Juvenile Offenders: Violence Is Not The Only Solution

State Patrol Officer Jones, am on routine patrol duty when an announcement is made that a late-model foreign car was stolen at gunpoint about one-hour earlier roughly 10 miles away. The only physical description given is the late model of the car, foreign, and a young male wearing a baseball cap. A few minutes later, Jones notices a late model BMW with a single driver, a young man. Officer Jones signals the driver to stop, even though he is obeying all traffic laws. When asked for his license and registration, however, the driver, John, says he does not have one and he borrowed the car from his uncle. Jones checks the plates and finds out that the BMW was indeed the automobile reported in the robbery. He cuffs John and, without advising him of his Miranda rights, asks him if he was involved in the robbery. John admits to the deed and tells Jones that the gun used in the robbery was in the trunk, and that he is a member of the MS-13 gang and stealing a car is part of his initiation.

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.

Juvenile offenders are increasing day by day regardless of the efforts to control the youth crime. It is important to understand the fact that even though the offenders fall in the young age bracket, they are still a part of human species. Human nature responds to violent actions with violent reactions. Violent reactions cause an increase in the violent actions instead of controlling them. However violent reactions may cause a temporary stop in the violent actions which may lead the authorities to believe that they have contained the crime. However, that doesn't stand true as a temporary stop does not result in a permanent solution.

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

The International Centre for prisons that juveniles under the age of 18 are at 6.7 percent in an adult correctional facility (Albanese, Jay S., Dammer, Harry R., pp 291). We as adults know that any type of detention is not a positive outlook for a juvenile and if the committed a crime, they still need to be discipline. In other countries like Ukraine, they use a military style of authority and the staff is in military uniforms (Albanese, Jay S., Dammer, Harry R., pp 292). In addition, in Europe their statics focus on correcting juveniles by instilling education and values (Albanese, Jay S., Dammer, Harry R., pp 292). Other countries can figure it out and the United States can too. Therefore, my recommendation to alternatives to incarcerations is as follows, Mental Health Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), and the program that most states use is the Juvenile Boot Camp.

Helping adolescents will circumvent the astronomical amount of money made by prison systems. Change is enviable, but many people want to keep things the same. Jails are making money because inmates work for pennies on the dollar. Most prisons support and employ the whole town or city. Lawmakers and prison owners want to continue to reap the revenue benefits. Progressive laws make better living conditions. Challenges from prison owners and lawmakers will make it harder to protect adolescents from being charged like

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.

There have been many studies conducted that examine ways in which the juvenile justice system responds to female offenders. Historically juvenile female offenders have been treated under status offense jurisdiction (Zahn et al., 2010, p. 10). United States Courts would exercise the principle of “parens patriae” to place the female in detention as a form of punishment for misbehavior (Sherman, 2012, pp. 1589-1590). This principle also remains prevalent as it pertains to how the juvenile justice system currently responds to juvenile female offenders.

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).

In the 1980s and 1990s adolences were committing violent crimes that caused a public outcry. The community and courts wanted to have tougher penalities for juvenile offenders. This resulted in the increase of arrest rates and the trend of “get tough” on youth crimes. Judge’s saw the increase in adolence violent offenses would be destined for a life of crime. In responses to this, all states allow adult criminal prosecution of children under certain circumstances and this can cause a sentence of juvenile life without parole (LWOP).

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.

Most of the time, the system has proven itself to be unsuccessful in dealing with juvenile crimeMost often, the system is unsuccessful. “There are kids who are five times more likely to be raped or otherwise sexually assaulted in adult prisons than in juvenile facilities. The risk of suicide is likewise much higher for juveniles in adult jails.”(How to reduce crime Pg 3). When juveniles are sent to jail, they are still relatively impressionable from people in the prison, and may go back into crime after they’re released, hindering rehabilitation and just creating another violent criminal in the world. The court sentencing the criminal is also at

A common assumption about young people who commit violent crimes is that they are simply born evil and that nothing good can come of their lives. From this perspective, the only solution is to punish these young offenders by locking them up, either in prison or in a place for teenagers designed to make their lives as miserable as possible. Such an approach suggests that young people who hurt or kill others are untreatable. It also suggests that more prisons must be built to make our communities safe. This assumption, however, is a false one. Research shows that violent young offenders can be treated and reformed. In addition, it shows that when young people fail to receive treatment,it does

In Miller v. Alabama (2012), the United States Supreme Court determined that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional to juvenile offenders. This decision is agreeable upon because adolescents do not receive the opportunity to reform themselves. As the Court suggests, life in prison violates the Eighth Amendment, which accounts for a ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, juveniles still must be held accountable for their actions and should be sentenced to a fair verdict according to their crime, whether they are an adult or not.

It may seem shocking that America has one of the highest crime rates per capita compared to other similar industrialized nations. Over the years, there have been many discussions and efforts in order to reduce this problem. Perhaps one of the more sensitive issues when discussing crime in America is the problem of juvenile crime. Recently, juveniles make up 3% of all felonies committed each year and 6% of all violent crimes (criminamerica.net). These statistics have troubled politicians for decades as they have worked to find a solution. Starting in 1994 the Clinton administration started putting stricter punishment on juvenile offenders, but it was quickly realized that this harsh punishment may not be the best solution. Various studies and programs put into action have shown that early prevention in a child’s life is much more effective and more cost efficient in reducing crime. Because of these efforts, juvenile crime has reduced 68% since the violent boom of the 1990s. In light of these discoveries, it is important for states to focus on these results in order to reduce crime.