Recidivism Essay

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

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

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

Transferring an adolescent offender to adult court is a tight decision. It has far-reaching implications for the adolescent involved and significant symbolic meaning for the justice system. For the adolescent, transferring to the adult system, it holds the possibility of harsher punishment (including physical, sexual, or psychological victimization by other inmates. Also the endurance of developmental costs (Chung, Little, and Steinberg, 2005; Mulvey and Schubert, 2012). For the system, transferring an adolescent to adult court is an unambiguous statement that the criminal justice system will no longer shelter the adolescent, by virtue of his or her acts, from harsh justice. Transfer to adult court indicates that the demand for proportional

Some juvenile delinquents are being treated like adults and being sent to adult prisons instead of juvenile prisons. In an article called “ADULT PRISONS: No Place for Kids,” by Steven J. Smith, Smith presents an argument against treating juveniles like adults. His argument states that minors shouldn’t be trialed and placed into adult prisons because instead of being rehabilitated, they typically come out worse because of the daily exposure to already hardened criminals. Smith provides reasons why juveniles are convicted as adults, the drawbacks of placing adolescents in prisons with adults, and an alternative punishment for juvenile criminals.

“I think it's important for us as a society to remember that the youth within juvenile justice systems are, most of the time, youths who simply haven't had the right mentors and supporters around them because of circumstances beyond their control,” (qtd. in Brainy Quotes) are wise words from Q'orianka Kilcher, a human rights activist. Many Americans feel adolescents should be held accountable for their behavior; however, trying them as if they are adults is not always the optimum course of action. Because the teenage brain matures from back to front, the prefrontal cortex is not established until mid-twenties. Ordinarily adolescents can be rehabilitated in order to avert future offending; yet when tried as an adult, all hope for rehabilitation is lost. A one time mistake will follow an adolescent around for the rest of his/her life, dramatically decreasing the opportunities for success. Trying adolescents as adults is an injustice due to their lack of rationality and potential for rehabilitation.

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.

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,

Not only this but, “offenders who commit new offenses after court contact are at risk for a variety of poor developmental and life course outcomes, including school failure, out of home placements, occupational marginality, and long-term involvement in criminal activity” (Schwalbe 2004). As seen here, this is a downward spiral. Active reform has never before been at such a demand. As recidivism and juvenile delinquency continues to increase, not only will national crime rates and juvenile prison populations inflate, but the diminishing of an educated, safe, and economically stable society will also be affected regrettably. If juveniles whom continue to commit repeat criminal offenses lack school initiative, family support, and job exposure, than relatively as recidivism and juvenile criminal activity increases, our nation’s standard of living will consequently lower.

Though there is evidence that educational programs are needed to help in reducing crime, politicians and policy makers have not really understood this finding and thereby support the programs they assume are better suited at deterring criminals. Thus, they directed funding from educational programs to other areas, such as in security and anger management or drug treatment (Batiuk et al 2005). Furthermore, studies have shown that those inmates that are released from prison, about two thirds of them end up being re-incarcerated within three years of their release (Klein et al 2004). As a result, when these policy makers ignore empirical research and findings and set up own policies, they are setting up the offenders for failure and anyone else affected by the policies,

Prison systems in the United States are full of nonviolent drug users that have been bombarded with extensive sentences for having an addiction. These inmates area mistreated and denied the help they not only need, but deserve. Hundreds of thousands of people struggle with addiction inside and outside the prison systems. Just because these people are incarcerated does not justify that we should deny them treatment. Nonviolent drug abusers need to go through mandatory rehabilitation programs to prevent them from not only relapse, but continue to assist those individuals until they are able to function in society as everyday citizens. By adding rehabilitation programs it will save the taxpayers billions of dollars and forever have a positive impact on the lives of those affected by drug addiction.

There have been thousands of juvenile programs which have been developed and undergone comprehensive recidivism analysis by outside auditors over the past thirty years. Despite the good intentions of the late Judge Lindsey and other advocates, the collapse of the rehabilitative model can be attributed to: (1) the sacrifice of public safety, (2) not promoting the welfare of youths in the system, and (3) classifying youths as children in the regulation of crime (Scott & Steinberg, 2008 p. 83). Judge Lindsey and other progressives during much of the twentieth century believed in being parental role models, handling youthful offenders as neglected children whose welfare was of primary concern when the state intervened in response to their criminal conduct. The mantra of progressives and professionals for years has been that there are no wicked children, just inadequate parents or guardians; however, now there are psychiatrists who acknowledge that previous thinking was flawed and that some children, through no fault of the parents or their environment, are simply bad seeds (Appleyard, 2010). This thread will offer a brief synopsis of changes to the law in regards to juveniles due to the changes in theory and reality.

Lower education rates will raise recidivism rates because many prisoners who lack education and re-enter society will not be self-sufficient as education provides the basis for employment.

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