Consequences Of Institutionalizing And Incarcerating Youth

For starters, children in the juvenile correction system are not rehabilitated for drug addictions or treated for mental health conditions. Being incarcerated does nothing positive for them. These children become stuck in the cycle of arrests and reoffending, in which every time they are brought back to a facility it is now exponentially harder for them to return to be a functioning member of society. In fact, there are kids who have been trapped “in this system for decades” (Mayeux). Obviously juvenile detention policies do not work, or these children would have been reformed and not have been in the same situation for so long. Young adults stuck in this cycle get released and then are immediately back where they started when they break another law, harming the teenager’s future, and endangering public safety (Mayeux). Society, in fact, would benefit from a rehabilitory stance on juvenile crime instead of a punishing one. Juvenile detention intervenes in these at-risk children’s lives in a way that actually turns them into criminals, by imposing stereotypes on them, and treating them like they are dangerous, and not worth fixing. The American perspective on juvenile crime needs to change, because the current program is not benefitting at-risk children, or

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

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.

1. “Collateral consequences” refers to all related and seemingly unintended consequences of something. What are the collateral consequences of mass incarceration, and how do they contribute to inequality? (Chapter 33 Bryan L. Sykes and Becky Pettit: “Mass Incarceration and Family Life” In Other Words: Virginia E. Rutter: “Doing Time = Doing Gender” (Girl w/ Pen!))

The issue is intermediate sanctions and community corrections within the correctional practices. The two classic forms of punishment/supervision for crimes in the United States are imprisonment and probation. Imprisonment is extremely expensive, often too harsh for both the offender and his/her family based on the crime committed, and tends to be far less effective than hoped in rehabilitating the offender. Probation is used far more frequently than imprisonment but is problematic because many repeat offenders have already unsuccessfully undergone prior probation and there is a lack of supervision due to the heavy caseloads of probation department caseworkers. Faced with the great expense, extreme nature and ineffectiveness of imprisonment vs. the ineffectiveness and lack of supervision in probation, lawmakers have struggled to fill the gap between those two classic law enforcement measures with

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).

In order to properly address mandatory incarceration for chronic juvenile offender’s criminal activities, it is important to begin with psychological assessments and evaluations. Half of our youths have experienced some type of psychological trauma such as depression, PTSD, personality disorders, anxiety, anger issues, or dissociation, just to name a few (Moroz, K. 2009). In order to determine mandatory incarceration, all of these factors must be considered. I will agree with most of our society that is , if they are a danger to society and serious of the crime, they need to be put into detention, where they cannot cause harm but where they can received the right intervention program and mental health treatment for them, it’s the law. The juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate not punish young offenders. Punishment is not the answer in solving their delinquent behavioral patterns.

I think you sharing your job experience on this subject matter shed more light on such a controversial topic. I absolutely agree with you when you said, “adultification inside the juvenile system achieves nothing more than swelling the population of both the adult and juvenile correctional system and blending/housing young impressionable individuals with institutionalized adult criminals and presents as illogical reasoning.” There is an obvious disconnect from schools, families and communities. “Although their crimes and misbehaviors are an affront to a community’s sense of security; control, and decency, the retributive response only creates more human misery” (Bockem, Kinsley, & Woodward, 2000). Finding a balance between accountability, community

Rather than providing programs and services which enable young people to rehabilitate and reintegrate back into society, the Young Offenders Act placed them in custodial care with limited opportunities. This type of justice system further promotes and emphasizes the negative stereotypes that surround the topic of youth crime within our

The United States leads the world in the incarceration of young people, there are over 100,000 youth placed in jail each year. Locking up youth has shown very little positive impact on reducing crime. Incarcerating youth have posed greater problems such as expenses, limited education, lack of employment, and effect on juveniles’ mental and physical well-being.

The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.

Currently to deal with juvenile offenders involved in the youth crime, there are two options available. The first option that prevails to a larger extent is known to us as incarceration while the second option that is slowly gaining trends is known to us as rehabilitation programs. This paper focuses on thorough analysis of both these options and the impact that they have on the offenders as well as the society as a whole. The paper also assesses the viability of these options in order to determine which of these will prove to be more effective and beneficial.

By law adolescents are not able to vote, purchase tobacco or alcohol, join the armed forces, or sign a legal contract. Children are not permitted the same rights and responsibilities as adults because the law recognizes their inability to make adult decisions. The law acknowledges that children are unable to handle the consequences that come along with the rights that adults have. By allowing them to be charged as adults is holding them to a double standard. Telling them that they are not old enough to enjoy the same luxuries as adults, but they can experience the same punishment as adults if they commit a crime. The law acknowledged the inability of children to make decisions but still allows them to suffer the same consequences as adults. Research demonstrates that transferring children from juvenile court to adult court does not decrease recidivism, and in fact actually increases crime. Instead of the child learning their mistake they are more likely to repeat it. Juvenile detention centers have programs that help reconstruct young minds and help them realize where they went wrong. Prison does not offer this same opportunity. (Estudillo, Mary Onelia)

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?

It is a common believe that adolescents require a special system thru which be processed because they are “youth who are in a transitional stage of development…young offenders that are neither innocent children nor mature adults…” (Nelson, 2012). Because juveniles are in a process of constant development sociologically, psychologically and physiologically, the juvenile court system focuses on alternative sentences and the creation of programs that will offer them rehabilitation instead of incarceration. However, in cases of extraordinary circumstances, the juvenile system shifts from looking at rehabilitation as a first choice to accountability and punishment (Read, n.d). All levels of society are collectively involved in delinquency