More handpicked essays just for you.
Juvenile delinquency solution and prevention
Juvenile delinquency solution and prevention
Solutions for the causes of juvenile delinquency
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Young Offenders
These days more and more young people are turning to crimes. These crimes are being committed by young offenders of all ages. The crimes they are committing are get even more and more serious and in the last five years the percentage of youngsters committing more crime has increase by more then 50%.
Young offenders are committing these crimes because the know that the punishment is real weak. If you ask me most young offenders think the young offenders act is a JOKE, and trust me I am a young person I know just as other young people.
“A young offender is a person between the ages of 12-17. This person is a person who comities a crime and is given special rights. These right are less server then adults would get if they committee this same offenses.”
There are many cases where a young offender has got off much easier then a adult and no punishment at all. In one case in particular “A boy who was 11 years old who has been in trouble with the law before took a girl with him to his apartment with his gang and then raped her. Then when the police arrived he said you can not touch me” . This to me is very sad first off because he is only
11 years old and he raped a girl but the thing I found most shocking and the rest off the media was that when the police arrived he told them that they could not touch him. Even though he did committee the crime and he should have been charged but sadly e was right. This young offenders knows that the young offenders act is a joke and that is why he committed the crime. He could care less about what he did.
Another case talking about the young offenders act is the James Bulger. “
Had the murder of toddler James Bulger occurred in Canada, his killer would never been charged. Under the Canadian law, no child under the age of 12 can be charged with any criminal act, no matter how odious.” This was a cases which created a lot of heated discussion about the young offenders act. The discussion was that the young offenders act has to be more strictly and changes are need.
In another case a teen was charged for a murder. “An 18-year-old was killed with a baseball bat Tuesday after he was trapped at the entrance to a chopping mall in Hamilton by six youths out settle a grudge against his younger
unjustly put into jail. He accepts going to jail even though he was put in jail
There was a debate about this that people have been complaining that this act hasn’t been doing their job properly and there have been lots of anti-social behaviour going on and nothing is done about it. For the community in March 2003 the government had publish on the news that the Anti-social behaviour act tends to challenge Anti-social behaviour done by the society and are doing a good job of it and have now a have a bigger group that makes this act much more efficient. Also the people were very happy and said they feel much relaxed and safe at that time. For the public service such as the PCSO’s who could be the ones who could take care of these situations about anti-social behaviour and can be relied on to make sure it doesn’t happen and they also need to confirm that they have a good understanding of what happens and how to solve the situations. The offenders who do all this can be instantly punished by the ASBO’s by them taking the offenders to court and could possibly give a
felt by many that the change needed in the area of delinquency within the First
People have, not too long ago, realized that youth and adults are very diverse and should not be treated the same. They gave no time for children to develop the “meins reis”, therefore, they were not given the opportunity to learn. People were not aware that the brain of the youth were not fully developed and were not given the chance of change. They thought that once guilty you shall remain guilty. For that reason they were considered adults, when in reality, adult criminals will only continue to infatuate their mind with evil. The new Youth Criminal Justice Act focuses on change and reintegration with society. We have learned that the youth have not fully developed and do not have the full ability to comprehend such judgements.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, often called by the name of YCJA, is specifically made for youths ages varying from 12 to 17 that disobey the law. In April 1, 2003, the YCJA replaced the previous justice act called Young Offenders Act due to several negative concerns. “These concerns included the overuse of the courts and incarceration in less serious cases, disparity and unfairness in sentencing, a lack of effective reintegration of young people released from custody, and the need to better take into account the interests of victims.” The main purpose of the YCJA aims to have a fairer and more equitable system. Although the YCJA is an effective law within the justice system, a main aspect/characteristic that needs to remain, is keeping the
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...
The problem of dealing with juvenile justice has plagued are country for years, since the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899. Prior to that development, delinquent juveniles had to be processed through the adult justic3e system which gave much harsher penalties. By 1945, separate juvenile courts existed in every single state. Similar to the adult system, all through most of the 20th century, the juvenile justice system was based upon a medical/rehabilitative representation. The new challenges of the juvenile court were to examine, analyze, and recommend treatment for offenders, not to deliver judgment fault or fix responsibility. The court ran under the policy of “parens patriae” that intended that the state would step in and act as a parent on behalf of a disobedient juvenile. Actions were informal and a juvenile court judge had a vast sum of discretion in the nature of juvenile cases, much like the discretion afforded judges in adult unlawful settings until the 1970s. In line with the early juvenile court’s attitude of shielding youth, juvenile offenders’ position was often in reformatories or instruction schools that were intended, in speculation, to keep them away from the terrible influences of society and to encourage self-control through accurate structure and very unsympathetic discipline. Opposing to the fundamental theory, all through the first part of the century, the places that housed juveniles were frequently unsafe and unhealthy places where the state warehoused delinquent, deserted, and deserted children for unclear periods. Ordinary tribulations included lack of medical care, therapy programs, and even sometimes food. Some very poor circumstances continue even today.
The attorney’s office of the prosecutor is usually the one’s who decide whether charges should
The juvenile justice system faces a significant challenge in identifying and responding to the psychiatric disorders of detained youth because research has shown that it is difficult to define the best means to use and enhance the scarce mental health resources (Kessler & Kraus, 2007). According to Cocozza and Skowyra (2000) “Children’s and adolescents’ mental health needs have historically been addressed inadequately in policy, practice, and research and have only the number of youth with mental illness and their level of unmet needs recognized” (p 4). Furthermore, that the juvenile justice system has gone from treatment and rehabilitation to retribution and punishment, that the prevalence is higher for youths who are involved with the system have mental health disorders when compared to the general population. In this paper I will be discussing pathways of juvenile detentions, types of mentally ill juvenile offenders, working alliance, treatment/intervention options available, challenges of untreated mental illness, and research findings.
Upon his arrest he had confessed to 5 burglaries and several violent sexual assaults, including the two unsolved murders and sexual assaults of Barbara Krlik, 15 and Annie Mae Johnson, 24. He had also admitted to have attempted sexual assaults on more than 4 women, all of which failed because he preferred to be a necrophilia stating that “He got no thrill with the living women he raped” (Gado, 2004).
... proponents say 'cracks down on the worst of the worst among teen criminals.' It is unbelievable that our society will allow for such a law. It seems unfair that a fourteen year old child can make a mistake and pay for it the rest of his/her life. The reason our system has never tried youth as adults is because they are not mature enough to think like an adult and take responsibility for themselves. At such a young age there is still hope for an alteration in his/her lifestyle, locking the child up only diminishes the chance of change. Children act out for attention and in many cases do whatever it takes to get that attention; even if it means bringing a gun to school, or going into a store and stealing a pack of gum. Our society must realize there is a problem with today's youth and find where it stems from - only then is there any hope for change. Putting children into prisons is like pushing dirt under a rug; the dirt can only sit for so long until someone realizes there's a problem and looks to see what the problem is. Our society has been pushing dirt under the rug for so long now that it's only a matter of time until the dirt chafes a hole right through the worn out rug.
Youth and juvenile crime is a common and serious issue in current society, and people, especially parents and educators, are pretty worried about the trend of this problem. According to Bala and Roberts, around 17% of criminals were youths, compared to 8% of Canadian population ranging between 12 to 18 years of age between 2003 and 2004 (2006, p37). As a big federal country, Canada has taken a series of actions since 1908. So far, there are three justice acts in the history of Canadian juvenile justice system, the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the 1982 Young Offenders Act, and the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act. In Canada, the judicial system and the principle of these laws have been debated for a long time. This paper will discuss how these three laws were defined and why one was replaced by another.
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.
Until the late 19th century, children were tried in criminal courts with adults. According to common law, the law regarded children under the age of seven, as still in the infancy stage of moral development, while those over the age of fourteen, were morally developed and thus responsible for criminal offenses.
Stokes, D. 2004. Submission to the Youth Justice Agency. [Online] Available from: www.youthreach.ie [Accessed 7th May 2012]