Academic and professional research has given us the ability to learn, understand and constantly continue to seek more knowledge about a specific topic in detail. Currently, we as members of society are experiencing several social issues that are criminalistic in nature and that are hindering our safeguard and peaceful well being. In this research, I would like to concentrate on juvenile offenders, both violent and non -violent, and if any rehabilitative efforts are worthwhile in providing them another opportunity to change their lives around?
One of the most important issues in question is the rehabilitation of violent juvenile offenders?
If there is any available, is it effective?
What types of rehabilitation programs are available to juveniles according to gender, type of crime, age and other individual background information?
What alternative sanctions or diversion programs can be given to violent juvenile offenders? What types of models, such as the rehabilitation, treatment or medical model would be appropriate for a violent offender?
How is success and effectiveness measured?
What guarantees are provided by the rehabilitative efforts that the public will be safeguarded?
Does public opinion support an alternative sentence or rehab for violent juvenile offenders?
Up to the present time, we have been informed of crimes committed by violent juvenile offenders either by the social media, literature, newscasts, film, by personal circumstances or by other sources. One of the immediate factors that will be looked at will be the criminal’s age. This factor will have a great importance in determining what kind of court procedure, how the case will be handled and what type of sentence will be given.
Regrettably, the juvenil...
... middle of paper ...
... are children who may have absent themselves from school or are released from school to an unsupervised home due to a parent or both parents at work. According to Gottfredson, D. & Soule, D. (2005), “measurement is part of the operational tool of questioning certain individuals in order to obtain data, for example, questions relating to certain days and times.”
Data from different organizations and sources may vary and may cause discrepancies or in other words, the numbers will not match. It may due to poor record keeping, non-reporting or some other factors. In the measurement means of obtaining data, I believe that Gottfredson & Soule’s technique may secure more accurate and timely data depending on the respondents word. Martin, R. & Legault, R (2005) indicate, “it is important to collect and compare data with rather good precautions in order to avoid errors.”
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
One of the fasting growing juvenile treatment and interventions programs are known as teen courts. Teen courts serve as an alternative juvenile justice, to young offenders. Non-violent, and mostly first time offenders are sentenced by their peers’ in teen courts. Teen courts also serve as juvenile justice diversion programs. Teen courts vary from state to state, and sometimes within the same state. With this program, all parties of the judicial setting are juveniles with the exception of the judge. Each teen court, is designed specifically to meet the needs of the community it serves. Teen courts were created to re-educate offenders throughout the judicial process, create a program with sanctions that will allow the youth not to have a juvenile record, and to also instil a sense of responsibility.
There is a great deal of controversy over the trying and sentencing of juvenile offenders today. Many will argue that because the severity of Juvenile crimes has risen, the severity of its consequences should rise; however, no matter how serious the crime is, juvenile offenders tried as adults receive far worse than they deserve. The majority of Juveniles tried as adults are hardly given any form of human rights. Adult jails are not the environment children should have to experience, especially those sentenced for misdemeanors and nonviolent crimes. There are other solutions to reducing juvenile crime. It does not take adult court to straighten out kids on the wrong path. Most children are not even able to recognize that what they had done is wrong. There may be no perfect solution to reducing juvenile crime, but there are ways far more effective than adult trying and sentencing.
There are numerous community based corrections programs available in the juvenile justice system such as: drug court or substance abuse treatment, mentoring, independent living transition services, community service, mediation or restitution, group home placement, functional family therapy, job training or work programs, Electronic Monitoring System or Global Positioning System,
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
One of those many changes was the separation of conventional rehabilitative methods to accepting new intermediate sanctions. “The rationale for intermediate punishments was based, in part, on the assumption that a wider range of sentencing options would allow judges to better match the punishments they issued to the seriousness of the offences committed” (Petersen and Palumbo, 1997). Intermediate sanctions are alternate punishments which fall between regular probation and incarceration. This can include community based treatment programs, in-patient drug treatment programs, house arrest, electronic monitoring, boot camps, and intense supervision. Some of the offenders may be required to attend therapy sessions whether that be family therapy, drug and alcohol therapy, or cognitive behavioral therapy. Other recommendations/ likely requirements would be parenting classes, mentoring programs, and interpersonal skill
I have witnessed in my time as a law enforcement professional juvenile treatment programs help some of our troubled youth. However, the treatment program the juvenile offender is attending, must offer something to the juvenile offender in the means of rehabilitation and teaching life lessons. For instance, a ropes course is a program we have used here in Muskogee with our youth. The ropes course is designed to take someone out of their own personal comfort zone and to begin to build trust between the police and the offender. This program has benefited a portion of our youth who were willing to cooperate and take the program serious. There is another portion of the youth who
Handling a young fragile mind can be difficult; but studies have shown therapeutic rehabilitation is key in not causing unrepairable damage. The majority of youth offenders has been exposed to harsh environments and rough upbringings. Years of exposure to violence and neglect can create a sort of brain-washing. It is imperative to focus on important aspects of life in order to transform the mind of the juveniles. An efficient method that involves keeping the juvenile in the community is referred to as multisystemic therapy. “Multisystemic therapy is an intensive therapy program which focuses on numerous aspects the delinquent’s life: family, school, social and other unique factors which may relate to the behavior” (May, Osmond, and Billick 298). When using the multisystemic approach juveniles decrease association with other delinquents, juvenile and adult. The therapeutic method gives an individual approach on focusing deeper on the root issues and helps the juvenile renew their minds and thought process. In the end, adopting multisystemic therapy decreases the likelihood of the youth continuing in a criminal
...ing beckoned in with the 21st century. While U.S.’s JLWOP laws are inconsistent with many human rights treatises and with international law, it is more important for our policies to be based on a thorough understanding of the issue- the most essential being a separation of the processes for juvenile and adult criminal offenders. With an emphasis on rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, and the goal of encouraging maturity and personal development after wayward actions, the futures of many teens in the criminal justice system can become much more hopeful.
Adolescent criminal acts, which include but are not limited to murder, rape, armed robbery, violent assault, mugging, arson, vandalism and robbery are a large portion of the crimes represented in the media. Alternative options to throwing these kids in juvenile detention centers is a rehabilitative boot camp where they have no control over even their own bodies or programs similar to scared straight where they see possible consequences to their actions. The importance of the success or failure of these programs is important because right now it is the popular solution. If these programs are going nowhere, time should be invested in creating new ideas and methods to treat these children before they become adults in the prison system.
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).
There has always been alarm and despair over escalating juvenile crime. In the 1950s there were reports about the mushrooming problems with youthful gangs in the big cities. In the 1960s we began to hear about a surge of juvenile crime in areas that had been regarded as virtually crime free. In the suburbs as well as the inner cities, youngsters were dropping out of school, using drugs and committing crimes. In the 1970s and 1980s, juvenile court dockets became increasingly jammed with criminal cases. According to the Department of Justice, the percentage increases in arrests from 1985 to 1994 have been greater for juveniles than for adults. During 1994 alone, 2.7 million juveniles were arrested. During the latter part of this century, juvenile courts that customarily provided social services in order to rehabilitate rather than punish lawbreakers were faced with an onslaught of children who were not simply wayward youths, but hardened repeat offenders. The 1980s witnessed an increasingly desperate outcry for courts to take more extreme measures to contain juvenile crime, which is assuming ever more serious forms.
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.
The dilemma of juvenile incarceration is a problem that thankfully has been declining, but still continues to be an ethical issue. The de-incarceration trend has coincided with a decrease in crime. It is hopeful that our nation is changing the approach to the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. It means we know what to do and what is working, now just to follow through and continue the change to creating a juvenile justice system that is truly rehabilitative and gives youth tools to be able to be positive members of
Loeber R., and D.P. Farrington. “Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions.” Thousand Oaks. 1998. First Search. Feb 2007