Reincarceration Definition

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

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

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.

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.

This paper examines the effectiveness of the American justice system surrounding juvenile offenders not yet responsible for their punishable acts. Although the purpose of the juvenile justice system is the rehabilitate and deter juvenile offenders from breaking laws, evidence suggests the justice system is ineffective and unjust. The sentencing of juveniles is unjust and ineffective because juveniles are not mentally developed enough to make rational decisions, incarcerating juveniles is costly, and youth incarceration does not discourage youth from committing more crimes, and the incarceration of juveniles often results in mental and physical abuse of the youth.

Because many of the social structures that once kept our kids secure have broken down, we have today's appalling data on juvenile crimes, gangs, drug abuse, pregnancy and dropouts…it is just common sense that if we don't provide these young people with some kind of sanctuary--I call them safe places--and give kids something constructive to do once the last bell rings, they are going to be easy marks for drug dealer, gang recruiters, and other preditors. (Powell)

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.

There are numerous critics of the juvenile justice system, and while most of their denunciations remain the same as those of the justice system at large, an ample portion of their criticisms revolve around the claim that incarcerating young people not only doesn’t work in deterring or rehabilitating them, but makes them worse and leads to adult misconduct. A report noted that youth sent to juvenile prison were 37 times more likely to be arrested as adults (Szalavitz, 2009). Another major problem some cite with the juvenile justice system is that most delinquent offends have some form of mental illness, and that while studies have shown that mental health treatment would be a better alternative, they are simply ignored or incarcerated

By law adolescents are not able to vote, purchase tobacco or alcohol, join the armed forces, or sign a legal contract. Children are not permitted the same rights and responsibilities as adults because the law recognizes their inability to make adult decisions. The law acknowledges that children are unable to handle the consequences that come along with the rights that adults have. By allowing them to be charged as adults is holding them to a double standard. Telling them that they are not old enough to enjoy the same luxuries as adults, but they can experience the same punishment as adults if they commit a crime. The law acknowledged the inability of children to make decisions but still allows them to suffer the same consequences as adults. Research demonstrates that transferring children from juvenile court to adult court does not decrease recidivism, and in fact actually increases crime. Instead of the child learning their mistake they are more likely to repeat it. Juvenile detention centers have programs that help reconstruct young minds and help them realize where they went wrong. Prison does not offer this same opportunity. (Estudillo, Mary Onelia)

It is difficult to find an area of United States policy where the benefits and costs are more out of balance, where the evidence of failure is clearer, or where we know with more clarity what we should be doing differently. These are the harsh realities of our current youth prison institutions throughout the Unites States. According to the article “Every Youth Prison in the Country Should Be Closed”, by The Crime Report, the failure of youth prisons to rehabilitate young people or protect public safety flows from inherent faults in a system essentially modeled on adult-styled facilities that focus on imprisonment and control. It is no surprise that our justice system faces many problems and

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

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