Category: Juvenile Crime

This essay will analyse and evaluate the historical and contemporary contextualisation of the development of the social construction of youth and evaluate the states response to the youth offending. It will appraise the process of distinguishing childhood from little adults to a life stage synonymous with vulnerability and in need of protection. It will further evaluate how differences in social class led to an increased visibility of children during the industrial revolution leading to the creation of tension and conflicting views within the adult population. The introduction of the category of youth further created a perceived problem of youth crime and subsequent legislative responses for young offenders. It will further consider the role of the media specifically during the 1990’s and their contribution to the populist punitive policies introduced under the New Labour Government. It will assess the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Orders that were implemented as a measure to deal with behaviour considered to cause alarm or distress, and the consequences for those individuals who breached the imposed order.

Within contemporary Western society the concept of childhood invokes visions of vulnerability, innocence, love and nurture (Munchie, 1999). However French Historian, Phillipe Ariès (1914-1984) determined the process of differentiating childhood as a separate life stage to adulthood began during the seventeenth century (Clarke, 2003). Ariès conclusions were driven in part through research of various medieval arts, writings and clothing, the abandonment of babies and a cultural belief of a male child being of a greater value than a female. Although there are many who agree with the evidence from which Ariès made his conclusion, others have sought to criticise his suppositions. Linda Pollock (1959) in Clarke (2003) argued her examination of diaries, autobiographies and various first-hand accounts between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries suggested more similarities between historical and contemporary families than Ariès would acknowledge (Clarke, 2003). Whilst drawing on studies investigating medieval family life within Western Europe during the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, Shulamith Shahar (1983) questioned Ariès findings arguing rather than medieval society thinking of children as ‘little adults’, childhood was separated into distinct developmental stages similar to those within contemporary society (Shahar, 1992).

During the industrial revolution the bourgeoisie and social reformers conception of childhood evolved to distinguish the life stage as separate to that of adulthood and was considered to be one of vulnerability and requiring protection, whilst in contrast childhood within the working classes were regarded as a commodity and routinely exploited (Clarke, 2003). The introduction of The Factory Act 1833 restricted the employment of children under the age of nine years, and further limited the total number of working hours permitted for those aged nine to eighteen years (Parliament, 2019). Consequently working class children were either left to their own devices whilst their parents worked, or alternatively to compensate for lost earnings, forced onto the streets to sell goods. With no compulsory education system, children were increasingly visible on the streets. Distinct from adults in their appearance and behaviour a degree of apprehension ensued within the adult population leading to conflicting views of an innocent child and the threatening adolescent. The dichotomy led to the construction of a new category within society, a developmental period older than a child yet younger than an adult, a period synonymous with chaotic behaviour, physical, hormonal and psychological changes, a period known as youth (Case, 2016).

Official crime statistics developed within the same period as the emergence of a social construction of youth. Crime, previously measured against the type of offence, introduced a measurement category to include the age of offender. Such measurements led to the categorisation of crime by a specific developmental stage, and therefore introducing youth crime to be perceived as problematic. The supposed problem led to governmental responses including legislation and systems designed to respond to the problem of youth crime (Case, 2016). Such responses included a piece of legislation that for the first time distinguished the adult and juvenile offender, The Juvenile Offenders Act 1847. The act imposed young people under the age of fourteen for lesser offences to be tried in a Magistrate’s court. 1823 witnessed both the introduction of a juvenile only prison ship and the first juvenile only custodial establishment, Parkhurst. However, children were still routinely incarcerated within adult establishments until the passing of the Reformatory Schools Act 1899. The abolishment of custody for children under the age of fourteen was introduced within The Children Act of 1908, which also legislated for a separate juvenile court to deal with issues of both crime and needs of children who committed crime (Munchie, 1999).

Approaches to youth justice historically have oscillated between welfare attitudes which places the focus towards the needs of an individual, rather than the punishment for the offences committed and punitive methods which seek to hold an individual accountable irrespective of age or individual circumstance, pursues a punishment that fits the crime (Case, 2018). The general election of 1979 witnessed the Conservative Party led by Margaret Thatcher form a government with a manifesto that placed an emphasis on punitive law and order, introducing policies arguably influenced by the criminological theory of right realism. Right realism determines crime occurs following a calculated appraisal of the harms versus the benefits leading to a logical individual choice (Maguire, et al., 2002). Punitive policies ultimately prove popular with the electorate and subsequently each general election since 1979 has witnessed contending political party’s placing specific attention to the problem of crime and youth crime within their manifesto. Indeed the lead up to the general election of 1997 witnessed both the Conservative’s and New Labour’s party continued punitive rhetoric (Newburn, 2013)

The summer of 1991 witnessed a series of urban disturbances, primarily involving young white men residing in areas suffering from social-economic deprivation (Moran, 2005). The disturbances allowed for the concerns surrounding the activities of young people to be amplified and distorted by the media (Tunstall, 1997). The culmination of public concern regarding youth offending arose following the murder of James Bulger in February 1993 by two ten year old boys. Although child on child murders are incredibly rare, media representations fuelled a moral panic (Munchie, 1999). Stan Cohen (1918 – 2014) theorises a moral panic as a way in which the media utilise dramatic reporting styles and sensationalist headlines to distort and exaggerate a sequence of events (Cohen, 1972). Consequently rather than being considered innocent and requiring protection, attitudes towards children indurated leading to a notion of populist punitiveness. Perceptions arguably archaic and perhaps more fitting to the period encompassing pre industrial society rather than belonging in a progressive and contemporary society (Case, 2018).

The 1996 Audit commission report ‘Misspent Youth’ concluded interventions within the youth justice system under the Conservative administration was despite the vast sum of invested capital were largely futile (Gough & Pycroft, 2019). Youth justice policies under the Conservative Government focused on a philosophy of diversion, decriminalisation and decarceration seeking to divert children away from the criminal justice system. Arguably the policies could be seen to be a contradiction of a manifesto that placed a heavy emphasis onto law and order (Yates, 2003). Furthermore what could be construed as a more left wing and progressive approach to youth justice, could be argued to be influenced by the neo-liberalist approach of reducing public expenditure.

Following the Misspent Youth’ report, and during their period of opposition, New Labour published details outlining their strategies to reform the youth justice system in their pre-election consultation document titled Tackling Youth Crime, Reforming Youth Justice. The document reaffirmed prioritising the modernisation of youth justice and proposed reforms including what became a key element within New Labour’s 1997 manifesto, and heavily influenced following the amplified response to Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, the abolition of doli incapax (Newburn, 2003). Doli incapax, the presumption in law, requiring a court to satisfy offences commissioned were rather than being simply naughty, known to be seriously wrong. Such presumption afforded an element of protection to children under the age of fourteen (Joyce, 2013).

The general election of 1997 witnessed New Labour led by Tony Blair to form a government with the pledge “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” (The Home Office, 2010). Consolidating the Misspent Youth report, New Labour commissioned the 1997 White Paper ‘No More Excuses’, focusing on both the responsibilisation of young people who offend and the prevention of those young people from committing further offences (Case, et al., 2017). No More Excuses and five further consultation documents were legislated into The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA). As detailed within the manifesto the CDA duly abolished the presumption of doli incapax leading to children over the age of ten years considered like adults, legally responsible for their actions, and introduced provisions for the prevention of crime and disorder (Home Office, 1998). Containing an amalgamation of preventative, ameliorative and punitive elements, the CDA supplanted a philosophy of diversion decriminalisation and decarceration to one of, managerialism, responsibilisation and intervention. The philosophy implements the management of efficient and measureable performance targets, diverting responses away from a discourse of social inequality and disadvantage towards one that encompassed individual responsibility whilst justifying the early intervention into the lives of young people (Joyce, 2013).

Aspects of New Labour policies are influenced by the criminological theory of left realism. Left realism acknowledges concerns such as poor housing, socio economic deprivation, marginalisation and inequality as key factors that can contribute to the causation of crime (Newburn, 2013). New Labour established the Social Exclusion Unit with the remit to provide joined up solutions for joined up problems (Blair, 1997), however in contrast elements of New Labour policies compare with the punitive elements of conservative ideology, signalling a political move from the traditional centre left historically associated with Labour, to a more traditional Conservative centre right (Newburn, 2003). Through the adoption of a ‘what works’ paradigm the act introduced a plethora of orders directed towards young offenders including the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (Newburn, 2003).

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) were introduced under Section 1 of the CDA designed with the objective to combat behaviour “that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself” (Home Office, 1998). ASBOs could be applied for by Local Authorities or the Police under civil procedures and be imposed on any person above the age of ten years. Issued by a Magistrate’s court the orders required only the civil burden of proof, the balance of probabilities (Quinn & Elliot, 2013). Individual support orders were introduced as a welfarist bolt on to ASBOs under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. The support orders imposed obligations to those aged between ten and seventeen to tackle the causes of their behaviour (Joyce, 2013).

ASBOs arguably were heavily influenced by Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) Broken Windows Thesis which suggests problems ignored by a community alters the perception by people that an area is uncared for and thus attracts further problems (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). New Labour affirmed the orders were designed to construct strong and cohesive communities by providing methods to addressing the harm and distress felt by innocent and law abiding citizens. Critically however, anti-social behaviour itself both highly subjective and lacking in definition, the orders provided a means whereby the intolerant were able to sanction conduct of which they objected (Joyce, 2013). Furthermore and controversially, non-compliance of an ABSO resulted in criminal proceedings with breaches triable in either the Magistrates or Crown Court carrying a sentence of between two and five years (Newburn, 2003).

The management of anti-social behaviour was further extended under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 extending the provisions for Parenting Orders to include not just young people who had offended, but also those who had either truanted of been excluded from education. Ultimately the expansion of the orders drew more young people into a system of formal interventions even though no criminal offence had been committed (Haines & Case, 2015). 2005 witnessed a spike of both ASBOs issued and consequently breached ( Home Office, 2016), such could be considered a consequence of the introduction of Comprehensive Performance Assessments, presented to deliver a quantifiable measurement evidencing reductions in anti-social behaviour (Joyce, 2013).

Critically ASBOs could be regarded as an unjustified extension of the power of the state focused towards marginalised groups on the basis of existing social problems historically associated with growing up, that had been to a great extent artificially exaggerated. The introduction of the ABSO arguably resulted in widening the net of social control (Joyce, 2013). Stan Cohen (1942 – 2013) theorises net widening as a concept whereby due to the result of administrative changes, an increased quantity of individuals enter the criminal justice system. The increase in supplementary orders invariably resulted in individuals who previously would have slipped through the system being ensnared for extended periods, he describes as thinning the mesh, whilst the breach of an ASBO resulted in the criminalisation for a civil order thus resulted in a blurring of the boundaries (Cohen, 1985).

In conclusion the concept of childhood as contemporary society understands began during the industrial revolution. The bourgeoisie and social reformers A government that purports to have an interest in tackling social exclusion at the same time promotes legislative measures destined to create a whole new breed of outcast.

From the start of the nineteenth century, youth have been granted the privilege of being tried as children, rather than adults. Before then, any child above the age of seven could be charged as an adult criminal and sent to prison (National Academic Press). According to Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Crime which was published by the National Academic Press, the first juvenile court was founded in 1899 in Chicago. The United States juvenile justice system has been back and forth on giving juveniles rights in court, which has been mostly to the benefit of the juveniles. One of the most pressing issues with the juvenile justice system is how it affects the juveniles rights, which will be examined throughout this paper from a historical perspective. During the Progressive Era of the 1890s, progressives worked to “make American society a better and safer place in which to live” (Library of Congress). With this, juveniles were given more rights to increase their quality of life by giving them more opportunity to have a shorter prison sentence. Despite this improvement for juvenile offenders, their rights soon decreased going into the 1960s, but have greatly evolved today to give youths a lower time sentence they need in order to lead successful lives.

When juvenile centers were first made during the Progressive Era, the public began to believe that youth being charged and tried as adults was unnecessary. Another source, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ), supports claims made throughout Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Crime, such as how juvenile cases were often individualized. The CJCJ explains that these first juvenile courts served to give children individualized attention from a judge who had genuine concern for each case. As a result, juveniles had less severe sentences and were let out at an earlier age.

Although juveniles were granted the right to be charged with less harsh sentences as adults, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in re Gault in 1967 changed some juvenile rights by introducing due process (CJCJ). From the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell Law University, due process is defined as government operating within the law and providing fair procedures (LII). From this change, youth were able to have all legal rights offered in a courtroom. According to the Juvenile Law Center (JLC), a source that voices the need for rights and opportunity for youths in the justice system, explains that the outcome of Gault involved youth charged with delinquency having the same rights as adults. Some of these rights were a juvenile’s ability to confront witnesses that testified against them, and to have an attorney (JLC). Before re Gault, juveniles were viewed as a problem needing to be fixed, with the only solution being harsh punishment and unfair treatment. From the American Bar Association, an organization that advances the rule of law across the US, similar acts of trying to help juveniles are researched. In 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act helped to remove juveniles from adult prisons they were placed in after being tried (Blitzman). About ten years after this ruling, juvenile crime increased and youth rights of being charged as a juvenile were lost. The process of the new “tough on crime” resulted in policies that gave harsher punishments to juveniles who were convicted. They were more likely to be sent into adult court, and sentenced into prison with adults, causing physical abuse and endangerment when incarcerated.

Today, the United States uses the age of eighteen to regulate who does and doesn’t go to juvenile courts. According to the JLC, youth are most often under juvenile system laws until the age of twenty-one. The result of this is youth being able to stay safer and away from the realities of incarceration with adults. The National Conference of State Legislatures, an organization to advance the effectiveness of state legislatures, investigates and finds contradictory evidence to the JLC. According to Anne Teigen, many states draw the line for juveniles at seventeen, but five states choose a year earlier, the age of sixteen (NCSL). In states such as Wisconsin and Georgia, youth who haven’t reached the age of eighteen can be put into adult court and incarcerated with adults as well. With this, it is evident that the juveniles in those five states are not receiving the benefits other juveniles are seeing in the remaining forty-five states. The hundreds of thousands of juveniles who are convicted as adults at the age of sixteen are becoming victims of physical abuse and seeing loss of life opportunity sooner and more frequently than youths in the other forty-five states.

While the U.S. does have a functioning juvenile system and has evolved from the past, they could follow in the steps of foreign countries to reduce the number of juvenile arrests. The National Juvenile Justice Network (NJJN), an organization that advocates for a fairer U.S. juvenile justice system, discusses the New Zealand juvenile system. In an executive summary titled “New Zealand’s Youth Justice Transformation: Lessons for the United States”, New Zealand was able to enforce a law stating that police could not arrest juveniles without a warrant. Minor incidents are handled by front-line police, and as a result, the numbers of arrest only involved twelve percent of all juvenile offenders (Goemann). For a more effective way to handle the juveniles in the future, the United States can alter their juvenile system to reduce the number of juveniles incarcerated in all states, keeping vulnerable youths out of potentially being imprisoned with adults. Alongside the New Zealand juvenile justice system being potentially influential for the United States, the Austrian juvenile system could help as well. For juveniles in Austria, their sentences are half of the adults, which causes them to serve time for the crime they committed, but they are able to learn from their bad decisions in less time (Winterdyk). Similar to the New Zealand juvenile system, Austria gives youth additional help in court when they are on trial. Concluding, that if the United States is willing to change their ways of the juvenile system, the youth in the U.S. can benefit from these same advantages such as a lessened time sentence given to those in Austria and New Zealand.

In conclusion, the United States juvenile justice history has changed to accommodate different circumstances including higher crime rates, youth needs, etc. The age limit of eighteen and watch until age twenty-one is beneficial to the youth of the United States, and are helping them to keep chances of growing up to be successful adults. Despite the flaws in the past about juvenile rights and law changes, the juvenile system within the United States is sufficient in reaching its goals compared to thirty or forty years ago.

Bibliography

1. Blitzman, Jay D. ‘Are we criminalizing adolescence?’ GP Solo, Sept.-Oct. 2015, p. 72. Gale General OneFile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A435638773/GPS?u=mtlib_2_1167&sid=GPS&xid=d5a10fd9. Accessed 29 Jan. 2020.
2. “Due Process.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process. Accessed 3 February 2020.
3. Goemann, Melissa. New Zealand’s Youth Justice Transformation: Lessons for the United States 2018. Washington, D.C.: The National Juvenile Justice Network, 2018. https://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/New%20Zealand’s%20Youth%20Justice%20Transformation%20Executive%20Summary%20Final%204.25.18.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2020.
4. “Juvenile Justice History – Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.” – Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, www.cjcj.org/education1/juvenile-justice-history.html. Accessed 15 January 2020
5. “Progressive Era to New Era – American Memory Timeline- Classroom Presentation: Teacher Resources.” Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/progress/. Accessed 3 February 2020.
6. “Read ‘Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice’ at NAP.edu.” National Academies Press: OpenBook, https://www.nap.edu/read/9747/chapter/7. Accessed 13 January 2020.
7. Teigen, Anne, and Karen McInnes. Juvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws, https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx. Accessed 13 January 2020.
8. Winterdyk, John A. Juvenile Justice: International Perspectives, Models, and Trends . CRC Press , 2014. Accessed 21 January 2020.
9. “Youth in the Justice System: An Overview.” Juvenile Law Center, https://jlc.org/youth-justice-system-overview. Accessed 13 January 2020. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/special_topics/stateprofile.asp – source for Marina to use for percentages of minorities

Australia’s what works rehabilitation scheme In recent years, correctional agencies around Australia have been increasingly influenced by what is commonly known as the ‘what works’ model to offender rehabilitation. This system claims to be more effective in discouraging reoffences. The approach consists of three key principles, the ‘risk principle’ that suggests offenders most likely to re-offend should receive the most intensive rehabilitation. More intensive programs are offered to those assessed high risk.

The ‘needs principle’ aim to change the needs most directly related to offending. The ‘responsivity principle’ matches the learning styles of offenders such that they are actively engaged in a process of behavioral change. So you might ask, the Australian government has enforcement laws and rehabilitation programs in place to discourage young offenders from reoffending? Yes, rehabilitation has been an attempt to resolve the problem for decades. But according to data provided by the Sunday Morning Herald, alone in the second half of 2018, 300 kids have been in juvenile detention. Let alone last year in the Wyndham area, 500 kids between the ages 10 and 17 were sent to court for the commitment of criminal acts. With more kids being detained, the cost of rehabilitation grows to be massive and the effectiveness of juvenile detention ceases to drop. This influence on our juvenile crime system was definitely a positive one, but I wouldn’t say it is enough to lower threat in the community.

When I heard from a partner working with the government, I couldn’t believe eighty-five thousand dollars goes into housing one child in a juvenile justice system. That same amount of money could employ three at-risk kids on the streets full-time with the help of local businesses. The government prepares to spend over a hundred million dollars to incarcerate children in our country. With just 25% of that, with only 25 million dollars, we could employ 1200 kids full time. There is so much more we could do with our resources to help youths as a society. I am in no way saying we should let kids that commit criminal acts runaway guilt-free. But locking them up in rehabilitation isn’t really going to change them. They are our future. ‘Clearly we need new strategies and new ways to tackle this problem because it’s simply not going away and it’s only getting worse.’ Some of you are thinking: it could be my daughter, my son, a relative of mine, but what can I do about it? I would like to spend the rest of this speech talking to those of you. That would like to help, that care for future generations.

First of all, juvenile crime is not an issue that can be easily resolved in a snap. Critical to reducing the immediate consequences of youth violence, those in position would have to make improvements in pre-hospital and emergency care, including access to care. But to radically solve this issue, I first would like to encourage those in the position to introduce youth development programs as early as preschool. These programs can range from life skills to social development and anti-bullying programs that are designed to help children and adolescents manage anger, resolve conflict, and develop the necessary social skills to solve problems.

Secondly, I urge all parents to simply participate in your child’s life. It is great to attend parental support programs to foster positive parenting skills. Don’t let our kids feel invisible. Give credit for their accomplishments and discuss your decisions with them. Thirdly, let’s get our young generation more occupied with full-time or part-time work, school or even housework. Lastly, if you ever fear that an adolescent might be badly influenced, look for front-line workers in your area or reach out to me and I will advise you on what to do more professionally.

Getting a front-hand can really curb things from turning nasty. Whenever I talk about this issue, those kids that I have worked with really come to my mind. Through work and communicating with them, I come to know each and every one of them personally. These children although made wrong decisions once never fails the hope when given a second chance. So, let’s all get them another opportunity.

Introduction

The process of criminalisation and marginalisation associated with juvenile offending can impact relationships, education and employment opportunities and mark young offenders with a stigma for the rest of their lives (Cunneen and White 2002). It has been highlighted that the stigmatisation process can lead to a more dangerous form of deviance, ‘’whereby labelled individuals begin to identify with and adopt such identities’’ (Lemert, 1969). The diversion strategies, based on this theoretical concept of labelling, aim to divert young offenders away from the criminal justice system and avoid the criminogenic effects that arise following the interactions with the criminal justice system (Cunneen and White 2002; Farrington 1977).

Further evidence suggests that most juvenile crime is episodic and offending behaviours tend to be controlled once the maturation process takes place (Cunneen and White 2002; Richards 2011). The involvement of young people with crime typically starts between 12 and 16 years of age (Richards 2009) and most likely the majority of them do not reoffend after the first contact with the criminal justice system (Weatherburn 2004). However, researchers underline that fostering the contact of young people with juvenile justice system may be more harmful than productive (Ericson and Vinson 2010) and clearly show that the young people who came into contact with the criminal justice and went through the adjudication process at Children’s Court are significantly more likely to reoffend (Chen et al 2005). Indeed, while recent findings confirm that involvement in the juvenile justice system amplify criminogenic effects and increase the chances of later involvement in crimes during the adulthood (Gatti et al 2009), conversely, young people diverted away from the criminal justice system show lower level of recidivism (Allart et al 2010).

More important, diversionary framework seems to be an effective alternative to the overcrowded juvenile correction system and the associated significant costs (Morris and Maxwell 2003) which did reveal itself as an ineffective measure to prevent reoffending. Furthermore, according to Polk (Polk et al 2003) a youth diversionary framework operates at three different levels: as a crime prevention strategy to prevent young people’s involvement in crime; as a diversionary schemes to divert young people away from the criminal justice system through earlier intervention; as a sentencing option to divert young people from custodial remand.

The diversion framework in Victoria

As a result of being a signatory to the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child, under the provision 40.3, each Australian jurisdiction is obligated to put in place appropriate diversionary measures to deal with young offenders. In Victoria, under the section 59 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), a Magistrates’ Court criminal proceedings can consider appropriate the access to the Criminal Justice diversion Program (CJDP) when a person is charged with summary offences, appears in Court and acknowledges responsibility for that offence. In addition to this legislated diversion scheme for adults offenders, which provides them the opportunity to avoid a criminal record, within the Magistrates ‘Court jurisdiction there are a range of specialist courts focussed on addressing issues associated with criminal behaviours of adults, such as Drug Court, Koori Court, Neighbourhood Justice Centre.

Victorian Youth diversion system and its limitations

In relation to youth crime, the Victoria Government has created the pathways to prevention and rehabilitation through various programs that aim to prevent and reduce recidivism (Department of Justice 2019). Unfortunately, despite the evident commitment to reducing young people’s engagement in crime and the fact that youth diversion programs are supported by international law, Victoria’s state has not legislated a court-based diversion scheme to address criminal behaviours of young people. Consequently, young people under 18 cannot access a legislated diversionary scheme and programs, similar to the CJDP, in the Children’s Court jurisdiction. Contrary to the expectation, the only legislation to refer to for Victoria’s youth justice service is the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, which provided the constitution of the Children’s Court of Victoria and the criminal responsibility of children, and the Sentencing Act 1991, which allowed to adult courts to sentence young offenders (aged under 21 years) to serve custodial sentences in youth detention instead of adult prison.

Within the Victorian Justice system, other diversionary strategies operate such as police cautioning, and a range of non-cautioning programs for low- and high-level youth offenders such as Youth Support Services, Youth Justice Conferencing and other various programs. However, the limited investment the Government reserves to all those options, particularly scarce in rural and regional areas, reduces considerably the effectiveness of these measures and more broadly of the Victorian diversionary system as whole (Little and Karp 2012). As a result, prisons are overcrowded with a significant overrepresentation of young people with Aboriginal background and young women already victims of violence. While, within the Australian jurisdictions, Victoria presents a lower level of young people serving custodial sentences or on custodial remand, showing a good record of practicing diversion, an overview of the youth justice system highlights that the juvenile justice approach is limited to supervision, community programs and referring to support services.

It seems that Victoria has an incredible range of diversionary services to manage young offenders but, however looking more closer, practices denotes that the Victorian diversion system has a significant gaps in programs availability, in creating equity of access to existing programs and in funding to sustain and implement those programs. There is no doubt that these obstacles affect the design of a diversion policy strategy to keep young people away from the criminal system and at the same time the crime prevention strategies.

The youth criminal behaviours and the ‘’tough on crime response’’

Youth crime and behavioural issues are always a strong topic to discuss. Many years ago, during a speech to the University of Pennsylvania, F. Roosevelt said that ‘’We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future’’. This powerful statement shows us a clear message that the problem of youth offending is not just a Government responsibility but is everyone responsibility within our community. In other words, the problem of youth crime is complex and requires a cooperative approach through the involvement of the families, communities, schools, Governments and agencies, to develop and implement prevention initiatives which can prevent youth from coming into a contact with the criminal justice system and also diverting them from it, reducing recidivism. Recently, rather than acknowledging the concept of cooperative approach and implementation of diversionary strategies through innovative and targeted programs, the Victorian government, incited by the community calls on less tolerance on crime approach and fuelled by media reports, passed the the Children and Justice Legislation Bill, as part of Victoria’s largest legislative measures to fight crime and keep the community safe.

The passing of the Youth Justice Reform Bill had as immediate consequences that young offenders now face longer detention periods and more intensive supervision programs and a reinforcement of the police discretionary powers which generally works against the interests of young people. The immediate debate around these legislative measures has raised many concerns about the erosion of the foundations of Victoria’s youth justice system, which are already undermined by the geographical limit to access to the justice system, the short -term programs and the lack of government funding. Contrary to findings, the public view supports the call for harsher sentences for young offenders, as the community still feels that the most effective way to handle the problem is, once again, the old approach of severe punishment and incarceration. In fact, statistics show that in the last five years the number of young offenders recorded for offences against the person and drug offences have increased, while the proportions recorded for minor offences have decrease. Nonetheless, whilst there is not strong evidence that harsher sentences are more effective in reducing reoffending, experiences from overseas countries with more focus on rehabilitation and diversionary practices, show that this is the right direction to undertake.

There is no doubt that placing emphasis on early prevention intervention, education and rehabilitation as a more extensive approach to prevent crime and divert young people from reoffending, are the keystone to give effectiveness to the justice system. Acknowledging the successes obtained by other countries and inverting the trend of ‘’tough on crime’’, are the steps to undertake to make the juvenile justice system more effective and focused on giving to young people the best opportunities to rethink about their lives and prevent re-offending.

What improvements (if any) could be made to this process?

There are opportunities to improve diversion for young people in Victoria through the acknowledgement by the Government of the existence of different perspectives and international models as best practices but also rethinking youth diversion with new strategies and more adequate and sustained resourcing. Furthermore, it would be vital that the Government makes commitment to introduce legislative or policy changes to compelling the police and courts to consider the diversion as a priority option to prevent crime and reduce reoffending. In addition, it is crucial to investigate and address the causes of criminal behaviours of young people, who often from a very young age have been confronted with domestic violence, child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse. While it is obvious that we cannot generalise about the background of young offenders, we need to recognise that the rising in crime, and in particular juvenile crime, is definitely linked to the disruption of the fundamental pillars of our society such as family, school and community support. Indeed, those traditional values have been, undoubtedly, eroded by family breakdown, acceptance of violence models to solve social and private issues and large use of substances abuse. Redesigning policy strategies, focused on rehabilitation, that emphasise the importance of providing learning opportunities and employment services to young people in detention, would mean undertaking an effective pathway towards reintegration within the society. A wider approach by government to innovate and reinforce diversion options to prevent crime and reduce reoffending, should culminate in ensuring that detention is only seen as a last resort. It is an ambitious and challenging goal but that it is the only way to restate the precise role of punishment which is the re-educative function of it as a pathway leading to rehabilitation.

Conclusion

An important finding of this analysis is that a juvenile diversion system is necessary as an alternative to the overcrowded, very costly, and often ineffective juvenile justice system as several researchers have shown that the way this operates does not lead to rehabilitation. A different approach, more focused on the complexity of the youth experiences and circumstances, is needed to respond to young people’s engagement in criminal behaviours and preventing their transition into a life of crime. A broader approach would also reduce the labelling process associated with criminal behaviours that, primarily, is the cause of missing out any reintegration prospective within society. Therefore, an early intervention, through an effective juvenile diversionary framework, plays a pivotal role in diverting young offending away from criminal justice system. In the current Victorian juvenile system, the access to diversionary schemes has resulted in inequality, depending on geographical residency, level of financial resources, commitment by the communities, and discretionary action by the police and courts.

Introduction

The issue with juveniles being tried as adults in today’s society was created to handle juvenile offenders based on their youth rather than their crimes. Many states passed laws making it easier to try certain youthful offenders as adults. Many people believe that teens should be held accountable for their actions and tried as adults. If you are worried or care about the punishment being committed, then simply don’t commit the crime, knowing you will face numerous years. While juveniles may be kids, they should be able to distinguish right from wrong, especially in extreme circumstances. Children are most often a product of their home environment. Victims and the families of victims still deserve a sense of justice or accountability if one of their family members is affected or even killed by a juveniles’ offender and society takes a big role in it. If you see something bad happening, speak up and tell the police that you have a right to freedom of speech which we, the people, stand not to speak up for. Giving adolescents very hard sentences gives the feeling that there is no desire for their future and no expectation of them regularly getting to be anything besides a lawbreaker and a convict. This will teach them that being in jail is not a good thing. This is damaging for all of society, especially young people and their families.

The Debate Over Charging Juveniles as Adults

“The only effective way to reduce and prevent juvenile Crime is to balance tough enforcement measures with targeted, effective and intervention initiatives”, stated “Janet Rome”. Yes, some juveniles should be tried as adults for what they did. For example, for a murderer that intends to kill, Premeditated means are considered beforehand. Trying minors as adults will toughen the system and hold someone responsible. Due to juveniles being on the rise for murder, robbery with a weapon, and rape. Then, they should be tried as adults in Florida for these reasons. And solving this problem reduces crime on the street and teaches accountability for the crime they committed. Minors must be fully culpable for their behaviour if we are to deter future delinquents from committing violent crimes. Setting this example and making it known that our cities will be tough on crimes will serve as a wake-up call. Like the three strikes law, the threat of a harsh sentence will most certainly make children think twice before they commit violent crimes. Since 1993, at least 43 states have passed laws making it easier for children to be tried as adults. A juvenile justice bill is awaiting final Congressional approval and contains similar measures for the federal system. Trying minors as adults and subsequently imprisoning them in adult prisons has destructive effects on young prisoners. Young prisoners are vulnerable to various vices in adult prisons.

Crime Is On The Rise

In the past few years nationwide, the Department of Juvenile Justice Centre has recorded many crimes committed by juvenile offenders. This is a scary fact because it shows how the environmental boundaries are being more used and more blurred for these irrational irresponsible young people. Many of them area unit responsive to simple, imperfect, and not good usage of the juvenile justice system, and use that to their advantage. When these conditions force or break them open to face reality, such as a life of long sentences with minimal at least or no chances at coming back to get out, they develop or evolve into stress and depression that increase their likelihood of killing or committing suicide.

Reducing crime rates make youth access to handguns harder and make guns safer to reduce gun‐related crimes by juveniles. Scientific research shows key organic process variations between youth and adults that impact youth’s a higher understanding process, impulse, control, and susceptibility to peer pressure. While these variations don’t excuse youth from responsibility for their actions, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that youth are less blameworthy than adults and more capable of change and rehabilitation (Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, J.D.B. v. North Carolina, Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana).

“The real important for us as a society to remember that the youth within juvenile justice systems are, most of the time, youths who simply haven’t had the right mentors and supporters around them – because of circumstances beyond their control” stated by ‘Q’Orianka Kilcher”. Punishing kids constant approach we have a tendency to penalize adults doesn’t advance public safety. Research also shows that as youth mature, they are substantially less likely to re-offend; locking children up for years will extend their incarceration well beyond the time needed for them to be rehabilitated Juveniles can be tried as adults for crimes ranging from kidnapping, murder, rape, arson, robbery, torture, assault, and more. Some of the cases that are sent to adult court are petty crimes, such as: underage drinking, possession of a controlled substance, and other minor crimes. The question is whether or not they must be tried as adults.

On the other hand, juveniles may lead a person to wonder what brought a child to commit these crimes. One would possibly any examine that if a juvenile person is engaged in alleged “adult” activities, what kind of activities might a child choose to be involved in adulthood, everyone has a choice even a child. Many kids within the juvenile systems return from broken homes and family members who have conjointly been in and out of the scheme, making it an easier way to prosecute juveniles as adults. But some benefits with a juvenile being tried as an adult are It shows that a crime is a crime, No matter your age No matter what age someone is, they have to learn to require responsibility for his or her actions and be created to grasp the implications of dangerous choices. If teenagers don’t seem to be educated right from wrong before they transition into adults, they need the next tendency to commit a lot of crimes.

Reasons Why Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults

The primary reason why most juveniles face adult justice system is to inflict harsh punishments that deter them from future criminality, Which is a pretty big deal for most teens. What most 18- year olds are thing they are going to get let off easy but, not so satisfied is the fact that they are no longer being tried as a child for crimes in juvenile courts. So questions that are ask frequently are: Does one or two years younger than 18 make much of a difference? Is it fair for one person, just seventeen years of age, to be tried in a juvenile court, receiving a lesser sentence for under than someone who is just 5 months older who committed the same crime? Are juveniles under the age of 18 fully qualified of being held responsible for their actions for what have taken placed or are all juveniles mentally unable of realizing what were their actions for what they did will have consequence after the fact? However, according to a research report by the School of law at the University of California, there is minimal, or no deterrence achieved through prosecution of minors as adults. According to the report, eighty-two percent of juveniles released from prisons in fifteen states were re-arrested (Scialabba, 2016).

Juveniles being tried as an adult. Youths are irrational, immature and continuously require parental figures to guide them and direct them positively towards changing their behavior. However, when incarcerated with adults, their guidance and protection are from criminals making them prone to negative influence. Thus, once in jail there is no going back, the various negative experiences is not a good thing when you in their like the assault, rape, and harassment pushes them to adopt similar bad behavior. In a bid to survive the jail house, they look for protection to help them out and in most instances end up joining gangs so they can feel safe and utilizing weapons to keep on them. Moreover, in adult prisons, children lack rehabilitative measures of counseling, education, and training (Castro, Muhammad, & Arthur, 2012, pp. P2).

Thus, upon release, the experiences and deficiencies of the system make it difficult for them to fit in and experience normal life. Hence, they revert to old behavior or worse that cost their freedom and eventually end up in prison again. It argues that individuals under eighteen are immature, irresponsible, highly susceptible to manipulation and capable of change.

Moreover, psychologists in agreement support the notion that minor’s mental development is not at its peak, hence, do fully grasp right and wrong. In this regard, the government prohibits minors from adult responsibilities such as smoking, drinking, voting and joining the military. Therefore, believing that they are not capable of the above activities and then holding them to the standards of adults is unfair and wrong, as it is clear that minors are adults (McCrea, 2008, pp.3). Furthermore, most of them commit criminal acts because of harmful as opposed to intent or because one of your friends doing something bad so you doing it do but you can make a big mistake and end up somewhere else. Thus, it is prejudicial to subject a child’s whole life to a long life of condemnation and suffering for mistakes; they did in their prime years.

Children are killed by there own kind which are children. Teens are killed by which have been repeatedly by teens. And still we refuse to punish them because ‘they are too young to understand that what they are doing is wrong.’ An excuse most heard from parents, it is also an excuse too often heard after lives are lost and ruined. Without a tougher punishment system, society is left with a high percentage of delinquents and a rising percentage of crime victims. Juvenile court systems have been a far cry from justice for many victims. Families of murder victims, rape targets and victims of other serious crimes have been abandoned without a sense of closure or protection. Some feel like their loss was left unacknowledged.

The Ethical and Legal Considerations

Indeed, in such a lenient juvenile system, victims are more often than not left unacknowledged. Most people agree with Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas: ‘The only way to treat the victim as a full human being—to fully honor the memory of the victim—is to punish the perpetrator. Since 1993, at least 43 states have passed laws making it easier for children to be tried as adults. A juvenile justice bill is currently awaiting final Congressional approval and contains similar measures for the federal system. Proposition 21 [which stiffened penalties for juvenile offenders], from last year’s [2000] California elections, was passed and, although it has stirred much opposition and controversy, it has molded the image that society will have no tolerance for crime. The cost of implementing such measures will never even reach the immeasurable cost of lives lost.

Some offenses may be forgiveable, but for extreme cases like murder, just punishment must be given to the offender. It is a way for a victim’s family to gain some peace or understanding, peace, especially since they cannot get their loved or they only child one who was taken from them back it just leaves a leap in your heart you can’t take back. Juvenile detention courts can give you many options and recommend counseling, but I feel like that not enough they are going to abuse the power they have such as, house arrest you can barely leave the house, curfews be in the house at a certain time mostly likely some of them don’t come in the house on time, and other forms of harsh punishment rather than giving a jail time let them sit and think about what they did. In adult courts judges, Have fewer choices or you going away for a long time, and sometimes the only option to choose is prison and that’s not a good place you want to be. Kids under the age of 18 are not perfect innocents. Many of them begin thinking and acting more maturely. Punishing them for their wrongdoings teaches them accountability, which they can bring with them until they grow old.

Conclusion

Thus, Juveniles should be tried as an adult, A child understand more than what they know and doing the wrong is not a good idea. Also, Juveniles should be tried because they know right from wrong and harming or killing something you have more than enough sense; Even if you are legal or not yet they should be tried as an adult. Prosecution of minors as adults represent a progress in today’s justice system. Today’s society, there are multiple action crimes going on. Over age Adults are not the only ones that does irresponsible commit crimes. One issue today is that juveniles offenses should be tried, They are old enough for the responsibility that comes behind the crimes they are committing; whether juvenile offenders should be tried as adults in criminal court. This is an old saying that is often by people that lives in neighborhoods used in this case of young juveniles committing crimes they know that are responsible for going to jail is “ If you are at age or Old enough to do the crime, then you are old enough for what you did to do the time for what you committed .” When you turn a certain age it over there is no going back one false move, Your life is done and you can be done. For example, stealing such as heavy shop lifting, breaking and entering, arrested, murder for something you didn’t do but you didn’t do it your friend it but its only evidence on you. At the end it falls on you or whoever did it things, Don’t fall easy in life for anyone. You can be tried as an adult a juvenile.

Reference

1. Arya, N. (2012). Key Facts: Youth in the justice system: youth crime. Campaign for Youth Justice, 1-2.
2. Equal Justice Initiative. (2017). Children in prisons: Deaths in prison. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from https://eji.org/children-prison/death-in-prison-sentences
3. McCrea, H. (2008). Juveniles Should Not Be Tried in Adult Courts. Should Juveniles Be Tried as Adults? Gale Publishers, 2-4.
4. Scialabba, N. (2016). Children’s Rights Litigation: Should juveniles be charged as adults in the criminal justice system? American Bar Association, 1. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from https://www.americanbar.org/publications/litigation-committees/childrens-rights/articles/2016/should-juveniles-be-charged-as-adults.html
5. McLeod, S. (2011). Bandura – social learning theory. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html Miller, R. N., & Applegate, B. K. (2015).
6. Adult crime, adult time? Benchmarking public views on punishing serious juvenile felons. Criminal Justice Review, 40(2), 151- 168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734016814546039
7. Onifade, E., Wilkins, J., Davidson, W., Campbell, C., & Petersen, J. (2011). A https://jlc.org/issues/youth-tried-adults

‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’

Introduction

The issue of serious/violent juvenile crime may be a very complex one, warranting a judicious approach to be adopted to effectively address the competing interests of those juveniles, the victims (especially women and girls), which of public safety. The gang rape on 16 December 2012 has triggered a nationwide debate on a variety of issues, one among them being the quantum of punishment for juveniles involved in heinous crimes. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act) prescribes a maximum period of three years detention during a Special Home (SH), which many believe as being disproportionate to the impact of such a criminal offense on the victim and society. Two distinct positions have emerged – one that each one juvenile within the age bracket of 16-18 years be addressed by the adult criminal justice system and second, that only those juveniles who have allegedly committed heinous crimes to be addressed during this manner, through the establishment of a waiver system. Shorn of the panic it’s triggered, the incident has raised issues that need a deeper examination of the principles and values of the juvenile justice system and an evaluation of the adequacy of responses to juveniles who commit serious/violent crime in India.

History

The Act was passed amidst debates and arguments from all sections of the society. The first objective of the Act is to make sure the overall care and protection of youngsters by reforming them and reintegrate them into society. Although the intent of the Act isn’t to punish a toddler but to make sure their rehabilitation, there was an enormous hue and cry post the Nirbhaya case for more stringent punishment regarding juveniles involved in serious crimes. Bowing to the pressure, the legislature amended the JJ Act to adequately address the crimes committed by juvenile offenders. it had been understood that a case concerning juvenile offenders cannot merely be selected basis on the age of the juvenile, but it should also take into consideration the criminal offense committed by the juvenile. The amendment introduced the concept of heinous crimes and therefore the procedure for trying juvenile caught doing the heinous crimes as an adult.

The failings within the JJ Act was put to the spotlight by the various cases where the juveniles sought protection under the JJ Act and were considered as having gone awry instead of an individual with criminal intent. The offenders under the JJ Act are mentioned remand homes for three years and upon their release, their criminal records are deleted, to make sure that the juvenile is often restored to the society without anyone being made conscious of the juvenile’s past delinquent records .

However, considering the grave nature of offenses committed by the juveniles and therefore the protection sought under the JJ Act, the JJ Act was considered flawed and therefore the level of punishment didn’t meet the gravity of the crimes committed by the juveniles. It had been difficult to conceive that the juvenile offender wasn’t conscious of the results of his action for offenses like murder, rape, etc. it had been felt that the JJ Act adopted a lighter touch for people below the age of 18, albeit the crime committed was punishable severely under the Indian Penal code (IPC).

Reason for juvenile crimes in India

Many factors are contributing to the criminal nature of the youth. Most of those youths come from families of discord or abuse. Peer pressure, the neighborhood also influence the event of a toddler. Poverty is additionally one of the most causes of delinquent youth. Although education plays a crucial role in molding the longer term citizens, the system somewhere lacks within the ability to hold the eye of non-bookish and non-academic individuals and thus contributes towards many cases of delinquency. Delinquents are typically those that take studies sort of a burden and on being rebuked turn towards crime. The crime committed by children under statutory age is understood as delinquency. As per the statistics released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), juvenile criminals between 16 and 18 years accounted for quite 60% of the crimes registered against minors in India in 2013. The amount of juveniles in conflict with the law has increased by a big number in recent times. This also included the modesty of girls being outraged.

India seeks to tackle the matter of delinquency supported three fundamental principles:

• (i) Young offenders shouldn’t be tried; they ought to preferably be corrected;
• (ii) They ought to not be punished but reformed
• (iii) Exclusion of delinquents i.e. children in conflict with the law from the ambit of Court and stress on their non-penal treatment through community-based group action agencies such a Juvenile Justice Board, Observation Homes, Special Homes, etc.

Present legislation

Juvenile is defined under section 2(35) of juvenile justice (care and protection of children) Act 2015 means a toddler below the age of eighteen years. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 lays down that juvenile in conflict with the law or juvenile offenders could also be kept during an ‘Observation Home’ while children in need of care and protection got to be kept in a ‘Children Home’ during the pendency of proceedings before the competent authority.

A juvenile is often detained just for a maximum period of three years regardless of the gravity of the offense committed by him and he is going to be remanded to ‘Special Home’. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 provides immunity to the kid who is a smaller amount than 18 Years aged at the time of the commission of the alleged offense from trial through court or any punishment under legal code insight of Section 17 of the Act.

Judicial Trends

From time to time many trends had been remodeled the juvenile justice system in India as by different judgment by various courts and legislations and a few out of that are as follows the Supreme Court of India in Gaurav Jain v. Union of India while handling writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution concerning the plight of the prostitutes or fallen women and their progeny, spoke about the Preamble of the Constitution and stated that it’s an integral a part of the Constitution of India which the youngsters have the proper to equality and therefore the opportunity for all well beings, dignity and look after the right protection and rehabilitation by the society with open hands hospitable make them onto the actual way of social life with none mark supported them for no-fault.

In Laxmikant Pandey v. State , the Hon’ble Court of India observed that each juvenile features a right to proper care and assistance and affection and of morality and proper security and this is often only claimable only the juveniles are going to be mentioned in proper family and good environment. In Subramanian Swamy v. Raju Thr. Member, Juvenile Justice Board some incidence becomes mileage stone that shook the psyche of the society or nation. one among such is that the case of the Delhi gang rape as where the 5, 6 persons rape a woman though brutally and killing her by putting rod privately part and therefore the justice system is intrinsically the juvenile involved in it’s to be released after small imprisonment.

Conclusion

The onus to make sure that children don’t stray is with adults. reception and at educational institutions, they have to watch the behavior of youngsters and behave like role models for kids. Early detection and counseling for those with criminal tendencies is vital so that they are doing not find yourself as offenders, and also so that they don’t influence others to try to an equivalent. This is often possible only parents are cognizant of what’s wrong within the child’s behavior and aware of correcting him/her . By and enormous in India, there’s no rule of law, and kids are checking out that it’s easy to urge away with breaking the law.

The Outsiders directed by Francis Ford Coppola, and written by S.E. Hinton depicts the social rivalry between the high school cliques “Greasers” and “Socs.” The Greasers are the lower class, the poor kids from the wrong side of town or mostly know by the designated delinquents. The Socs, short for Socialites, are the rich kids from the south side of town, getting all the breaks and advantages, but still doing a lot of the same things as the “delinquents.” However because of their social class, they never seem to get into any trouble. Rivalry is part of society when it comes to life and even more when talking about teenagers, everyone always wants to be ahead of everyone else, be the “perfect” adolescent. When writing the novel, The Outsiders, Hinton utilizes the sociological theme, symbolic interactionism to portray the meaning behind each character and the real life they had that caused each and one of them to become who they did.

In this story, Hinton applied symbolic interactionism throughout the novel and Coppola depicted it very well in the film. Symbolic interactionism is a study of how people use symbols to communicate, it’s a framework for building theory that sees society as a product of everyday interactions between individuals (Macionis 2018). It was applied, when Ponyboy Curtis described the way the “greasers” and “socs” differentiated each other because of how they looked and the way they dressed, and most importantly the way they act. He states that the Greasers are a working class, as they are poorer than the socs. When the movie first started, the hatred the Socs had for the greasers was seen right away, when they attacked Ponyboy for just walking home from the movie theater. The Socs’ way of communicating with the rival gang, the Greasers, was by attacking one of them without having a reason for it. After a few seconds of being pushed around Ponyboy’s brothers, who play the role of his parents, showed up with the rest of the Greasers to help Ponyboy scare the Socs away. All through the movie symbolic interactionism is used, not only by describing the Socs and the Greaser’s rivalry between each group, but also how Ponyboy, Sodapop, Darry, Dallas, Johnny, Two-Bit and Steve protected each other as if they were all real blood brothers. They had formed such strong social bonds with one another that even the thought of losing one of their own caused a severe emotional reaction.

The Greasers and the Socs are just names to describe the gangs from different sides of town, best known as the rich side and the poor side. Significant labels given to anyone, accepted or not can be very powerful because labels are not so much the way of describing a person, but how others respond to those labels (Macionis 2018). “As people develop a stronger commitment to deviant behavior, they typically acquire a stigma, a powerfully negative label that greatly changes a person’s self concept and social identity,” (Macionis 2018). Labeling theory consists techniques of neutralization. Techniques of neutralization are denial, condemnation and appeal (Shuey 2018). Ponyboy went into denial when both him and Johnny killed Bob, one of the Socs. Since the Greasers were already greatly condemned, Johnny and Ponyboy knew they did not stand a chance even if they appealed to have just acted upon self defence. Their inner control took over their thoughts and they decided to run to Dallas for advice, then later running away.

Control theory consists of inner control and outer control. Inner control is having a conscience, and outer control is when others influence on us do not deviate (Macionis 2018). The bonds based on the influencers are mostly because of attachments, commitments, and involvements (Shuey 2018). Sodapop was the biggest influencer for Ponyboy since he had the biggest heart from Ponyboy’s point of view. Whenever Ponyboy felt like Darry hated him and could not stand him, Soda always made sure to reassure him that Darry loved him as much as he loved Soda. After their parent’s death, Darry took on many responsibilities, which is why he always wants the best for his brothers and himself, that’s what his parents would have wanted. Even when Ponyboy’s inner control was working against him, Soda helped him out to get his thoughts under control.

Juvenile delinquency is defined as a young person whose behavior is marked by the violation of the law and the way they act. However, who society defines as a delinquent, can be very biased. Greasers act and look different from a traditional society, they get in fights, carry around blades, move in groups and generally have loud and aggressive demeanors. They smoke, drink, stay out late and go to parties. In the film environment all of this is normal, because crime is a natural part of their society. Strain theory is seen as the film moves in deeper to the climax because Dallas and the rest of the Greasers except Ponyboy depict the outcome of people that cannot always achieve greater success. People not achieving cultural goals legitimately feel anomie and become deviant is part of strain theory (Shuey 2018).

When teenagers are growing up it is a time when our minds are not fully developed like an adult. In recent years juvenile crimes have increased. Some reasons could be from being pressured into doing criminal things or society making it look cool. These teenagers have trouble understanding and managing their problems which can lead them to prison. They do not always know what is right and wrong, sometimes they do not have the guidance or any good influence around helping them in the right direction. If we can give them the support and tools they need, they have a second chance of changing their lives for good and stay away from all crimes.

Life ‘s too short and we only live once, but what we do with our lives is our choice. Many kids are deciding to go the wrong direction in their short lives. Some teenagers become Juvenile criminals, and these crimes that these teenagers did goes to the Juvenile Justice, Department.

Juveniles can not be sentenced to death if under the age of 18, and also can not be given life sentences without parole because we see these punishments cruel for juveniles. It would not even make sense because the age of these juvenile delinquents is between 10 to 18. Some of these teenagers never had the chance to act in a certain way because of lack of experience and they never saw good examples.

Most common way teenagers commit crimes is after they have experienced bullying at school or any violence at them. They are not physically stable and can not react to the pressure. Also, teenagers who bully others or join gangs are seeking the attention and acceptance that they are not getting at home. Teenagers from a home where there is just on single parent working all the time can feel ambanded and wish for the feeling of belonging that comes with being part of a gang.

Usually, these teenagers are from low-income families, whose parents could be alcoholics, drug addicts, or mentally ill people. They see this behavior of their parents and older siblings, and when they become teenagers, they start copying the behavior and acting in the same way. If their parents do not work and stole things they needed, the teenager would do the same. If they see aggressive and violence towards people, they would bully others. Being addicted to alcohol or drugs can lead someone to do awful things to get it. Even being taken to prison, they often become even more aggressive. Most of the time we listen and learn from our parents instead of others. If parents do not teach their child to see the difference between bad and good, the teenagers would not even know what they are up against and commit a crime that will face them the consequences afterward.

Another big cause of juvenile delinquency is financial issues. Having financial issues where there is an overwhelming feeling can set teenagers to problems later in life, including juvenile delinquent behavior. Financial issues can cause children anxiety or motivate them to steal, so they can have things that other families have or as what their friends or classmates have.

Who is responsible for these actions are the parents and teachers who did not notice the teenager’s behavior or any other danger. It is not right to punish teenagers who have not realized what they have done. Some of these cases could have been prevented if the parents were more focused on their behavior and any changes in their child. The most important thing for people is having a healthy relationship with their family, trusting relationships, feeling that you are supported and someone is there for you on your good times and bad times in your life. So, instead of punishing the teenagers for committing crimes, it is better to do everything to prevent them.

The top offense committed by Juveniles is theft and larceny. This offense typically manifests as shoplifting stealing a bicycle, or stealing from backpacks and lockers. The second type of offense is vandalism; this offense generally manifests as engaging in tagging and graffiti; scribbling on the walls of public bathrooms, keying a car and slashing auto tires. The third most common incident involves the possession and consumption of alcohol. The fourth most common offense refers to “disorderly conduct” and this can involve things like fighting in public spaces, using foul language to a teacher, or various forms of indecent exposure, from juvenile delinquency is basic assault or battery.

Meet 14-year-old Kenneth Young who was misguided by his poverty-stricken neighborhood and his drug addicted mother. His only sister has recently welcomed an infant into the world bringing a rush of responsibility crashing upon the shoulders of little Kenneth, being the only ‘man’ in the household. How can a 14-year-old take such a pressuring role? Desperately, at age 15 Kenneth accompanies a 24-year-old man, who happens to be his mother’s drug dealer, in several different robberies across the state of Florida. Many of the victims were white females. Once convicted 15-year-old Kenneth was sentenced to four life without parole sentences. Keep in mind no one died. Kenneth was not armed, nor did Kenneth do the robbing. While his codefendant who was armed, physically assaulted the victims and was the head man of the robberies, received only one life sentence. Unfortunately, 11 years later despite a number of appeals and trials, 26-year-old Kenneth is still sitting in prison serving a 30-year sentence for a crime he committed when he was only 14-years old.

The first juvenile court was founded in 1899 in Chicago, Illinois. By 1925, every state in the United States, except two, implemented a juvenile court system. Initially the juvenile court system was supposed to serve as a means of rehabilitation and “to prevent children from being treated as criminals” (McCord et al. 3). Sadly to say that the system had strayed far from its foundation which is why the United States should reconstruct its juvenile justice system to tackle the rapid rate of juvenile incarceration of children of color, the conditions of facilities and the emotional and mental impact those facilities have on all youth, because there are more effective and healthier ways to address juvenile crime and while lowering the rate of recidivism.

To begin, The United States has the highest juvenile incarceration rate of any industrialized nation in the world (Gilman 1). According to a census taken by the American Civil Liberties Union, nearly 60,000 youth under the age of 18 are incarcerated in juvenile jails and prisons (2). These statistics are appropriate when examining the entire youth population across all 50 states. But more specifically looking at those who are of color, “black youths were more than five times as likely to be detained or incarcerated as white youths were; black youths are 10 times as likely to be detained or incarcerated as white youths” (Knefel 2). As if black children are more likely to do something childlike than a white kid. In fact, black and white youth are roughly as likely to get into fights, carry weapons, steal property, use and sell illicit substances and even skip school. But for these minor offenses a child could face years in juvenile facilities and even tried as an adult.

In other words, black kids and white kids can behave in the same ways, but black kids overwhelmingly are the ones getting locked up. It’s safe to say that it’s unfair to our black youth because they are the ones being ripped away from their families and their futures destroyed while their counterpart matures and changes from the same mistakes that they once committed as children. The only difference is that the black youth is seen as unchanging criminals while white adolescents are seen as immature. It is fair to say that the current juvenile justice system is another scheme that is against the advancement of young black males and even females.

In addition to the rapid rate of juvenile incarceration, the residential facilities that the youth are assigned are far from perfect. It is true that girls and boys face similar experiences while they are serving their time. But the conditions that many females face are horrendous and hard to imagine. “80 percent of the girls in some states’ juvenile justice systems have a history of sexual or physical abuse” (Williams 1). Many girls who find themselves going to juvenile have had some form of physical or sexual abuse prior to being locked up. Once inside, girls encounter a system that is often ill-equipped to identify and treat the violence and trauma that are at the root of victimized girls’ arrests. According to a special report conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, roughly 33 percent of girls experienced some form of sexual abuse while in custody. When abuse occurs to these girls in the very settings that are designed to enhance their lives and to protect them, it is especially shocking and difficult to understand. There is no longer one sexual deviant to blame for the exploitation, but an entire system that has allowed for the abuse to continue, and in the process, enabled more girls to be victimized.

Besides, the stereotypical juvenile offender is “a violent, young male,” theories about delinquent behavior are often based on adolescent boys. In turn, programming within the juvenile justice system has been developed to meet the needs of male offenders such as learning how to self-regulate aggression, rather than developing self-esteem and resilience. Gender norms also continue to impact the treatment of girls in detention; one study found that girls in a detention facility were penalized more harshly with legal sanctions rather than verbal reprimands when acting ‘unladylike’ (Forbes 3). Girls are also particularly vulnerable to the fact that detention facilities are ill equipped to address and manage prior violence and victimization. Incarcerated girls with a history of abuse require sensitive and tailored responses.

Overall the structure and the programs of many detention centers are problematic regardless of the gender. The rehabilitation programs that are offered as a way for teens to focus on more positive realms of life are flawed. For example, the education programs are not equipped to meet the education needs of all offenders. Given that the juvenile system draws from impoverished neighborhoods, where schools have limited resources and are frequently deficient academically. In the book, Locked Up, Locked Out, Anne Nurse notes that most state prison systems are extremely overcrowded and are working with tight budgets. As a result, their schools are understaffed, and their teachers underpaid (55). Therefore, the youth inside those jails and prisons are not getting the quality educational assistance they need to rehabilitate themselves back into society.

Furthermore, the Employment and Job training skills program that most detention centers have are defective. Ideally after completing this program many offenders can go straight to work after they are released. Some of the job training skills are in the fields of welding, computer design, woodworking or auto maintenance. The inmates are allowed to participate in this program through the Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE) program, run by the Bureau of Justice Assistance through the Department of Justice who has contracts with private companies. So, the inmates are not working for the jail or prison but for private companies who can use “80 percent of the inmates earned wages to pay their taxes or to reimburse the state for the cost of room and board” (Nurse 60). The inmates nearly spend hours laboring for these companies and they have no say so in where their hardworking money goes to. Not to mention they are not even paid a fair pay rate. Also, the job training skills that they are taught are subpar because the jail or prison cannot afford to keep their equipment up to date and some of the jobs that are taught are not popular in the job market. Needless to say, that if an inmate is released, they will have an extremely hard time finding a job in their trained field. There would be new jobs that they are not allowed to get because they are simply not qualified.

Moreover, the juvenile justice policy makers believe that “if you’re old enough to do the crime, you’re old enough to do the time” However, advances in brain science since the early 2000s have proved that “adolescents’ minds are fundamentally different from those of adults”(Tsui 1). Changes in the brain that occur during adolescence years make young people more impulsive, less able to make measured decisions and more susceptible to peer pressure. At the same time, the malleable nature of the teenage brain means that children who commit crimes in their youth also have a greater capacity to reform when they are much older.

Youth in juvenile custody are at high risk for mental health problems that may have contributed to their criminal behavior and that is likely to interfere with rehabilitation. Unsurprisingly, researchers have found that even short periods of isolation can evoke symptoms of paranoia, anxiety, and depression in juveniles, and those who spend extended periods in isolation are among the most likely to attempt suicide (Ziedenberg 2). Putting teens into a confined space makes it much harder for them to learn and understand their brain chemistry and actually grow out of their ‘delinquent’ ways. In fact, a recent literature review of youth corrections shows that detention has a profoundly negative impact on young people’s mental and physical well-being. “One-third of incarcerated youth are diagnosed with depression…and poor mental health” (Hollman, Ziedenberg 4). Depression is found to begin after the teenagers start their incarceration and the conditions of confinement together conspire to make it more likely that incarcerated teens will engage in suicide and self-harm, because they are forced into these small spaces with dozens of other people that they are unfamiliar with, which is truly scary and traumatizing. Researchers have found that at least a third of detention centers are overcrowded breeding an environment of violence and chaos for young people (Hollman 8). Far from receiving effective treatment, young people with behavioral health problems simply get worse in detention, not better.

Not to mention the population of adolescents who enter into the system already have some trace of a mental disorder. In turn, they do not receive the appropriate amount of clinical care they need. The Policy Design Team (1994) found that approximately 50 percent of the juvenile detainees in Virginia alone showed mental health problems of moderate severity or higher and that 8.5 percent showed “severe” problems, but that only 15 percent of the detainees who exhibited mental health problems were receiving mental health services while in custody (Flores 2). Not even half of incarcerated youth received the proper medical treatment they needed in one state alone. Imagine the numbers in the 49 other states.

However, not all research shows that the United States justice system is a total failure. Some agree that the system, despite its flaws is quite effective in rehabilitating and disciplining troubled youth. Author Kara Moore began his piece by stating, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” (1). Essentially Moore is arguing that adolescents should be held responsible for their actions no matter the intensity of the crime. Teenagers are old enough to know what is right and what is wrong, so when they make the wrong decisions it is their fault and they should be punished. Moore also believes that teens should be tried as adults and they should not be treated any different. He asserts,” people believe that children learn bad behavior from their parents, things like murder, rape, stealing or drug abuse; but children should learn from their parent’s mistakes” (3). While I agree that adolescents should be held accountable for their actions, it does not at all mean they have to endure inhumane conditions at such a vulnerable age, they shouldn’t be treated as cold hearted criminals or helpless beings. The current United States juvenile justice system does not effectively hold adolescents accountable for their actions. They over penalize children for, often times, minor crimes and further create mental, emotional, behavioral and even sexual trauma.

There are many alternatives to the way the justice system can hold adolescents responsible. Other countries have more beneficial programs for their youth that have ultimately rehabilitated them back into society without causing unnecessary damage. For example, based on the International Juvenile Justice Observatory report, Finland has implicated a system, where all offenders under the age of 15 are dealt with only by the child welfare authorities. Young offenders aged 15 to 17 are dealt with both by the child welfare system and the system of criminal justice. Young adults aged 18 to 20 are only dealt with by the criminal justice authorities (1). So, depending on your age group, you will receive the necessary and appropriate medical and emotional treatment necessary. Along with different educational, labor and community service programs that are deemed fit to your age group. Also, with Finland’s mediation program, those children who need counseling or other emotional assistance will receive just that by partnering with different counseling firms. Teenagers ultimately learn how to understand their emotions and take control of their identity. To say the least, Finland’s main goal is not to focus on the criminal aspect of their youth’s offenses but more of an approach that is the best at fixing the underlying problem that initially caused the delinquent behavior. In fact, Due to the small number of juvenile prisoners (at the moment 5 to 7 persons under the age of 18), there are no specific prisons for juveniles in Finland (Lappi-Seppälä 10). One can conclude that Finland’s youth population is overall happier and more successful, because they are not sent away to overcrowded and crappy detention centers.

I truly believe the United States should mimic this same program or a similar one as a means of cutting back on the rapid rate of juvenile incarceration. The United States could actually lower the recidivism rate and help many teens mentally and emotionally grow as they mature. If considered, the system will be designed to cater to a specific age group, and they will be exposed to different programs and mentors that will help them understand what they have done wrong and teach them what they can do better in the future. The adolescents will also receive the clinical care and emotional care they need to get to the root of their unacceptable behavior, which will result in them less likely to do it again. In the end the United States will have more happier and healthier teens, because there will be no more painting a child as a criminal or a monster, but more of a misunderstood teen who deserves a second chance.

In conclusion, the United States has strayed far from its original purpose of establishing a safe haven for troubled teens. In order for this country to uphold its founding principles when it comes to juvenile justice it is imperative that they tackle the growing rate of juvenile incarceration in minority communities, the substandard conditions of facilities and programs and lastly, the emotional and mental damage caused to many youth before and during custody. If the United States continue to rely on the incarceration of youth, billions of tax dollars will be wasted, because incarceration does not prevent future crime. Also, there will be a modern day slavery system where all of the children of color will be locked away for a very long time and no one, not the parents, not the community, not even the children themselves would have any control over it, except the white judges and policy makers. That is why it is extremely important for youth to be active in Juvenile Justice reform. They need to be educated on what is happening and establish ways they can express their voice and execute their proposals to bring about a change in the way this country carelessly locks away the youth.

In the fight against crime, society requires the need for perpetrators such as disease patients who show somatic symptoms for the satisfaction of their impulses that comes under their conscious mind soon to withdrawal, and it is necessary to take serious measurements from the families in the way of crime prevention in society. In addition, the duty of the police in the prevention of crime should be emphasized with the example of providing sympathy and interest towards the people’s liberty and the role of the offense should be emphasized with its behavior expressing the omnipotence. A child is not born guilty but can be manipulated by society or the guardians in authority can be the reason for the child becoming a delinquent. Juvenile children are contrary to regular guilty offenders, Canadian law highlights an important aspect of our criminal justice system for juvenile offenders compared to adult offenders

Children are individuals who are younger than 18 years of age who are prepared to be socially individual. In this period, the child tries to complete psychological and social development besides physical development. The child is neither a ‘good’ nor a ‘bad’ being born at the time of birth, but as an adult, he interacts with his environment and develops at any time. It is their experience that determines whether it is good or bad. Crimes are acts that transcend the personal sphere and enter the public sphere and break the prohibited rules or laws, whereby legitimate penalties are imposed and require the intervention of the public authority. Guilt is a social problem and juvenile guilt is a part of it. The reasons that push the child to crime are divided into two, mainly individual and social. The effect of individual factors on the child’s inclination to crime is quite small. The child’s becoming a part of the crime and the committing of the crime is a reflection of the problems of society. Therefore, family and society are the main points in the solution of juvenile delinquency. As children move away from crime, there will be healthy, happy societies, and when society finds solutions, children will move away from the concept of crime. In a nutshell, the family and society in which the child is raised and shape in how the child will become an individual and its potency in the future. Juvenile delinquency is a concern for the child’s future and society. In the prevention of juvenile delinquency, The term Juvenile delinquent was established so that young lawbreakers could avoid being classified as criminals and to be treated differently than adult offenders. This type of system was enacted because juveniles do not have the cognitive development as adults do, therefore the punishment and the rehabilitation is different. It is Canada’s role and duty as sovereignty to provide indefectible Canadian law to those who deserve justice. Canadian law has have had a couple of breaches in the wall of deeming justice and fairness for juvenile children, this can be related to the R. V. Truscott case: In 1959, Steven Truscott was only fourteen years old when he was charged with the murder of his classmate Lynn Harper. After his wrongful conviction, Steven spent nearly fifty years seeking justice before he was acquitted by the Ontario court of appeal in 2007. Despite Steven Truscott’s age, Steven was ordered to stand trial as an adult and charged with first-degree murder with a punishment of death by hanging, but gratefully his sentence was changed to life in imprisonment. The miscarriage of justice ruined Steven Trusscot’s life, an innocent kid that received an adult offender’s punishment is not suitable at all. He had to live with that stigma until the truth was revealed. This is an example of failure to provide justice for juvenile children and how deeply it affects them. The Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed by the Parliament of Canada in 1908 to handle juvenile offenses ages of criminal responsibility under the civil law, according to the ages of criminal responsibility for the Juvenile Delinquents act of 1908 it states that ages 14 to 25 are found Liable to be punished, whether capitally or otherwise, ages of under 10 not punishable. The resentment of the act can be seen of its unfairness and mistakes in providing what is suitable for juvenile offenders. The act superseded into the Young Offenders Act in 1984 and then repealed as Youth criminal justice act in 2003. The act indicates that the application of criminal and correctional law applies to those 12-year-olds or older, but younger than 18 of committing the offence. The Criminal code, section 13 states “No person shall be convicted of an offense in respect of an act or omission on their part while that person was under the age of twelve years. Interesting how the view of law corrects its changes from 1908 till 2003 for what’s suitable for juvenile offenders, where the main goal is to rehabilitate and prevent them from being treated as an adult offender such as Steven Trusscot’s miscarriage of justice. The YCJA includes four major principles, crime prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration, and meaningful consequences that differ from adults.

A delinquent under this act has the same rights and privileges as an adult who is charged with a crime, including the options such as the right to bail, preliminary hearing according to the rules of the evidence and the Crown’s obligation in providing the known evidence. There are exceptions to juvenile children under this act, such as special youth courts. The special youth courts are specifically designed for young offenders that should not end up like Steven Truscott. “ notice of a young person being charged, arrested and detained is to be given to his or her parent(s); a young person, if detained in custody, is to be kept apart from adult prisoners; information which may identify young persons who are involved in Youth Court proceedings (as an accused, a witness or a victim) may not be published; the court may exclude persons from the courtroom, and access to a young offender’s record is restricted.”. Sometimes the access to a young offender’s record is restricted because after the age of 18 any criminal records should be erased, in order to keep this statement true, youth courts are specialized in maintaining that promise or it will diminish the person’s life who just turned into an adult. The Youth courts are manifested for the purpose of staying up to the four major principles of the YCJA. These are related to the needs and circumstances of young offenders. Where if young persons are found guilty of an offense, the court may impose a variety of dispositions or sentences. These include an absolute discharge; a fine (not exceeding $1000) and an order to pay compensation to the victim (in kind or by way of personal service); an order to perform community services; the placement of a young offender on probation for up to 2 years (or, in the case of certain serious offences, up to 3 years); and the placement of a young offender in custody for a period of up to 2 years or, for certain serious offences, up to 3 years and 5 years. Which the YCJA encourages the measures of the youth court system for an appropriate and effective way to respond to juvenile children that include police warnings and help to be provided

Moreover, Juvenile children are judged by different version of courts such as the youth courts and have different justice system than adult offenders. Juvenile children are kept away from all kinds of criminal environments and identifying and intervening with the factors that cause them to step into guilt is one of the fundamental duties and purpose to be provided by insuring the YJCA, due to the four major principles of crime prevention, rehabilitation and reintegration, and meaningful consequences that differ from adults. No young child should end up like Steven Truscott. The same crime committed by the young offender and the adult will have different punishments because society recognizes that young offenders do not have the cognitive development that adults have and those young offenders can benefit from the rehabilitation services to prevent recidivism.