Approximately 16 States have legislated some form of blended sentencing provisions as an alternative in dealing with violent juveniles." (ojp.gov) Blended sentencing refers to the imposition of juvenile and/or adult correctional sanctions on serious and violent juvenile offenders who have been adjudicated in juvenile court or convicted in criminal court. (Merlo, Benekos 259) In blended sentencing, juvenile offenders may be subject to both juvenile and adult court jurisdictions, allowing for a range of possible dispositions. This could include serving part of their sentence in a juvenile detention facility followed by transfer to an adult prison, or receiving a juvenile sentence with the possibility of adult sanctions if they fail to comply with the terms of their juvenile supervision. The idea of blended sentencing is not a bad idea, I can see potential within the 5 different models. The goal of blended sentencing is to balance the need for accountability and public safety with the recognition of juveniles developmental differences and potential for rehabilitation. Here in the state of Missouri the courts follow the criminal inclusion blend. This blend is a decision by the criminal court judge to impose both a juvenile penalty and a criminal sentence simultaneously. (Merlo, Benekos 263) Some may argue that blended sentencing may blur the lines between juvenile and adult justice systems and potentially expose juveniles to harsher punishments without considering their age and developmental stage.

DISCUSSION POST 2: The Juvenile-Exclusive Blend-"is a disposition by the juvenile court judge either to the juvenile correctional system or to the adult correctional system, but not both." (Merlo & Benekos, 2018)

The Juvenile-Inclusive Blend-"involves a disposition by the juvenile court judge that is both a juvenile correctional sanction and an adult correctional sanction." (Merlo & Benekos, 2018)

The Juvenile-Contiguous Blend-"is a disposition by a juvenile court judge that may extend beyond the jurisdictional age limit of the offender. When the age limit of the juvenile court jurisdiction is reached, various procedures may be invoked to transfer the case to the jurisdiction of adult corrections." (Merlo & Benekos, 2018)

The Criminal-Exclusive Blend- "represents a decision by a criminal court judge to impose either a juvenile court sanction or a criminal court sanction, but not both." (Merlo & Benekos, 2018)

The Criminal-Inclusive Blend-"is a decision by the criminal court judge to impose both a juvenile penalty and a criminal sentence simultaneously." (Merlo & Benekos, 2018)

I believe the models where there is a juvenile specific court provides the best options for juvenile rehabilitation. I think it would be difficult for a criminal court judge to have all the knowledge and resources to adequately preside over juvenile court proceedings when they are focused on both adult and juvenile cases.

I believe the gold standard sentencing statute is the Juvenile-Contiguous Blend. This allows the juvenile judge the ability to provide the resources of the juvenile justice system and re-evaluate progress prior to admission into the adult correctional system. This could be very beneficial for juveniles facing long sentences when they have the ability for an early release based on their decisions. It also allows the strengthens the juvenile justice system by providing additional tools and the judge can focus on rehabilitation. (Schaefer & Uggen, 2016)

I think the Juvenile-Exclusive Blend diminishes the juvenile courts power by limiting their ability to effectively deal with minor offenses. For example, if a juvenile is coming close to aging out of the juvenile court jurisdiction and that juvenile commits a crime, the juvenile court can punish them either as a juvenile or an adult so if the crime is a very minor theft then the court can effectively manage the case. However, if the crime is more significant then the crime goes to the adult correctional system or there is a very limited time in the juvenile court jurisdictional time to allow for rehabilitation.

DISCUSSION POST 3: Susan R. was culpable of some very serious offenses, and the juvenile judge's decision represents one that I strongly disapprove of. Attempted armed robbery, aggression, and unruly behavior are all behaviors that can cause significant harm, not only to the individuals engaged but also to people in the community in the surrounding region. As a consequence, these violations must not be taken lightly and should be faced with more severe consequences (Merlo, 2018). I recommend that the magistrate add additional conditions to Susan R.'s sentence to hold her accountable for the repercussions of her actions and to help her rehabilitate. In my opinion, one of the requirements that the judge ought to impose is to have Susan R. reimburse herself for any losses incurred as a direct consequence of her actions. This might include money-based penalties for damages done to public property as well as reimbursements to anyone injured in the incident. Furthermore, Susan R. should be required to attend therapy sessions to address the root causes and create adaptive coping methods for dealing with negative feelings or events in the future. It is feasible that the juvenile justice system will utilize these sessions as a kind of parole, provided that they are held at set intervals and on a frequent enough basis to allow the judge to monitor Susan R.'s progress regularly (Merlo, 2018). In addition, I feel that making Susan R. complete volunteer work is a fantastic way for a woman to learn how to be a useful part of society while simultaneously being held responsible for the actions she took. She may utilize this chance to give back to the neighborhood by working with local companies, philanthropic groups, and even educational institutions. In closing, I feel that Susan R. should be given long-term probation to ensure that she follows particular rules and regulations and retains gainful work or furthers her education. This might be tailored to her specific circumstances and needs, such as if she currently attends classes in school or is pursuing a career. Furthermore, I feel that any subsequent transgressions should result in significant punishments to discourage her from engaging in criminal activities again and serve as a deterrent against her doing so. In general, I believe Susan R. will be held accountable for her actions if the requirements I outlined are implemented, yet she will additionally be able to get rehabilitation and reintegrate into society (Merlo, 2018).

DISCUSSION POST 4: The judge's disposition consists of to 2 years of probation with mandatory psychological and substance-abuse counseling.Considering only Susan's current delinquent act of taking a neighbors car and crashing it along with marijuana usage, I do agree with the judge's disposition. 2 years probation along with restitution fees satisfy taking the neighbors car while psychological counseling can help rehabilitate her and substance-abuse counseling can help with her marijuana use.

Considering Susan's previous delinquent acts (theft, assault, multiple curfew violations, escaping a secured facility and gang activity) along with her family life, I do not agree with the judge's disposition. I think it would be more appropriate to place Susan in a facility where she can be monitored while receiving the counseling she needs. Susan's parents have a history of domestic violence and drug use along with not being present making her home life unstable. Therefore, I do not think Susan's parents are the best overseers to ensure the best care is being given to Susan with her situation. I think the parents should also have to complete substance abuse counseling and family counseling.