158 f>Following the reforms aimed at protecting the due process rights ot juvenile
offenders were the initiatives geared toward promoting determinate sentencing
(American Bar Association, 1980). Thus, this period of reform sought to reduce the
arbitrariness inherent in the previous era ofjuvenile justice, which allowed for discre-
tionary sentencing of youthful offenders. The move to determinate sentencing was
temporarily supported by individuals with vastly different philosophies concern-
ing the appropriate way to sentence youths. Grisso (1996b) states that individuals
who supported the retributive philosophy endorsed the determinate sentencing re-
form because, from their perspective, juvenile offenders received their just; desserts.
Likewise, individuals who advocated the rights of children supported this reform
because it prevented the abuse of discretionary decision making by juvenile court
judges. Gnsso's final example acknowledges support by clinicians who recognized
the therapeutic effect of teaching juveniles responsibility for their actions.
The current reform efforts are aimed at increasing the severity of the determinate
sentencing for youths. As a result, the treatment ofjuvenile offenders is becoming
more and more consistent with their adult counterparts. This shift is largely a
reflection of societal views. A national survey was conducted in 1991, which revealed
that 99% of the public advocates punishment for violent offenders (Schwartz, 1992).
The public's attitude is reflected in action by the legislature as new laws are created
to implement stiffer punishment for juvenile offenders. The 1992 Attorney General
for the United States, William Barr, clearly stated that serious juvenile offenders are
beyond rehabilitation and laws need to be enacted which provide the justice system
with the flexibility needed to prosecute these youths as adults (Barr, 1992).
As a result of these views, legal reforms in the juvenile justice system have pri-
marily revolved around prosecuting juveniles in criminal court (Grisso, 1996b).
By waiving the youth to the adult system, the juvenile essentially faces the same
sentence as would an adult charged with a similar crime. Moreover, the process by
which a juvenile is waived to adult court has been reformed over the years. Ini-
tially, in the course of a waiver, the juvenile court took into account the juvenile's
individual characteristics and the youth's potential for rehabilitation. However, cur-
rently there are laws in some states which require a juvenile to be waived to adult
court based solely on the crime committed (Grisso, 1996b). Thus, the flexibility
and discretion that was once used in determining sentences for juvenile offenders
is becoming increasingly less popular and, in some cases, nearly impossible.
Despite the movement toward retribution, a number of individuals remain in
support of rehabilitation for youthful offenders. Weaver (1992) discusses a program
in Florida designed to provide services to serious violent juvenile offenders. This
program has successfully operated without incarcerating juveniles. The program
is composed of three phases during which the juveniles engage in hard work,
education, and learn job skills. The program has a behavioral component in which
the youths receive "points" based on the degree to which they perform their daily
tasks. The points can then be traded in for various privileges. The violent offenders
in this program have more significant criminal histories, yet lower recidivism rates