likely to reoffend with a more serious offence than their initial conviction (Neminski, 2013). Neminski makes it apparent that if youth are entering into the prison system at a young age they are even more susceptible to the negative influence of other inmates, are more likely to reoffend, and as a consequence are more likely to return to prison instead of becoming a contributing member of society (Neminski (2013). Bell (2014) includes an interesting first-hand experience of how drugs can make there way into prisons, the key to this anecdote is that the older offenders would force a ‘kid’ to get the drugs because they would not be expected to be a drug carrier. The juvenile would do it out of fear that they would be badly beaten if they disagreed …show more content…
There is excellent reason to believe that the traumatic experience of incarceration has a serious negative effect on juveniles as the incarceration of a young offender takes place during a period of imperative development (Matsuda, 2009). Furthermore, in an interesting article by Craig and Marc Kielburger in the Sudbury Star (2015), University of Maryland Professor, Peter Leone, makes the claim that the earlier youth are sent to prison and the longer they spend there, equates to more severe negative outcomes (Kielburger, …show more content…
This theory suggests that a youth who may have made one poor choice has now been given the label of delinquent. After the label has been applied by society, the youth may begin to internalize their new label. This not only is highly likely to lead to re-offending, but could also lead to the label becoming what is known as their master status, where society only views them as their criminal label. Therefore, labelling theory suggests that by putting youth through the criminal justice system and assigning them a negative societal label, they are more likely to re-offend as they have been stigmatized by society. As a result, recidivism defeats the deterrence purpose of
Morris (2000) argues that we should see youth crimes as a social failure, not as an individual level failure. Next, Morris (2000) classifies prisons as failures. Recidivism rates are consistently higher in prisons than in other alternatives (Morris, 2000). The reason for this is that prisons breed crime. A school for crime is created when a person is removed from society and labeled; they become isolated, angry and hopeless (Morris, 2000).
The inappropriate or unnecessary use of incarceration is “expensive, ineffective, and inhumane,” and initiates a “cycle of juvenile reoffending” (Bala et. al, 2009). A study conducted by Mann (2014) exemplifies this cycle of youth reoffending. The youth interviewed demonstrated that despite a stay in sentenced custody, the threat of future punishment was not enough to deter from future offences. Cook and Roesch (2012) demonstrate that youth have developmental limitations that can impair their involvement in the justice system; for example, not understanding their sentencing options properly or their competence to stand trial. Therefore, deterrence as a justification for youth incarceration is ineffective, as incarceration proves to be not a strong enough deterrent. Alternative methods such as extrajudicial measures and community-based sanctions were considered more effective (Cook & Roesch,
Butler, Frank (2010) ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49: 4, 273-292
Upon release, previously incarceration individuals find themselves subject to what is known as collateral consequences. Societal and policy consequences that extend beyond the criminal justice system and long after incarceration. With consequences touching every aspect of their life from; housing, family composition, education and employment opportunities. As one becomes incarcerated they better understand racial, economic and behavioral-health barriers within yet at the time of parole many do not have an awareness of the negative and disproportionate treatments associated with life post-conviction and incarceration (Pettus-Davis, Epperson and Grier, 2017).
The adjustment from incarceration to society causes a series of problems, making rehabilitation difficult. When the juvenile’s leave home to be detained, all ties with society, the support systems they had, the gangs they associated with, school they attending are no longer in close proximity, which is essential for successful rehabilitation (James, Stams, Asscher, Katrien De Roo & van der Laan 2012). Another problem association with the reintegration is that juveniles are in a particularly fragile state in that they are not only transitioning from society to detention, but from adolescence to adulthood, both of which are overwhelming adjustments. Research has shown, however, that if youths stay out of trouble within the first few months
Vandergoot determines that the reasoning capacity of an adolescent, the ability to make legal decisions, and filter unnecessary information is unclear to a juvenile in the justice system; the vagueness of youth stepping into the courts prevents them from fully participating in the justice system. ( Vandergoot, 2006). As a result of this impreciseness youth encounter Vandergoot concludes a separate justice system allocated for youth to adhere to adolescent needs. Vandergoot discusses the Youth Criminal Justice Act a justice system devised to adhere to youth needs. She summarizes the system that benefits young offenders in contrast to adult offenders. Vandergoot concludes “the goals of the youth legislation…its major objectives are reducing the use of incarceration for young offenders…the YCJA emphasizes restraint, accountability, proportionality, and discretion… it encourages use of extra judicial measures” ( Vandergoot, 2006, p30). Vandergoot determines that the objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is in the interest of youth, however, she accounts for the long term effect on adolescence as well. Vandergoot concludes the emotional and social consequences as youth interact with the system. Vandergoot claims the system leaves juveniles “debased”, suffering an “assault on their self-image”, that “block or snares in the adolescent psyche”, ultimately lowering their motivation and self-esteem which advances youth to have the “they think I’m bad I’ll show them I’m bad” mentality(Vandergoot, 2006). The mentality that derives from direct encounters with the youth justice system, often damages the adolescence completely disregarding the purpose of a youth justice system. Mary Vandergoot’s Justice for Young Offenders Their Needs, Our Responses clearly emphasizes the need
...sier to flip the switch, pull the lever, or inject the needle. Putting young offenders in adult prisons leads to more crime, higher prison costs, and increased violence, not to mention placing them in danger from the adult prison population.
Losing Generations: Adolescents in High-Risk Settings. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Petersilia, Joan. 1999. Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States. In Prisons, edited by M. Tonry and J. Petersilia. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased juvenile delinquency? Simply put, we must create a means of measuring juvenile’s level of risk and in turn, form an effective rehabilitation program that will decrease their risk level for future recidivism.
Youthful offenders have a reason for the crimes they have committed. Past life trauma is one of the most common causes for youthful offenders to stand in a criminal court. But the big guys seem to not understand the development of children/teenagers are going through. No matter how critical the crime has appeared, everyone should stop for one second and stand in their shoes. Up until today, youthful offenders, no matter how young they are, they are being treated as adults. Youthful offenders being tried in criminal courts as adults, criminal courts are putting them at risk from the dangers in adult prison facilities. As a result, the past trauma that youthful offenders experienced and were the factors that caused them to commit their crimes;
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.
With an adult punishment the children are sentenced to life in a prison. Minors seek safety and buddy off with inmates and soon after being around their "friends" too long the bad habits soon rub off. After peer pressure of the inmates the minors soon believe this is normal and okay, leaving them to grow up with a bad perspective about life. "Prison is too Violent for Young Offenders" Gary Scott describes how mines soak up the negative influences, "Young prisoners are more susceptible to negative influences than adults." Even in school children often find friends no matter how they treat them. Friends make them feel comforted and safe in the harsh environment Children everywhere emulate the people they hangout with, in a prison the children
If the agents of social control define youngsters as delinquents for breaking the law, those youngsters become deviant. They have been labelled as such by those who have the power to make labels stick. However Becker argued ‘deviance is not a quality that lies in behaviour itself but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it’. From this point of view, deviance is produced by a process of interaction between the potential deviant and the agents of control. Becker then examined the possible effects on an individual being labelled as deviant and that a deviant label can lead to further deviance.
Youth delinquency is a massively growing problem in the United States today. Youth delinquency “refers to abnormal social or legal behavior by children or adolescents, for dealing with juveniles, such as juvenile detention centers. There are a multitude of different theories on the causes of crime, most if not all of which can be applied to the causes of youth crime” (Youth Delinquency, 1999 p.1). A youth (juvenile) delinquent is one who repeatedly commits crime. There are multiple reasons for the increase in criminal activity amount the nation’s youthful population.
Labelling theory outlines the sociological approach towards labelling within societies and in the development of crime and deviance (Gunnar Bernburg, and D. Krohn et al., 2014, pp. 69-71). The theory purposes that, when an individual is given a negative label (that is deviant), then the individual pursues their new (deviant) label / identity and acts in a manner that is expected from him/her with his/ her new label (Asencio and Burke, 2011, pp. 163-182).