Parental Responsibility, a Deterrent to Juvenile Crime

The purpose of the juvenile incarceration project is to gain insights into whether or not parental incarceration is related to juvenile incarceration. The research problem is the loss is the cost of incarceration to the state or society. Incarceration is expensive with costs to society for the crimes committed and the resulting confinement of the convicted offenders. This research hopes to diminish this problem by determining a correlation between juvenile offenders and whether or not their parents were previously or

It is the very nature of the criminal justice system to hold those accountable for their actions. In the adult courts the purpos is to be judged by a jury of our peers and held accountable for crimes committed. There must be consequences faced for criminal actions. The adult and juvenile courts handle the proceedings quite differently. The adult court has a defendant whom appears for a bail hearing. The defendant than is sent to trial in front of a jury of his peers, based

Controversy arose in 1998, about the definition of who was considered as a minor or an adult or what the average appropriate behavior was (Brown, 1998). People back then weren’t sure the age of accountability was which raised uncertainty. The crime data at the time showed that juvenile crime increased 70% from 1986 (Brown, 1998). U.S citizens were bombarded by this increase in crime and would have led to hysteria. Crime had risen to its peak in U.S. history, which concerned U.S. citizens

"I went through so much with these kids. I'm just ready to call it quits," said Patricia Holdaway, the first parent charged under the curfew law of Roanoke, Virginia. Her 16-year-old son was arrested at 5 a.m. for his fifth curfew violation and for driving without a license. "I just left. It's not her fault. She shouldn't be held responsible. I know right from wrong," replied her son (Leo). So who should be held responsible, the parent or the child ? As cases similar to Patricia's continue to increase, states are starting to hold the parents responsible for the crimes of their children. As a result of this matter, John Leo presented the benefits of

Minors are a diverse group that varies in terms of the severity of criminal acts they commit, the frequency with which they commit criminal acts, how early they begin their criminal career, and how long they commit these crimes for. For many minors, juvenile lawlessness is a short-lived flirtation that disappears as quickly as it emerges. It is common and even normal for minors to engage in trivial forms of misbehavior and delinquency as they mature through adolescence and enter adulthood. However, for some minors, juvenile lawlessness has a more troubling meaning.

Parents don’t have to worry about their children getting treated like an adult in the criminal justice system and receiving adult prison sentences. Making parents worry less and have less stress is wonderful for the entire community. Adolescents will get extensive rehabilitation in the form of psychiatric counseling, big brother programs and community service programs. Young people will have just human treatment so that they can become contributing members of society and not second-hand citizens (Karlin, 2017). Taxpayer’s dollars are not paying for adolescents in prisons, they are now paying for state college funds. This makes taxpayers happy because the tax money is going to help young people and it’s beneficial to a healthy society. The new criminal responsibility policy creates new opportunities for adolescents, who can look forward to a bright

There is a moderate portion of juvenile law violations that are minor; however some young offenders are extremely dangerous and violent. (Caldwell, 2002) Studies have shown that most delinquent behavior stems from some sort of underlining issue or issues in a youth’s present or past history. State and county authorities must deal with these offenders while also responding to their personal social problems. This could range from child abuse and neglect, family issues and drug abuse, exposure to pornography and exposure to aggressive role models.

“I used to believe are our future but now I realize that this, sadly isn’t the reality. Through laws that treat kids like adults, the government is throwing away the future of children in this country.” (D. Lee) An estimated 200,000 juveniles are tried as adults. The term juvenile refers to any young person under the age of 18. For most states in the United States, the age of majority is 18. While there are many things that juveniles are unable to do until they reach the age of 18, being charged as an adult for a crime is not amongst those things in some states. Juveniles are not allowed to vote, drink alcohol, or sign a legal contract, yet they can be charged and treated like adults when it comes to them being

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

On the other hand, the advocates of the juvenile system believe that because children are not fully mentally or physically developed, they are not therefore accountable for their actions in the same way as adults (Ainsworth, 1995, p.932-933). Juvenile criminality for them is “youthful illness” brought about by external forces like environment or impoverished living conditions. Donna Bishop, an advocate of the juvenile justice system, encourages states to give these juveniles “room to reform.” She believes that a policy that is designed to discard youth in the middle of the transition to adulthood is uncharacteristic of a fair government (Bishop, 2000, p. 159). Supporters of this kind of reform program for juveniles are not amenable to the transfer to adult court

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in 1899 as a part of the Juvenile Court Act. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than adults. In all but three states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her eighteenth birthday is considered a juvenile offender. Now more than ever, states and countries have begun to question the reliability of the juvenile court. Some believe the juvenile court system should be abolished because of its insufficient gain to the community. Others believe children are not fully capable to understand the degree of their actions and the consequences that come from them and believe that juvenile courts are a necessity in the court system.

First, at the individual level, youth whose parents are single or divorced commit more crime. Second, single-parent and divorced families are more vulnerable and less likely to participate in community organizations, thus reducing the community's control capacity. Third, these families are also less able to monitor activities in the neighborhood and supervise local youth (Sampson and Groves, 1989; Veysey and Messner, 1999)”( Wong, S. K. (2017). The effects of single-mother and single-father families on youth crime: Examining five gender-related hypotheses. International Journal Of Law, Crime & Justice, 5046-60. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.04.001). Single parent families increase the number of youth crime. Every mother and child had a strong bond by the birth of the baby compares with the bond of father. Single mother applies more influence of social control on their children’s then single fathers. Mothers has more effective role in her daughter’s life and father have a more effective role in his son’s life. The girls who lives with their mother and the boys who lives with their father commit less crimes. “A number of studies found support for the same-sex hypothesis. Based on a study of over 600 adolescents and parents, Thomas et al. (1996) found that White male adolescents living with the single mother without nonresident father involvement had the highest levels of delinquency, drinking and illicit drug use” (Wong, S. K. (2017). The effects of single-mother and

Children need to have a role model in their presence to advocate educational activities, community involvement, and avoiding contact with the law for bad behavior. As Baker states, “Delinquents are made, not born” (1991, Pg. 274). Possible noncriminal behaviors that may affect a juvenile to become delinquent include; child neglect and/ or abuse, termination of parental rights, foster home placements, those beyond parental control, interfamily assault and other criminal acts (Baker, 1991, Pg. 275). Parents must learn to teach family conflict intervention, management problems, favorable parental attitudes and involvement in problem behaviors. At an early age we learn to do what it thought, showed, and have the adult figure set the example in our lives. For example, helping with academic failure, avoid delinquent criminal peers, and guide away from drug use and crime. Adolescent problem behaviors start with the parents, then move into the community, and society must respond by providing alternative programs and institutions to help the problem.

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.

Teen delinquency can also arise when a teen’s parent is incarcerated. Teens that have a parent in prison are affected emotionally, behaviorally and psychologically (Johnson 461). The incarceration of a parent can gravely affect an individual because the parent is not prevalent throughout the teen’s life. The teen then becomes angry and acts out because they have so much emotional pain bottled up inside. “The children of incarcerated parents are at a high risk for a number of negative behaviors that can lead to school failure, delinquency, and intergenerational incarceration” (Simmons 10). Teens with incarcerated parents lack the assistance of parental figures. In True Notebooks, Sister Janet says that the incarcerated teens never had anyone to lead them in the right path or show that adults care about them. She says that because of the lack of direction the teens never had the opportunity to do better for themselves (Salzman 26). There is also a major cycle that exists between incarcerated parents and their children that puts these teens at risk. On April 10th of 2008, a conference at Bryant University was held to discuss the concerning issues of teens with incarcerated parents. During the conference, Patricia Martinez, director of the Rhode Island Department of Children: Youth and families stated that “We want to break the cycle of intergenerational crime. I have heard of so many caseloads managing 18-year-olds who had a parent