The Criminal Justice System Is Complex

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

Juveniles should be tried as adults when they commit serious crimes as opposed to rehabilitation or various forms of lesser sentencing. The rate of juveniles in prison has increased over the years. Many young adults and children often seek for attention which leads them to cause trouble out in the streets. There are risk levels that officers have to make in order to help the juveniles or if committing a serious crime, they should pay the consequences. Many may oppose and think that young adults and children are not adults, but they should be punished for the crimes they have done.

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

Juvenile institutions and programs have changed over time. There are also juvenile programs that necessarily do not punish juvenile’s delinquents but instead help modify their behavior to avoid recidivism. Certain treatments and methods regarding how to deal with these dangerous young offenders were fixed and improved to make these institutions and programs more effective in changing the lives of these young

In order to properly address mandatory incarceration for chronic juvenile offender’s criminal activities, it is important to begin with psychological assessments and evaluations. Half of our youths have experienced some type of psychological trauma such as depression, PTSD, personality disorders, anxiety, anger issues, or dissociation, just to name a few (Moroz, K. 2009). In order to determine mandatory incarceration, all of these factors must be considered. I will agree with most of our society that is , if they are a danger to society and serious of the crime, they need to be put into detention, where they cannot cause harm but where they can received the right intervention program and mental health treatment for them, it’s the law. The juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate not punish young offenders. Punishment is not the answer in solving their delinquent behavioral patterns.

Juvenile correctional systems have many different components and some are likely to be affected with a primary focus on rehabilitation. Today the United States falls short of providing adequate public juvenile facilities. With a focus on punishment, the need for new facilities will continue to rise. Switching the primary focus to

(n.d.), 46 percent of people say juvenile offenders should not be tried and punished as adults while 54 percent of people agree with that juvenile offenders should be tried and punished as adults. The common opinion for agreement is that teens can know and understand about what they do and for disagreement is that teens are kids, and they are still in the process of developing to be adults. Especially, it is quite common voice of disagreement that juvenile justice system should punish juvenile offenders because they are criminal offenders even though they are

According to Ruddell and Thomas (2009), in 2006 it was estimated that there was 93,000 juveniles in either a detention center or juvenile correctional facility; however, the arrest rates have decreased at least by 2,000 since 1993. Many juveniles on release are reoffending quickly since most of them have been locked up throughout their developmental years and their brain did not get the right cognitive development it needed to help make the right decision. Many different states and correctional institutions have started their own different programs to help decrease recidivism rate in juveniles. Two programs that will be examined further are the Capital Offender Group that was implemented by Giddings State School in Texas, and the Juvenile Cognitive Intervention Program that was implemented by the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

According to T. Williams at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/us/us-prison-population.html?_r=0, (2016). “The number of inmates held in state and federal prisons, fell to its lowest level since 2005 dropping by 2.7 percent.” However, while adult crimes seem to be decreasing. The opposite can be said about juvenile related crimes which seem to be increasing. In this paper, I will be providing my reasons as to why I believe juvenile related crimes are going up, as well as talk about two programs that are working to keep at risk youth out of the criminal justice system.

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.

It has been almost 171 years since the establishment of America’s first juvenile detention center. Despite the change in culture, developments in psychology, and many years of application, the countries approach to reconciling criminal activity among youth has changed very little. A marginally refitted form of the model of adult incarceration, with a small amount of programming added in, has been the standard for rehabilitating delinquents set forth. It is absurd and ancient standard that has only produced failure at a high cost. The American Juvenile Justice System and its laws are in need of a overhaul to a system

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.

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.

Finally, literature on the juvenile justice system often focuses on program implementation and effectiveness at addressing rehabilitation, as well as diversion techniques within the system (Greenwood, 2008). This review audits these problems in detail and establishes them within the bigger struggle in the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate youth offenders.

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.