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics, 37(1), 21-35. Narkvichetr, K., (2016). Juvenile Crime and Treatment of Serious and Violent Juvenile Delinquent in Thailand. Young, S., Greer, B., & Church, R. (2017). Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic interventions: a global perspective. BJPsych bulletin, 41(1), 21-29.