Essay Plan: ACR101 Introducing Crime and Criminology
Taking a ‘soft’ approach to young offenders will only make them worse – it is better to ‘scare them straight’ so that they desist from further offending. Critically discuss this statement with reference to Justice and Welfare approaches to common types of juvenile crime.
Introduction
- In this paper, the issues of soft and hard approach to juvenile criminals will be explained that will help the readers to understand which approach is the best to treat the young offenders.
- It is better to treat the young offenders with strict punishments to scare them right away because this will make them understand about the severity of their crime.
- However, leaving the young offenders with a soft approach will make them more likely to repeat their crimes.
- In order to teach the juveniles a lesson, it is important to scare them right away.
- The more they will be scared, the less likely they will commit a misdeed in their future.
History of approaches in the Juvenile criminal cases
- Past incidents of soft approaches
- Results of soft approaches and hard approaches
- According to the sources which approach is the best
Disadvantages of soft approaches
- A child is more likely to do the crime again
- This can be dangerous for the juvenile criminals
- This leads to no strictness
- Crime
…show more content…
When a young criminal is left without taking any strict action, he is more likely to do the crime again and this will increase the chances that the child will again commit a crime. Moreover, the young offenders will suffer in terms of education and they will stay labeled because the society will know that they are the criminals at a young age. Therefore, severe punishments and labor imprisonment might help a youngster to avoid living a lifestyle that can harm their life (Elizabeth S. Scott and Laurence Steinberg,
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
If a juvenile or any person commits a crime, they should be punished accordingly for their actions. Many
Scared Straight programs were created from the concept of “vicarious deterrence,” which is the concept of preventing someone from making a bad decision by observing another person who has made the same decision (Sullivan). Often the presentations include graphic stories about the horrors of prison life and the actions that led to their incarceration. However, teenagers are “.impulsive, and think short term, especially when it comes to punishment.” (Sullivan).
In February 2002, the House of Commons passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). The Act came into effect in April 2003, replacing the Young Offenders Act (Mapleleaf). The new legislation attempts to balance the legalistic framework of the Young Offenders Act and the social needs approach underlying the Juvenile Delinquents Act. This goal is apparent in the Declaration of Principle stating th...
Most young offenders get into trouble with the law only once. But the younger children are when they first break the law, the more likely they are to break the law again (Statistics Canada study, 2005). The Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) attempts to acknowledge that different youth need different sentences within the justice system, while ensuring that it is fair and equitable for them. Many people, both in Canada, and around the world, believe that youth are not reprimanded harshly enough for the crimes they commit and that they are, in general, are able to squeeze through the justice system without punishment. Others, believe that the justice system does not treat youth fairly and punishes them without acknowledging that rehabilitation
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,
harder on juveniles in hopes it will detour youths from committing crimes. “Punitive model of
...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.
The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.
As discussed in depth, there are all types of crimes that are committed by young offenders these days and the offenders possess a number of different characteristics. There have been many theoretical crime explanations that have been formed over the years that attempt to explain the reasoning behind the question of why certain individuals, both young and old, are more prone to commit crimes. The discussion of punishment practices are also important because it displays the many approaches that have been taken to ensure that juvenile delinquents are being treated fairly, but punished and rehabilitated all simultaneously. Many methods fall under this kind of approach referred to as the restorative justice approach such as neighborhood conference committees, victim impact panels, sentencing circles, and community impact panels which all attempt to rehabilitate the offender, but also to involve members of society including the victims/survivors of crimes (Siegel, 2009). It is believed and hoped with the continuation of processes, practices, and programs in place such as these that juvenile crime will eventually decrease bringing more order to our society as a whole. Overall, this paper strives to bring awareness to juvenile delinquency by
In conclusion, the development of the juvenile justice system resulted from social development and human needs. By modifying and integrating, the legal authorities have made the legal system more efficient and just for the young people, providing that necessary punishments are executed for the criminal acts while protections are given to the ordinary youth. It is believed that the stability of a society depends on a sound justice system.
Rehabilitative treatment has not always been seen as a right for juveniles. It hasn’t even been regarded as the best possible course of action for dealing with juveniles. This paper will explore the history of the juvenile system, define what rehabilitation is, and explore the balance between the benefits of rehabilitation and the interest of public safety.
Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capitol crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes. Many people claim that the child did not know any better, or that he was brought up with the conception that this behavior is acceptable. Although there is some truth to these allegations, the reality of this social issue is far more complex. Therefore we ask the question, "Should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults?"
According to Maya Cepeda (2016), congresmans wants to revert the age limit of imprisonment from 15 years old to 9 years old. Without lowering the age limit, youth offenders will continuously commit crimes knowing they can get away from it. And since minors cannot be imprisoned at an early age, the become the primary instruments of syndicates and gangs to commit and execute illegal transactions easily. Furthermore, crimes by the youths are not only seen through face to face actions but also through online.