Final Exam: Youth and Justice
Introduction
Changes in public opinion, as well as criminal justice legislation, have transformed for the purposes of recognizing the unique role that crime plays in the lives of youth. That is, it has become widely recognized that the justice system cannot treat youth offenders with the same response that adult offenders are treated with. In fact, Minaker and Hogeveen (2009) support this claim and state that youth require “a qualitatively different response” (p. 249). Two examples that reflect this sentiment are: the notion that youth are biologically and psychologically underdeveloped when compared with adults, and the unique combination of risk and need that is embodied in the experience of youth come into contact with the justice system. In what is to follow, these two examples will be flushed out further as they relate to youth and justice. Additionally, a section of reflection will be included to discuss the lessons that can be learned from successful interventions that attempt to recognize the unique circumstances of youth who come into contact with the law.
Youth as Underdeveloped In its earliest form, the criminal justice system made little distinction between youth and adults. This generalized approach to crime used a classical form of legal governance, which was primarily concerned with determining guilt or innocence (Minaker & Hogeveen, 2009, p. 45). In the legal sense for a crime to have occurred, two fundamental conditions
In the article “Incarcerating Youth As Justice? An In-depth Examination Of Youth, Incarceration, And Restorative Justice,” Maynard, Robyn, has done many research on youth incarceration. She wants readers to know how incarceration affect youth’s mind, how should we help them, and what cause youth to be criminal. According to her research, there is an act call Youth Criminal Justice Act. She says that this act allows judges to release the name of youth offenders to the public in order to make them feel shame about what they do. This act causes the decline of youth incarceration. Although this act works efficiently, posting youth offenders ' names to the public cause negative effect on the youth. Rhonda Buckland, a counselor in a youth organization, says that this act makes youth offenders lose the ability to survive in the society. They become weaker than others and lose the ability to communicate with others. Maynard, Robyn also finds out the biggest factor that causes youth incarceration is racial profiling. Because of their races, police treat them differently, and that makes them feel helpless in the
The criminal justice system approaches young offenders through unique policies to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. They take special care when dealing with juveniles in order to stop them from repeat offending and stop any potential bad behaviour which could result in future. Juveniles have the highest tendency to rehabilitate and most adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing juvenile crime including psychological and social pressures unique to juveniles, which may lead to an increase in juvenile’s risks of contact with the criminal justice system.
There are a few common reasons for young people to be involved in crime. These include poor parental supervision, drug and alcohol abuse, neglect and abuse, homelessness, negative peer associations and difficulties in school and employment. The criminal justice system effectively deals with young offenders through unique techniques to address the challenges of dealing with juvenile offending. Even though young offenders commit a large percentage of crime, they also have the highest likelihood to be rehabilitated and change their lifestyles as they mature. There are several factors influencing crime by young offenders including psychological and
Today’s heated debate regarding the decision to try juveniles as adults has prompted individuals to construct opinionated and informational articles on the topic. The nation’s troubled youth are protected by groups that believe these offenders deserve rehabilitation and a chance to develop into a productive member of society. However, others believe that those committing certain heinous crimes should be tried as adults as a means to protect public safety, prevent second offenders, and “dispense justice in the form of punishment” (Aliprandini & Michael, 2016). Because these perspectives offer a reasonable and valid argument, juveniles responsible for major crimes
As a contrast, there are many differences between the adult and juvenile justice system. These differences consist of the right to a jury, the right to post bail, leniency of evidence, different court proceedings, the right to a public trial, and rehabilitation efforts. As for the purpose of this paper, we will dissect the differences of the two systems. Many appeals have been filed under the notion that a right to a jury should be upheld for juvenile offenders. The courts have voted against this action time and time again. These appeals are made on the assumption that, as noted earlier, adult crimes should be tried as adult crimes. However, the court rules on this matter while keeping the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile courts in mind, as opposed to the more punitive measures. Their desire to see kids treated as kids are defined with their upholding of the law, and pushing rehabilitation to its max. But should rehabilitation be the prime focus when the act is of adult capacity; even in a child’s body? I do not think so. What are the percentages of rehabilitation success with adults for committed capital offenses? How are they going to differ when a child partakes in them? I think there is a
Approximately two million adolescents a year are arrested and out of that two million, 60,000 of them are incarcerated according to the American Journal of Public Health. The 60,000 incarcerated adolescents each year are being tried as adults in court because of the serious crimes they have committed. The crimes they have committed are anything from armed robbery to murder. Some juveniles might be first time offenders and others might be repeat offenders. Crimes have always been a major issue in the United States and can cause controversy in the criminal justice system. Charging a minor as an adult in criminal court varies from state to state based on each state’s jurisdiction. Some states consider anyone up to the age of 18 still a juvenile and would not be charged as an adult in criminal court, but other states may charge a juvenile as an adult at the age of 16 or 17. Jordan (2014) states, “Although states already had methods for transferring youth to the adult system, as a result of the growing fear of juvenile violence, most states implemented new laws to increase the number of youth entering the adult criminal system’ (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Torbet et al., 1996)” (p. 315). While it sounds beneficial to incarcerate more adolescents in the adult criminal justice system to avoid juveniles from committing crimes in the future, that is not always the case. Incarcerating these juveniles can be life changing in a negative
Referring to aspects from Goldson and Muncie’s (2006) article on “a youth justice with integrity” (pp. 99-102), the essay will argue that section 38 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) should incorporate a risk-needs responsivity model (RNR) to the sentencing structure. Moreover, this addition should replace the 2012 amendments of section 38, which incorporated deterrence and denunciation into sentencing practices (s. 38(2)(f)). This amendment has the potential to increase recidivism rates, as it does not properly address the special needs that some youth’s may have. In relation, section 38 exemplifies the proportionality of the punishment (s. 38(2)(c)), which could be potentially affected
The justice system assures that the protection of the public is taken into account when dealing with delinquents. The consequences received by youth, appear to be less severe than the adults; for the reason, that youth has much lower maturity level and are not mentally developed yet. One of the ways the protection of society is assured is by referring young people to programs, such as ‘John Howard Society’ and ‘Offender Work Programs’ to address circumstances underlying their offending behaviour. For example, a
Juvenile crime is a term around the world that is difficult to pinpoint and although there are several definitions many fail to be concrete. There are many factors that play into sentencing juveniles or minors upon a crime committed. How old are they? Can they mentally form criminal intent? Are they old enough to no longer be treated as children? Some people would argue that a criminal is just that, regardless of age. Research on the other hand shows that juveniles have underdeveloped brains who at times have difficulty rationalizing decisions and weighing out consequences. It is important that these issues are addressed because of the implications this has on not only the juveniles but the community around them. These
The juvenile justice system varies from the adult justice system in many ways. For more than a century, the states have believed that the juvenile justice system was a means to ensuring public safety, by establishing and implementing a system that responds to children as they are maturing into adulthood. Today’s youths, however, are increasingly committing more serious crimes that in turn are raising the public’s criticism concerning the modern juvenile justice system. There are those who are in support of keeping every juvenile I juvenile court system and then there are the others who argue if juveniles were held to stricter standards they would not become repeat offender in the system and eventual end up in the adult corrections system.
Juvenile justice laws have changed with conservative motions and with the general ongoing swinging pendulum between rehabilitation and incarceration. During the 1990’s the pendulum swung to the right towards tough-on-crime initiatives due to an increase of violent crimes by juveniles and seemingly failed rehabilitative efforts due to high rates of recidivism. State legislatures across the country enacted statutes under which growing numbers of youths can be prosecuted in criminal courts and sentenced to prison (Piquero & Steinberg, 2007). As of 1992, “the number of youth under 18 confined in adult prisons ha[d] more than doubled during the decade prior” (USDOJ, 2000, p.4). At the time of their 2007 publication, Piquero and Steinberg reported
Juvenile offending is a concern in society today. Juveniles account for approximately 19% of the population but are responsible for 29% of criminal arrests (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001). Crime overall has been found to be decreasing throughout the last two decades. The issue is that the rate in which adult crime is decreasing is significantly greater than the rate in which juvenile crime is decreasing. Since the rate of juvenile crime is so high, juvenile delinquents are seen as predators and many believe they lack morals. The way in which media of today’s society constructs juvenile delinquency impacts the views of a community towards their youth and youth offenders. Media presents an inaccurate image of youth offenders as violent predators (Rhineberger-Dunn, 2013). This inaccurate image significantly promotes the myths that juvenile crime is rising, juveniles commit crimes that are primarily violent, and that juveniles are highly effected by recidivism and continue committing crimes into adulthood (Bohm, & Walker, 2013). It has already been stated though that crime rates have been decreasing over the last two decades so the first myth is refuted. The myth that juveniles primarily commit violent crimes is also very off. In most cases, juveniles are involved in property crimes and although there are some violent crime cases, they are very rare. When these rare violent crimes do occur, youth can be tried in adult court. The
Juvenile delinquency has been a problem in the United States ever since it has been able to be documented. From 100 years ago to now, the process of juvenile delinquency has changed dramatically; from the way juveniles are tried, to the way that they are released back into society, so that they do not return back to the justice system (Scott and Steinberg, 2008). Saying this, juveniles tend to
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
Youth have been described as being within the development process. That is, youth are biologically and psychologically progressing towards becoming adults. The implementation of risk/need assessments is useful for both adults and youth in relation to justice. However, youth lack autonomy and this results in their increased vulnerability. Subsequently, youth embody a particular combination of risk and need that is different than that of adults. The criminal justice experience of youth must consider the unique interplay of risk and need that exist in the lives of youth.