Research Article Analysis
This research analysis is meant to measure the effects of this particular program against the goals it set out to accomplish as a means of contributing to subsequent decision making about the program and improving future programming. This applied research study is an evaluation research project of social science that is intended to supply scientifically valid information with which to guide public policy. The goals of this evaluation research are to provide feedback to policy makers in concrete and measurable terms.
In 1994, Oregon voters passed Measure 11, which imposed long mandatory prison terms for 16 designated violent and sex-related offenses, prohibited “earned time,” and provided for mandatory waiver of juveniles to adult court. This measure, initially drafted by an Oregon legislator, was designed to set mandatory minimum sentences for a series of 16 violent and sex offenses. When put before the voters in 1994, the measure passed by 65% of the voters. Additional action by the legislature in the 1990s added five more crimes to Measure 11, bringing the number of crimes covered by the measure to 21. In general, Measure 11 penalties are longer than those imposed under sentencing guide lines. With the exceptions of some circumstances for some second-degree offenses, if someone is found guilty of a Measure 11 offense, these penalties may not be reduced, the minimum sentences are the same for all offenders, regardless of the circumstances of the crime, and regardless of their criminal histories. Sentences range from 70 months for second-degree assault, kidnapping, robbery, and certain sex offenses, to 300 months for homicide.
Juveniles aged 15 years or older are also subject to the measure. Measure...
... middle of paper ...
...reported a comprehensive aspect of Oregon’s sentencing policy, and the Misguided Measures study revealed a thorough assessment of Measure 11’s impact on youth. The report found that while there is much about Oregon’s approach to juvenile justice that is smart and effective, Measure 11 has not provided the effective sentencing voters were promised nor helped youth lead successful lives, free of crime.
References
Wight, S. (2011). New report analyzes 15 years of Measure 11 data and questions current policy of trying kids as adults. Retrieved from, http://www.safetyandjustice.org/files/Misguided%20Measures%20Press%20Release.doc.pdf
Wight, S., Ahmad, I., & Ziedenberg, J. (2011). Misguided measures: The outcomes and impacts of Measure 11 on Oregon’s youth. Retrieved from, http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/Misguided_Measures_July_2011.pdf
.
Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.
Today not only do we have adults committing crimes, but millions of adolescents are committing the same crimes as adults. “Statistics show more than 1.1 million youths being arrested on a daily basis, and more than 800,000 youths belonging to different gangs (Siegel &Welsh, 2014).” It is the state juvenile authorities to deal with these children and the cost is massive. So states came up with programs to put a stop to kids becoming delinquents. With doing so they hope to save money and help kids.
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,
juvenile justice” (Elrod & Ryder, 2011) is to detour juvenile crimes and not be so easy on
The California proposition 57 is one of the most controversial measures in this presidential election. Prop. 57 would expand opportunities on parole for nonviolent offenders and suggests that they are the judges, not prosecutors, who decide when an adolescent older than 14 years of age should be tried as an adult. If proposition 57 were to pass, the Governor said that more than 7,000 criminals could qualify, but only 10% would come out of prison early. Annually we spend about $36,000 per person to keep them in jail and we are spending about 9,000 per year for each student to keep them in school, then there is a problem, if we invest more in schools and less prisons then chances are that crime is decreasing.
In today's society, personal responsibilities are held accountable only through explicit knowledge of an action's consequences. Without consequences, no individual can be held liable for his or her actions. As teenagers commit increasingly egregious crimes, the media shifts attention away from the actions of these teenagers and focuses on the seemingly severe punishments they are entitled to. Teenagers accused of violent crimes should be tried and sentenced justly, regardless of age, to ensure the law's equality before its citizens, to educate juveniles regarding the potential severity of their actions' consequences, and to prevent future acts of offense from occurring in society.
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
There are numerous critics of the juvenile justice system, and while most of their denunciations remain the same as those of the justice system at large, an ample portion of their criticisms revolve around the claim that incarcerating young people not only doesn’t work in deterring or rehabilitating them, but makes them worse and leads to adult misconduct. A report noted that youth sent to juvenile prison were 37 times more likely to be arrested as adults (Szalavitz, 2009). Another major problem some cite with the juvenile justice system is that most delinquent offends have some form of mental illness, and that while studies have shown that mental health treatment would be a better alternative, they are simply ignored or incarcerated (Ramirez, 2008), completely contradictory to the core values of the juvenile justice system which stresses rehabilitation and restitution above all else.
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
The future of the juvenile justice system is promising. The methods and approaches utilized should continue to improve in the next twenty years in the same way that they have improved over the past twenty years. Addressing the main factors that contribute to juvenile offending will help to solve the problem of delinquency in the United States. Juveniles in the present system do have the ability to straighten out their lives. This might be less challenging for them than it has been in the past, but hopefully the future will make the road to reform easier for them.
...n conclusion, like most things in the law there is no clear answer. There is no one-size-fits all solution for how to treat juvenile offenders. Even that term, “juvenile offender” contains a spectrum that includes the most minor misdemeanor and the most egregious sexual crimes. The Supreme Court has participated in this debate and voiced its approval of treatment and rehabilitation over punishment in the interest of public safety. The court, however, has also left the possibility of the states to hold juveniles to a higher (adult) standard on a case-by-case basis. This seems to me to be the best way to balance the obvious benefits of rehabilitative efforts and the interest of public safety. The best example I could find of a state who balances these two interests well is Oklahoma. The primary statutory goal of the Oklahoma Juvenile Code is to promote public safety.
It was this effort that identified the problem as failures of the judicial process. These failures included sluggish courts, increased levels of recidivism, and a significant loss of public trust (Ballenstedt, 2008). To solve the problem, the program takes a multifaceted approach to punishment in non-violent cases. Through the program, justices have more options available to them when sentencing such offenses as drug possession, prostitution, or even shoplifting. The concept combines social services with punishment in order to reduce reliance on expensive and ineffective short-term jail sentences for non-violent offenders and boost the community’s confidence in the system (Ballenstedt, 2008).
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
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 sentences more juveniles to death than any other nation in the world (Justice, 2009) and our juveniles are being sentenced as young as ten years of age. These are juveniles being tried as adults, and something has to change and change fast. The younger generation is supposed to be our future leaders. How will our juveniles or the citizens of this country prevail if this continues we won’t be able to because most of our future leaders will be prisoner. (B, 2005)