“You do the crime, you pay the time,” is a common phrase uttered throughout our society in regard to juvenile delinquency. It has been suggested that a punitive response to the problem of youth violence in America is an effective means of solving the issue of youth crime, and would also deter future offenders. As a result, the existence of rehabilitation strategies within the system available to offenders is under threat.
A harsh and punitive response to youth violence was, in part, brought about by a moral panic across America. Exaggerations by the media and political figures act as instigators of panic. Both the media and politicians promoted the concept of the super-predator youth. The media played its part by publishing or
…show more content…
Many Americans believe it is not too late to assist in pulling these young men and women out of their criminal rut. But it must be shown that certain rehabilitative programs are worth the time, effort, and money needed to put them into play. In this regard, programs designed for the lowering of recidivism rates for already institutionalized offenders are especially important. Not only do effective rehabilitation programs help to ensure the offender a crime-free future, but they also benefit communities and neighborhoods in reducing recidivism rates. Despite the damper put on intervention programs by strict authoritarian responses to youth violence over the last few decades, today there is an increasing emphasis on rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system. The system recognizes that youths are different from adults in their capacity to commit crime, and also their ability to recover from a criminal past and become responsible and law-abiding. Using effective punishment that won’t forfeit life chances as adults is regarded as an effective policy.
Further investigation into the subject of intervention strategies would be valuable to individuals and society alike. Rallying support for such programs by teaching their value and benefits to all could be done by such investigations. This paper will explore the workings, benefits, and societal response to
Whether a child who has committed a serious crime deserves rehabilitation or harsh punishment has been argued and the Juvenile Justice System is being blamed. Children who deserve real punishment are receiving rehab and children who deserve rehab are receiving harsh punishment. Many children’s lives are getting ruined because of unnecessary harsh punishment. Some juvenile offenders are not learning their lesson. The article “Sentences Show Acknowledge Juveniles’ Maturity, and Immaturity,” by Laurence Steinburg and the article, “Remember the Victims of Juvenile Offenders,” by Jenifer Bishop-Jenkins differ not only in their views of issues surrounding the American juvenile justice system, they differ in quality; however, Steinburg who argues for rehabilitation, clearly presents the best argument using logical reasoning and relevant evidence.
The general deterrence concept was remarkable because punishment decreased crime. Ever since the number of police were put on the street, the delinquency rate has undergone a two-decade decline. Now, the problem occurs when certain youths continue to do crime after serving punishment. In some instances, experiencing punishment may actually increase the likelihood that offenders may commit new crimes. Especially for juveniles that live in troubled neighborhoods punishment will not lead to any drop on the crime rate. They care about committing crimes that are profitable and beneficial to them rather than worrying about getting
Rehabilitation for at risk teens has been an ongoing issue that runs deep in certain communities. When kids at young ages are exposed to stress and have to cope early on with dysfunction they are denied the opportunity to mature and conditioned to commit thinking errors that perpetuate a young offender into an adult offender. To find ways to break this cycle John Hubner accounts his time on the Giddings State School Capital Offenders Program and how a group of counselors are able to combine many strategies in rehabilitating young offenders who have committed serious crimes. Young people convicted of serious crimes are often transferred to adult prisons that institutionalize young people to prison life only increasing the likely hood of
Juvenile institutions and programs have changed over time. There are also juvenile programs that necessarily do not punish juvenile’s delinquents but instead help modify their behavior to avoid recidivism. Certain treatments and methods regarding how to deal with these dangerous young offenders were fixed and improved to make these institutions and programs more effective in changing the lives of these young
The adult court system does not have the resources to work with and rehabilitate youth (Seep, 2015). According to recent studies, teens sent through the adult court system are 5 times more likely to commit another crime after leaving jail compared to a teen sent through the juvenile court system (Brown, 2015). This is because the juvenile court system has resources to help teens learn from their mistakes and not make them again. As a society, we should want our teens to become educated and help make our society better. While the goal of the adult court system is to deter the convicted prisoner from committing another crime, the juvenile court system’s goal is to rehabilitate the youth and help them successfully integrate back into society (Seep,
According to (Juvenile Offender) young people today are more malleable and can be easily influenced. It is mainly believed that the criminal actions by young offenders might be influenced by such external forces such as parental neglect, and inappropriate living conditions or with relations within their family. It is important to note that instead of seeing a rehab program as a form of punishment. Young people who are undergoing such a program should understand they are voluntary and should consider the program as a positive opportunity to change their lives for the better.
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
It has been almost 171 years since the establishment of America’s first juvenile detention center. Despite the change in culture, developments in psychology, and many years of application, the countries approach to reconciling criminal activity among youth has changed very little. A marginally refitted form of the model of adult incarceration, with a small amount of programming added in, has been the standard for rehabilitating delinquents set forth. It is absurd and ancient standard that has only produced failure at a high cost. The American Juvenile Justice System and its laws are in need of a overhaul to a system
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 need of diversion programs in juvenile correctional settings is on an increase. Two conflicting impulses dominate the desire to decrease the number of reoffending juveniles. The first is a compassionate approach that concentrates on treating the youth whereas the second approach uses punishment to protect their focus, which is community safety (Artello, Hayes, Muschert, & Spencer, 2015). It is important to note that not all individuals are impacted in the same way therefore many approaches aimed towards assisting the youth within the justice system exist. Due to the Progressive Era Reform, the state has the ability and responsibility to protect the welfare of children leading to treatment that hopefully divert them from continuously
Rehabilitation is not “the easy way out” to escape legal punishment, but is rather a key crime prevention strategy, the aim of which is to sway young offenders from their criminal paths. In many cases, rehabilitative techniques are more effective than prison sentences. For instance, David Clayton Thomas, who received a prison sentence at age 15 in Canada, provides a description of the prison, calling it “a predatory, upside-down society where the strong rule, the weak are victimized and the inmate code is all that matters.” Thomas says, “Break the code and you could get killed.” These are not the conditions in which our youth should be expected to restore their moral values! It has also been proven that rates of depression, anxiety disorders, ADHD, and substance abuse- all of which rehabilitation counsellors work with in our young offenders- are higher among youth in custody than among those in the general population. Participation in a rehabilitative program is not a lenient sentence; it is a healing process that is often difficult, but at the end of which the goals of the offender and his/her mentors are hopefully
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.
The necessity for development of a separate court system designed for punishing juvenile offenders came about with the idea that juveniles are “less culpable” than adult offenders, and therefore more adaptable to rehabilitation from their delinquent misbehavior. Building on this idea, juvenile court was established to offer intervention, rehabilitation, and protective supervision for young offenders, unlike the general idea of criminal courts aimed at punishing, incapacitating, and generating retribution. (Bishop & Frazier, 1991)
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.
These programs attempt to accomplish a number of objectives. They typically include sanctioning and controlling youths, helping them maintain existing ties within the community, help them restore ties that have been severed as a result of their delinquent behavior, and assist youths’ efforts to develop new and positive ties to others in the community (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). They also provide a correctional response that avoids the negative consequences of institutional placement, provide a more cost effective response to juvenile crime, and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. There is good evidence that some programs not only provide high quality services and successfully address a variety of client needs, but they also do an effective job of protecting public safety (Elrod & Ryder,