Rehabilitation And Incarceration Case Study

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

The juvenile justice system was founded on the belief that juveniles should be rehabilitated from committing crime. It was the belief of the government that juveniles do not posses the cognitive reasoning of adults, therefore should not be punished as adults. The juvenile court was formed in 1899 with the belief that the government needs to play a more active role in the rehabilitation of juveniles. This belief held strong up until the 1980's when President Ronald Reagan took office. The beliefs in juvenile rehabilitation were fading and an alternative was rapidly being put into motion, juvenile incarceration. Juveniles being incarcerated was not

The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a survey of prisoners from over 300 parole offices in 40 states with 17,738 prisoners participating and a 61% response rate (Beck & Johnson, 2012). The focus of the survey is sexual victimization during the entire length of the prison term served by each inmate. In all, 9.6 percent of former state prisoners, or 2,096, reported one or more events during their most recent time in prisons, jails or community-treatment facilities. To create national level statistics, the number was weighted and applied to total 49,000 prisoners nationwide or 9.6 percent of all underactive supervision at the middle of the year 2008. Therefore, the unit of analysis is each individual of the incarcerated prison population of the United States.

The juvenile justice system varies from the adult justice system in many ways. For more than a century, the states have believed that the juvenile justice system was a means to ensuring public safety, by establishing and implementing a system that responds to children as they are maturing into adulthood. Today’s youths, however, are increasingly committing more serious crimes that in turn are raising the public’s criticism concerning the modern juvenile justice system. There are those who are in support of keeping every juvenile I juvenile court system and then there are the others who argue if juveniles were held to stricter standards they would not become repeat offender in the system and eventual end up in the adult corrections system.

Within the past decade,nearly every single state has altered its juvenile program in reply to observed increases in serious, persistent, and pugnacious youth crime. These adjustments weaken the power of juvenile courts as legal decisions and statutory adjustments transfer more youths from juvenile courts to criminal courts so that youthful offenders can be sentenced as adults. Corrections to juvenile sentencing regulations perpetuate the punitiveness of sanctions made accessible to juvenile court judges. Supplementary strategies seek to "combine"or merge, juvenile and criminal court power and sentencing power above pugnacious youthful offenders. These "get tough" strategies alter the numbers and varieties of juveniles confined in mature and juvenile correctional abilities and pose fundamental setbacks for administrators in both systems; accelerate the functioning within the procedural integrity amid the juvenile and convict justice systems; and corrode the rationale for a distinct juvenile court.

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.

The Juvenile Justice System was created as a separate network from the Criminal Justice System so that juveniles could be treated differently from adults but still be held accountable for their crimes. This system takes more of a rehabilitative approach to help the juvenile offenders rather than to simply punish them because the goal is to keep the youth on the right path and prevent them from becoming lifelong criminals. While the goal remains the same, different states have different laws in place and other methods when it comes to rehabilitation as well as punishment. Punishment for juveniles always sparks debate because many people argue that punishments such as the death penalty and life in prison should not apply to the youth because of their age. Others argue that without this kind of punishment there would be no fear for juveniles in committing serious crimes which would lead to an unfair practice of justice. An unfair practice of justice occurs across the juvenile justice system already in which race, gender, and ethnicity plays a huge role in determining how far into the system a youth goes. Changes have to be made to this system in order for improvement to be seen but it has to start from the beginning where the juveniles first come into contact with the system.

There is a direct relationship between juveniles that are convicted and held in adult prisons and the depression it inflicts, creating a poisonous cycle of crime that they will be unable to escape from. After an increase of murders committed by juveniles during the early 1980s and throughout the 1990s, a quick adjustment was made by the supreme court and state courts to increase the abilities of the law to condemn violent juveniles with bleak futures into adult prisons to protect the children who had more optimistic chances. While the protection of the less violent children is important, however, there has been a great many studies that prove it is not the wisest way of seeing the situation at large. Juveniles in prisons designed for their age groups create a sense of value to them as human beings, are generally safer, and are more focused on rehabilitation into society as young adults. Sentencing a juvenile to an adult prison leads to feelings of worthlessness, depression, alienation and a fearful environment where they are unsafe and more likely to be encouraged to further their crime abilities to survive in an adult world.

The American juvenile justice system is consistently developing to adhere to societal values, just as any individual or system in our surroundings. It is important to note that there is not one but several juvenile justice systems within the United States. Each state has its own set of laws governing their juvenile justice system (National Research Council Institute of Medicine, 2001, p. 155). 1899 was the beginning of a substantial shift in the rights of juveniles. However, with two opposing views of the protection of society and the rehabilitation of youth, several states have battled between adopting policies less stringent on youth and adopting policies like the 1990’s, “Get Tough” depriving youth of the protection of the Justice System (University of Pittsburgh, 2009).

Not all states think that the juvenile justice system is persistent in rehabilitation into changing the child’s behavior. In a nationwide height of delinquent behavior in late 1980’s and early 1990’s, some states adopted a “get tough” policy on crime. Considering the fact that juveniles needed to experience the dangers and probable abuses ascribed to incarceration with adult offenders in the criminal justice system. However, when this is being regulated into the youth all they are seeing is negative aspects that may not even fear them. They are so use to crime and looking at more crime within itself in the criminal justice system is just another reality of what is set into their future.

Policies were established to keep young offenders from receiving vast charges, that equal to an adult. The informality of the American judicial system surrounding each of these cases has undergone serious changes within the past five decades. In addition, the juvenile court deals with 1.7 million cases per year. While the government's new found “get tough” program is sustainable, author Terry Maroney of Vanderbilt Law School explains, “Juvenile sentences… shield our youth from the unique dangers of adult facilities and preserve the possibility - however slight it may seem - of rehabilitation”(Maroney). The juvenile system has received multiple views of not being harsh enough to startle young offenders of the severity of their crime.

The juvenile justice system is a complex web of people and agencies that process about billions of funds on a yearly basis. To understand the system requires that you have some sort of baseline knowledge of the trends that have shaped the system’s ability to function and the roles played by the various components of the system. This policy paper provides information on changes in the juvenile justice system and analyzes why the increased prosecution sentences of juveniles in adult court is another failed “get tough “policy and does nothing to focus on the best interest for the juvenile. Before the modern era, it appeared that children who committed crimes received no type of preferential treatment. They were adjudicated, punished, and imprisoned

The current juvenile justice system “has shifted away from protecting and reforming children to "protecting" society from young people prematurely deemed incapable of rehabilitation” (Aron & Hurley, 1998). Juvenile justice is a social issue that I feel strongly toward. I do not agree that sentencing adolescents to serve time in adult correctional facilities is a reasonable solution to alter behavior, especially for non-violent offenders. However, “for each of the past five years, roughly 100,000 juveniles have been held in adult jails and prisons” (Abdelkader, 2013). “The overwhelming majority of incarcerated youth are held for nonviolent offenses” (The Annie E. Casey Foundation).

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.

The issue of whether juveniles should be prosecuted like adults is a controversial one. Today, a high percent of juvenile offenders have a past criminal history or have been arrested for violent crimes such as rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide. These offenses are serious and should be dealt with seriously. If a juvenile choses to act in violence and currently been on probation for such acts, then perhaps, they should be treated in the adult court. If the juvenile is, a repeat offender and they did not learn anything from the rehabilitation facilities provided by the state, harsh consequences should follow. It is estimated that seventy-five percent of adolescents who spent time in juvenile detention centers are incarcerated