Criminal activities case

But for the accusations of biases, indeterminate sentencing has been found suitable for status offenses because, indeterminate sentencing allows for a more humane approach something which makes it more flexible especially whenever handling specific cases. The indeterminate sentencing leaves room for parties involved to deliberate on the policies with an option of considering case-by-case depending on individual differences.

The way indeterminate sentencing is carried out is such that, it ensures fairness and Justice by keeping criminals away from the society while at the same time being responsible to different natures of criminal activities. Indeterminate sentencing grants the delinquents an opportunity to conform and become rehabilitated. Therefore, indeterminate sentencing views juveniles as humane and also views delinquents as human beings who can reform and who can be redeemed from their dark past.

At the same time, it grants the delinquents an opportunity to reform and improve as well as opportunity get a chance to rediscover their career goals. Indeterminate sentencing balances between the concerns of the public about their safety and protection from the Juvenile delinquents, while at the same time treating the Juvenile delinquents, fairly and in a humane way. Indeterminate sentencing allows law enforcers to gauge specific offenders in order of merits when considering what sort of sentencing a delinquent deserves.

In addition, indeterminate sentencing leaves a good room for all the professionals in the Juvenile Justice to exercise all their professionalism in a free way in which interferences of the court system hardly happens (Kaminer, 1995). Also, indeterminate sentencing allows a room for delegation of authority something which ensures that there is no backlog of jobs as all work can be fairly distributed amongst the available staff to ensure that cases are handled as fast as possible (Schmalleger, 1999).

The setting whereby parole commissions are allowed to review the decision of the courts with rare chances from public interference means that the system is less likely to be interfered with by public emotions which often dominate court procedures due to the influence resulting from passing their sentences in the full glare of the media and therefore the scrutiny of the public (Sheleff, 1987). Accessibility of the public to the on goings of the Juvenile system has been found to be a leading contributing factor to the harshness which has characterized most juvenile delinquency cases (Sheleff, 1987).

Administrative process in the juvenile justice systems is highly enhanced making the justice system very efficient. The waiver resulted from the philosophy of fairness and aimed at decongesting of the rehabilitation centers considering that, the past few decades have been characterized by an increase in juvenile cases. The continued increase in juvenile cases has proportionately led to the imprisonment of so many youths such that, cases of overcrowding in the rehabilitation centers became very rampant.

This led to a public outcry with the public decrying the overcrowded rehabilitation centers arguing that the fact the prisons became overcrowded meant that they could not meet their core functions, which were basically to reform and redeem the many youths who were getting involved in delinquency and criminal behavior. The other legal challenge facing the waiver was the challenge by attorneys on its applicability given the fact that the power to waive rested on the federal government through the president.

This led to legal arguments that the federal government was too distant from the situation on the ground therefore too aloof to effectively administer waivers devoid of flaws. Socially, the waiver has raised a lot of public outcry especially regarding to whether actually the waiver does not actually jeopardize the security and safety of the public. The waiver has faced social challenges concerning whether letting into the public known criminals does not actually encourage others to pursue criminal activities in the hope that their actions will not be punishable as they can benefit from the waiver.