States of Transition

Introduction
Two theoretical models most influence juvenile justice. This includes the welfare and justice models. The welfare model focuses on the rehabilitation needs of the juvenile offender, whereas the justice model focuses on due process and accountability. The distinction between the two systems has become blurred in recent times because the young people are seen to be in need of guidance, and at the same time, the young people are rational actor
. Available data indicate a gross failure of the justice model and relative success in the welfare model. A third approach that is proving more effective and reducing the strain within the overstretched justice system is the restorative model. This model encourages the offender to accept responsibility for his or her actions and the consequences to others. This is possible through the involvement of the victims in the justice process. The model does not overlook rehabilitation and punishment but combines it within the context of the offender taking responsibility for his or her action. The model emphasizes that the offender owes a debt to the victim first and the society later. The aim is to encourage reconciliation by ensuring the offender makes well the damage he or she caused the victim.
States of Transition
The concern with the behavior of the youth is longstanding; however, different societies develop separate distinct models to deal with the deviant behavior among the youth. The models comprise a coherent framework, which encompasses a theory of crime causation, a construct on the nature of the juvenile crimes, and a prescription of how the law should define juvenile justice. In England and Wales, the debate over how best to respond to juvenile crime is dominated by the merits and demerits of the welfare and justice models. More recently, the debate has comprised a new perspective increasingly popular in other European countries, such as New Zealand and Italy called the restoration and mediation model (Winterdyk, 2002). The juvenile justice models have developed in the last century as the need to address juvenile deviance has mounted because of urbanization and the decline of family relevance in the society. Most of the juvenile systems in the initial stages were closer to the welfare model than the justice model; however, criminal activities in a few youths led to a shift in legislative agenda.
In England and Wales, between 1981 and 1992, the number of juveniles in custody was low because of the permissive policy practitioner initiative. The permissive policy practitioner initiative share many characteristics with restorative justice. This was short lived because the murder of James Bulger in February of 1993 changed everything. Bulger was a few days short of his third birthday when he was kidnapped, tortured, and killed by two-ten-year old boys. The two Robert Thomson and Jon Venables were charged with abduction and murder and were found guilty in November the same year. After this case and the resulting media coverage, the politicians passed more punitive youth justice policies. The powerful sense of anxiety regarding youth crime resulted in misgiving of childhood itself. The politicians responded with The criminal justice and Public Order Act of 1994. Among other things the act extended the s. 53 provisions of The Children and Young Persons Act of 1933. Courts were empowered to sentence children as young as ten years to lengthy periods of custody. The act introduced privately owned juvenile prisons, and secures training centers for the routine incarceration of teenagers aged 12 to 14. This effectively made England and Wales’ juvenile justice system the most penalizing youth integrity jurisdictions in Europe (Muncie & Goldson, 2006).
 Juvenile delinquency is a problem throughout the world regardless of the geographical location. However, the methods underlying the various juvenile systems in other countries vary depending on the philosophies and theories the people value in the country. Regardless of the differences, the systems often face similar challenges depending on the common type of offences and the prevalence in the different countries. Recent literature suggests a therapeutic approach for the deviant youth results in the desired effect, unlike the punishment approach common in countries like England and Wales. The justice model common in these countries has resulted in larger numbers of youths in prison. In 1992, 4,000 youths were incarceration by 1999, 7,500 youths were in custody. Despite the increase, literature indicates a decreased rate in the number of young offenders in the country. However, those youth who go through the system are more likely to reoffend as reported by the Parliamentary Select Committee in October 2004. The committee estimate that as many as 80% of the youths who are placed in prisons reoffend after release (Winterdyk, 2002).
Restorative justice is increasingly gaining acceptance across juvenile systems in developed countries. Restorative justice defines the justice problem as lying within the process and outcome attached to the case. This system is like a traditional justice system that operates at the level of individual cases. It alters the handling and resolution of the cases and achieves success when the cases conclusion is satisfying for the parties involved. Critics of restorative justices argue that it fails to address the underlying social factors that produce crime and undermine its resolution. Structural inequalities in the society are often responsible for the production of crime in a community, and greatly undermine resolution in a restorative justice system because of the social differences between the parties involved. The reactive and individualistic focus of restorative justice leads some critics to consider it incapable of solving cases (Muncie & Goldson, 2006).
Conclusion
Restorative justice is very effective because it helps both the offenders and the victim to heal and reintegrate into the society. However, when the aims and ambitions are stretched to include crime prevention, it may result in failure, especially for the case of repeat offenders. Restorative justice serves many ends; however, crime reduction is not a measure of the success of the intervention but a subsidiary goal. Restorative justice increases the confidence of the public in the justice system, promote personal responsibility, and encourage citizens to engage in proactive dispute resolution without the engaging the authorities.
 References
Muncie, J., and Goldson, B. (2006). Comparative youth justice: Critical issues. London: Sage Publishers, pp. 196-214.
Winterdyk, J. (2002). Juvenile justice systems: International perspectives. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars' Press, pp. 269-290.