When it comes to juvenile crime, there is a concern for the offender, the innocent, and accountability for their actions. The major three values for the philosophical justification for punishing juvenile crime is…retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation also known as correction in the juvenile court system. There is no doubt that if a crime is committed, the offender should and shall be punished. The doubt come in when the offender(s) are under the age of eighteen which is the majority for most states. A juvenile crime is different case-by-case, therefore, there is a debate on the severity of the punishment. Should we transfer to adult court or punish by means of retribution, deterrence, or rehabilitation in juvenile court? Out of the three philosophical justification for punishment, I think rehabilitation fits best with juvenile crime. The reason I believe that rehabilitation is the best punishment for juvenile crime, is the fact that adolescents in today’s society have many hurdles to overcome in their life. Adolescents no matter their background, poor or rich, black or white, has issues coping with family matters, peer pressure and sometimes substance abuse. According to Reimagining Defense Counsel, “The court has recognized that adolescents are less blameworthy for the offenses they commit because of actions and they are more vulnerable to external pressures” (Cardozo Law Review, p. 1122). Researchers have found that adolescent brains are still under development
The juvenile justice system has long been in debate over whether its focus should be rehabilitation or punishment. From its birth in the early 20th century, the juvenile justice system has changed its focus from punishment to rehabilitation and back many times. Some say the juvenile justice system should be abolished and juveniles tried as adults, yet studies indicate punishment and imprisonment do not rehabilitate juvenile offenders; therefore, the juvenile justice system should remain
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.
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.
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
In today society there are many juveniles being sent to adult court for the crimes they committed. When a juvenile is sent to criminal court the juvenile can more likely be found guilty and receive harsher punishment than the adults that commits the same crime and any juvenile that is convicted and sentenced in juvenile court. Depending on which State the juvenile is located in depends on if the juvenile is automatically will be sent to criminal court. The question remains is should a juvenile be transferred to adult courts for the crime that has been committed? The juvenile might not be mature enough to understand the crime they committed, have psychologic issues or any other underlying issues for when the crime was committed. The age
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,
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
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
A juvenile offender should be tried according to his crime. If he has committed a juvenile crime, then juvenile punishment is fitting. However, if he has committed an adult crime, or violent crime,
Juveniles come with different personalities and backgrounds. What works for one adolescent might not work for another. The conservative idea of strict justice, incarceration, has a valid benefit; the stricter the punishment, the more likely they are to deter from crime. However, in most juvenile courts, they are tried as adults. It’s a given fact that juveniles don’t have the rationality and cognition of an adult. It is definitely unfair for the adolescent to be tried as an adult for an event they most likely won’t remember or comprehend. Juvenile incarceration doesn’t instill the discipline that juveniles need to understand their actions and rationalize why such behavior is inappropriate; they are more likely to “engage in repeated criminal
However, most of the young offenders commit severe offenses as a result of influence by drugs or having a family with a criminal history among others (Finley, 2011). Consequently exposing the young people to prison life full of adult convicts who have committed more serious offenses will most likely add up to their deviant and violent behavior. The criminal justice system that expects the young people to change and be good people once they have left the prisons end up convicting them again when they are adults. This is because once the offenders are out, they are likely to participate in more offenses as a result of the hardships they have endured in prison (Marion, 2011). The young offenders should thus be judged in the juvenile courts and also be punished according to the juvenile
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
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
In recent decades, juvenile crime has become somewhat of a controversy due to the young age and immaturity of these criminals. Incidences of juvenile crime skyrocketed in the 1980s and 1990s, and policymakers pushed for laws that sent children as young as thirteen years old to trial, and even made them eligible for prison sentences. The general public has expressed a common desire to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and find effective legislation to discipline these youths, but there are questions about these methods. What is more effective, incarceration or rehabilitation? Does criminal punishment intimidate more youths away from a life of crime, and would productive rehabilitation efforts influence these youths to becoming more valuable members of society?
This assignment states that the current juvenile system focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishing the juveniles. With that in mind, the assumption is that all juveniles can be rehabilitated. The question posed to me is my view on why or why not all juveniles can be rehabilitated? The Webster dictionary defines juvenile’s delinquency as, “A violation of the law or some type of antisocial behavior by a child or young person, and rehabilitation is, “To restore someone to good condition or health.