Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discussions on the young offender act
Discussions on the young offender act
Youth delinquency made worse by boot camps
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discussions on the young offender act
In recent years, the Queensland Government along with other states in Australia have discarded the idea of using court-referred conferencing, instead choosing to follow other avenues for the rehabilitation of youth offenders. One of these avenues is the controversial use of boot camps. Within Queensland specifically, there has been a strong wave of both media and public support for the use of these camps, with much research being conducted to examine whether they are a useful avenue to follow. The use of boot camps has been controversial in many countries around the world, such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom and this paper will examine whether these controversial camps would be a good way to deter youth offenders within Queensland. With the introduction of the Youth Justice (Boot Camp Orders) 2012 Amendment bill it was hoped that the youth would have a real chance at rehabilitation and develop the skills to make good life choices (Carrington, Dwyer, Hutchinson & Richards, 2012). By using social control theory, it can be seen that if a youth offender is released from a boot camp, they will have to be entering back into a society where they will have four specific social bonds, attachment, commitment, involvement and belief that will keep them from reoffending (Agnew, 1985).
Boot camps first came about in the 1980’s as an alternative way to rehabilitate people with a mixture of both military and non-military aspects without incarcerating them in prison (Muscar, 2008). There are many promising non-military aspects of boot camps that help to rehabilitate a person and mentally prepare them for going back into their situations before the boot camp, such as the close relationships formed between the staff and inmat...
... middle of paper ...
...ogy.
Harry, J. (1999). PENNSYLVANIA BOOT CAMP PROVES SUCCESSFUL. Corrections Today, 61(6), 12.
Kempinen, C., & Kurlychek, M. (2003). An outcome evaluation of Pennsylvania's boot camp: Does rehabilitative programming within a disciplinary setting reduce recidivism?. Crime & Delinquency, 49(4), 581--602.
Muscar, J. (2008). Advocating the End of Juvenile Boot Camps: Why the Military Model Does Not Belong in the Juvenile Justice System. UC Davis J. Juv. L. & Pol'y, 12, 1.
Parent, D. (2003). Correctional Boot Camps: Lessons From a Decade of Research Series: Research for Practice.
REID-MacNEVIN, S. (1997). Boot Camps for Young Offenders A Politically Acceptable Punishment.Journal Of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 13(2), 155--171.
Steiner, B., & Giacomazzi, A. (2007). Juvenile waiver, boot camp, and recidivism in a northwestern state. The Prison Journal, 87(2), 227--240.
...(2004). Applying the principles of effective intervention to juvenile correctional programs. Corrections Today, 66(7), 26-29. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4bd9d7f2-8ac5-42c6-a100-a2443eda9cbf@sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4213
Bartollas, Clemens and Miller, Stuart J. (2014). Juvenile justice in america (7 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, 58-60.
Vito, Gennaro F., and Clifford E. Simonsen. Juvenile justice today. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.
Greenwood, P., & Zimring, F. (1985). One more chance: The pursuit of promising intervention strategies for chronic juvenile offenders. (Research Report). Pittsburgh: Rand Corporation.
But as will be discussed, there are major flaws in the Australian criminal justice system with issues focussing on three main concerns: (i) lenient sentencing in the criminal justice system particularly with white-collar and blue-collar crimes (i) recidivism and lack of support for offenders (iii) public safety concerns. This essay will examine issues with the Australian prison system, and explore the punishment of shaming and if it is an effective method in preventing general and specific deterrence using sociological frameworks and theories.
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,
Although putting juveniles into institutions, for many juvenile offenders occurred in the first decades of the 1900s, extensive use of probation for juveniles existed as well. As it does today, probation gave a middle ground nature for judges connecting release and placement in an institution. By 1927, trial programs for juvenile offenders existed in approximately every state. In the 1940s and 1950s, reformers attempted to improve the conditions found in most juvenile institutions. Alternatives to institutions emerged, such as forestry and probation camps. These camps provided a prearranged setting for male juvenile offenders, while emphasizing learning and occupational skills. Though, the efficiency of these options as alternatives to incarceration was dubious since they were not obtainable to the worst offenders. Yet, these changes marked the start of formal, community-based instruction that would turn out to be more extensive in following decades.
In a modern Western society where there is significant amount of research done of rehabilitation and criminal justice reform, the practice of sentencing JLWOP (Juvenile Life Without Parole) seems outdated and primitive. There are a number of prominent human rights groups that advocate for the banning of the LWOP sentence for juvenile offenders. In his 2010 article for the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation titled ‘Extinguishing All Hope: Life-Without-Parole for Juveniles,’ Frank Butler breaks down the ethical arguments against the sentence from a social policy perspective. He uses a number of pertinent facts and dates to support and enhance his argument, but retains a clear and concise presentation style, making the document easy to read and comprehend on an analytical level. It is clear from his title that it is not an objective piece, but his opinion is supporte...
This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.
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.
A large burden is placed on families when youth are incarcerated. There is not only the pain of being separated, but it also prevents families from being involved in the juvenile’s life, which is a barrier to the child’s recovery, future, and
June/July 21-26. Eldelfonso, Edward. A. Law Enforcement and the Youth offenders: Juvenile Procedures. New York: Wiley, 1967. Hyde, Margaret O. & Co.
Fagin, James A. "The Juvenile Justice System." CJ2011. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2012. 241. Print.
Esperian, J. H. (2010). The effect of prison education programs on recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education, 61(4), 316-334. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/871418247?accountid=38223