Self-control in society is essential among its members. Mistakes committed by members of society are punishable as criminal activities or some are considered minor mistakes. When a member of society commits criminal activity he is subjected to legal proceedings. The court will determine whether he or she is guilty or innocent. Unlike traditional society where offenders were treated equally regarding their criminal activity, in the juvenile justice system minors and adults are treated differently. Crime and delinquency sometimes reach a peak in prevalence and frequency acquired during the youth period. Juvenile offenders aged 18 and under face the juvenile system which towards the end of the nineteenth century when the system was introduced, minors became subject to the juvenile system while adults were directed to the criminal justice system. In the early days the courts were used to try children as young as seven. This until the beginning of the 19th century the youth system was formed. The juvenile justice system is used to control and reduce crimes committed by adolescents and adolescents in adulthood. This article discusses the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Adults are extraordinarily mature agents to make their own consequential and independent decisions and are subject to the consequences of their actions while young people are considered forces of nature who do not yet have the capacity to make their own decisions, but use their family and older friends as decision makers, this makes them assume they are under control. The juvenile justice system is an issue to be discussed in many nations as there is no proven time or rite of passage that determines when a minor can make his or her own decision. Normally crime is evident in young people during the adolescent stage. The unique condition of the adolescent creates tension in juvenile justice as children cannot face court orders due to criminal offenses. Due to the lack of a defined time when a minor is considered an adult, the juvenile justice system faces problems on how to punish the minor. Should the child be provided with moral guidance or punishment as an adult who should face the consequences of his or her actions? The interpretations that try to interpret the effectiveness of the juvenile system are not all taken into consideration because some interpretations explain how the juvenile system is effective in responding to the offenses caused by young people through satisfying itself. The United States juvenile justice system is affected by key issues that impact its functioning. First, the minor is effective in providing a morally and legally acceptable response to adolescents' criminal activities. These crimes are also subject to the same punishment as in the adult system. However, these sanctions are less severe and of very different quality than adult punishments. Two acceptable symbolic gestures should be adopted by the juvenile system as a means of communicating to the public, as stated by Morris, while there has been a notable decrease in cases of murder and sexual violence between 1975 and 2005, the number of male adolescents in correctional facilities doubled between 1990 and 2005. Morris explains that while the juvenile justice system is effective in reducing criminal activity, it has failed toprevent adolescents from engaging in criminal activities such as substance abuse and improve self-esteem. The juvenile system is subject to gender bias as males are treated as adults who should face court while female adolescents are considered children who should be protected from cases of sexual violence. A fair juvenile court should treat all genders as equal before the law. According to Leve, Chamberlain and Kim, the number of female adolescents involved in life crime has increased in recent years. Effective measures should be established to ensure that even the favored gender is aware of the consequences of involvement in criminal activities. In addition to gender bias in the juvenile justice system, education in rehabilitation facilities is not the same as the education offered in public schools. . Leone and Wruble, describes that the type of learning in rehabilitation centers is different from the federal standards established by the Individuals with Educational Disabilities Act for persons undergoing rehabilitation services. The divergence in the quality of education has allowed parents and guardians to demand the right education for their children in the right conditions, as in the rest of the world. Only a few offenders in the juvenile system attend school for at least six hours a day. The wasted time can be used to upgrade an offender for a better life. Correctional facilities should provide advanced education compared to public schools to ensure that the affected person after rehabilitation is fit to engage with the community free from criminal activity. This disparity of the juvenile justice system in providing equal education shows that the system has much to do to be effective. Detention practices and racial discrimination were also a major inefficiency in the juvenile justice system. The system could be considered effective if it could prevent the majority of young people from being involved in activities considered criminal. Youth incarceration rates are naturally higher for minority groups than for the white majority. This is a clear implication that the system is being ruined by certain groups being held back from justice through arbitration. This has made the juvenile justice system a dumping ground for youth issues to which detention and incarceration contribute. Adolescents also overcrowd detention centers, thus increasing exponentially due to the increase in violent ways to resolve disputes between them. One of the aspects that contribute to the ineffectiveness of the juvenile justice system in preventing adolescents is the lack of corrective measures that lead adolescents to abrasive, criminal and externalizing behaviors. Overall, a transformative effect is expected from the juvenile system on offenders. Underwood and Lamis argue that mental health and suicide risk are diagnosed by over 70% of individuals within the system, indicating that the juvenile system provides a harmful life for offenders in correctional services. This implies that offenders are subjected to negativity with much emphasis on their extent. This negativity leads them to contemplate suicide as a way to escape society because they feel they are unfit to re-engage in society. This is an important factor that reduces youth efficiency. Due to growing inefficiencies, the US government and state administrations have emerged with ways to improve the system in order to provide positive transformation of the younger generations. According to Seigle, iyouth The prison system existing at the end of 2011 has been reduced through alternative detention. The collaboration and commitment of judges and justice administrators contributed to achieving a solution to the juvenile system. Seigel postulates that improving youth outcomes within the system can be undertaken with adolescent needs and risks in mind. Furthermore, research guides decisions made through justice and resource allocation. According to Seigel, the best way to reduce crime is to use young people to determine solutions. This can be done through improving the outcomes of youth spheres. To raise the standards of the juvenile justice system and make it more effective the following ways should be used: One, first, occasional offenders and minor delinquents should be offered immediate intervention. Instead of resorting to conventional detention, diversion and probation would be used in correctional centers. Two: Offenders who commit serious criminal activities for the first time should be intensively propagated and supervised in order to monitor the change in their behaviors. Third, community confinement is important especially when offenders repeat ownership through the implementation of residential or non-residential programs in society. States should collaborate with key stakeholders in implementing these strategies. Authorities should also have adequate training to support the efforts needed to support the system. An effective juvenile system should provide a morally appropriate approach and legal response to criminal behavior. Measures such as electronic tagging should be imposed to keep problem youth away from crime; this can be achieved through close supervision and direct control. There are other strategies that can be used to streamline juvenile justice, such as avoiding unnecessary detentions, reducing rearrest rates, addressing racial disparities, and proper use of public finances to improve conditions for juveniles. Furthermore, it would be more beneficial if the exposed group was involved in understanding the behavioral change. The system should help those leaving correctional services to return to the community by providing support, this will promote a beneficial perception of the juvenile justice system. The system can also reduce interventions between the community and offenders, this is due to the difference between offenders in the institution and those in the community. According to Mears, Pickett and Mancini a research group of university students were interviewed about their ideas about the juvenile system and the treatment of criminals. The interview results indicated that the juvenile system failed to handle criminals appropriately, thus making it ineffective. Statistics showed that 67% of interviewers seek a system of balance between rehabilitation and punishment of offenders. The public also expressed their approach, indicating that the approach was not strong. Leve, Chamberlain, and Kim (253) also expressed their view that authorities should consider system efficiency, various family, individual, and other hindering factors. Today we have policies and programs that recognize behavioral problems within the juvenile system affecting young people. offenders and targeting strategies. Family factors such as childhood maltreatment leading to violent development should be taken into account and parents' criminal records should be ascertained. THE 32.6 (2015): 517-527.