Category: Juvenile Crime

Introduction

This essay will present and analyze a variety of academic sources to oppose the statement that criminal law is fair and effective in addressing crime, punishing offenders, and maintaining social cohesion. The focus group of this essay will be juvenile offenders, which in Queensland means an offender between the ages of 10 and 16 (Richards, 2011). According to the rule of law, all defendants should be treated with the presumption of innocence, which is not often met when juveniles are involved. This leads to the violation of the right to a fair trial, an element of due process. Overall, this lack of equal treatment of juvenile offenders leads to increased contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) as well as high recidivism rates, and hence, failure to rehabilitate them back into the community.

The rule of law refers to the concept that all people are equal in the eyes of the law and that every man, whatever his rank or condition, is bound by the law (White & Perrone, 1997; Bingham, 2010). One aspect of the rule of law is the presumption of innocence, which is rarely upheld in the case of juvenile offenders.

Offenders aged 15-19 are the most likely age group to be processed by police, due to their neurobiology and their tendency to commit crimes that are public and unplanned (Richards, 2011; Riddhi & Bartels, 2018). Hence, juveniles are commonly considered a vulnerable group simply due to their age; however, many juveniles have additional forms of vulnerability that can disadvantage them during interactions with police. These vulnerabilities can be innate, such as intellectual disabilities, sexuality, or race, or can be caused by individual circumstances, such as homelessness (Dwyer, 2017).

Historically, police have specifically targeted young people in an attempt to control ‘larrikinism’, which generally refers to obscene language and offensive behavior (Finnane, 1987). Due to this discriminatory policing, young people are often subject to excessive and invasive searches, name and address checks, and move-on orders (Cunneen, Goldson, & Russell, 2016). Move-on orders, which allow police to effect the removal of any person from a public space, are often used even when there is no indication of a breach of peace occurring (Farrell, 2009). In accordance with the rule of law, innocence should be presumed, and hence, police should not be able to exercise this discretionary power over vulnerable young people who have displayed no intentions to commit a crime.

Additionally, paperless arrest laws in Queensland allow police to arrest and detain a person for up to four hours for committing, or being about to commit, a minor offense, such as loitering (Cunneen et al., 2016). This detainment without charge is one clear example of a violation of the presumption of innocence. According to Cunneen et al. (2016), it also puts young people at the risk of arbitrary detention. A similar example is the introduction of alcohol prohibition orders, which are often imposed on juveniles by police without judicial oversight, denying the recipient the chance to conduct a defense (Cunneen et al., 2016).

As shown, the current legislation in Queensland gives police power to target and discriminate against juvenile offenders. Move-on orders, paperless arrest laws, and alcohol prohibition orders are just some of the avenues for police to unfairly apprehend young people, unnecessarily bringing them into contact with the CJS. In all these cases, the rule of law is not applied fairly as the presumption of innocence is not upheld.

The breach of the rule of law in regard to the presumption of innocence eliminates the chance for juvenile offenders to exercise their right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is defined as an individual’s right to “have their case heard by a competent and impartial court following a fair and public hearing” (Burnnard, 2008, p.176).

According to Finnane (1987), when a police officer apprehends a juvenile delinquent for a public order offense, chances of successful prosecution of charges are high. Additionally, these chances increase when a magistrate is “in sympathy with a local law and order campaign” (Finnane, 1987, p.95). This is a clear violation of the right to a fair trial, as the magistrate does not administer the law fairly or equally. Additionally, most young people apprehended by police will be convicted, even though it has already been proven that the power of police allows them to target and discriminate against these young people.

Yet another violation of the right to a fair trial is seen in the failure to adapt the court processes to the needs of juvenile offenders by not treating them in an age-appropriate manner. Most young people have difficulty understanding legal proceedings, likely due to the use of complex legal jargon (Burnnard, 2008). This comprehension can be further hindered by limited English proficiency, poor education, fear or anxiety, and mental health disorders or cognitive disabilities (Cunneen et al., 2016). Juvenile offenders have the right to fully participate in legal proceedings, so the only way they can receive a fair trial is if the proceedings are explained plainly and simply and if the trial is conducted in a language understandable to the defendant (Burnnard, 2008).

Additionally, according to Watt, O’Leary, and O’Toole (2017), a fair trial cannot be delivered if the offender themselves is not fit to stand trial. Compared to adults, children under the age of 16 are consistently much more likely to be evaluated as impaired in competence-related abilities, yet many of them are trialed anyway (Watt et al., 2017). This is unfair treatment on behalf of the court, and, in addition to the other evidence presented, clearly shows that juvenile offenders are often deprived of a fair trial.

One of the purposes of criminal law is to rehabilitate offenders back into the community. However, the unequal application of the rule of law and the violation of the right to a fair trial causes more juveniles to come into contact with the CJS than necessary. This has the potential to further marginalize young people, leading them to re-offend (Corr, 2014). According to the Australia Bureau of Statistics (2019), there were 54,064 youth offenders recorded by police between 2016 and 2017, constituting 13% of the total offender population.

Despite rehabilitation programs that are offered by juvenile detention centers, such as social integration programs and substance abuse counseling, 41% of juvenile offenders of a sample of 1500 reoffended, a statistic which rises to 61% for those who had previously been on supervised orders (Day, Howells, & Rickwood, 2004). The reason for this, according to Corr (2014), is that once an individual obtains a criminal record by coming into contact with the CJS, they become ‘resigned’ to an offending lifestyle, seeing resistance as futile. This can be attributed to Becker’s labeling theory, which states that people construct their identities from society’s perceptions of them (Shulman, 2005). Therefore, current rehabilitation programs in detention centers are not efficient in lowering recidivism rates, and the only solution is to divert young people from the CJS in the first place.

Diversion strategies, including community service work, treatment programs, or educational programs, generally result in less reoffending rates than traditional juvenile detention (Wilson & Hoge, 2013). As police are usually the first responders to juvenile crime, they are considered the gatekeepers who determine who enters the CJS and how (Dwyer, 2014: Cunneen et al., 2016). However, they are likely not the most qualified people to deal with vulnerable young people. Police should specifically be trained to deal with juvenile offenders and to recognize youthful vulnerabilities, such as intellectual disorders so that they will be able to refer young people to other services to aid in their diversion from the CJS (Dwyer, 2017). Another option is raising the age of criminal responsibility in Queensland from 10-years-old to 14-years-old, to reduce the likelihood of life-course interaction with the CJS (Cunneen et al., 2016; Riddhi & Bartels, 2018).

In conclusion, it has been evidenced that the rule of law is not applied equally to all, as juvenile offenders are often treated unfairly and processed without the presumption of innocence. Additionally, the due process right of a right to a fair trial is not often met. These both make it difficult for criminal law to successfully fulfill its purpose of rehabilitating juveniles and diverting them from a life of crime. Overall, this shows that criminal law is neither fair nor effective in addressing crime, punishing offenders, and maintaining social cohesion.

References

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Youth Offenders, 2016-17. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4519.0~2016-17~Main%20Features~Youth%20Offenders~4
2. Bingham, T. (2010). The rule of law. London: Allen Lane.
3. Burnnard, A. (2008). The right to a fair trial: Young offenders and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(2), 173-188. https://search-informit-com-au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=20090835;res=AGISPT
4. Corr, M. (2014). Young people’s offending careers and criminal justice contact: a case for social justice. Youth Justice, 14(3), 255-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473225414549695
5. Cunneen, C., Goldson, B., & Russell, S. (2016). Juvenile justice, young people and human rights in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(2), 173-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2016.12036067
6. Day, A., Howells, K., & Rickwood, D. (2004). Current trends in the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 2004(284), 1-6. https://search-proquest-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/189464510/fulltext/64CDB4C56D0E44A9PQ/1?accountid=13380
7. Dwyer, A. (2017). Embodying youthful vulnerabilities and policing public spaces. In N. Asquith, I. Bartkowiak-Theron, & K. Roberts (Eds.), Policing encounters with vulnerability (pp. 47-69). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan
8. Farrell, J. (2009). All the right moves? Police ‘move-on powers in Victoria. Alternative Law Journal, 34(1), 21-26. https://search-informit-com-au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=20092788;res=AGISPT

Abstract

“Crime and bad lives are the measures of a State’s failure, all crime, in the end, is the crime of the community”, H.G. Wells. In today’s society, juvenile delinquency is at an all-time high. Juvenile delinquency refers to antisocial and criminal behavior committed by a person under the age of 18. A juvenile is an underage person who commits a crime that is based on their behavior. The behavior of the juvenile is often wild, rough, and careless. Being that they are young, juveniles do not receive the same punishment as their adult counterparts. Juvenile commit crimes due to a lack of parental control and influences from their environment. Juvenile crimes and classified into two categories: status and delinquent offenses. Status offenses include smoking or using tobacco, drinking or possessing alcohol, running away from home, truancy, and curfew. Delinquent offenses are violations of legal statutes that would apply to adults. These offenses include rape, murder, armed robbery, aggravated and simple assault, burglary, theft, arson, criminal mischief, and others. This paper describes the effects parental involvement, educational and mental health services have on juveniles who enter the correctional system. A comparison of China, South Africa, and the United States juvenile justice systems is discussed and what programs are offered in the respective countries, and if they are effective.

Introduction

A major challenge for correctional programs is that rehabilitation and educational services may not be a priority. Most legal systems have specific procedures for dealing with juveniles, such as juvenile detention centers and courts. Regarding juvenile court, the purpose is to rehabilitate the juveniles. Instead of punishing youth, the juvenile court is designed to provide social and mental health services along with educational services. It is designed for youth under the premise that young people have a better chance at rehabilitation. Although the system may be helping juveniles, it is highly questionable whether the detainment of young people and the programs offered helps rehabilitate them. The active involvement of parents during the youth’s experience with the juvenile justice system is also a crucial aspect. When parents are involved and are aware of the issues the youth may be facing, youth have a better chance of leaving detention and becoming productive members of society. Youth who are released from incarceration are extremely vulnerable to patterns of recidivism due to lack of family support, poverty, and victimization. Implementation of more educational programs and treatment services will benefit youth and reduce juvenile recidivism.

China

Juvenile delinquency is one of the most serious social issues in Hong Kong (Heng, p. 50). Mao Zeng compared deviant behavior to an illness and emphasized a rehabilitative approach (Terrill, p. 558). In China, juvenile delinquents are classified as people from age 14 to 25 and juvenile criminals, age 18 to 25 (Terrill, p. 561). In 1998, the Rehabilitation Division was created and formulated strategies for the long-term development of rehabilitation services for juveniles. These programs helped juveniles improve their interpersonal skills and restore self-confidence through acquiring skills to secure jobs. The Rehabilitation Division is comprised of five units:

1. Rehabilitation Unit (Assessment and Program);
2. Education Unit;
3. Vocational Training Unit;
4. Psychological Services Section;
5. Rehabilitation Unit (Supervision).

In the Education Unit, Hong Kong has adopted a mainstream education approach by using the Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau’s (EMB) special school model to set up programs. Remedial classes are also offered to help juveniles with learning disabilities. Vocational training has a variety of technical and business courses that juveniles can participate in. Psychological services are provided for juveniles to help them improve their general mental health and adjust to being incarcerated. The Offending Behavior Program, (OBP), helps juveniles develop pro-social values and attitudes and acquire appropriate social skills to replace offending behavior. There are also programs for drug addicts and juveniles can undergo treatment for two to 12 months. The program focuses on discipline and outdoor activity. Families are encouraged to participate in the program Inmate-Parent. In this program, families can talk and learn how to become more involved in their children’s rehabilitation process (Heng, p. 54). During the rehabilitation process, staff members work with the juvenile and their families for successful reentry into the community. Some juveniles may be placed in halfway houses and may leave on weekends or holidays to facilitate the juvenile’s social reintegration. China also implements informal strategies to reduce the number of juveniles being sent to juvenile correctional facilities. One of the strategies is bang-jiao. Bang-jiao is used to prevent delinquent behavior. The goal is to assist and guide a juvenile and their family to prevent the juvenile from committing future crimes (Terrill, p. 562).

South Africa

A juvenile is defined as anyone under the age of 18. Rights for juveniles include access to social services, protection from neglect and abuse, alternative care when removed from the family, access to legal counsel, and not to be detained unless it is the last resort (Terrill, p. 351). Due to the high prevalence of violence, juveniles are at risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator. Regarding reducing juvenile recidivism, attention on the family, schools, and community needs to be addressed. The family is a source of violence especially for young boys who experience physical abuse. Children are also exposed to gang violence and become involved by the age of 11. Alcohol and drug usage in the family are abused in the family and some children may have issues related to fetal alcohol syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder due to maternal prenatal use of tobacco, cocaine, and methamphetamines (Terrill, p. 356). According to Ntshangase, risk factors within society that have the likelihood of leading to juvenile delinquency, are family structure, poverty, the economy, population growth, and racism (p. 15). The juvenile justice system in South Africa uses diversion as a component in reducing juvenile recidivism. Diversion programs for juveniles include; life‐skills, peer/youth mentoring, wilderness therapy, skills training/educational or entrepreneurship programs, therapeutic programs, oral/written apologies, community service or multi‐modal programs, victim-offender mediation, and family group counseling (Cooper, p. 69-70).

United States

Juvenile criminal activity continues to be a problem in the United States and causes a financial burden to society and an impact on quality of life. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that juvenile offenders accounted for 15% of violent and 30% of property crime in 2002 (Tennyson, p. 1). In order to reduce juvenile recidivism, intervention programs such as individual therapy, family therapy, parent training, group treatment, drug treatment, restitution, correctional programs, and multisystemic therapies. Parent training is a therapeutic technique designed to impact parental discipline styles. Inconsistent parenting, harsh discipline, inadequate supervision, and poor boundaries are all risk factors related to juvenile delinquency. Parent-training programs are aimed at assisting parents how to positively reinforce adolescents’ prosocial behavior (Tennyson, p. 8). Interventions in addressing parental skills have a direct impact on reducing juvenile recidivism. Behavior Modification and Cognitive Based treatments have also resulted in reduced juvenile recidivism. Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, conducted a study that showed a 30% reduction rate in recidivism over untreated groups. The results also showed that cognitive-behavioral therapy programs were more effective in reducing recidivism than behavioral programs (Tennyson, p. 10). Family therapy interventions are aimed at influencing familial dynamics as a means of addressing criminal behavior in adolescents. Studies have shown that having a delinquent sibling increases the likelihood of being convicted for a violent offense. Adolescents who experience abuse, neglect, and harsh parental discipline also increases the likelihood of criminal behavior. Functional Family Therapy includes concepts based on systems theory and attempts to decrease negative behavior. Brief strategic family therapy focuses on improving relationships within the youth’s family. One-person family therapy is based on the idea that a change in one family member will lead to corresponding changes in other family members and aims to modify behavior. Multisystemic therapy (MST) is aimed at decreasing delinquent behavior in youth through both community and home-based interventions. MST targets the youth as well as their family, peer group, school, and community (Tennyson, pp. 11-13). The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) along with the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) have developed a mental health unit model for juveniles at the Highland Residential Center. The unit is designed to meet the needs of youth who have chronic and serious emotional disturbances (Johnson, p. 116). Substance abuse services are also offered. The most effective prevention model includes treatment services, prevention education, cognitive restructuring services and programs, and independent life skills (Johnson, p. 118). The most cost-effective way to address at-risk populations is to prevent them from occurring in the first place.

Problem Statement

The importance of having educational programs, mental health treatment services, and parental involvement will reduce juvenile recidivism. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, recidivism is defined as the repetition of criminal behavior (Bostic, 2014). In the criminal justice system, it is important to not treat children like adults. The frontal lobe of the human brain is not fully developed until young adulthood, which controls decision-making functions. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), teenagers are more likely than adults to be impulsive, engage in risky or dangerous behavior, and get into accidents (Point Park University, 2019). Children may not always understand the consequences of their actions and if provided with the right intervention, juvenile offenders can be successfully rehabilitated and will not commit criminal acts in adulthood. By having these three factors included in the treatment of juvenile offenders, juveniles will be less likely to continue to commit crimes and become successful in adulthood.

Parental Involvement

Parental involvement in child services has been implicated as a necessary element to facilitate positive treatment outcomes in the mental health, education, and child welfare sectors (Burke et al. 2014). Research in best practices for prevention, intervention, and aftercare services for juveniles calls for the participation of, education of, and supports for biological parents, surrogates, or guardians to ensure that families are engaged in the process (National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, p. 1). Family involvement engages the family in decision-making. Consistent involvement can help the youth by reducing anxiety, reinforcing the importance of treatment, proper use of medication, and it helps increase the chance of a smooth transition home once the juvenile is released from the juvenile justice system. Families can also benefit from being more involved with their youth. They are aware of where this child is and what is happening to them, understand the process and expectations of the juvenile justice system so they can make more informed decisions, and feeling valued for the information they can share about their children such as strengths and needs, diagnostic, treatment, medication history, patterns of behavior, and educational background and status (National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, pp 2-3). Family support increases the likelihood of successful reentry by acting as a protective factor against recidivism amount youth. Social support creates positive social bonds to the family and can act as a buffer against traumatic and stressful events such as being detained.

Educational Programs

Most of the youth who enter the juvenile justice system have intense educational needs. Large numbers of incarcerated juveniles are marginally literate or illiterate and have experienced school failure and retention. Helping youth obtain educational skills is one of the most effective approaches in the prevention of delinquency and recidivism. Higher levels of literacy are associated with lower rates of juvenile delinquency, re-arrest, and recidivism. According to Project READ, most incarcerated youth lag two or more years behind their peers in basic academic skills and have higher rates of grade retention, absenteeism, and suspension or expulsion. A national study found that more than one-third of youth incarcerated at the median age of 15.5 read below the 4th-grade level (The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice). Although it has not been proven that school factors cause delinquency, most researchers concur that schooling can contribute to the production of delinquent behavior. Studies have found negative associations between school performances, such as grades and test scores, and delinquency. Most delinquents have a record of poor achievement and truancy. Youth who are academically successful are less likely to be involved in delinquency (Steiger et al., p 1).

Mental Health Services

The juvenile justice system is currently faced with the task of providing mental health assessments and treatment services for its youth. The juvenile justice system has been emphasized to serve the needs and rights of children. The prevalence rate of youth with mental health disorders within the juvenile justice system is found to be higher than the general population of adolescents. Approximately 50 to 75 percent of the 2 million youth encountering the juvenile justice system meet the criteria for a mental health disorder. The high prevalence of mental health disorders within the juvenile justice system does not necessitate a need for treatment, but a need for different levels of mental care with treatment options. It has been noted that the most common and effective treatments include professional clinical care, psychopharmacology, and structuring of an environment to protect youth as well as reduce stress while in crisis. Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions (CBT) have been proven to reduce future delinquency with youth who display depression and anxiety disorders. CBT teaches youth awareness of social cues and promotes delaying, problem-solving, and nonaggressive responding strategies. CBT has been used to address issues such as interpersonal, problem solving, anger management, and social skills in individual and group treatment (Underwood and Washington, pp. 2-4).

Method and Design

Juvenile recidivism is defined in three categories: youth who are adjudicated for new offenses while in custody, youth supervised in the community who have a subsequent arrest or adjudication/conviction while on supervision, and youth discharged from the juvenile court jurisdiction and then have a subsequent arrest, adjudication or conviction (Crime and Justice Institute, p. 1). The term juvenile can have several different meanings. Juveniles are individuals who are emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually immature. Prevention is a broadly defined term and can have different meanings as well. The meaning of what prevention is and what it consists of will need to be defined. For the purpose of this study, prevention will be defined as:

“A process of an intervention designed to alter the circumstances associated with problems behaviors. Effective prevention practices decrease problem behaviors and subsequent difficulties children and adolescents experience in school and in the community. Prevention includes a wide range of activities that address the needs of an equally wide range of children and youth” (National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice).

In this proposed study, an appropriate method of measuring juvenile recidivism is to conduct a case study on juveniles in the correctional system using a qualitative research technique. The first group would consist of juveniles who first enter into the juvenile correctional system and the second group would consist of juveniles that have been released back into the community. Recidivism cannot accurately be measured by using arrest data because not all crime is discovered. In this study, recidivism will be measured by interviewing juvenile offenders to determine whether they have committed a crime since entering or exiting a program, analyzing officially recorded criminal justice events such as arrests and convictions, charting a new offense over an elapsed time frame, and measuring the time elapsed until the next crime. Demographics, behavioral, familial, and school-related variables will be also examined and taken into consideration. The interview will consist of questions asking the juvenile and their families about their family history, mental health history, substance abuse history, educational history, criminal history, and peer relations. From the study, the research will show how effective parental involvement, educational program, and mental health services will help reduce recidivism rates among juveniles. If juveniles are provided with the appropriate treatment plan while incarcerated, they will become successful and refrain from committing future crimes. Preventing future re-offending and protecting public safety is a goal shared by all agencies in the juvenile justice system.

Significance and Conclusion

The significance of this study will be how that juveniles can be rehabilitated if they are treated properly. As noted earlier in the paper, the brain is not fully developed until the early 20s. If juveniles are provided with the correct resources and shown some type of compassion, their behavior will most likely change. Most juveniles in the juvenile correctional system come from broken homes, where either one or both of the parents may be absent. Youth are being raised by grandparents or relatives who cannot control the mental health effects these youth are facing. By having more mental health and educational programs with the juvenile correctional system, it will prove that juveniles do deserve a second chance and should be locked away. It has also been shown how the incarceration of juveniles has lasting effects on their mental health. After being released, some juveniles do not know how to adjust back into society and lack the necessary independent living skills to be successful. When juveniles recidivate, it is due to the lack of parental control/support, lack of education to continue in school, and negative environments that encourage criminal behavior. Throughout the world, each country has a different view on what a juvenile is considered. A national definition on who is considered a juvenile should be accepted and countries such as the United States and South Africa should take into consideration the juvenile correctional procedures in China. In China, a juvenile delinquent and juvenile criminal is someone under the age of 25. China also takes into consideration the use of the family and the youth’s community in aiding the juvenile. But how do you help a juvenile who may live in a poor community or experience violence on a daily basis like in South Africa? This study will help to better understand why juveniles continue to commit more crimes and what can be done to keep them from committing more crimes. As juvenile delinquency continues to increase, national crime rates and juvenile prison populations will inflate. If juveniles who continue to commit crimes lack school initiative and family support, the standard of living with also be lower.

In all of the 50 states that comprise the United States of America, youths under the age of 18 can be tried in an adult criminal court system through several types of juvenile transfer laws. In Colorado, adolescence as young as 12 years old can be adjudicated as adults, as a part of the options given by a juvenile court judge. Once young people are removed from the juvenile system, they are more likely to be convicted and characteristically receive harsher verdicts than their peers who remain in the juvenile court system and are charged with similar crimes. This practice destabilizes the purpose of the juvenile court system and chases punishment rather than the needed intent of rehabilitation. Incarcerating our teenagers leaves them more likely to be exposed to extreme forms of violence, fall victim to different forms of abuse, and suffer from mental illness. Additionally, laws that permit our children in their formative years to be tried as adults replicate and strengthen the racial inequalities that depict the justice system in the United States. Although juveniles should be held accountable for their actions, and liable for the crime, the juvenile justice system should be designed to regulate the consequences. Therefore, teenagers should not be arbitrated in the same courts as adults.

Colorado is one of only 4 states in which district attorneys have such a vast amount of discretion, to indict offenders who are 14 to 16 years old in adult court, deprived of a legal hearing on the matter, in a procedure branded ‘direct file.’ In the majority of those cases, the adolescents never stand before a judge and a jury. Statistics show that 95 percent of the direct file cases have a plea bargain as the outcome. A staggering 1,800 direct file cases have been filed in Colorado between 1999 and 2010, and roughly 85% of these instances comprise lower to middle-class felonies. Consequently, only 5 percent were essentially first-degree murder cases. The direct file was envisioned to be used in only the most serious cases, however, it is frequently employed in lower felony cases towards teenagers who have had no previous criminal record, and disproportionately in situations concerning respondents of color. An inquiry conducted by the Colorado Independent discovered that an uneven percentage of the young people tried as adults are ethnic minority groups. This number turns out to be even more disproportionate when you look at the small percentage of ethnic groups that comprise Colorado’s population.

Adolescence of color is overrepresented at each phase of the juvenile court system. Widespread racial biases are apparent in the way that minors of color are disciplined, patrolled, detained, sentenced, and imprisoned. These disproportions persevere even after monitoring the variables like offense brutality and whether or not there is a prior criminal record. Youth of color have a higher probability of being tried as adults vs Caucasian youths, even after being charged with comparable crimes. Presently, an assessed 250,000 youths are sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year in the United States. On any given day, 10,000 adolescence are detained or imprisoned in adult jails and prisons. Studies prove that teenagers apprehended and placed in adult facilities are thirty-six times more likely to commit suicide and are at the highest risk of sexual victimization.

Those who oppose the notion that minors should only be sent to juvenile court have claimed that if minors who commit vicious misconduct were tried as adults and penalized as such, the number of violent crimes committed by adolescence would lessen. Subsequently, they make the claim that in the future, the number of vehement crimes overall would decline, as harder penalties and sentences would be set in place to keep violent offenders in prison for lengthier sentences. ‘Grown enough to commit a crime, adult enough to do time,” is a shared expression utilized by individuals, when they streamline the subject of young criminals being treated to the adult version of our justice system. However, the Juvenile Court system structure is designed to shield the youths from themselves. If it cannot achieve this goal, then all confidence is lost.

Trying adolescents as adults represents a double standard. Impartiality is a benefit that every human being pursues in different situations and one that is protected by the constitution of the United States. The law applies reason and deliberation in developing protocols that guide minors. It contends that persons under the age of eighteen years old are immature, negligent, and extremely vulnerable to manipulation. Furthermore, psychologists in pact support the belief that adolescent’s mental development is not at its highest, hence they do not always fully grasp right and wrong. In this respect, the government forbids adolescents from adult responsibilities such as voting, joining the military, smoking, and drinking. Thus, believing that they are not capable of the above actions, and then holding them to the ideals of adults is prejudicial, as it is very distinct that juveniles are not adults, and also contravenes the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Rendering to this Amendment, every single individual is protected against excessive bail and fines and from receiving cruel and unusual punishment. An example was the 2012 Miller v. Alabama case, where the Supreme Court pronounced that the sentencing of life without parole for adolescents seventeen and below, was unconstitutional (Supreme Court, 2012). Being that the Supreme Court is the uppermost court that infers the law, charging minors as adults results in noncompliance with the Constitution, which in itself is a criminal offense.

Prosecution of juveniles as adults signify a failure in our justice system. This system subjectifies the youngest and the less advantaged members of society to a series of violence and destruction deprived of rehabilitation and compassion. Nonetheless, due to the extreme nature of the criminalities committed, the system chooses otherwise. Placing juveniles in adult courts is wrong, as not only does it infringe on their constitutional rights, it introduces them to all methods of harm and exploitation while failing to caution society on the ensuing human beings the progression produces and generates a more noteworthy problem of recidivism. Albeit, teenagers should on no occasion go before the adult justice system.

A problem that has traversed its way through our society, multiple times reaching the Supreme Court. A court that hears around 100 cases a year has chosen to hear multiple cases regarding this matter. The matter of whether or not children should be tried in court as a child or as an adult. Many cases have ended up trying kids as adults and many have not. What is the best choice for the offender and the victim of the crime? Well, the best option would be to try kids solely as children and not as adults because of their lack of maturity and willpower, and lack of a guiding figure or punishment.

Teenagers are often known to make rash decisions and get into more trouble than when they were younger. You might ask, “why is this so?” Well as it turns out teenagers actually lose some of their decision-making skills when they enter the teenage age range. One of the studies that show this is a study done by Paul Thompson, who is an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine which says “Brain cells and connections are only being lost in the areas controlling impulses, risk-taking, and self-control.” This shows us that since the brain cells are being lost that means all of these areas are losing effectiveness, in turn, the teens will have a loss in self-control and impulses which would cause teens to make rash decisions which would lead to possible issues. Someone might say that this only happens to some teens, which are the kids that get into trouble but as it turns out the study also says that “the loss was like a wildfire, and you could see it in every teen.”

The author is clearly showing us that it happens to every teen. Therefore all teens are more inclined to make rash and abrupt decisions that would get them in trouble. Others might also say that this doesn’t make up the fact that the child committed a crime which is true. The punishment of the crime is probably the most important part. A large number of kids tend to commit large crimes only after they have committed smaller and smaller crimes. Children aren’t going to go from anything to murder. This is where punishment would come in. Punishing the child is an important lesson and is used as a method of teaching so that the child won’t do it again and understands the consequences of their actions. This is why lots of the children that do not have a strong parental role in their life tend to end up worse.

This leads to the other reason kids should be tried as children which are mostly children that are getting into trouble tend to be missing a supporting fraternal or maternal role in their family. According to Robert Rector of the heritage foundation, “children without a father are more than twice as likely to be arrested for juvenile crime.” This conveys that kids that when a kid is missing such a large role model in life then they don’t have anything to base how they should act on. Without this extremely important role, the cause is obvious. In most families the father is the person that delivers punishment to the child, so when the father is gone the kids don’t learn from the mistakes they make which therefore leaves the child with a lack of knowledge when it comes to right and wrong. According to Chuck Smith, a Kansas State University child development expert says that “as a child grows and matures, the mother – whether biological or a stepmother – plays an important role in her child’s development, character and attitudes.”

Convictions, careless mistakes, and just a little bit of ̈fun ̈. These are what many teens ages 13-17 go through. Sometimes teens are with their friends and they want to fit in or to be the cool guy they end up committing a crime. Many teens go through difficult times, so they need guidance and help so they can stay out of trouble.

Some of the crimes include the vandalism of property, gun violence, cyberbullying, illegal use of drugs, drunk driving, and in some states running away from home. The big word that we are going to focus on is the word influence. This word is everything during teen years. If a teen has a parent that is addicted to drugs or alcohol then the teen is at a higher risk of becoming addicted themselves. Another thing is that if the teens friends are doing inappropriate things such as drugs and alcohol then the teen is more likely than not going to be doing these things. Teens that are not cared for properly are many times captured by the evils of society. Drugs and alcohol are the main leaders of this evil. They cause young teenagers with bright futures to have to live life behind bars and not get to live a nice normal life. When behind bars juveniles are opened to real life and are mistreated way too young. They get cold-hearted and forget what it means to really live freely. When teens commit crimes over half of the time it is without knowing how much trouble they would get into when doing the act of crime. Other times more than likely they are with bad friends who have convinced them to do something that the young ignorant teen has decided to do.

We should educate and handle our youths better in and outside of the classroom. Teachers can only do so much to where the parents have a great amount of control over the teen. We as a whole should do something about these teens. The amount of juveniles crimes increases tremendously over the years. And when the numbers do go down it isn’t for very long. As a community or city, we should make sure there are more plants are that the place doesn’t look like it is in ruins because this can have an effect on our youth. Turning the kind-hearted future of America into cold-blooded killers. Let’s make a difference because every second matter. Adolescent wrongdoing is one of the country’s atrocious issues. Worry about it is generally shared by bureaucratic, state, and nearby government authorities and by people in general. This is an ongoing issue, this worry has developed through time and is getting worse. Adolescent viciousness started in the mid-1980s and topped in the mid-1990s. Although adolescent wrongdoing rates seem to have fallen since the mid-1990s, this lessening has not reduced the worry. Numerous states started taking a harder authoritative position toward adolescents in the late 1970s and mid-1980s, a period during which adolescent wrongdoing rates were steady or falling somewhat, and government reformers were optimistic and so they reduced correctional measures. A portion of the conflict between the government plan and what was occurring in the states around then may have been brought about by huge changes in legitimate methods that made adolescent court forms increasingly numerous – however not indistinguishable – to those in criminal court. The fundamental reaction to the latest spike in vicious adolescent wrongdoing has been sanctioning of laws that further obscure differentiations between adolescent courts and grown-up courts. States kept on toughening their adolescent wrongdoing laws as of the late 1900s, making condemning progressively reformatory, growing admissible exchanges to criminal (grown-up) court, or getting rid of a portion of the privacy protections of adolescent court.

Numerous such changes were established after the adolescent savage wrongdoing rate had just started to fall. The rehabilitative model typified in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, concentrating on the requirements of the youthful guilty party, has lost perpetually ground in the course of recent years to correctional models that emphasize for the most part on the offense submitted. Government arrangements on adolescent wrongdoing must regularly battle with the suitable equalization of worry over the sound advancement of youngsters and teenagers who disregard the law and an open want to rebuff hoodlums. This strain among restoration and discipline when managing kids and youths who perpetrate violations brings about a conflicted direction toward youthful wrongdoers. Criminal acts must be stifled, denounced, and rebuffed. By the by, kids and youths who carry out criminal acts must be taught and bolstered in a development procedure that should be the goal of government arrangement for every youngster, including youthful crime committers. What I strongly believe we should do about our youth is educate or punish them in a more productive way. I say this because we punish or teens either too harshly or too soft. We either put them down too hard to a point where they have raged stored up inside or were too soft and they think they can just walk all over anyone.

Introduction

This essay will present and analyze a variety of academic sources to oppose the statement that criminal law is fair and effective in addressing crime, punishing offenders, and maintaining social cohesion. The focus group of this essay will be juvenile offenders, which in Queensland means an offender between the ages of 10 and 16 (Richards, 2011). According to the rule of law, all defendants should be treated with the presumption of innocence, which is not often met when juveniles are involved. This leads to the violation of the right to a fair trial, an element of due process. Overall, this lack of equal treatment of juvenile offenders leads to increased contact with the criminal justice system (CJS) as well as high recidivism rates, and hence, failure to rehabilitate them back into the community.

The rule of law refers to the concept that all people are equal in the eyes of the law and that every man, whatever his rank or condition, is bound by the law (White & Perrone, 1997; Bingham, 2010). One aspect of the rule of law is the presumption of innocence, which is rarely upheld in the case of juvenile offenders.

Offenders aged 15-19 are the most likely age group to be processed by police, due to their neurobiology and their tendency to commit crimes that are public and unplanned (Richards, 2011; Riddhi & Bartels, 2018). Hence, juveniles are commonly considered a vulnerable group simply due to their age; however, many juveniles have additional forms of vulnerability that can disadvantage them during interactions with police. These vulnerabilities can be innate, such as intellectual disabilities, sexuality, or race, or can be caused by individual circumstances, such as homelessness (Dwyer, 2017).

Historically, police have specifically targeted young people in an attempt to control ‘larrikinism’, which generally refers to obscene language and offensive behavior (Finnane, 1987). Due to this discriminatory policing, young people are often subject to excessive and invasive searches, name and address checks, and move-on orders (Cunneen, Goldson, & Russell, 2016). Move-on orders, which allow police to effect the removal of any person from a public space, are often used even when there is no indication of a breach of peace occurring (Farrell, 2009). In accordance with the rule of law, innocence should be presumed, and hence, police should not be able to exercise this discretionary power over vulnerable young people who have displayed no intentions to commit a crime.

Additionally, paperless arrest laws in Queensland allow police to arrest and detain a person for up to four hours for committing, or being about to commit, a minor offense, such as loitering (Cunneen et al., 2016). This detainment without charge is one clear example of a violation of the presumption of innocence. According to Cunneen et al. (2016), it also puts young people at the risk of arbitrary detention. A similar example is the introduction of alcohol prohibition orders, which are often imposed on juveniles by police without judicial oversight, denying the recipient the chance to conduct a defense (Cunneen et al., 2016).

As shown, the current legislation in Queensland gives police power to target and discriminate against juvenile offenders. Move-on orders, paperless arrest laws, and alcohol prohibition orders are just some of the avenues for police to unfairly apprehend young people, unnecessarily bringing them into contact with the CJS. In all these cases, the rule of law is not applied fairly as the presumption of innocence is not upheld.

The breach of the rule of law in regard to the presumption of innocence eliminates the chance for juvenile offenders to exercise their right to a fair trial. The right to a fair trial is defined as an individual’s right to “have their case heard by a competent and impartial court following a fair and public hearing” (Burnnard, 2008, p.176).

According to Finnane (1987), when a police officer apprehends a juvenile delinquent for a public order offense, chances of successful prosecution of charges are high. Additionally, these chances increase when a magistrate is “in sympathy with a local law and order campaign” (Finnane, 1987, p.95). This is a clear violation of the right to a fair trial, as the magistrate does not administer the law fairly or equally. Additionally, most young people apprehended by police will be convicted, even though it has already been proven that the power of police allows them to target and discriminate against these young people.

Yet another violation of the right to a fair trial is seen in the failure to adapt the court processes to the needs of juvenile offenders by not treating them in an age-appropriate manner. Most young people have difficulty understanding legal proceedings, likely due to the use of complex legal jargon (Burnnard, 2008). This comprehension can be further hindered by limited English proficiency, poor education, fear or anxiety, and mental health disorders or cognitive disabilities (Cunneen et al., 2016). Juvenile offenders have the right to fully participate in legal proceedings, so the only way they can receive a fair trial is if the proceedings are explained plainly and simply and if the trial is conducted in a language understandable to the defendant (Burnnard, 2008).

Additionally, according to Watt, O’Leary, and O’Toole (2017), a fair trial cannot be delivered if the offender themselves is not fit to stand trial. Compared to adults, children under the age of 16 are consistently much more likely to be evaluated as impaired in competence-related abilities, yet many of them are trialed anyway (Watt et al., 2017). This is unfair treatment on behalf of the court, and, in addition to the other evidence presented, clearly shows that juvenile offenders are often deprived of a fair trial.

One of the purposes of criminal law is to rehabilitate offenders back into the community. However, the unequal application of the rule of law and the violation of the right to a fair trial causes more juveniles to come into contact with the CJS than necessary. This has the potential to further marginalize young people, leading them to re-offend (Corr, 2014). According to the Australia Bureau of Statistics (2019), there were 54,064 youth offenders recorded by police between 2016 and 2017, constituting 13% of the total offender population.

Despite rehabilitation programs that are offered by juvenile detention centers, such as social integration programs and substance abuse counseling, 41% of juvenile offenders of a sample of 1500 reoffended, a statistic which rises to 61% for those who had previously been on supervised orders (Day, Howells, & Rickwood, 2004). The reason for this, according to Corr (2014), is that once an individual obtains a criminal record by coming into contact with the CJS, they become ‘resigned’ to an offending lifestyle, seeing resistance as futile. This can be attributed to Becker’s labeling theory, which states that people construct their identities from society’s perceptions of them (Shulman, 2005). Therefore, current rehabilitation programs in detention centers are not efficient in lowering recidivism rates, and the only solution is to divert young people from the CJS in the first place.

Diversion strategies, including community service work, treatment programs, or educational programs, generally result in less reoffending rates than traditional juvenile detention (Wilson & Hoge, 2013). As police are usually the first responders to juvenile crime, they are considered the gatekeepers who determine who enters the CJS and how (Dwyer, 2014: Cunneen et al., 2016). However, they are likely not the most qualified people to deal with vulnerable young people. Police should specifically be trained to deal with juvenile offenders and to recognize youthful vulnerabilities, such as intellectual disorders so that they will be able to refer young people to other services to aid in their diversion from the CJS (Dwyer, 2017). Another option is raising the age of criminal responsibility in Queensland from 10-years-old to 14-years-old, to reduce the likelihood of life-course interaction with the CJS (Cunneen et al., 2016; Riddhi & Bartels, 2018).

In conclusion, it has been evidenced that the rule of law is not applied equally to all, as juvenile offenders are often treated unfairly and processed without the presumption of innocence. Additionally, the due process right of a right to a fair trial is not often met. These both make it difficult for criminal law to successfully fulfill its purpose of rehabilitating juveniles and diverting them from a life of crime. Overall, this shows that criminal law is neither fair nor effective in addressing crime, punishing offenders, and maintaining social cohesion.

References

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Youth Offenders, 2016-17. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4519.0~2016-17~Main%20Features~Youth%20Offenders~4
2. Bingham, T. (2010). The rule of law. London: Allen Lane.
3. Burnnard, A. (2008). The right to a fair trial: Young offenders and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(2), 173-188. https://search-informit-com-au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=20090835;res=AGISPT
4. Corr, M. (2014). Young people’s offending careers and criminal justice contact: a case for social justice. Youth Justice, 14(3), 255-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473225414549695
5. Cunneen, C., Goldson, B., & Russell, S. (2016). Juvenile justice, young people and human rights in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(2), 173-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2016.12036067
6. Day, A., Howells, K., & Rickwood, D. (2004). Current trends in the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 2004(284), 1-6. https://search-proquest-com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/189464510/fulltext/64CDB4C56D0E44A9PQ/1?accountid=13380
7. Dwyer, A. (2017). Embodying youthful vulnerabilities and policing public spaces. In N. Asquith, I. Bartkowiak-Theron, & K. Roberts (Eds.), Policing encounters with vulnerability (pp. 47-69). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan
8. Farrell, J. (2009). All the right moves? Police ‘move-on powers in Victoria. Alternative Law Journal, 34(1), 21-26. https://search-informit-com-au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/fullText;dn=20092788;res=AGISPT

Abstract

“Crime and bad lives are the measures of a State’s failure, all crime, in the end, is the crime of the community”, H.G. Wells. In today’s society, juvenile delinquency is at an all-time high. Juvenile delinquency refers to antisocial and criminal behavior committed by a person under the age of 18. A juvenile is an underage person who commits a crime that is based on their behavior. The behavior of the juvenile is often wild, rough, and careless. Being that they are young, juveniles do not receive the same punishment as their adult counterparts. Juvenile commit crimes due to a lack of parental control and influences from their environment. Juvenile crimes and classified into two categories: status and delinquent offenses. Status offenses include smoking or using tobacco, drinking or possessing alcohol, running away from home, truancy, and curfew. Delinquent offenses are violations of legal statutes that would apply to adults. These offenses include rape, murder, armed robbery, aggravated and simple assault, burglary, theft, arson, criminal mischief, and others. This paper describes the effects parental involvement, educational and mental health services have on juveniles who enter the correctional system. A comparison of China, South Africa, and the United States juvenile justice systems is discussed and what programs are offered in the respective countries, and if they are effective.

Introduction

A major challenge for correctional programs is that rehabilitation and educational services may not be a priority. Most legal systems have specific procedures for dealing with juveniles, such as juvenile detention centers and courts. Regarding juvenile court, the purpose is to rehabilitate the juveniles. Instead of punishing youth, the juvenile court is designed to provide social and mental health services along with educational services. It is designed for youth under the premise that young people have a better chance at rehabilitation. Although the system may be helping juveniles, it is highly questionable whether the detainment of young people and the programs offered helps rehabilitate them. The active involvement of parents during the youth’s experience with the juvenile justice system is also a crucial aspect. When parents are involved and are aware of the issues the youth may be facing, youth have a better chance of leaving detention and becoming productive members of society. Youth who are released from incarceration are extremely vulnerable to patterns of recidivism due to lack of family support, poverty, and victimization. Implementation of more educational programs and treatment services will benefit youth and reduce juvenile recidivism.

China

Juvenile delinquency is one of the most serious social issues in Hong Kong (Heng, p. 50). Mao Zeng compared deviant behavior to an illness and emphasized a rehabilitative approach (Terrill, p. 558). In China, juvenile delinquents are classified as people from age 14 to 25 and juvenile criminals, age 18 to 25 (Terrill, p. 561). In 1998, the Rehabilitation Division was created and formulated strategies for the long-term development of rehabilitation services for juveniles. These programs helped juveniles improve their interpersonal skills and restore self-confidence through acquiring skills to secure jobs. The Rehabilitation Division is comprised of five units:

1. Rehabilitation Unit (Assessment and Program);
2. Education Unit;
3. Vocational Training Unit;
4. Psychological Services Section;
5. Rehabilitation Unit (Supervision).

In the Education Unit, Hong Kong has adopted a mainstream education approach by using the Hong Kong Education and Manpower Bureau’s (EMB) special school model to set up programs. Remedial classes are also offered to help juveniles with learning disabilities. Vocational training has a variety of technical and business courses that juveniles can participate in. Psychological services are provided for juveniles to help them improve their general mental health and adjust to being incarcerated. The Offending Behavior Program, (OBP), helps juveniles develop pro-social values and attitudes and acquire appropriate social skills to replace offending behavior. There are also programs for drug addicts and juveniles can undergo treatment for two to 12 months. The program focuses on discipline and outdoor activity. Families are encouraged to participate in the program Inmate-Parent. In this program, families can talk and learn how to become more involved in their children’s rehabilitation process (Heng, p. 54). During the rehabilitation process, staff members work with the juvenile and their families for successful reentry into the community. Some juveniles may be placed in halfway houses and may leave on weekends or holidays to facilitate the juvenile’s social reintegration. China also implements informal strategies to reduce the number of juveniles being sent to juvenile correctional facilities. One of the strategies is bang-jiao. Bang-jiao is used to prevent delinquent behavior. The goal is to assist and guide a juvenile and their family to prevent the juvenile from committing future crimes (Terrill, p. 562).

South Africa

A juvenile is defined as anyone under the age of 18. Rights for juveniles include access to social services, protection from neglect and abuse, alternative care when removed from the family, access to legal counsel, and not to be detained unless it is the last resort (Terrill, p. 351). Due to the high prevalence of violence, juveniles are at risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator. Regarding reducing juvenile recidivism, attention on the family, schools, and community needs to be addressed. The family is a source of violence especially for young boys who experience physical abuse. Children are also exposed to gang violence and become involved by the age of 11. Alcohol and drug usage in the family are abused in the family and some children may have issues related to fetal alcohol syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder due to maternal prenatal use of tobacco, cocaine, and methamphetamines (Terrill, p. 356). According to Ntshangase, risk factors within society that have the likelihood of leading to juvenile delinquency, are family structure, poverty, the economy, population growth, and racism (p. 15). The juvenile justice system in South Africa uses diversion as a component in reducing juvenile recidivism. Diversion programs for juveniles include; life‐skills, peer/youth mentoring, wilderness therapy, skills training/educational or entrepreneurship programs, therapeutic programs, oral/written apologies, community service or multi‐modal programs, victim-offender mediation, and family group counseling (Cooper, p. 69-70).

United States

Juvenile criminal activity continues to be a problem in the United States and causes a financial burden to society and an impact on quality of life. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that juvenile offenders accounted for 15% of violent and 30% of property crime in 2002 (Tennyson, p. 1). In order to reduce juvenile recidivism, intervention programs such as individual therapy, family therapy, parent training, group treatment, drug treatment, restitution, correctional programs, and multisystemic therapies. Parent training is a therapeutic technique designed to impact parental discipline styles. Inconsistent parenting, harsh discipline, inadequate supervision, and poor boundaries are all risk factors related to juvenile delinquency. Parent-training programs are aimed at assisting parents how to positively reinforce adolescents’ prosocial behavior (Tennyson, p. 8). Interventions in addressing parental skills have a direct impact on reducing juvenile recidivism. Behavior Modification and Cognitive Based treatments have also resulted in reduced juvenile recidivism. Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, conducted a study that showed a 30% reduction rate in recidivism over untreated groups. The results also showed that cognitive-behavioral therapy programs were more effective in reducing recidivism than behavioral programs (Tennyson, p. 10). Family therapy interventions are aimed at influencing familial dynamics as a means of addressing criminal behavior in adolescents. Studies have shown that having a delinquent sibling increases the likelihood of being convicted for a violent offense. Adolescents who experience abuse, neglect, and harsh parental discipline also increases the likelihood of criminal behavior. Functional Family Therapy includes concepts based on systems theory and attempts to decrease negative behavior. Brief strategic family therapy focuses on improving relationships within the youth’s family. One-person family therapy is based on the idea that a change in one family member will lead to corresponding changes in other family members and aims to modify behavior. Multisystemic therapy (MST) is aimed at decreasing delinquent behavior in youth through both community and home-based interventions. MST targets the youth as well as their family, peer group, school, and community (Tennyson, pp. 11-13). The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) along with the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) have developed a mental health unit model for juveniles at the Highland Residential Center. The unit is designed to meet the needs of youth who have chronic and serious emotional disturbances (Johnson, p. 116). Substance abuse services are also offered. The most effective prevention model includes treatment services, prevention education, cognitive restructuring services and programs, and independent life skills (Johnson, p. 118). The most cost-effective way to address at-risk populations is to prevent them from occurring in the first place.

Problem Statement

The importance of having educational programs, mental health treatment services, and parental involvement will reduce juvenile recidivism. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, recidivism is defined as the repetition of criminal behavior (Bostic, 2014). In the criminal justice system, it is important to not treat children like adults. The frontal lobe of the human brain is not fully developed until young adulthood, which controls decision-making functions. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), teenagers are more likely than adults to be impulsive, engage in risky or dangerous behavior, and get into accidents (Point Park University, 2019). Children may not always understand the consequences of their actions and if provided with the right intervention, juvenile offenders can be successfully rehabilitated and will not commit criminal acts in adulthood. By having these three factors included in the treatment of juvenile offenders, juveniles will be less likely to continue to commit crimes and become successful in adulthood.

Parental Involvement

Parental involvement in child services has been implicated as a necessary element to facilitate positive treatment outcomes in the mental health, education, and child welfare sectors (Burke et al. 2014). Research in best practices for prevention, intervention, and aftercare services for juveniles calls for the participation of, education of, and supports for biological parents, surrogates, or guardians to ensure that families are engaged in the process (National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, p. 1). Family involvement engages the family in decision-making. Consistent involvement can help the youth by reducing anxiety, reinforcing the importance of treatment, proper use of medication, and it helps increase the chance of a smooth transition home once the juvenile is released from the juvenile justice system. Families can also benefit from being more involved with their youth. They are aware of where this child is and what is happening to them, understand the process and expectations of the juvenile justice system so they can make more informed decisions, and feeling valued for the information they can share about their children such as strengths and needs, diagnostic, treatment, medication history, patterns of behavior, and educational background and status (National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, pp 2-3). Family support increases the likelihood of successful reentry by acting as a protective factor against recidivism amount youth. Social support creates positive social bonds to the family and can act as a buffer against traumatic and stressful events such as being detained.

Educational Programs

Most of the youth who enter the juvenile justice system have intense educational needs. Large numbers of incarcerated juveniles are marginally literate or illiterate and have experienced school failure and retention. Helping youth obtain educational skills is one of the most effective approaches in the prevention of delinquency and recidivism. Higher levels of literacy are associated with lower rates of juvenile delinquency, re-arrest, and recidivism. According to Project READ, most incarcerated youth lag two or more years behind their peers in basic academic skills and have higher rates of grade retention, absenteeism, and suspension or expulsion. A national study found that more than one-third of youth incarcerated at the median age of 15.5 read below the 4th-grade level (The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice). Although it has not been proven that school factors cause delinquency, most researchers concur that schooling can contribute to the production of delinquent behavior. Studies have found negative associations between school performances, such as grades and test scores, and delinquency. Most delinquents have a record of poor achievement and truancy. Youth who are academically successful are less likely to be involved in delinquency (Steiger et al., p 1).

Mental Health Services

The juvenile justice system is currently faced with the task of providing mental health assessments and treatment services for its youth. The juvenile justice system has been emphasized to serve the needs and rights of children. The prevalence rate of youth with mental health disorders within the juvenile justice system is found to be higher than the general population of adolescents. Approximately 50 to 75 percent of the 2 million youth encountering the juvenile justice system meet the criteria for a mental health disorder. The high prevalence of mental health disorders within the juvenile justice system does not necessitate a need for treatment, but a need for different levels of mental care with treatment options. It has been noted that the most common and effective treatments include professional clinical care, psychopharmacology, and structuring of an environment to protect youth as well as reduce stress while in crisis. Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions (CBT) have been proven to reduce future delinquency with youth who display depression and anxiety disorders. CBT teaches youth awareness of social cues and promotes delaying, problem-solving, and nonaggressive responding strategies. CBT has been used to address issues such as interpersonal, problem solving, anger management, and social skills in individual and group treatment (Underwood and Washington, pp. 2-4).

Method and Design

Juvenile recidivism is defined in three categories: youth who are adjudicated for new offenses while in custody, youth supervised in the community who have a subsequent arrest or adjudication/conviction while on supervision, and youth discharged from the juvenile court jurisdiction and then have a subsequent arrest, adjudication or conviction (Crime and Justice Institute, p. 1). The term juvenile can have several different meanings. Juveniles are individuals who are emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually immature. Prevention is a broadly defined term and can have different meanings as well. The meaning of what prevention is and what it consists of will need to be defined. For the purpose of this study, prevention will be defined as:

“A process of an intervention designed to alter the circumstances associated with problems behaviors. Effective prevention practices decrease problem behaviors and subsequent difficulties children and adolescents experience in school and in the community. Prevention includes a wide range of activities that address the needs of an equally wide range of children and youth” (National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice).

In this proposed study, an appropriate method of measuring juvenile recidivism is to conduct a case study on juveniles in the correctional system using a qualitative research technique. The first group would consist of juveniles who first enter into the juvenile correctional system and the second group would consist of juveniles that have been released back into the community. Recidivism cannot accurately be measured by using arrest data because not all crime is discovered. In this study, recidivism will be measured by interviewing juvenile offenders to determine whether they have committed a crime since entering or exiting a program, analyzing officially recorded criminal justice events such as arrests and convictions, charting a new offense over an elapsed time frame, and measuring the time elapsed until the next crime. Demographics, behavioral, familial, and school-related variables will be also examined and taken into consideration. The interview will consist of questions asking the juvenile and their families about their family history, mental health history, substance abuse history, educational history, criminal history, and peer relations. From the study, the research will show how effective parental involvement, educational program, and mental health services will help reduce recidivism rates among juveniles. If juveniles are provided with the appropriate treatment plan while incarcerated, they will become successful and refrain from committing future crimes. Preventing future re-offending and protecting public safety is a goal shared by all agencies in the juvenile justice system.

Significance and Conclusion

The significance of this study will be how that juveniles can be rehabilitated if they are treated properly. As noted earlier in the paper, the brain is not fully developed until the early 20s. If juveniles are provided with the correct resources and shown some type of compassion, their behavior will most likely change. Most juveniles in the juvenile correctional system come from broken homes, where either one or both of the parents may be absent. Youth are being raised by grandparents or relatives who cannot control the mental health effects these youth are facing. By having more mental health and educational programs with the juvenile correctional system, it will prove that juveniles do deserve a second chance and should be locked away. It has also been shown how the incarceration of juveniles has lasting effects on their mental health. After being released, some juveniles do not know how to adjust back into society and lack the necessary independent living skills to be successful. When juveniles recidivate, it is due to the lack of parental control/support, lack of education to continue in school, and negative environments that encourage criminal behavior. Throughout the world, each country has a different view on what a juvenile is considered. A national definition on who is considered a juvenile should be accepted and countries such as the United States and South Africa should take into consideration the juvenile correctional procedures in China. In China, a juvenile delinquent and juvenile criminal is someone under the age of 25. China also takes into consideration the use of the family and the youth’s community in aiding the juvenile. But how do you help a juvenile who may live in a poor community or experience violence on a daily basis like in South Africa? This study will help to better understand why juveniles continue to commit more crimes and what can be done to keep them from committing more crimes. As juvenile delinquency continues to increase, national crime rates and juvenile prison populations will inflate. If juveniles who continue to commit crimes lack school initiative and family support, the standard of living with also be lower.

In all of the 50 states that comprise the United States of America, youths under the age of 18 can be tried in an adult criminal court system through several types of juvenile transfer laws. In Colorado, adolescence as young as 12 years old can be adjudicated as adults, as a part of the options given by a juvenile court judge. Once young people are removed from the juvenile system, they are more likely to be convicted and characteristically receive harsher verdicts than their peers who remain in the juvenile court system and are charged with similar crimes. This practice destabilizes the purpose of the juvenile court system and chases punishment rather than the needed intent of rehabilitation. Incarcerating our teenagers leaves them more likely to be exposed to extreme forms of violence, fall victim to different forms of abuse, and suffer from mental illness. Additionally, laws that permit our children in their formative years to be tried as adults replicate and strengthen the racial inequalities that depict the justice system in the United States. Although juveniles should be held accountable for their actions, and liable for the crime, the juvenile justice system should be designed to regulate the consequences. Therefore, teenagers should not be arbitrated in the same courts as adults.

Colorado is one of only 4 states in which district attorneys have such a vast amount of discretion, to indict offenders who are 14 to 16 years old in adult court, deprived of a legal hearing on the matter, in a procedure branded ‘direct file.’ In the majority of those cases, the adolescents never stand before a judge and a jury. Statistics show that 95 percent of the direct file cases have a plea bargain as the outcome. A staggering 1,800 direct file cases have been filed in Colorado between 1999 and 2010, and roughly 85% of these instances comprise lower to middle-class felonies. Consequently, only 5 percent were essentially first-degree murder cases. The direct file was envisioned to be used in only the most serious cases, however, it is frequently employed in lower felony cases towards teenagers who have had no previous criminal record, and disproportionately in situations concerning respondents of color. An inquiry conducted by the Colorado Independent discovered that an uneven percentage of the young people tried as adults are ethnic minority groups. This number turns out to be even more disproportionate when you look at the small percentage of ethnic groups that comprise Colorado’s population.

Adolescence of color is overrepresented at each phase of the juvenile court system. Widespread racial biases are apparent in the way that minors of color are disciplined, patrolled, detained, sentenced, and imprisoned. These disproportions persevere even after monitoring the variables like offense brutality and whether or not there is a prior criminal record. Youth of color have a higher probability of being tried as adults vs Caucasian youths, even after being charged with comparable crimes. Presently, an assessed 250,000 youths are sentenced, or incarcerated as adults every year in the United States. On any given day, 10,000 adolescence are detained or imprisoned in adult jails and prisons. Studies prove that teenagers apprehended and placed in adult facilities are thirty-six times more likely to commit suicide and are at the highest risk of sexual victimization.

Those who oppose the notion that minors should only be sent to juvenile court have claimed that if minors who commit vicious misconduct were tried as adults and penalized as such, the number of violent crimes committed by adolescence would lessen. Subsequently, they make the claim that in the future, the number of vehement crimes overall would decline, as harder penalties and sentences would be set in place to keep violent offenders in prison for lengthier sentences. ‘Grown enough to commit a crime, adult enough to do time,” is a shared expression utilized by individuals, when they streamline the subject of young criminals being treated to the adult version of our justice system. However, the Juvenile Court system structure is designed to shield the youths from themselves. If it cannot achieve this goal, then all confidence is lost.

Trying adolescents as adults represents a double standard. Impartiality is a benefit that every human being pursues in different situations and one that is protected by the constitution of the United States. The law applies reason and deliberation in developing protocols that guide minors. It contends that persons under the age of eighteen years old are immature, negligent, and extremely vulnerable to manipulation. Furthermore, psychologists in pact support the belief that adolescent’s mental development is not at its highest, hence they do not always fully grasp right and wrong. In this respect, the government forbids adolescents from adult responsibilities such as voting, joining the military, smoking, and drinking. Thus, believing that they are not capable of the above actions, and then holding them to the ideals of adults is prejudicial, as it is very distinct that juveniles are not adults, and also contravenes the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Rendering to this Amendment, every single individual is protected against excessive bail and fines and from receiving cruel and unusual punishment. An example was the 2012 Miller v. Alabama case, where the Supreme Court pronounced that the sentencing of life without parole for adolescents seventeen and below, was unconstitutional (Supreme Court, 2012). Being that the Supreme Court is the uppermost court that infers the law, charging minors as adults results in noncompliance with the Constitution, which in itself is a criminal offense.

Prosecution of juveniles as adults signify a failure in our justice system. This system subjectifies the youngest and the less advantaged members of society to a series of violence and destruction deprived of rehabilitation and compassion. Nonetheless, due to the extreme nature of the criminalities committed, the system chooses otherwise. Placing juveniles in adult courts is wrong, as not only does it infringe on their constitutional rights, it introduces them to all methods of harm and exploitation while failing to caution society on the ensuing human beings the progression produces and generates a more noteworthy problem of recidivism. Albeit, teenagers should on no occasion go before the adult justice system.

A problem that has traversed its way through our society, multiple times reaching the Supreme Court. A court that hears around 100 cases a year has chosen to hear multiple cases regarding this matter. The matter of whether or not children should be tried in court as a child or as an adult. Many cases have ended up trying kids as adults and many have not. What is the best choice for the offender and the victim of the crime? Well, the best option would be to try kids solely as children and not as adults because of their lack of maturity and willpower, and lack of a guiding figure or punishment.

Teenagers are often known to make rash decisions and get into more trouble than when they were younger. You might ask, “why is this so?” Well as it turns out teenagers actually lose some of their decision-making skills when they enter the teenage age range. One of the studies that show this is a study done by Paul Thompson, who is an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine which says “Brain cells and connections are only being lost in the areas controlling impulses, risk-taking, and self-control.” This shows us that since the brain cells are being lost that means all of these areas are losing effectiveness, in turn, the teens will have a loss in self-control and impulses which would cause teens to make rash decisions which would lead to possible issues. Someone might say that this only happens to some teens, which are the kids that get into trouble but as it turns out the study also says that “the loss was like a wildfire, and you could see it in every teen.”

The author is clearly showing us that it happens to every teen. Therefore all teens are more inclined to make rash and abrupt decisions that would get them in trouble. Others might also say that this doesn’t make up the fact that the child committed a crime which is true. The punishment of the crime is probably the most important part. A large number of kids tend to commit large crimes only after they have committed smaller and smaller crimes. Children aren’t going to go from anything to murder. This is where punishment would come in. Punishing the child is an important lesson and is used as a method of teaching so that the child won’t do it again and understands the consequences of their actions. This is why lots of the children that do not have a strong parental role in their life tend to end up worse.

This leads to the other reason kids should be tried as children which are mostly children that are getting into trouble tend to be missing a supporting fraternal or maternal role in their family. According to Robert Rector of the heritage foundation, “children without a father are more than twice as likely to be arrested for juvenile crime.” This conveys that kids that when a kid is missing such a large role model in life then they don’t have anything to base how they should act on. Without this extremely important role, the cause is obvious. In most families the father is the person that delivers punishment to the child, so when the father is gone the kids don’t learn from the mistakes they make which therefore leaves the child with a lack of knowledge when it comes to right and wrong. According to Chuck Smith, a Kansas State University child development expert says that “as a child grows and matures, the mother – whether biological or a stepmother – plays an important role in her child’s development, character and attitudes.”

Convictions, careless mistakes, and just a little bit of ̈fun ̈. These are what many teens ages 13-17 go through. Sometimes teens are with their friends and they want to fit in or to be the cool guy they end up committing a crime. Many teens go through difficult times, so they need guidance and help so they can stay out of trouble.

Some of the crimes include the vandalism of property, gun violence, cyberbullying, illegal use of drugs, drunk driving, and in some states running away from home. The big word that we are going to focus on is the word influence. This word is everything during teen years. If a teen has a parent that is addicted to drugs or alcohol then the teen is at a higher risk of becoming addicted themselves. Another thing is that if the teens friends are doing inappropriate things such as drugs and alcohol then the teen is more likely than not going to be doing these things. Teens that are not cared for properly are many times captured by the evils of society. Drugs and alcohol are the main leaders of this evil. They cause young teenagers with bright futures to have to live life behind bars and not get to live a nice normal life. When behind bars juveniles are opened to real life and are mistreated way too young. They get cold-hearted and forget what it means to really live freely. When teens commit crimes over half of the time it is without knowing how much trouble they would get into when doing the act of crime. Other times more than likely they are with bad friends who have convinced them to do something that the young ignorant teen has decided to do.

We should educate and handle our youths better in and outside of the classroom. Teachers can only do so much to where the parents have a great amount of control over the teen. We as a whole should do something about these teens. The amount of juveniles crimes increases tremendously over the years. And when the numbers do go down it isn’t for very long. As a community or city, we should make sure there are more plants are that the place doesn’t look like it is in ruins because this can have an effect on our youth. Turning the kind-hearted future of America into cold-blooded killers. Let’s make a difference because every second matter. Adolescent wrongdoing is one of the country’s atrocious issues. Worry about it is generally shared by bureaucratic, state, and nearby government authorities and by people in general. This is an ongoing issue, this worry has developed through time and is getting worse. Adolescent viciousness started in the mid-1980s and topped in the mid-1990s. Although adolescent wrongdoing rates seem to have fallen since the mid-1990s, this lessening has not reduced the worry. Numerous states started taking a harder authoritative position toward adolescents in the late 1970s and mid-1980s, a period during which adolescent wrongdoing rates were steady or falling somewhat, and government reformers were optimistic and so they reduced correctional measures. A portion of the conflict between the government plan and what was occurring in the states around then may have been brought about by huge changes in legitimate methods that made adolescent court forms increasingly numerous – however not indistinguishable – to those in criminal court. The fundamental reaction to the latest spike in vicious adolescent wrongdoing has been sanctioning of laws that further obscure differentiations between adolescent courts and grown-up courts. States kept on toughening their adolescent wrongdoing laws as of the late 1900s, making condemning progressively reformatory, growing admissible exchanges to criminal (grown-up) court, or getting rid of a portion of the privacy protections of adolescent court.

Numerous such changes were established after the adolescent savage wrongdoing rate had just started to fall. The rehabilitative model typified in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, concentrating on the requirements of the youthful guilty party, has lost perpetually ground in the course of recent years to correctional models that emphasize for the most part on the offense submitted. Government arrangements on adolescent wrongdoing must regularly battle with the suitable equalization of worry over the sound advancement of youngsters and teenagers who disregard the law and an open want to rebuff hoodlums. This strain among restoration and discipline when managing kids and youths who perpetrate violations brings about a conflicted direction toward youthful wrongdoers. Criminal acts must be stifled, denounced, and rebuffed. By the by, kids and youths who carry out criminal acts must be taught and bolstered in a development procedure that should be the goal of government arrangement for every youngster, including youthful crime committers. What I strongly believe we should do about our youth is educate or punish them in a more productive way. I say this because we punish or teens either too harshly or too soft. We either put them down too hard to a point where they have raged stored up inside or were too soft and they think they can just walk all over anyone.