Controversial issues regarding the juvenile justice system

Controversial Issues Regarding Juvenile System Controversial Issues Regarding Juvenile System When it comes to the juvenile justness system, it has been the major subject of treatment for many old ages. This difference involves if the focal point should be more towards rehabilitating juveniles or to penalizing them by captivity will be better for the safety of society. This paper will show why therapy should be chief precedence when covering with condemnable behaviour in adolescence unfairness and why requital should be used as a last option.

Controversial issues regarding the juvenile justice system

Respect for Autonomy Any notion of moral decision-making assumes that rational agents are involved in making informed and voluntary decisions. In health care decisions, our respect for the autonomy of the patient would, in common parlance, imply that the patient has the capacity to act intentionally, with understanding, and without controlling influences that would mitigate against a free and voluntary act.

See also Informed Consent. Case 1 In a prima facie sense, we ought always to respect the autonomy of the patient. Such respect is not simply a matter of attitude, but a way of acting so as to recognize and even promote the autonomous actions of the patient.

The autonomous person may freely choose values, loyalties or systems of religious belief that limit other freedoms of that person. Therefore, in a life-threatening situation where a blood transfusion is required to save the life of the patient, the patient must be so informed.

The consequences of refusing a blood transfusion must be made clear to the patient at risk of dying from blood loss. Desiring to "benefit" the patient, the physician may strongly want to provide a blood transfusion, believing it to be a clear "medical benefit.

Discussion In analyzing the above case, the physician had a prima facie duty to respect the autonomous choice of the patient, as well as a prima facie duty to avoid harm and to provide a medical benefit.

See Parental Decision Making top 2. The Principle of Nonmaleficence The principle of nonmaleficence requires of us that we not intentionally create a harm or injury to the patient, either through acts of commission or omission.

In common language, we consider it negligent if one imposes a careless or unreasonable risk of harm upon another.


Providing a proper standard of care that avoids or minimizes the risk of harm is supported not only by our commonly held moral convictions, but by the laws of society as well see Law and Medical Ethics.

This principle affirms the need for medical competence. It is clear that medical mistakes may occur; however, this principle articulates a fundamental commitment on the part of health care professionals to protect their patients from harm.

Criminalization of Drug Use vs. Legalization

Case 2 In the course of caring for patients, there are situations in which some type of harm seems inevitable, and we are usually morally bound to choose the lesser of the two evils, although the lesser of evils may be determined by the circumstances.

For example, most would be willing to experience some pain if the procedure in question would prolong life. However, in other cases, such as the case of a patient dying of painful intestinal carcinoma, the patient might choose to forego CPR in the event of a cardiac or respiratory arrest, or the patient might choose to forego life-sustaining technology such as dialysis or a respirator.

The reason for such a choice is based on the belief of the patient that prolonged living with a painful and debilitating condition is worse than death, a greater harm.

It is also important to note in this case that this determination was made by the patient, who alone is the authority on the interpretation of the "greater" or "lesser" harm for the self.

Controversial issues regarding the juvenile justice system

Discussion There is another category of cases that is confusing since a single action may have two effects, one that is considered a good effect, the other a bad effect. How does our duty to the principle of nonmaleficence direct us in such cases? The formal name for the principle governing this category of cases is usually called the principle of double effect.

A typical example might be the question as to how to best treat a pregnant woman newly diagnosed with cancer of the uterus. The usual treatment, removal of the uterus is considered a life saving treatment. However, this procedure would result in the death of the fetus.

What action is morally allowable, or, what is our duty? It is argued in this case that the woman has the right to self-defense, and the action of the hysterectomy is aimed at defending and preserving her life. The foreseeable unintended consequence though undesired is the death of the fetus.

There are four conditions that usually apply to the principle of double effect: The nature of the act. The action itself must not be intrinsically wrong; it must be a good or at least morally neutral act.

The agent intends only the good effect, not the bad effect, even though it is foreseen. The distinction between means and effects. The bad effect must not be the means of the good effect, Proportionality between the good effect and the bad effect.

The good effect must outweigh the evil that is permitted, in other words, the bad effect.Controversial Issues Regarding Juvenile Death Penalty Essay Sample. One of the most controversial issues in the rights of juveniles today is addressed in the question, Should the death penalty be applied to juveniles?

The Case for Reparations. Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Last year was a challenging year for my wife as it was her first year teaching in a new school system and at a different grade level.

As she returned to work this week to start her 19th year as a teacher, I was on the road facilitating a workshop and called her to see how things were going. Controversial Issues Within The Juvenile Justice System. The juvenile court was established over a century ago as a tribunal having the sole jurisdiction to hear, try and pass judgments or sentences for atrocities or crimes that are committed mainly by young adolescents as well as children who have not yet attained the majority age of 16 years in most states while 18 years in other states.

Top 10% Absolutely Positively the Best 30 Death Penalty Websites on the Internet (Top 1%) Death Penalty Information Center Probably the single most comprehensive and authoritative internet rersource on the death penalty, including hundreds of anti-death penalty articles, essays, and quotes on issues of deterrence, cost, execution of the innocent, racism, public opinion, women, juveniles.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. OJJDP, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, accomplishes its mission by supporting states, local communities, and tribal jurisdictions in their efforts to develop and implement effective programs for juveniles.

Blog | The Mandt System