A traumatic childhood may predispose a child to violence against themselves or against others, in adolescence or adulthood. This information is and has been off the records, but so far no known relationship between the magnitude of traumatic experiences and different forms of violence at puberty. A study published in Pediatrics, which involved 136,549 U.S. students between 12 and 17 has been commissioned to evaluate this relationship. The researchers sought to determine six adverse experiences for which they had passed the boys in childhood and physical and sexual abuse, witnessing abuse or problems at home by alcohol or drugs taken by a relative. Then he saw the violent behavior at puberty: crime, harassment, bullying, dating violence, carrying weapons at school and auto violence, including the attempt or suicidal ideation. Katner , 2006)
There have been cases where children have experienced a traumatic event in childhood, mostly related to the consumption of alcohol by a relative. Each traumatic event increased 35 percent to 144 the risk of committing a criminal act. Among girls the risk of committing violence increases between 1.7 and 5 times compared to those who had a happy childhood, regardless of how off the event. In the case of boys the risk is 77 times larger.
Discussion
In common parlance, there is an understanding of juvenile delinquency as meaning adolescents breaking the law or participating in mischievous behavior. Defining juveniles as being under the age of 18 years is the general rule of thumb because, in the current legal system, upon reaching this age individuals can be tried as adults, serve in the military, and, in some states, consume alcohol. (Reckless, 1972)
One may ask why juvenile delinquency is vi...
... middle of paper ...
... norm violation, and finally providing credible research to influence social policy. (Watson, 2009)
References
Henry B. (2000) “Juvenile Delinquency and the Schools”, University of Chicago Press.
Tappan W. (2003) “Juvenile Delinquency,” McGraw-Hill.
Rosenquist, M. (2000) “Delinquency in Three Cultures,” University of Texas Press.
Katner D.(2006) “The Mental Health Paradigm and the Macarthur Study: Emerging Issues Challenging the Competence of Juveniles in Delinquency Systems,” Journal of Law and Medicine.
Reckless C. (1972) “The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: An Experiment, ” Ohio State University Press
Bradshaw A. (1995) “The Juvenile Justice System: Is It Working?, ” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
Smith G. (2009) “Criminology, ” Encyclopedia article; The Columbia Encyclopedia
Watson S. (2009) “Juvenile Crime Soaring, ”Newspaper article
Bartollas, Clemens and Miller, Stuart J. (2014). Juvenile justice in america (7 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, 58-60.
Thompson, W, & Bynum, J. (1991). Juvenile delinquency. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory, Policy, and Practice Eighth Edition (2013), Steven Cox, Jennifer Allen, Robert Hanser and John Conrad, Chapter 1, Sage
Larry J. Siegel, Brandon C. Welsh. "Juvenile Delinquency Theory, Practice, and Law." Linda Schreiber Ganster, n.d. 549.
Jenson, Jeffrey and Howard, Matthew. "Youth Crime, Public Policy, and Practice in the Juvenile Justice System: Recent Trends and Needed Reforms." Social Work 43 (1998): 324-32
In 1899, the nation’s first juvenile court for youth under the age of 16 was established in Chicago to provide rehabilitation rather than punishment. By 1925, following the Chicago model, all but two states had juvenile courts whose goals were to turn youth into productive citizens utilizing treatment that included warnings, probation, and training school confinement(Cox et al. 2014, p.2). Treatment lasted until the child was “cured” or turned 21. Although judges spoke with the offending children and decided upon the punishment, the lack of established rules and poor rehabilitation led to unfair treatment. In 1967 “ U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault held that juveniles were entitled to the same constitutional due process rights as adults, beginning a national reform in juvenile justice and the system was repaired to afford children many of the same rights that adults have in court” (Cox et al. 2014, p.4). Also, state legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, as recently, states have attempted strike a balance in their approach to juvenile justice systems as research suggests that locking youth away in large, secure juvenile facilities is ineffective treatment towards different genders in which it doesn’t provide appropriate rehabilitation.
Torbet, Patricia, et. al. State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996.
Bartollas, Clemens and Miller, Stuart J. (2013). Juvenile justice in america (7 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, 58-90.
Thus, the shifting perceptions of the justice system has transformed what it means to be a child and an adult due to their pervasive, and punitive approaches to crime and delinquency. Although adolescents today enjoy many new freedoms and greater time to experiment, those that don’t conform to “normative behaviors” and engage in socially constructed definitions of delinquency, often end up under the firm hands of the juvenile justice system. Despite the creation of this phase in an adolescent’s life, the injustices within the adult justice system have breached into the juvenile system, thus, blurring the lines of what it means to be an adolescent in modern times. Thereby, the adolescent stage is constantly being manipulated to conform and match the social construction of crime and delinquency, and the rise in the practice of trying juveniles as adults within the court system and mandating life sentences is evidence of this
Since the establishment of the first juvenile court in Chicago Illinois for over 100 years (Grisso, 199,813) ago, psychologists have continued to show a strong presence in juvenile proceedings and assist the juvenile justice system, as well as young people involved in it. a special court and the justice system for minors, partly in response to the recognition that adolescents, while clearly shows greater cognitive, emotional and behavioral capacities were established than their younger counterparts, do not have many of the skills that adults and relevant to the legal decision making and criminal responsibility (Otto and Borum, 2004) demonstrators. As a result, the juvenile court was to consider the criminal behavior of minors in context of development, with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and decreased attention on the punishment (Zimring, 2000). Since the juvenile court was to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, the dramatic changes in the landscape of juvenile justice in 1966 and 1967, changing forever the denial of constitutional guarantees for minors. In its decisions in Kent v. United States (1966) and In re Gault (1967), the Supreme Court of the United States asked if the ideal rehabilitation of the
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.
Onwediwe, I. (2004). “Theoretical Perspectives on Juvenile Delinquency: Root Causes and Control.” ProQuest Criminal Justice, 66, 153-156.
Barbara Sims &Pamela Preston, “Handbook of Juvenile Justice Theory and Practice” (2006),CRC Press ( pg.78-87)
As stated in lecture, there are several necessary policy changes that need to be made to our current juvenile justice system: “1) Maintain leniency 2) Expand treatment 3) Expand initial diagnostic services 4) Continue solid research 5) Sustain adequate funding to programs and 6) Mandate (by la...
Bridges, K. M. Banham . "Factors Contributing to Juvenile Delinquency." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 17.4 (1927): 531-76. scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu. Web. 15 Mar. 2014.