Juvenile Boot Camps Disadvantages

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

Placing a juvenile in a detention center early in the court process increases the risk that youths will be found to be delinquent and damage their prospects for future success. A majority of the youths that are placed in these facilities pose little or no threat to the public and essentially do not need to be there. This portion of the juvenile court process is detrimental to the future and mental aspects of a youth’s life. We desperately need to change the way that we handle the juvenile court system because we are only reinforcing the delinquent behavior that these youths have been exposed to. We need to focus on the rehabilitation and prevention efforts for these youths not the punishment aspect and until then (insert a better ending).

The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) began in 1992 by the Annie C. Casey Foundation with the purpose of providing alternatives to low-risk teens being placed in detention centers. Detention decisions are based on criteria standards for possible alternatives to incarceration. Data is collected to provide accurate numbers to help diagnose and provide alternative solutions to system issues. The JDAI is also actively involved in collaborating between government agencies, and policies regarding these system issues and youth reform. Incarceration options also reduce teens being placed in detention for warrants, awaiting placement and violations.

I advocate for a revision of the juvenile justice system that truly promotes social justice. The ideal detention facility I propose for delinquent juveniles more so resembles the practices and concepts the Missouri Division of Youth Services provides. This system does not bar children in cells. It does not force them to wear dehumanizing uniforms, they are provided with sufficient and well-trained mental health professionals. They are provided with anger management programs. It is devoted to “offer a demanding, carefully crafted, multilayered treatment experience, designed to challenge troubled teens and to help them

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

By reading this book, I learned a lot about teenagers’ critical situations at juvenile hall. This book gave me a greater insight and deeper understanding of what their lives are like and the challenges they face in this place. I also learned that the legal system is not doing a great deal to help these young kids mend their lives. They are not being offered counseling or therapy which could help facilitate a great deal of things for them such as, getting a better orientation of a path for them to follow, dealing with the excessive amount of stress they face in a healthy way

In America on any give day, approximately ten thousand juveniles are housed in adult prisons and jails. Approximately two hundred thousand juveniles enter the adult criminal justice system each year and most have non-violent crimes. Juveniles in the adult jails lose out on the educational and psychological benefits offered by juvenile detention facilities and

As mentioned within the paper, there are benefits to having services provided by both public and private entities; however, there are also concerns. The public sector, which was portrayed by services offered by TJJD, are required to provide yearly reports. In many ways these reports keep the system accountable for the money they are spending and the services they provide or require for juvenile offenders. The reports are open to the public and are easily accessible. As it relates to research, these reports allow people to critically assess juvenile programs, while challenging the government to refine or create programs superior to the ones offered in the past. Reports like these are harder to find regarding services offered by private entities and is a concern. Programs in which juvenile offenders are required to successfully complete, should never be determined by trial and error; however, this is often the case. On a positive note, private entities and community resources typically target the specific needs of a juvenile and include mental health components. Programs which do not offer mental health services should be critically assessed, as they are less likely to succeed. It is important that continued research is applied to the programs offered by both the public and private sectors. As it stands today, treatment services offered

Juvenile delinquency has become a controversial issue within the Criminal Justice system. In the United States, juvenile delinquency refers to disruptive and criminal behavior committed by an individual under the age of 18. In many states, a minor at the age of 16 to 17 ½ can be tried as an adult. Once the individual reaches adulthood, the disruptive and criminal behavior is recognized as a crime. However, the criminal justice system has divided juvenile delinquency into two general types of categories that has brought upon controversial issues of inequality and corruption. Yet, putting young individuals in juvenile detentions facilities seems to open the door for them to commit more crimes in the future. Therefore, under certain circumstances juveniles should be tried as an adult.

It is often stated that the future lies in the hands of our offspring’s. Meaning, that the youth are our future adults. The world revolves on the status of the children and what they will do to contribute to life. Accordingly to The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention 1.8 million juveniles were arrested in 2009 (OJJDP). The Juvenile Justice system holds the keys to unlock many doors of broken children that are on the wrong path in there adolescent life. The difference between children and adults is that children have a greater capacity for change when an adult can be more resistant to it (JLC.org). This is one reason why The Justice System should give additional help to the Juvenile Corrections 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 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.

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.

Alternative programs for youth were developed for mild and less serious delinquents. Over the years, the program has seen a surge in electronic home monitoring, community intensive supervision programs which service serious offenders in addition to minor cases. At times, group homes may house repeated youth offenders. Regardless of the placement, 24-hour supervision is provided in a unique way.

The United States has been facing problems for years about high school dropouts. Dropping out high school is a real problem, because, in reality the students who graduate from high school are more successful than students who dropout. According to the authors Jonathan Jacob, Zohreh Eslami, and Lynne Walters, students, there are several factors that provide a framework for understanding why high school students dropouts (1). The general national dropout rate is between 22 to 25 percent, and it has not change much in recent decades (Tyler and Lofstrom. 77). High schools have to put action in order to prevent dropouts. I believe a good solution in order to prevent dropouts, would be putting counseling centers, work studies, day cares and flexible classes in high schools.