Argumentative Analysis

The Juvenile Court authorities must weigh the interests of public security with the needs of wayward youth when making determinations in regards to the most suitable program(s) and the level of circumscription necessitated. There have been thousands of juvenile programs which have been developed and undergone comprehensive recidivism analysis by outside auditors over the past thirty years. Objectives require balance in selecting correctional options that meet individual offender needs to contribute to crime reduction and prevent recidivism. Incarceration is necessary to incapacitate violent offenders; however, there are better alternatives for non-violent offenders who are not career criminals. Programs of incarceration for low offense juvenile

The juvenile justice system has long been in debate over whether its focus should be rehabilitation or punishment. From its birth in the early 20th century, the juvenile justice system has changed its focus from punishment to rehabilitation and back many times. Some say the juvenile justice system should be abolished and juveniles tried as adults, yet studies indicate punishment and imprisonment do not rehabilitate juvenile offenders; therefore, the juvenile justice system should remain

The determinate sentencing system provides juvenile judges with tremendous flexibility in ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their crimes, that public safety is protected, and that youth have the opportunity to become rehabilitated and turn their lives around. Determinate sentencing, under some circumstances, also provides juvenile judges with the opportunity to take a “second look” at the youth when he or she reaches adult age, so that the judge can re-evaluate the youth’s risk to public safety at that point (Deitch, 2011).

more likely to successfully transform their behaviors due to rehabilitation. Second, due to the distinction that juvenile crime is often a result of “unfortunate yet transient immaturity,” a youth offender is deemed to be more likely to reject future involvement in criminal behavior as the youth transitions into adulthood. The realistic possibility that many, if not most youths will grow out of their involvement in illegal activity, points to the reality that long criminal sentences cannot be justified by the need to ensure public safety. In essence, long term incarceration of youth does not often achieve the preventative purposes of criminal justice. In Graham and Miller, SCOTUS emphatically determined that life without the opportunity for parole does not offer youth offenders a semblance of opportunity for reform. In most juveniles, the Court emphasizes, reform will be achieved through rehabilitative efforts coupled with maturity.

Each day, juveniles who commit adult crimes, are being released from jail only after serving short sentences. They are being tried in courts of law and they are receiving short sentences for their crimes, while the victims and their families are left to suffer and cope with the consequences of the criminal’s actions. Many of these young criminals are now free, walking on the streets and, in many cases, committing additional crimes because the courts believe that second chances should be granted to juveniles who commit crimes. Some people agree to stop accusing juveniles as adults and try them as juveniles, while others believe they must be tried as adults when they commit adult crimes. I believe that juveniles should be held responsible for

Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

Until 1980, other changes in the juvenile justice system seemed to consistently refer back to the main objective of its creation. The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968 encouraged states to establish programs geared towards the prevention and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquency at the community level. These programs, once approved, were eligible to receive federal funding. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 built upon the 1968 act and increased nationwide rehabilitative efforts for juvenile offenders. If states wished to receive funding under this act, they were required to remove all juveniles within their jurisdictions from secure confinement facilities and separate them from convicted adults, building on the belief of writer Morrison Swift who commented on jailing young offenders with adults, “young and impressionable offenders were being carried off to Rutland with more hardened men, there to receive an education in lawlessness from their experienced associates” (Swift, 1911). Despite these steps towards delinquency prevention, or perhaps because of them, public perception towards an increase in juvenile crime in the 1980s caused radically different changes to begin to take place within the juvenile justice system.

Should juveniles have the opportunity to redeem themselves after they have committed a crime or should they suffer the consequence in a correctional facility? According to the CDC and the Prevention Task Force on Community Preventive services, the current criminal system is causing counterproductivity in solving the issues that surround this percentage of society. Juvenile Prisons do not aid in ending recidivism, but instead stall any real progress in eliminating such behavior (Mayeux). This procedure should not be the first punishment implemented on juveniles. Instead the U.S. government should execute alternate choices of punishment for juvenile offenders in order to help them learn from their mistakes; not only will this help create a change

Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).

Within the pro-choice world there are many issues that are discussed like abortion, the instant where life begins and the use of contraceptives. This article will focus on not only the issue of using of contraceptives, but specifically the distribution of oral contraceptives (“the pill”) to teenage girls without their parent’s consent.

While some individuals feel that exposure to an adult sanction will have a negative effect on the health of juveniles, the major crimes committed by these minors are the same as those committed by their surrounding adult inmates. The threat of adult incarceration will also repel juveniles from committing serious crimes. According to Professor Morgan Reynolds from Texas A&M University, “Between 1980 and 1993 juvenile crime rose alarmingly, and as the states toughened their approach during the 1990s, it declined just as steeply” (2005). In addition, incarceration lowers the chances of reoffending (Schneider cited by Reynolds, 2005). Enforcing laws that discourage juveniles from executing major crimes are effective in reducing crime rates and implementing public safety. Also, those that have already committed severe crimes are less likely to reoffend after exposure to adult sanction. Like Christopher Simmons, juveniles are aware of the crimes they are committing, and may even be proud of their actions. Regardless of the motive, teens committing major offenses should be placed in adult sanctions because their actions are no different than adult offenders. The intimidation of adult detention is successful in both deterring juvenile crime, and appropriately holds minors accountable for their severe offenses.

However, most of the young offenders commit severe offenses as a result of influence by drugs or having a family with a criminal history among others (Finley, 2011). Consequently exposing the young people to prison life full of adult convicts who have committed more serious offenses will most likely add up to their deviant and violent behavior. The criminal justice system that expects the young people to change and be good people once they have left the prisons end up convicting them again when they are adults. This is because once the offenders are out, they are likely to participate in more offenses as a result of the hardships they have endured in prison (Marion, 2011). The young offenders should thus be judged in the juvenile courts and also be punished according to the juvenile

In the discussion of heinous juvenile crime, one controversial issue has been whether juveniles committing such crimes should be locked up for life or should they be given a second chance? The conventional wisdom seems to be the latter. For example, according to a one survey by the Anchorage Youth Development Coalition, seventy-four percent of American adults argue that young people committing serious crime have the capacity to change for the better. My own view is that juveniles who commit heinous crimes cannot be excused because they are still a danger society since they cannot be rehabilitated and juvenile violent crime is rising. Moreover, it is not fair to the family members of the victims.

In recent decades, juvenile crime has become somewhat of a controversy due to the young age and immaturity of these criminals. Incidences of juvenile crime skyrocketed in the 1980s and 1990s, and policymakers pushed for laws that sent children as young as thirteen years old to trial, and even made them eligible for prison sentences. The general public has expressed a common desire to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and find effective legislation to discipline these youths, but there are questions about these methods. What is more effective, incarceration or rehabilitation? Does criminal punishment intimidate more youths away from a life of crime, and would productive rehabilitation efforts influence these youths to becoming more valuable members of society?