It was supposed to provide a means of protecting the child from the harshness of the adult court, which emphasized obtaining guilt and punishing the individual (Hickey, 2010). The dichotomies of "treatment-punishment" and "chi... ... middle of paper ... ...with the juvenile justice system that are counter-intuitive to the well-being of children and proper justice. However, it remains to be seen whether the direct separation is involved, or if it is strictly because it is justice pertaining to juveniles. References: Fortas, J. (1967).
They believe that juveniles are different from adults, and the due process requirements give the juveniles a wider chance of intervention. However, permissiveness for the offenders is the least effective means to change their behavior and often have negative effects as well. The juvenile court system does not provide young offenders an adequate punishment for the severity of the crimes that were committed so that they may grasp the repercussions of their actions. Many of the worst offenders that have been acquitted in juvenile court are let back out on the streets and the chances of getting attacked are just too big of a risk. Officials should treat minor crimes in the same manner as any violation.
A transition from the classic objective of reform brought by juvenile justice system to a more tough policy that focus more on public safety and on idea of punishment to juvenile offenders came to effect. The trend is to be more amenable to the “get-tough” principle, allowing a juvenile to be prosecuted and tried as an adult in criminal court. The most basic reason for allowing this shift is for public safety and deterrent of crimes involving juveniles. The arguments provide that there is a need to incapacitate these juveniles for some period of time in order for them to realize the seriousness of the offense that they committed and the adult criminal court system is the closest way of achieving this goal. The advocates of the transfer of the juveniles to adult court believe that since the same crime was committed, the same act was done, thus, there is a need to impose the same harsh punishment.
Besides positively engaging offenders, communities that practice restorative justice can also seek to shame offenders for their acts, without blaming the offender directly for their actions. One such method of restorative justice that communities utilize is the reintegrative shaming theory. Developed by Braithwaite in 1989, the theory states that societies that aim to create shame on the act of crime will reduce crime rates (Braithwaite, 2001). The theory
Trying teens as adults removes them from the streets and allows others to feel a sense of security. When juveniles are given lenient sentences, it strengthens their belief that they can get away with a crime. Although, this perceived lack of accountability in the juvenile justice system is inaccurate. In fact, “ Since 1998, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has helped States and communities implement accountability-based programs through the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants ( JABG) program” (“Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program”). The JABG is a collection of programs targeted towards both the offender and the juvenile justice system to increase accountability for
The American prison system has long touted the principal of deterrence – meaning that crime can be controlled by giving very harsh sentences to those who are caught, hoping that future crimes will be avoided because a would be perpetrator sees and fears what the potential punishment of following through with such an act might be. The idea that a single person’s punishment is going to keep others from committing a crime a key argument for our system of crime and punishment. This paper is going to focus on this currently failing policy of deterrence, examining its true nature, and then discuss its place, if any, that it has in our law enforcement system. To fully understand the scope and nature of the problems related to deterrence, one must understand a few facts about deterrence itself. Many people often confuse deterrence with retribution or punishment, but that it is not.
Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1). Several studies conducted to determine impacts of transfers of cases from juvenile courts to adult criminal courts for trial and potential sentencing indicate higher recidivism rates among the offenders.
Young people who are undergoing such a program should understand they are voluntary and should consider the program as a positive opportunity to change their lives for the better. Federal standards define any young offender under the age of eighteen who commits a crime is define as a juvenile delinquent. And the important differences between adults and young people, that a one-size fits all method is not desirable and will not make the situation better. Our justice system also accomplishes an important symbolic function by establishing principles of behavior. It formally defines the right and wrong for citizens and frees them from the responsibility of taking vengeance, thus avoiding the escalation of feuds within communities.
The reasons to decrease the practice of trying juveniles as adults include: the affect of prisonization; successful rehabilitative programs; and an overall decrease in juvenile offending. Delinquent adolescents can be a positive mark on the future of the United States, or they can be the habitual life-offender of tomorrow; thus, they need proper care and guidance to ensure they do not become the latter. The juvenile justice system represents, perhaps, the one time when society can intervene positively in the life of an individual whose run astray. Protecting society, no doubt, is a reverent goal, requiring the utmost attention-to-detail; however, at what cost should this goal be achieved? Incarcerating youth offenders—some as young as fifteen years of age—in adult prisons proves dangerous to the potential growth and level of rehabilitative capacity for these persons.
This research seeks to establish whether making the penalty stiff will work in repeating repeat and future offenders. This research is tied to a larger theory that harsh punishments act as a deterrent to crime. They work by making people not commit a crime for fear of the punishment that is going to follow. This research is applicable across many facets of crimes that are rampant. It is going to help identify whether enacting stricter laws and enforcing them helps in reducing the relate... ... middle of paper ... ... policies have to be able to effectively deal with the crime.