Category: Juvenile Crime

Should Juveniles Be Tried And Treated As 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: the Theme of Juvenile Delinquency

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).

Should Juvenile Offenders Be Charged As Adults?

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.

The Juvenile Injustice System: The Horror Of Kid VS Criminal

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.

Juvenile Crime And Guilty Offenders

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.

Juvenile Death Penalty: Justice Or Cruelty

16th June 1944 was the darkest day of the 20th century in America. Justice was served for two little white girls in Alcolu in South Carolina by serving cruelty to a young boy. The judiciary failed to make a rational and sensible decision for a juvenile mind. 14-year old George Stinney Jr. was convicted for murdering 7-year old Mary Emma and raping and murdering her 11-year old friend Betty June. George was electrocuted with an electric current of 4000 volts which not only seemed inhumane to the nation but also to Betty’s father and brother who witnessed the punishment. As Betty’s elder sister, Vermelle Tucker said, ‘it really worried him’.

Everyone wanted justice for both the little girls but not at the cost of shaming humanity. George was denied the constitutional right of due process just because of his color. The decision was formed way before the trial started. Everything was orchestrated to maintain white supremacy. From facts to witnesses, defense to appeals, everything was bent as per the majority’s will and after throwing appropriateness out of question. To my eyes, it seemed all wrong from the beginning. So let’s start from the start:

Incommunicado Interrogation

The most important step in any criminal act is the interrogation. It being done right helps in bringing a fair decision. But a biased interrogation might cost somebody his life. Without questioning the integrity of the judiciary, the interrogation carried on by the sheriff was against the constitution and human rights. George was not allowed to meet or talk to his parents and lawyer. He was denied his constitutional right of taking a proper legal recourse during interrogation. This was enough to make everyone believe that George’s confession was coercive.

Facts ignored

The court never questioned the estate owner where the dead bodies of the little girl were found. George had no point going to the far off estate and dump the bodies there. Had he ever done that, it should have been proved rationally.

Weapon used in killing

The use of railroad trestle spike as the murder weapon should have been deliberated. How George got hold of it even when he was not a worker at any mill. Why he used that weapon and when did he secured it and from where. None of the questions were given much consideration which could have led to an unbiased verdict.

No cross-questioning of witnesses

Till the end, George’s family maintained that he was with his family at their home when the crime was supposed to have happened. But no witnesses were called during the trial to establish it as a fact, or maybe a lie. Constitutional right of proving himself not guilty was again denied to George.

Jury members

When a case involving diverse communities needs judgment, the only way to an unbiased and just decision is to form a jury independent of any race or color. In George’s case, the jury was bound to be unjust as there was nil representation from the colored community. The inherent love for their people easily shadowed their sense of fair judgment. Had that been untrue, could the presence of a witness and a search officer, George Burke Sr., be justified as a jury member.

Hastened Justice

It was 24th April 1944 when both the girls were murdered. And George Stinney was executed on 16th June, 1944, just a little before three months. For such a grave crime, it seems a decision a little too hastened. Even the trial of George was over in just two hours and thirty minutes. To serve justice, the jury took only ten minutes to finally arrive at their decision. This unusually hastened trial and sentence raises a lot of suspicion about the credibility of the verdict. There was neither any recommendation for any mercy for the young boy.

No appeal or stays

After the verdict, the white lawyer of George did not file for an appeal. All he needed to do was write a single sentence appeal and try to save his client. George was a young child. If he was the real culprit, he surely had an immature and delinquent mind. He couldn’t have known the severity of the crime he committed. He could have been sent to child welfare or even to the correction center. If not anything else, his sentence could have been changed to life imprisonment just by an appeal or a stay order against such a cruel execution.

The point of contemplation here is not if George was guilty of the crime. Nor it questions how heinous the crime was. Rather it all zeroes down to how heinous a justice can be. The judiciary tried to mask its cruel act by calling it justice which they failed at apparently. After 70 years, in 2014, the 14th Judicial District Judge of South Carolina, Carmen Tevis Mullen reiterated the same. She did not recognize George as innocent or questioned the integrity of the court’s decision. Her main concern was the way George was denied his constitutional right to due process and how America failed at being just and fair to a delinquent mind.

Not only at the judicial level, America’s weak administration also got exposed with this case. The whole case was fastened to avoid a situation of what was a very common way of delivering justice on the spot: lynching. Had George, a young boy of color, not punished immediately, the white people would have served justice as per their will by lynching the poor boy. However, that had hardly been the scenario where the convicted happened to be a white juvenile. This is where the administration, i.e., the cops failed at implementing what Abraham Lincoln fought all his life for. As per statistics provided by Government Accounting Officer, the children of color are eighteen times more likely to be charged as adults for the crimes they committed as juveniles. This shows the biased laws America, a nation of immigrants, adheres to while dealing with young delinquent minds.

Juvenile Justice: Crime Causation, Difference In Court Systems, And Rehabilitation VS Punishment

In life, we are faced with trials and tribulations, and how we respond to these problems shape us into who we will be. If we respond poorly to these issues, it could land us in a courtroom or even behind bars. As young impressionable juveniles are exposed to family problems, drugs, and peer pressure, how they react can lead them to a life of crime and dancing in and out of the juvenile justice system. Crime causation factors in juveniles include family life, social environment, biological factors, and educational environments. How they respond to these factors can get them in a juvenile court or- if the crime is severe enough- an adult court. Depending on which court a juvenile ends up in, their experiences within the system can revolve around rehabilitation or punishment.

There are many different factors that can cause a juvenile to turn to crime. Biological makeup and genetics can have a hand in causing criminality within juveniles. Along with biological makeup, psychological makeup can also cause criminality within juveniles. However, these are just internal factors that cause criminality; there are many more external factors that can turn juveniles toward crime. Family is a large external factor that affects juveniles the most. Family, as a crime causation factor, focuses on parents, siblings, extended family members, and the dynamic of the family. There is a correlation between parents’ absence and criminality in their children. For example, the Rochester Youth Study focused on the quality of parent-child relationships. The Rochester Youth Study researchers found that “the relationship between family process factors and delinquency is circular; poor-parenting increased the probability if delinquent behavior, and delinquent behavior further weakened the relationship between parent and child” (Taylor and Fritsch, 67). It is found that the presence of a father reduces the chance of his son being delinquent, first born children are less likely to be delinquents, and the larger the family, the more likely that a child from the family will become a delinquent. Coming from a broken home, or a home plagued by abuse or neglect, can correlate to delinquency or delinquent behaviors in juveniles.

The social environment of a juvenile can also play a role in causing criminality. The social environment of a juvenile can relate to social class, the peers in a juvenile’s life, and the activities and interests the juvenile partakes in. Along with the social environment, the ecological and educational environments also play a role in the crime causation of juveniles. These environmental factors include community, neighborhoods, attitude toward school, and performance in school. If a juvenile performs poorly in school and falls into a bad crowd of peers, it is likely that the juvenile is question will fall into delinquent behaviors. In a recent study, one that examined the relationship between educational factors and delinquency, it was found that a “weak school commitment and poor school performance were associated with increased involvement and drug use” (Taylor and Fritsch, 71). In this same study, it was also found that those who were more attached to school also avoided delinquency, and that the involvement in delinquency increased the chances of the juvenile to drop out of school.

There are many factors that can contribute to the causation of crime in juveniles. Many of these factors are external, but there are also a few internal factors that can have the greatest impact on whether a juvenile will or will not participate in delinquent behavior. A child that is failing his classes, a child that is being abused at home, a child without a father, and a child with a poor living situation all have one thing in common; They are at a higher risk of falling into delinquent behaviors and setting on the path of crime.

Differences Between Juvenile and Adult Courts

The court systems in America follow the same basic guidelines; there is an initial arrest, a preliminary hearing to decipher if there is a case to be made, a trial before a jury of the offender’s peers, sentencing, and appeal. However, in the juvenile court system, there are a few other steps and informal approaches to settle cases. There are similarities between the adult court system and the juvenile court system, but there are mostly differences between the two. The biggest difference between the courts are the cases they handle, followed by who is in charge, and finally the sentencing procedures.

Adult courts handle cases ranging from parking tickets to something as severe as murder. While some types of cases overlap between the adult and juvenile courts, there is a different focus in the juvenile court systems. Juvenile court cases revolve around juveniles under the age of 18, and focus on the welfare of the child on or involved in a trial. “The juvenile court not only has jurisdiction over delinquent acts and status offenses but also has jurisdiction over child abuse and neglect matters, adoption, termination of parental rights, custody matters, and child support” (Taylor and Fritsch, 235). The juvenile courts still deal with violent juvenile cases, but also look at cases involving property crimes. This is where the two court systems overlap regarding cases, and the similarities don’t stop there.

How a case is handled in the juvenile courts is similar to how a case is handled in the adult court in the sense that there is a preliminary hearing, a trial, and a sentence. However, sometimes after an arrest is made on a juvenile offender, and a decision is made during intake whether a case can be handled informally. If the juvenile can abide by certain requirements in exchange for having the case handled informally, then they aren’t processed deeper into the system. “The juvenile is typically required to pay victim restitution, perform community service, attend school, or meet some other related requirement” (Taylor and Fritsch, 243). If agreed upon by the offender, they would be released rather than detained, and they would remain free only if they abide by the terms of their release. It is something that is unique to the juvenile court system, and is often used on first-time offenders who commit petty crimes.

Another difference between the court systems is the hierarchy within them. In an adult court, a judge is the only person qualified enough to judge a case in the court. However, there is the option of a court administrator taking over for the judge in the juvenile court system. This applies mostly to the other jobs the juvenile court judge must fulfill, but in an adult court, the judge sticks to his own job. Along with this difference comes the additives to the juvenile court. In both an adult and a juvenile court, there is a defense attorney, a prosecuting attorney, a bailiff, and a judge. Additionally, in a juvenile court there are referees that are present during cases and who tend to pre-adjudication hearings.

It is also notable that the juvenile court can either be part of adult court, or completely separate from all courts. Where the population is larger, it is more common for the juvenile courts to be separate from adult courts, whereas in smaller populations, it’s commonplace for the juvenile courts to be within adult court.

Both adult and juvenile courts have similarities in the way they basically function. The differences between the two are most prevalent in the little details; having a court administrator take over the judge’s duties, cases being informally taken care of during the intake process, types of cases and the focus in said cases, as well as the addition of referees in the court setting. While the differences aren’t terribly noticeable, they are still present, and alter the way a case can pan out for juveniles during their trials.

Rehabilitation vs. Punishment in the Juvenile Justice System

In the world of corrections, there are generally four main goals; rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. Rehabilitation, in corrections, involves treatment and counseling for juveniles in order to reform offenders. These treatments and the counseling is what is commonly emphasized and prescribed in juvenile institutions, or juvenile detention centers. Rehabilitation can involve furthering academic education and, in some cases, providing vocational and job training to juveniles so that they can be prepared to enter the workforce. The main goal of juvenile incarceration is to rehabilitate the juvenile offenders so that they will not become repeat or habitual offenders in their adulthood.

In many facilities, education is a requirement. It is speculated in the text that many juvenile offenders will not continue their education where they left it, so the institutions in which they are housed educate them as needed. It is difficult to teach these children, as they vary in intelligence, age, and capability. However, those who have fallen behind in the curriculum are caught up, and those juveniles who are older will often receive their GEDs through the educational programs provided.

In select institutions, vocational training is offered to juveniles in order to prepare them for work once they leave the facility. In programs like these, juveniles are taught skills required for entry-level jobs. In these programs, juveniles soak up knowledge and learn the proper attitudes to adopt when out and ready to join the workforce. In special cases, the juveniles participating in these programs are working in a partnership with a third-party company in order to be work-ready.

Aside from the low-risk juveniles participating in those rehabilitation programs, there are still serious juvenile offenders in need of rehabilitation. These offenders, arrested for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and rape, are set up in specialized institutions. These specialized institutions focus on repeat offenders and offenders with serious crimes under their belts. Even though the common consensus would be to punish these offenders rather than rehabilitate them, the specialized institutions housing these serious offenders are still focused on rehabilitating its inhabitants. Regimented education, recreational time, and extracurricular activities keep those offenders busy while providing them counseling and rehabilitative programs. The institutions specializing in the more serious juvenile offenders have managed to produce a miniscule recidivism rate, proving that the “students” that have “graduated” from their institutions could be, and have been, rehabilitated.

When an individual goes to jail or prison, whether it be for a petty shoplifting crime or something as severe as murder, the immediate, knee-jerk response would be to say that the individual should be punished for the crime committed. However, the focus on juveniles is rehabilitation, so that they will not grow up to become repeat or habitual offenders. It is important to remember who is being incarcerated, and why they are. It is easy for an adult to be punished rather than rehabilitated because they are adults, and understand right from wrong better than children do. When dealing with juveniles- those under the age of 18- you must look at the situation from a different perspective. A juvenile is still a child, learning right from wrong and making mistakes as they do so. Teaching them that the delinquent behavior they are expressing is wrong, and giving them new coping mechanisms is much more beneficial to the juvenile and to society than locking the juvenile up without explanation. This is why the juvenile corrections system is focused on rehabilitating and educating young offenders rather than dishing out severe punishments.

Works Cited

1. Taylor, Robert W., and Eric J. Fritsch. Juvenile Justice: Policies, Programs, and Practices. Fifth ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2020.

The Theories And Factors Of Youth Crime

What differences makes a ‘normal’ child into a child who commits a crime? This is a difficult question to answer as there is not one ‘cause’ of crime. Crime changes across cultures and across time and eras meaning it a highly complex phenomenon to solve the reason it occurs. One action that is legal in one country, for example, alcohol consumption in the UK over the age of 18 is legal but in strict Muslim countries this is illegal. As a result, the question ‘what is crime?’ has no simple answer and therefore not one answer could explain ‘what causes crime?’ Within this essay three theories of youth crime will be discussed, the strain theory, the labelling theory and social control theory. A discussion of these theories and how they can explain causes of crime and deviant behaviour from youths will be given. In the UK there is not a single law that defines the age of a child. Found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), Article 1 states that ‘a child means every human being bellow the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child’ (unicef.org.uk, 1989)

The first theory of focus will be strain theories, particularly from the work of Robert Merton, he argued that there are established pathways to success and social goals, however within an unequal society not all individuals have the same opportunities to grasp these goals. Meaning when these ‘goals’ are constrained and cannot be reached using legitimate means, such as education and work, crime is seen as an outcome to achieve these socially valued goals. This concept of imbalance between cultural goals and institutionalised was termed ‘anomie’. He argued that an imbalanced society manufactures this anomie and strain therefore occurs between the goals and means, producing unsatisfied aspirations. Merton’s theory suggests when faced with strain, people have five ways to adapt: Conformity, this is pursuing goals through socially approved means; Innovation, this is using socially unapproved or unconventional means to obtain goals, for example, stealing or drug dealing to accomplish financial security; Ritualism, using socially approved means but to achieve more modest and humble; Retreatism; rejecting social goals and means, dropping out of society and Rebellion; reject societies goals and means, create their own, for example, setting up a gang.

Although, Merton’s strain theory assumes everyone has the same opportunities within their upbringing and throughout their life. His theory ignores aspects of class, gender and ethnicity and the effects of these on peoples opportunities, and that not everyone will have same goals or start with the same goals and work to the same end goals. Merton also only looks at economic growth, and didn’t consider that all crime is utilitarian, for example terrorism acts, making somewhere with graffiti, and domestic violence are crimes that do not have any financial benefits.

Merton’s theory provided groundwork for a further theory of delinquency; Sub Cultural Theories, such as Albert Cohen’s work on status frustration. Cohen suggested that lower class youth experience problems trying to fulfil middle-class standards, which can lead to status frustration and the formation of delinquent subcultures. Those struggling will find others who feel similar and from an anti-school subcultures, to overcome status frustration together, however, this often leads to petty crimes being committed due to boredom. Members of these groups committing these petty crimes leads to ‘success’ and a status over the other group members creating a hierarchy.

A strength of Cohen’s theory is that it provides an explanation of non-utilitarian crime, and working class delinquency as a group, not individuals. Conversely, Cohen’s suggestion of delinquent subcultures members consciously invert the norms and values of mainstream society has been criticised. When someone decides to destroy and vandalise a car for example, it seems unlikely that before committing the crime their only thoughts are that mainstream society would consider it to be unacceptable, and praiseworthy in their subculture. An opposing argument by Lyng, a post-modern sociologists, suggests that the criminal individual is influenced by boredom or seeking of a thrill/buzz.

Cloward and Ohlin (1960) argued that criminal subcultures develop in lower working class neighbourhoods where youth and juvenile gang role models come from observing and associating with successful criminals. Cloward and Ohlin suggested that these certain varied circumstances in which working class youth live, give rise to three types of delinquent subcultures: Crime Subcultures; characterised by utilitarian crime. These are crimes that which gain the individual status and love/support. Members of these crime subcultures are often abandoned at a young age, and they arise in a neighbourhood where unemployment is high, as well as is crime figures; Conflict Subcultures, these are gangs organised by the young people themselves, often based around claiming territory from other gangs, known as ‘turf wars’. A higher population turnover results in higher levels of social disorganisation preventing a stable professional criminal network developing, with its absence means only illegitimate opportunities available within local gangs. Unrest and conflict arises in society, a well-known example of a conflict subcultures is the Bloods & Crips gangs in LA; Retreatist Subcultures; these subcultures include individuals who have failed to access either legitimate or illegitimate opportunity structures, also known as ‘Double Failures’. Usually likely to drop out of society and the established pathways altogether, as also stated by Merton. This drop out of society is more prone to occur within groups or gangs and not individuals, these groups most likely to abuse drugs as an example.

It is argued that while Cloward and Ohlin’s three forms of subculture seem separate, most criminal gangs frequently have elements of two or more of these subcultures. For example the use of drugs often plays a part in criminal subcultures, while ‘turf wars’ within conflict subcultures is often associated to organised crime, for instance dealing of drugs, rather than only being about conflict. Therefore, it is not clear that Cloward and Ohlin have identified three distinctly separate subcultures.

The second theory of focus is the Labelling Theory. This theory claims that conformity and deviance does not arise from the individual’s actions, but rather from how others respond to the actions. When a crime is committed the usual reactions of the violation by the law is to demand a trail and a punishment convicted. The logic of this process is that the state intervenes to pursue offenders on behalf to protect society. These assumptions are challenged by the Labelling theory, with the argument that the state intervention has the effect of labelling an offender as a ‘criminal’, which has adverse effects.

Howard Becker (1963) suggested that through social groups deviance is created, they make rules that generate deviance and then apply them to particular individuals labelling them as deviant. He also stated that deviance is not the act committed by the individual but the consequences of rules applied by others. And the deviant one who the label has successfully been applied to. As an example, nudity in your own garden or a nudist beach isn’t a deviant act but nudity is considered a crime in certain areas, only when others define it as. Whether the act is labelled deviant depends on who commit and who observed the act, and negotiations with police, court and individual. A strength of Becker’s ideas are that they challenge the idea that deviants are different from ‘normal’ and shows importance of the reactions of others in defining and creating deviance.

Lemert (1951) distinguished deviance into two categories; primary and secondary deviance.

Lemert described primary deviance as episodes of deviant behaviour that many people participate in, for example, traffic laws like speeding or taking illegal drugs. Primary deviance has very few consequences on the individual when no one knows, but when it is discovered and exposed the label of deviant is attached. Secondary deviance is a result of societal reaction, when someone makes something out of that deviant behaviour which creates a negative social label that changes a person’s self-concept and once labelled may only be seen as that label, becoming their master status or controlling identity.

A criticism of labelling theory is that it ignores the processes and structures that lead to deviant acts. Such processes as differences in socialisation, attitudes, and opportunities, and how social and economic structures impact these. A second criticism of labelling theory is that it isn’t clear if there is an increase of deviant behaviour from labelling. Delinquent behaviour tends to increase following conviction, but is this a result of labelling as suggested by the theory. The ‘Proven Reoffending Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, October 2016 to December 2016’ state that an approximation of 8,000 juvenile offenders were cautioned, convicted or released from custody and around 3,000 of them committed a reoffence. This gives a proven reoffending rate of 40.4%, a decrease of 1.3 percentage points since the same quarter in 2015. (Assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, 2018) It is very difficult to say, since many other factors may be involved, including increased interaction with other delinquents and learning new criminal opportunities.

The third and final theory for discussion is Social Control theory, theoretically speaking control theory does not focus on the causes of crime, but rather looks at why most people don’t commit crime and obey the law, look at conformity for the law rather than deviance. Travis Hirschi (1969) is the theorist primarily associated with this theory. Hirschi proposed that people generally conform to social norms due to strong social bonds. Equally, people who engage in delinquent acts because these bonds have been broken or are weak. Human beings who suffer from weaknesses which make them potentially unable to resist temptation and turn to crime, but stronger social bonds within other people encourage them to exercise self-control and restrain. The four components of social bonds are: Belief, this relates to the persons upbringing, if they have been brought up by family or friends to follow the law and be law abiding, they are seen to be less likely to become involved in crime. People share moral beliefs have more respect for rights of others and obedience to the law; Attachment, this relates to how weak or strong an individual’s relationship with others is. A stronger commitment to conventional activities, such as having a good job and a close family, they do not want to risk losing or damaging this through crime. The stronger their attachment and the stronger the expectations, the more likely it is that the individual will conform; Commitment, if an individual has committed him or herself to a particular lifestyle, getting married and having children as such, the more he or she has to lose if they were to commit or be involved in crime. People are sensitive to and interested in the wishes of others, family, friends and locals; Involvement; this component relates to time. The more amount of time the individual spends partaking in law abiding behaviour, the less time he or she has to engage in law breaking behaviour. For example, keeping busy with sports, community and religious groups, there is no time or opportunity to go against the law. Hirschi’s ideas have been useful in introducing ideas on how to prevent crime and achieving social order. His ideas have influenced social policymakers with the interest in how deviance can be reduced by promoting attachments. Promoting activities for young people, such as youth clubs and sports, encouraging employment for later in life and encouraging values and mortality in education are all effective ways in which policymakers could try and create bonds of attachment and reduce crime amongst youth. Another positive of the social control theory is that it recognises the importance of socialisation in maintaining a cohesive society. Although it fails to explain why some people have weaker bonds than others and does not explain between the different of variations of crime.

Altogether, as shown in this essay using only a few of many theories of why youth crime occurs and how to prevent it happening. There is not one straightforward answer to the question of ‘what causes crime?’. There are many contributing factors within an individual and their surroundings all effecting the reasons behind the crime being committed. Juvenile crime can easily be tackled at its point of origin, individuals usually develop the craving of committing a crime while they are still young therefore posing a very good opportunity to tackle the desire as children are more malleable.

The Peculiarities Of Juvenile Crime And Justice

My thoughts on why the supreme court are not giving juniors who committed a horrible crime and will not be getting the life sentence is not fair to the justice system and its not fair for the victims family. The supreme court did this because it broke the 8th amendment which is “unusual punishment” but its not, if they commit the crime they have do the time. The juvenile death penalty was stopped along time ago because it was a cruel punishment. Im against the supreme court for not giving a life sentence to minors who commit a terrible crime and let me tell you why.

I get that their just ¨Kids¨ but I argue that kids should know that murder is wrong and that shouldn’t be an excuse for them to act this way. Furthermore an article by Marjie lundstrom argues that “kids are kids until they make a horrible crime.” I can defend this by saying kids are still growing up but they should only be tried as an adult if there crime was horrible but if it was something small like stealing or drugs they should get a little help like counselling and community hours.

Furthermore if they committed murder then i would sentence them the same as an adult cause they should know taking someones life is never okay. The supreme court’s decision on not giving juveniles life isn’t fair towards the victims family because they wont get the justice they need and just for them to see the person that killed their child or parent get a less sentence because they’re a juvenile isn’t justice. I get that they are young and their brains havent been fully developed in more detail they still should know right from wrong but some kids might have anger issues and don’t know how to handle it. But looking more into why the supreme court stopped giving a youth’s a horrible sentences according to this jlc article states that “they don’t want to give juveniles a life sentence because they aren’t fully grown and brains aren’t fully developed.” this doesn’t mean they dont know right from wrong, it just sounds like an excuse to me.

Defending this depends on the situation to if they have to hurt someone where it leads to that person’s death and they were protecting themselves or others from a bad person in case that’s self defense he’s protecting themselves and maybe others.

Robbery Crimes of Juveniles as a Social Problem

The definition of juvenile crime under the Queensland Government state law is “In Queensland, a juvenile is defined as a person aged between 10 and 16 years, inclusive. In all jurisdictions, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. That is, children under 10 years of age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions”. This means that the government deems any child under the age of 10 years would not properly have the cognitive abilities to understand the wrongdoing they are committing and should not be blamed for their delinquency.

The definition for robbery by according to the criminal code act of 1899 is “Any person who steals anything, and, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing it, uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen, is said to be guilty of robbery”. And explains how to commit a ‘robbery’: “The person stealing an item must also use some sort of weapon or threaten to use a weapon, or threaten to destroy or damage property before or after they’ve already taken the item”. This also includes using the item stolen to be used in a way were they can threaten to damage/break it, to then avoid confrontation to the item being stolen.

The main reason for juveniles becoming delinquents is because of the poor parenting received during their childhood, for example, lack of parental supervision, conflict between the child and the parent or abuse, a lack of emotional warmth, discipline that is inconsistent or inappropriate to the behaviour. Other reasons include, schooling and whether or not the student is engaged in their learning, if they are struggling to find or make friends, or even I they are getting bullied and taking their anger out in a negative way. Another reason for juveniles getting involved in their particular crime could be bad modelling from their parental guardian, for example, their parent could be involved in this sort of behaviour and the child from early on could believe that this is acceptable behaviour and would ‘follow their parents footsteps’. In the recent 2 years there has been an increase in these cases and maybe this is because of the increase of the next generation now being old enough to be parents and they may have a tendency to treat their children differently and as an affect more children may become more delinquent as a result.

Juveniles that commit robbery crimes can face up to 5 years in jail on their first offence, on average; that being the highest offence. 30 months is the least time a first offender a juvenile can receive on average. This is unlikely as many first offender will receive community service time or a house arrest sentence and will be restricted to stay home after certain times and must check in with an officer once a week.

The crimes caused by delinquent children can be prevented through different programs that help them understand their effects and helps them become better people. For example, many educational programs have been put into place to help kids understand the effects of drugs, sex, gangs and weapons. This helps kids have awareness that their actions have consequences. Many groups in the community helps with the youth involvement; church groups, girl/boy scouts and volunteer groups help involve the youths in a safe environment.

Over the years the amount of robbery crimes that have been committed by juveniles have been decreasing year by year since 2010 with a recent spike in the amount of cases in 2017 – 2019 and having a total increase of 83 over the past 3 years. There is many measures put into place to discourage this delinquency, such as communitive groups or more serious measures for example, community service, house arrest or jail time. But the main reasons found for juveniles to commit these crimes if more of the environment they had been brought up in, instead of who they are, as opposed to this, there will always be reasons for this behaviour that may be out of control and cannot be influenced without serious mental support. But in conclusion many consequences are put in place and there are many way communities are supporting their youth to help stop this behaviour form stopping and until very recently the number of cases has decreased every year.