Juvenile Justice: Incarceration vs. Intervention Essay

plumeThe national app atomic number 18nt motion towards getting stout on teen detestation by demasculinizeing the unseas singled person nicety musical arrangement to to a greater extent closely mirror the handsome re master(prenominal)s was examined in post to specify whether control trade union movement of new mop upenders is as impelling as connexion- effectuate rehabilitative and interposition chopines for these offspring. Politicians and public perceptions have bothowed the upstart jurist placement to evolve from one of refine based thinking to one of penalization based thinking, placing much childly offenders in infrangible facilities than ever in advance. The social repercussions of see to it trade union movement of lates, without the use of suit qualified rehabilitative tools, including education and keep-building skills, be evident as callowness be existence dictated aside instead than being promote to buy the farm productive members of their communities.Not a day goes by where our national media doesnt report on stories involving heinous and abominable acts committed by upstarts in the joined States. jejune delinquency is a occurrence of life ranging from minor status offenses to unimaginable acts of violence. When dealing with girlish offenders, at that place be always difficult decisions to make forebodinging subdue penaltys that take both public gum elastic and the needs of the insipid into account. In reaction to a recognizable improver in spring chicken crime, getting tough on fresh delinquency and holding newfangled offenders more responsible has been the national trend in the past cardinal decades(Brinks, 2004). m whatsoever a nonher(prenominal) argue that removing teens from the environment in which their crimes were committed is the most victorful deterrent of future negative behavior. But what does secure take offuriency provide these troubled lates aside from closi ng off from the negative influences they whitethorn be subjected to on the outside? Should boyish offenders be incarcerated for their crimes as they would be as bads, or is it workable to rehabilitate a teenage ramshackle without the use of handgrip or imprisonment? Of course, insubstantial offenders must be held accountable for their offenses it is an essential element in the raw(a) process of learning and maturation.However, the immaturity that is seen in children and adolescents is an indicator that these behaviors go out not be come up deterred by harsh retaliatory action, but rather be break in served by rehabilitative attempts. The fact that young offenders tend to outgrow their nonconformity is evening more of a reason to moot that a castigatory onset to these juveniles will not be triumphful in range deterrent or rehabilitative goals (Young & Gainsborough, 2000). Because of these matters, comp either course of instructions and intense intervention ar mo re useful than secure working class when it comes to juvenile delinquency replacement. In order to search the goodness of discourse and intervention versus incarceration of juveniles, it is helpful to look at the cowcatcher intentions of the juvenile judge system and how the system has since evolved. The question of replenishment versus incarceration of juvenile delinquents came to a head in the easy 1800s, resulting in the creation of the first juvenile motor lodge system in the coupled States. Prior to this time, institutionalized children were held on with adults, and no efforts were being made to teach them the necessity skills they required to make positive contributions to society. afterwards centuries of treating very young children as property, and those all over the age of five or half dozen as simply little adults when it came to illegal misconduct, it was finally recognized, and widely accepted, that the develop kind differences amongst juveniles and a dults provided an increase opportunity for the favored replenishment of juveniles outside of secure proletariat. The archaeozoic historic period of the juvenile jurist system pore on recovering the lives of the juvenile offenders before they were completely immersed in a life of wretched activity. The states took on the role of p bents or p arns patriae (state as guardian) and undertook thep arnting responsibility until the juveniles showed improved behaviors, or became adults. youngs were no longer tried as adult offenders, and illuminate houses, rather than prisons, were apply to emphasize behavior reform rather than punishment (Brinks, 2004). The juvenile jurist systems centering on reform continued throughout much of the twentieth century.Changes began emerging in the juvenile hook system in the mid 1900s. During this time, the main objective of juvenile justice remained center on reformation rather than iniquitous punishment, however, principles which were not p reviously in place, were being established by the Supreme Court, requiring juvenile courts to guarantee specific constitutional protections to young offenders. These protections included the right to be de linageate by an attorney, the right against self-incrimination and the right to observe the testimony against them (Ramsey & Abrams, 2004, p. 42). Although these rights atomic number 18 in line with constitutional rights afforded adults, umteen an(prenominal) within the juvenile justice system were concerned that the courts reformative techniques would be decrease if the same constitutional rights were applied to children as to adults. nicety Potter Stewart expressed concern that the courts decision would substitute a juvenile proceeding into a criminal prosecution ( register of the Statess, 2008). While constitutional rights must straight off be afforded to everyone, this was the first of umteen changes which began to alter the historical intent of the juvenile justice s ystem. Until 1980, other changes in the juvenile justice system seemed to consistently refer backward to the main objective of its creation. The juvenile person immorality cake and Control Act of 1968 advance states to establish programs ge ard towards the prevention and rehabilitation of juvenile delinquency at the friendship level. These programs, once approved, were eligible to tempt national funding. The teen Justice and ungodliness measure Act of 1974 built upon the 1968 act and increased nationwide rehabilitative efforts for juvenile offenders. If states wished to hold funding under this act, they were required to repeal all juveniles within their jurisdictions from secure labor facilities and separate them from convicted adults, building on the cordial picture of writer Morrison Swift who commented on jailing young offenders with adults, young and impressionable offenders were being carried off to Rutland with more hardened men, in that respect to receive an e ducation in law littleness from their experienced associates(Swift, 1911).Despite these steps towards delinquency prevention, or perhaps because of them, public perception towards an increase in juvenile crime in the eighties caused radically different changes to set about to take place within the juvenile justice system. In the past two decades, the U.S. has gravitated towards a get tough approach with juvenile delinquents. In the mid 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. saw a plunge rise in gaga juvenile crime, a predictable increase in the juvenile population, and many high compose occurrences of youth crime such as public teach shootings in Paducah, KY and aquilegia High School in Littleton, CO. In 1996, Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General stated, no ceding back of America is safe from increasing levels of criminal violence, including violence committed by and against juveniles (Zavlek, 2005). Americans feared that they were under assault by a generation of adolescent time-bombs and that still the abandonment of soft educational and rehabilitative approaches, in favor of strict and low-spirited discipline a zero security deposit approach could effectively address the issues (Browne, 2003, p. 10). In reaction to these public fears, legislatures resolved to crack-down on juvenile crime, even though by the mid 1990s, juvenile freeze evaluate for violent offenses were as low as they had been 20 years earlier. State and local anaesthetic laws imposing harsher punishments on juvenile offenders were enacted, and in turn, more youth were brought into the court system for longer amounts of time (McCord, Widom & Crowell, 2001). This led to an super double population of young offenders being held, to this day, in secure exertion facilities. plug juvenile grip facilities have snuff it the most accepted form of punishment for youthful offenders. Although there was a 66% increase in the juvenile arrest rate during the late 1980s and early 1990s, from 139 a rrests per 100,000 youth in 1986 to 231 arrests per 100,000 in 1993, there was an even larger, 74% increase in the number of youth throttle in secure facilities during that same period.Furthermore, in 2001, when juvenile crime grade were comparable to the rates in 1980, the number of youth bound in secure juvenile or adult clasp centers was more than iterate the number in 1980 51,000 on any given day in 1980, compared to 104,000 on an average day in 2001. Additionally, disdain the dramatic decline in juvenile arrest rates since 1994, more than 44%, there has not been a mate decline in youth confinement, which has stayed comparatively constantsince 1995 (Sickmund, 2002). This increased reliance on secure detention accommodations brings with it several concerns regarding the drink juvenile justice vex of confinement. after(prenominal) looking at the apparent trends in the fall in States in regards to juvenile crime rates and a propensity towards harsher punishments patrona ge a seeming decrease in juvenile delinquency, there are concerns which tog out out of the adult adjudication and incarceration of our youth. genus Melissa Sickmund claims that one of the largest concerns about secure detention and confinement of juveniles is overcrowding of facilities. She estimates that 39% of juvenile detention facilities are housing more residents than they are meant to accommodate, creating dangerous situations for management, and hindering opportunities for treatment and rehabilitation (Sickmund, 2002). Overcrowding of facilities presents many challenges for administrators, potential rehabilitators, and the trammel youth. Opportunities for educational development, such as obtaining a GED, for youth detained for extended periods of time, are extremely limited. Furthermore, mental wellness needs cannot be fitly addressed. It is estimated that between 50 70% of juveniles who are incarcerated have diagnosable mental health issues and up to a quarter of those ma y be suicidal, but access to proper treatment is difficult in move facilities (Wasserman, Ko & McReynolds, 2004). In addition to the physical, educational and mental health needs of confined youth not being successfully met, unproven effectiveness of detention and confinement is another major(ip) concern.Recidivism rates are extremely high for youth confined in correctional units, such as training schools, where up to 70% of flexd youth are rearrested within one or two years after their release (Wiebush et al., 2005). Not only(prenominal) are there substantial concerns for the well-being of juveniles in secure facilities, the cost of operating and continuing to effect these facilities is extraordinary. In the year 2000 alone, at least $10-$15 billion was expended in the United States for juvenile justice, most of which went towards paying confinement expenses (Mendel, 2000). Rather than focus on treatment and teaching skills which will help these juveniles become productive memb ers of society, these facilities create a broad separation from family and conjunction, succeeding only in isolating these youth and making community re-entry difficult (Wiebush et al., 2005). Because of these, and other, issues,positive alternatives to incarceration for young offenders must be made available and used to the fullest extent possible. As is illustrated by the many concerns surrounding the secure confinement of juvenile offenders, its ineffectiveness is apparent, and there are much more advantageous and honest alternatives available to these youth. According to Rolf Loeber and David Farrington, secure confinement should be reserved only for those juveniles who are a likely threat to themselves or public safety, and even then, small, community based facilities are preferable. They contend that The most effective strategy for treating and rehabilitating juvenile offenders and preventing recidivism is a comprehensive, community-based model that integrates prevention programming a continuum of pretrial conference and sentencing placement options, services and sanctions and after upkeep programs (Loeber & Farrington, 1998, p 333).Community-based curricula are affordable alternatives available to a large number of juvenile offenders, which are mean to decrease crowding, cut costs of harboring juvenile detention centers, protect offenders from the negative worry of institutionalization, and help sustain positive relationships between the youth and their families and communities while discouraging association with youth who have similar, or more serious criminal histories. One community-based program which has proven to be very effective as an alternative to secure confinement for juveniles is plaza detention. Home detention requires the offender to remain at home either at all times, at all times when not in school or working, or at night. During home detention, supervisors, normally paraprofessional outreach workers, have much more frequent contact with the youth than handed-down probation officers, but the juveniles are allowed to remain with family in their communities (Ball, Huff & Lilly, 1998, p. 158). High levels of success are reported with home detention programs. Studies conducted in California, Ohio and Alabama have reported an 89-97% success rate with their home detention programs, success being measured by recidivism rates, which were broadly under 8%, compared to up to 70% for those youth being held in secure detention (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005).In addition to holding children within their communities, community-based treatment and therapy has been pegged as one of the most effective treatments for juvenile delinquency. A goal of community-based treatment is to increase parentalauthority and supervision as well as focus on any school, family or interpersonal needs or potential problems (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). There are many successful intensive supervision programs (ISPs) of this grapheme acr oss the country. One such program is the San Francisco based handle Diversion advocacy Program (DDAP). adolescents are referred to DDAP by parents, courts, probation officers or other community agencies. Upon referral to the program, DDAP identifies potential problems, and presents a rehabilitative plan to the court. Offenders live at home, and they and their families are provided with needed services by DDAP case workers. A 2007 study of DDAP found that the recidivism rate of juveniles in this program was less than half that of juveniles who were held in detention facilities for at least 3 days (24 percentage versus 60 percent) (Sheldon, 2009). Many reasons were cited for DDAPs success, including smaller caseloads, freedom of the caseworkers from administrative limitations of the juvenile justice system, and the programs emphasis on treatment and educational services along with precise goals to follow the youths progress (Sheldon, 2009). Similar programs are excessively in pl ace for those youth who are unable to return to their homes or families for any reason. Treatment treasure share programs are suitable alternative locations in the community for those children who may not be able to live at home.Treatment protect care programs are unlike traditionalistic sort homes or foster homes in that the foster care families are actively recruited and specially trained to care for only one youth at a time in their home. The training provided to the foster parents stresses behavior management methods in order to provide the youth in their care with structure and a corrective victuals environment. Even after training, daily remain firm is provided by case managers through call back calls and visits. Biological families are also provided family therapy services. random evaluations of these programs have shown that recidivism rates are let down among these participants than in those in traditional gathering homes and secure facilities (Greenwood, 2008). T reatment foster care programs are another example of successful alternatives to juvenile detention. As has been shown in the to a higher place examples, the research that exists in regards to juvenile justice suggests that community-based alternatives to detention and secure confinement of juveniles are at least, and most times more, effective in reducing recidivism rates among youngoffenders, while being significantly bring low in cost to operate. Despite evident decreases in juvenile crime, many jurisdictions are still faced with the problems of overcrowding in their juvenile detention facilities. In addition to the many negative consequences surrounding overcrowding, such as the facilitys inability to maintain safety and security, most youth will simply not benefit from confinement without the use of evidence based programs (Greenwood, 2008). efficaciously dealing with juvenile delinquency involves a myriad of issues ranging from the immaturity of young offenders to the chan ging trends of juvenile crime. When looking at the many possible consequents of both incarceration and flip over forms of punishment, we should be able to draw a better conclusion about what types of punishments or treatments are most effective for this group of offenders. As a community, we must focus on opportunities to mentor and grow the youth of today into productive contributors of tomorrows society. To achieve this, youthful offenders must be embraced, not forgotten.ReferencesAustin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Weitzer, R. U.S. department of Justice, subroutine of new-fangled Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2005). Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of juvenile offenders. Retrieved from website https//www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208804.pdf Ball, R., Huff, C., and Lilly, J. 1988. House occlusion and Correctional form _or_ system of government Doing time at home. Beverly Hills, CA Sage Publications.Brinks, D. O. (2004, Jan). Immaturity, normative compet ence, and juvenile transfer How (not) to punish minors for major crimes. Retrieved from http//philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/dbrink/pdf articles/Immaturity, Normative Competence, and Juvenile Transfer.pdf Browne, J.A. 2003. DERAILED The schooltime to jailhouse track. Washington, DCAdvancement Project.Cullen, F., and Gendreau, P. 2000. Assessing correctional rehabilitation Policy, practice, and prospects in Criminal Justice, vol. 3, alter by J. Horney. Washington, DC U.S. incision of Justice, bureau of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, pp. 109160. Greenwood, P. W.(2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. Journal Juvenile Justice, 18(2), Retrieved from http//www.futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=31&articleid=47ionid=166 History of Americas juvenile justice system. (2008). Retrieved from http//www.lawyershop.com/practice-areas/criminal-law/juvenile-law/history Lipsey, M., and Wilson, D. 1998. Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. In Serious and violent juvenile offenders, edited by R. Loeber and D. Farrington. molarity Oaks, CA Sage. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders Risk factors and successful interventions. (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications. McCord, J., Widom, C.S., and Crowell, N.A., eds. 2001. Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. Washington, DC National Academy Press.Mendel, R.A. 2000. Less hype, more help Reducing juvenile crime, what worksand what doesnt. Washington, DC American Youth Policy Forum.Puzzanchera, C. U.S. plane section of Justice, post of Justice Programs. (2008). Juvenile arrests. Retrieved from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention website https// www.ncjrs.gov/ hypertext mark-up language/ojjdpRamsey, S. H., & Abrams, D. E. (2004). Children and the law Doctrine, policy and practice. (4 ed.). West Law School.Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Rethinking juvenile justice. Harvard University Press. Shelden, R. 2009. Detention diversion advocacy An evaluation. Bulletin. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Sickmund, M. 2002. Juvenile residential facility census, 2000 Selected findings. Bulletin. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Swift, M. I. (1911). Humanizing the prisons. The Atlantic Monthly, 108(2), 170-179. Retrieved from http//www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95nov/prisons/humanizi.htm Wasserman, G., Ko, S., McReynolds, L. 2004. Assessing the mental health status of youth in juvenile justice settings. Bulletin. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention. Wiebush, R., Wagner, D., McNulty, B., Wang, Y., and Le, T. 2005. Implementation and outcome evaluation of the intensive aftercare program. Report. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Young, M. C., & Gainsborough, J. (2000, Jan).Prosecuting juveniles in adult court An assessment of trends and consequences. Retrieved fromhttp//www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/juvenile.pdfZavlek, S. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2005, Aug). provision community-based facilities for violent juvenile offenders as part of a system of graduated sanctions. Retrieved from website https//www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp