More handpicked essays just for you.
Solutions to Juvenile Delinquency
Mental health issues in juvenile offenders
Solutions to Juvenile Delinquency
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Solutions to Juvenile Delinquency
For this study, I will use two quantitative models that explain how they manage to reduce the use of jail. The first one is the Red Hook Community Justice Center model. This model acknowledges that communities can be victims just like individuals. It offers many type of services such as restitution projects, short-term psycho-educational groups, and long-term treatment (drug treatment, mental treatment, and trauma-focused psychotherapy), and an on-site clinic staffed by social service professionals who use trauma and evidence-informed approaches to connect individuals to appropriate services. The center provides juvenile and few adult defenders with other underlying criminogenic needs. If we establish the same model around each state in the U.S then many low-income juveniles offenders will get the opportunity to engage in community service activities, apply to internships, get peer education programs, and arts programs that are designed for positive development among this individuals. This way it can reduce crime and improve the life of the juvenile. The center aims to resolve local problems before they become court cases and that is something that should be look upon when dealing with poor communities because we can encourage juvenile in those community to participate in community restitution projects and in social services. The Red Hook model helped many juvenile being treated fairly. More than 85 percent of criminal defendants report that their case was handled fairly by the Justice Center. This model was able to reduce incarceration at arraignment in misdemeanor cases by 50 percent. An evaluation of the Red Hook in 2013, demonstrated that they find alternatives way toward incarceration. This multi-method evaluation of the Red ...
... middle of paper ...
...edical costs as well. “Therefore, a lifetime sentence for a juvenile will cost taxpayers approximately $2 million” (The Sentencing Project, 2014). Many states in the U.S deny the changes of the juveniles from getting rehabilitated. “Approximately 62% of people sentenced to life without parole as juveniles do not participate in prison programs in large part due to state prison policies that prohibit their participation or limited program availability” (The Sentencing Project, 2014). Sentencing the juvenile for life without obtaining parole is expensive and the possibility of the juvenile getting a mental disorder are endless. In order to solve this issue, the sentencing project recommend that they should be educated programs or community services available to juvenile who are in prison. This way juvenile is more comply to rehabilitated and be out of the jail system.
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
“More than 2,500 children in the United States had been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Most juveniles sentenced to life imprisonment without parole had been convicted of homicide crimes. We estimated there were fewer than two hundred juveniles serving life without parole for non-homicide offenses” (Stevenson, 2014, pp. 269-270).
This paper will analyze the different theoretical issues pertaining to the modern juvenile court, determine their origin, and suggest a course of action for resolving these issues to the best extent possible. It is important to note, however, that the juvenile justice system alone cannot ever prevent all juvenile crime, respond perfectly to every situation or treat every suspect fairly. Furthermore, an effective antidote to modern juvenile crime would necessitate far broader action, addressing underlying social structure inequalities that breed poverty and social disorganization.
The current criminal justice system is expensive to maintain. In North America the cost to house one prisoner is upwards of eighty to two hundred dollars a day (Morris, 2000). The bulk of this is devoted to paying guards and security (Morris, 2000). In contrast with this, community oriented programming as halfway houses cost less than the prison alternative. Community programming costs five to twenty five dollars a day, and halfway houses although more expensive than community programs still remain cheaper than prison (Morris, 2000). Tabibi (2015c) states that approximately ninety percent of those housed in prison are non-violent offenders. The treatment of offenders in the current system is understood to be unjust. By this, Morris (2000) explains that we consistently see an overrepresentation of indigenous and black people in the penal system. Corporate crimes are largely omitted, while street crimes are emphasized (Morris, 2000). This disproportionately targets marginalized populations (homeless, drug addicted and the poor) (Tabibi, 2015c). The current system is immoral in that the caging of people is highly depersonalized and troubling (Tabibi, 2015c). This is considered to be a barbaric practice of the past, however it is still frequently used in North America (Morris, 2000). Another moral consideration is with the labelling of youth as offenders in the criminal justice system (Morris, 2000). Morris (2000) argues that we should see youth crimes as a social failure, not as an individual level failure. Next, Morris (2000) classifies prisons as a failure. Recidivism rates are consistently higher for prisons than for other alternatives (Morris, 2000). The reason for this is that prisons breed crime. A school for crime is created when a person is removed from society and labeled; they become isolated, angry
Heinous crimes are considered brutal and common among adults who commit these crimes, but among children with a young age, it is something that is now being counted for an adult trial and punishable with life sentencing. Although some people agree with this decision being made by judges, It is my foremost belief that juveniles don’t deserve to be given life sentencing without being given a chance at rehabilitation. If this goes on there’s no point in even having a juvenile system if children are not being rehabilitated and just being sent off to prison for the rest of their lives and having no chance getting an education or future. Gail Garinger’s article “ juveniles Don’t deserve Life sentence”, written March 14, 2012 and published by New york Times, mentions that “ Nationwide, 79 adolescents have been sentenced to die in prison-a sentence not imposed on children anywhere else in the world. These children were told that they could never change and that no one cared what became of them. They were denied access to education and rehabilitation programs and left without help or hope”. I myself know what it’s like to be in a situation like that, and i also know that people are capable of changing even children when they are young and still growing.
A growing number of probation officers, judges, prosecutors as well as other juvenile professionals are advocating for a juvenile justice system which is greatly based on restorative justice. These groups of people have been frustrated by the policy uncertainty between retribution and treatment as well as unrealistic and unclear public expectations. As a primary mission, the balanced approach or policy allows juvenile justice systems together with its agencies to improve in their capacity of protecting the community and ensuring accountability of the system and the offenders . It enables the youths to become productive and competent citizens. This guiding philosophical framework for this policy is restorative justice as it promotes the maximum involvement of the community, victim, and the offender in the justice process. Restorative justice also presents a viable alternative to sanctions as well as interventions that are based on traditional or retributive treatment assumptions. In the policy proposal for restorative justice, the balanced approach mission assists juvenile justice system in becoming more responsive to the needs of the community, victims, and the offenders . Therefore, this paper considers how restorative justice reduces referrals of juveniles to criminal and juvenile justice systems and gives a proposal on the implementation of restorative justice in the community together with a number of recommendations. For instance, preliminary research reveals that application of restorative justice in schools significantly reduces school expulsions, suspensions, and referrals to the criminal justice systems. Restorative justice programs are an alternative for zero-tolerance policies for juveniles or youths .
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.
For a juvenile to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole is almost to give that child the death penalty, a punishment that was outlawed in the 2005 case Roper v. Simmons. In Roper Christopher simmons challenged his death penalty sentence for murder at age 17 because of his claim that the was an “immature and irresponsible juvenile”. The Supreme Court overturned his sentence, saying that their was a national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles because so many states had rejected that as a viable form of punishment. A life without parole sentence is equal to the death penalty for a juvenile because the child is having any hope of living a semi-normal life terminated at a young age, in this case 14 years old. If this were your child would you want them to sit in jail for the rest of their life, with no hope and no reason to live? Or would you want them to, even if it was an impossibly long sentence, have a least some sliver of hope that maybe one day they will escape the icy hell of the prison walls and feel the sunshine upon their face once again? When the sentence of life with parole is given it is not a guarantee that the person will be let out, it is simply giving them some glimmer of hope and reason to
First off sentencing juveniles without parole should not be allowed to happen because the juveniles brain has not yet matured enough and they don’t think before they act. In the article “Juveniles don’t deserve life sentences” by Gail Garinger he asserts “young people are biologically different from adults. Brain imagining studies reveal that regions of
Juvenile do not deserve life in prison, they will not be able to handle it. I agree with the group of judges who believe juveniles to not deserve life sentences. They have a great chance at rehabilitation. It only takes something or someone to help them stay out of troubl
It is undeniable that mass incarceration devastates families, and disproportionately affects those which are poor. When examining the crimes that bring individuals into the prison system, it is clear that there is often a pre-existing pattern of hardship, addiction, or mental illness in offenders’ lives. The children of the incarcerated are then victimized by the removal of those who care for them and a system which plants more obstacles than imaginable on the path to responsible rehabilitation. Sometimes, those returned to the community are “worse off” after a period of confinement than when they entered. For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism are exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives(Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66).
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
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.
There are many issues with crime and violence in the United States, but very few are more controversial than the issue of juveniles in crime. How are juveniles getting involved in crime? What is causing America’s youth to do things that their parents should’ve instilled as morally wrong? What are ways to control and possibly eliminate these issues that affect the way we live? For the past century, criminologists have been studying juvenile related crime and a few theories have come up. These theories have, in the mid to late 20th century, been shaped into models. There are three main models dealing with juvenile crime and violence that will be gone over in pages to follow of this paper: Noninterventionist Model, Rehabilitation Model, and Crime Control Model. In this paper, the reader will see what each model discusses, and how they apply to today’s youth. At the end each model’s description, the reader will learn what I personally think about how the specific model would work. Being a recently turned 20 year-old, I feel I can give an accurate view of how, or if, the crime model would work. Living in both extremely rural(Mokane Missouri), and very urban(St Louis) has taught me a great deal about what really goes on in a juvenile’s head, and what sorts of actions would truly help to decrease crime rates among juveniles. I will give examples from the readings of chapter 13 of Making Sense of Criminal Justice: Policies and Practices, and I’ll conclude with my opinion of which model I believe works best to cope with juvenile crime.
Essentially, community corrections ascribe to the sanctions that are usually imposed on both adults and juveniles convicted by the court of law to reduce frequencies of recidivism. Unlike other forms of sentencing, community corrections can be implemented in a community setting or any other residential setting, apart from the jails (Gendreau & Goggin, 1996). Within the past few decades, researchers have been struggling to advance community corrections through the use of effective intervention principles. In fact, these community corrections triggered the “what works” movement, a movement formalized in 1990. There are four general principles of effective intervention which the movement is currently based on: the risk principle, criminogenic need principle, treatment principle and fidelity principle (Anstiss, 2013).