Category: Juvenile Delinquency

Cognitive Theory, Moral Development And Delinquency

Abstract

Theories with respect to cognitive ability and moral development by theorists such as Piaget, Kohlberg, and others point to relationships existent between cognitive and moral developmental levels and criminal or deviant behavior. Research studies that have been conducted over the years, primarily on juveniles, have found, in most instances, a strong correlation between cognitive ability, moral development and delinquency. While other factors, such as ones of socioeconomic import, are most assuredly responsible as well, cognitive ability and moral development are central to the issue of delinquency. The research available necessitates more than a cursory glance by those in the criminal justice system, including judges, probation officers, parole officers, as well as those in the community. This paper will discuss the stages of cognitive and moral developmental theory, resulting defects in each as it pertains to delinquency and discuss effective treatment methods other than behavioral methods for correction of impaired cognitive and moral ability of individuals that find themselves in the criminal justice system.

Cognitive and moral development theorists such as Piaget and Kohlberg were instrumental in laying the groundwork allowing criminologists and applied researchers a better understanding of the mindset of criminal offenders. Other cognitive theorists in later years have built upon these foundational tenets of these men to further develop theories surrounding criminal behavior. Criminal justice personnel have in turn, instituted programs and reforms and rehabilitative services in an attempt to correct cognitive and moral deficiencies in those offenders that find themselves in the criminal justice system.

“The developed moral sense of human beings brings about the capacity for the evaluation of good and bad moral actions” (Darley, 1993, p. 357). Darley goes on to say that moral action is directly related to an individual’s cognitive ability. Studies have revealed a high degree of correlation between cognitive and moral development and the ability to settle moral dilemmas that make future outcomes rather predictable (Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey, 1974). Cognitive ability aids in the development of moral constructs that can be used to explain moral actions. Furthermore, there is the suggestion that even emotional constructs are critical to both an individual’s cognitive and moral development as well because they help shape cognitive processing ability (Darley, 1993). Understanding the stages of cognitive and moral development have helped researchers to better understand why this phenomenon occurs.

Cognitive and moral development theory was first introduced by Jean Piaget and later refined by Lawrence Kohlberg and eventually others (Byrne and Hummer, 2016). Both Piaget and Kohlberg approached moral development from a cognitive perspective and maintain that “sophisticated operations are a pre-requisite to advanced moral judgments” (Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey, 1974, p. 296). Often times Piaget used stories in his investigations of moral development and “emphasized the importance of mutuality autonomy” (Cam, Cavdar, Cok, et al, 2012, p. 1223). From his research, Piaget maintained that the development of a child’s moral judgment goes through sequential stages.

The first stage, the pre-conventional stage, occurs before age nine. Following is stage 2, the conventional stage, ages 10-13. The last stage is the post-conventional stage. At each stage the child must cognitively resolve moral dilemmas and consequently form moral judgments. (Cowan, Langer, Heavenrich, and Nathanson, 1969). As individuals progress through the stages of cognitive and moral development the reasoning process becomes “more advanced, internally consistent and universal” (Arbuthnot and Gordon, 1988, p. 383). To further quote Arbuthnot and Gordon, “Progression is largely a function of disequilibrating cognitive experiences and related to prior development of more generalized intellectual abilities” (1988, p. 384). The degree to which an individual is able to reason about moral dilemmas “varies directly as a function of cognitive development, specifically the degree to which logical operations has developed” (Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey, 1974, p. 296).

According to cognitive theorists, a child at the pre-conventional stage is unable to separate physical reality from his own desires and focuses on only the physical dimensions of morality at this point (Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey, 1974). Not until stage 2 (conventional stage) does the child transition into looking at morality in terms of peer pressure/approval. Piaget’s research concluded that at age 13 a cognitive shift occurs whereby the child no longer believes that adult rules are sacred and immutable, but rather products of human creation (Marsh, 1981). Finally, in stage 3 (post-conventional) the child hopefully possesses the ability to use logic as well as cause and effect hypotheses to construct solutions to moral dilemmas (Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey, 1974). Later theories have added that a lack of understanding in how the law is applicable in varying situations demonstrates deficient cognitive ability (Marsh 1981). The natural conclusion is that any positive changes in cognitive development should necessarily result in changes in moral judgment. But if the child is deficient

Those associated with the criminal justice system and delinquency espouse that the stages of cognitive and moral development culminate in an individual’s ability to use personal and universal principles as they interact with their society (Moore, 2011) and is an expression of psychological conflict (Byrne and Hummer, 2016). Moore further argues that “patterns of delinquent thinking and behavior develop over time and correlate closely with deficiencies in both cognitive ability and moral judgment” (2011, p. 236). With delinquency, adolescents continue to reason at the three distinct levels of cognitive/moral development to such an extent that “cognitive development suggest the way an individual organizes thoughts about rules and laws results in persistent behavior patterns such as delinquency” (Morash, 1981, p. 360).

It has been argued that adolescence is the most significant period of the formation of values and the most open to change (Denno, 1985). Any disconnect or dysfunction in this developmental process can result in lower intelligence and even learning disabilities. Moreover, Denno states that cognitive development directly correlates to an adolescent’s susceptibility to outside influences such as their peers, family, and others in their social environment (1985). This explains why delays in the acquisition of socio-cognitive skills are directly related to the development of various forms of social deviance, particularly juvenile delinquency (Lee and Prentice, 1988). Any cognitive deficiency results in the individual’s capability to find immoral actions socially unacceptable and consequently, learn to justify their deviant behavior (Darley, 1993).

Delays during the conventional stage suggest this is the point at which an “arrest in development” occurs that leads to delinquency and research has proven that there is a direct correlation between the development reasoning level of the juvenile and delinquents whether sociopathic or not (Marsh, 1981). Delinquent youths are demonstrating cognitive ability at the pre-conventional level even at ages of 14 and older. Non-delinquents of the same age are nearing the post-conventional stage according to research. A greater number of delinquent youths have demonstrated an “inability to understand good will, proper roles in behavior, cognitive empathy, and guilt” (Arbuthnot and Gordon, 1988, p. 384). Moreover, delinquents do not possess any of the cognitive/moral development features that would be considered deterrents against their behavior choices.

Critics, on the other hand, argue that cognitive/moral development theory is too simplistic in understanding the relationship it bears towards delinquency and add that social factors, such as socioeconomic background have considerable influence as well. “Aggression and disciplinary problems in school during adolescence are the strongest predictors of repeat offense behavior” (Denno, 1985, p. 728). But this would be perfectly plausible considering cognitive and moral development deficiencies. The aggression of delinquent males centers around the instability of the family, including income or lack thereof. For females, their delinquent behavior centers around physical development (Denno, 1985).

Researchers Lee and Prentice found that studies indicate considerable variability exists between members of different social classes with respect to social deviance and delinquency (1988). Socioeconomic factors actually exacerbate an already existent deficiency in the delinquent’s cognitive and moral development. Regardless of social class, Lee and Prentice discovered that psychopathic and neurotic delinquents were deficient in social cognition, moral reasoning as well as empathy compared to their non-delinquent counterparts and displayed more immature modes of role-playing, moral reasoning and logical cognition (1988).

Because “lawbreaking results from individuals not having sufficiently developed reasoning abilities to resolve moral dilemmas, specifically those involving legal acts” (Morash, 1981, p. 360), the criminal justice system finds it important to allocate resources to further research as well as programs directed at altering cognitive function of offenders. Studies reflect the notion that if changes are not made during the “conventional stage” of cognitive and moral development, that children are less likely to outgrow deviant behavior and may retain these attributes into adulthood (Denno, 1985). Disciplinary models have proven ineffective in dealing with these types of issues so other means centering on discussion groups have shown promise because they emphasize modifying reasoning ability as opposed to other mental health programs or behavioral changes (Cowan, Langer, Heavenrich, and Nathanson, 1969; Lee and Prentice, 1988; Morash, 1981). Individuals that have completed these sorts of discussion groups have demonstrated raised levels of cognition which resulted in positively altered behavior as they guided delinquents through a verbal rationale of moral decision-making processes in hypothetical moral dilemmas (Darley, 1993). Delinquents moved from initial explanations based on fear to conclusion based on a logical set of premises.

Granted, research cannot occur in a vacuum and these cognitive concerns make a child even more susceptible to their social environment and the ability to synthesize what is considered acceptable conduct (Denno, 1985). “Opportunities for and skills used in social interplay affect the course of moral development…it either stabilizes socially accepted morality or causes it to become delinquent in nature” (Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey, 1974, p. 296). Problems with implementing these type programs center around the lack of understanding by criminal justice officials (including judges, parole and probation officers), lack of allocated resources and funding, and the non-uniformity of policies already on the books even though research has repeatedly demonstrated significant increases in moral development when strategies associated with cognitive theories are implemented (Byrne and Hummer, 2016; Cowan, Langer, Heavenrich and Nathanson, 1969). As Morash states in her research “the justice system should function both to correct offenders and to demonstrate the viability of the law” (1981, p. 362).

While findings from research can be misused and misapplied, psychological criminology has had great import in corrections (Byrne and Hummer, 2016). The psychological perspective is so important to probation and parole practices because of its individualized focus whereas punishment alone does not get to the heart of the issue. For some unknown reason, sociological and psychological advocates have previously discouraged any form of interdisciplinary research and funds continue to be allocated mainly to sociological efforts at delinquent reform. However, failure to recognize the importance of deficient cognitive and moral development as well as behavioral and learning disorders in adolescents will only continue to result in deviant behavior (Denno, 1985). What begins as a cognitive deficiency results in deviant behavior when coupled with deficient moral thinking and the inability to exhibit socially normative behavior and create social bonds. Even early cognitive theorists considered social interaction to be an important factor in changing a child with a lower cognitive ability and moral judgment to a child with higher cognitive ability and moral judgment.

Studies continue to validate that an investment needs to be directed to criminal justice reform that concentrates on instance-based learning rather than preaching morality through didactic instruction. Delinquents “lack the capacity to view his actions in ultimate effects on the maintenance and mutual trust and respect among members of an orderly society” (Arbuthnot and Gordon, 1988, p. 383) so use of instance-based learning further develops the delinquent’s ability to understand and implement socially normative behavior (Arbuthnot and Gordon, 1988; Byrne and Hummer, 2016; Denno, 1985; Lee and Prentice, 1988). Only then can the well-established patterns of delinquent behavior subside.

References

1. Arbuthnot, A. and Gordon, D.A. (1988). Crime and Cognition: Community Applications of Sociomoral Reasoning Development. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15(3), 379-393. Retrieved from https://heinonline-org.libproxy.troy.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/crmjusbhv15&i=374
2. Byrne, J. and Hummer, D. (December 2016). An Examination of the Impact of Criminological Theory on Community Corrections Practice. Federal Probation, 80(3), 15-25. Retrieved from http://heinonline-org.libproxy.troy.edu?HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fedpro80&div=27
3. Cam, Z., Cavdar, D., Cok, F. et al. (2012). Classical and Contemporary Approaches for Moral Development. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 1222-1225. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.troy.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=84771498&site=eds-live
4. Cowan, P.A., Langer, J., Heavenrich, J. and Nathanson, M. (1969). Social Learning and Piaget’s Cognitive Theory of Moral Development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(3), 261-274. Retrieved from https://doi-org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1037/h0027000
5. Darley, J.M. (1993). Research on Morality: Possible Approaches, Actual Approaches. Psychological Science, 4(6), 353-357. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.troy.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.40062561&site=eds-live
6. Denno, D.W. (1985). Sociological and human developmental explanations of Crime: Conflict or Consensus. Criminology, 23(4), 711-742. Retrieved from http://doi.org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00371.x
7. Lee, M. and Prentice, N.M. (1988). Interrelations of Empathy, Cognition and Moral Reasoning with Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16(2), 127-139. Retrieved from http://doi.org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1007/BF00913589
8. Moore, M. (April 2011). Psychological Theories of Crime and Delinquency. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21, 226-239. Retrieved from http://doi.org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.1080/109113359.2011.564552
9. Morash, M.A. (1981). Cognitive Developmental Theory-A Basis for Juvenile Correctional Reform. Criminology, 19(3), 360-371. Retrieved from https://doi.org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.111/j.1745-9125.1981.tb004422.x
10. Tomlinson-Keasey, C. and Keasey, C.B. (1974). The Mediating Role of Cognitive Development in Moral Judgment. Child Development, 45(2), 291-298. Retrieved from https://doi-org.libproxy.troy.edu/10.2307/1127947

Single-parent Families And The Impact On Juvenile Delinquency

Introduction to Juvenile Delinquency and Single-Parent Challenges

There were nearly 48,000 juveniles in which were incarcerated on any given day in the United States in 2019. In today’s society, delinquency is almost glorified between adolescents and is seen as being socially acceptable. These young people do not think about how it will affect them later in life, therefore it is essential that the number of juvenile crimes and delinquents gets cut down. Children who are being raised by a single parent are more likely to participate in criminal activity than children who are being raised by both parents. Juvenile delinquency is ultimately a product of a strained relationship between the parent and child. It is also more prevalent in children who grow up without a father figure. Though it may be difficult, there are ways to prevent delinquency among these adolescents.

Parent-Child Relationship and Its Role in Juvenile Behavior

One factor that potentially plays the most significant role in juvenile delinquency is the lack of a relationship between the parent and the child. When there is not a well-established relationship within a family, it tends to be easier for the children to participate in juvenile activities such as smoking, drinking, trespassing, stealing, and even in gang related activities. Many times, single parent families are struggling to provide a good lifestyle for themselves and their children. The adult may be holding more than one job which makes it difficult to spend the necessary amount of time with their child that is needed in order to create a strong bond. It also makes it more difficult for the parent to closely and directly supervise the adolescent in everything they do. It has been seen within many adolescents that when a parent is not closely involved in the child’s life, they tend to act out more in order to the attention they so badly crave from their parent or guardian, whether it be good or bad.

The Impact of Inductive Parenting on Adolescent Self-Efficacy

The lack of inductive parenting is one of many reasons that adolescents engage in delinquent activities. Inductive parenting is a particular parenting style in which clear limits are established and the importance of why behaving in a way that is socially acceptable is discussed and reiterated. A group of scholars at Iowa State University conducted a study on how certain parenting behaviors or styles effects a child’s self-efficacy. When the study was concluded, the authors stated in their results, “Parents’ use of inductive parenting techniques and avoidance of harsh parenting behaviors, in turn, contributed to adolescents’ self-efficacy” (Whitbeck, L. B., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (1997, December)). It is crucial for a child to have a high sense of self-efficacy because it leads to having better control over one’s motivation and behaviors in many different environments, which will lead to very little or no acts of delinquency at all.

The Absence of a Father Figure and Its Consequences

In low socioeconomic single parent families, there is usually not a father figure in the adolescent’s life. When the father is not present in a child’s relationship, it conclusively leads to not only hurting the child in an emotional way, but also in a social and psychological means. “…youth may act out in response to the emotional disruption engendered by high levels of familial conflict that can precede and succeed a union dissolution” (Markowitz, A. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2016)). Many children who never have the experience of a father who is present and active in their life often struggle socially in certain ways due to socialization theory. This negatively effects the child through behavior modeling especially within young males. Behavior modeling is exactly what it sounds that it would be – modeling the desired and socially acceptable way of behavior. An absent father is showing the child, especially a male, that it is okay to leave a family and to let them struggle without him. The absence of a father could also cause psychological trauma to the adolescent. Once again, many single parent families struggle economically which could lead to not having food on the table, not having resources needed for school and other activities, and even potentially being homeless. Each of these factors could cause a child psychological trauma which then leads to the child participating in delinquent behavior.

However, while there is a significant number of fathers who simply just walk away from parenting, there are many who may be incarcerated and cannot see their child. Looking back at socialization and behavior modeling, having a father in prison can cause an increase in the likelihood of the adolescent to act in criminal ways. It also makes it simpler for the adolescent to do so because of a decrease in parental supervision. Another negative factor of having an incarcerated father is complete separation. If the child is unable to see their parent due to incarceration, it may make it easier for the child to completely cut all ties with that parent. Therefore, no longer having an additional family member to turn to when they need someone, which could then result in the child acting out and committing criminal behavior (Porter, L. C., & King, R. D. (2015)).

There are also many children who grow up without a mother or maternal figure in their life but do have a father or paternal figure. Though there are not many studies on single father families, the journal article, “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency,” states, “we might anticipate that adolescent delinquency will be higher in single-mother than in single-father families. On the other hand, Hoffman and Johnson’s (1998) findings of higher levels of alcohol and drug use among adolescents in single-father families would lead us to expect higher levels of delinquency in this family form” (Demuth, S., & Brown, S. (n.d.)). This statement shows that it is unclear whether or not a child would be more successful in a single mother home or single father home. However, in both, it is still very likely that the child will participate in some form of delinquency.

Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: Programs and Strategies

While juvenile delinquency is so prevalent within children in single parent homes, there are many programs and other ways that will help to prevent or slow down the delinquency. One program is the Models for Change Program. In the textbook “Juvenile Delinquency in a Diverse Society,” the author describes how the Models for Change Program works. “… Models for Change Program has been underway as a method of bringing juvenile justice advocates, government officials, lawyers, educators, families, and community leaders from across the United States together to address the issue of juvenile delinquency and reform of justice system” (Bates, K. A., & Swan, R. S. (2018)). The program has also been expanded in order to help get tips and information about preventing juvenile delinquency across the states. They are partnered with a Resource Center and other agencies including OJJDP and SAMHSA. One of the things the Model for Change Programs has recently adopted is a screening process to go about when they are intaking new juveniles. The screening is used to determine if a juvenile has a mental health disorder in order to give them special attention if it is needed. There is also an assessment that determines how much of a violent risk a juvenile entering the program is; this assessment is called the Structured Assessment of Violent Risk in Youth. Another program that can help to prevent juveniles from participating in criminal behavior is evidence-based programs. Evidence-based programs have been shown to be the most effective within adolescents according to social science research (Bates, K. A., & Swan, R. S. (2018)).

Another way to prevent juvenile delinquency is recreation. Recreation can help prevent delinquency in several areas such as attachment, commitment, involvement, and positive beliefs. By participating in sports or other recreational activities, adolescents who may not have a stable home life or who live in a single parent home will have the opportunity to create and grow a bond with their coaches or leader. It also gives them the opportunity to befriend other kids their age who may be better influences on them. These bonds can positively affect the troubled adolescent and reduce delinquent behavior by having people in their life that they trust to confide in. Recreation also requires personal commitment. In the journal article, “How Recreation Professionals Can Design Programs that Really Work,” the authors state the following about recreation and commitment, “if persons invest a significant amount of time and effort in the acquisition of a reputation based on virtue, they will consider the costs of delinquent behavior and the consequences of such actions and be less likely to engage in activities that might jeopardize their reputation” (Munson, W. W., & Estes, C. A. (2002)). Another way recreation can help to prevent or reduce delinquency is simply by involvement. If an adolescent is involved in any kind of recreational activity whether it be sports, camping, etc., they will be too busy with the activity to engage in criminal behaviors.

Conclusion: Addressing Delinquency in Single-Parent Families

Adolescents who grow up in a single parent home, whether it be a single mother home or single father home, are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors. Between the reduced supervision, lack of parent-child relationship, and even low socioeconomic status, the emotional and psychological trauma may just be too much for the adolescent to handle. These factors ultimately cause social problems within the teen to a point that they do not know how to act in a way that is socially acceptable. Though there are many troubled teens across the states, there are also many prevention programs and activities to help these children turn their life around.

References

1. Whitbeck, L. B., Simons, R. L., Conger, R. D., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (1997, December). The effects of parents’ working conditions and family economic hardship on parenting behaviors and children’s self-efficacy. Retrieved March 2020, from https://nsula.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.nsula.idm.oclc.org/docview/212761422?accountid
2. Walters, G. D. (n.d.). Positive and negative social influences and crime acceleration during the transition from childhood to adolescence: The interplay of risk and protective factors. Retrieved March 2020, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.nsula.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=f40a0f19-c635-4d78-bf7a-583451d3f2e0@sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=132212471&db=a9h
3. Demuth, S., & Brown, S. (n.d.). Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency. Retrieved March 2020, from https://journals-sagepub-com.nsula.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022427803256236
4. Markowitz, A. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Father Absence and Adolescent Depression and Delinquency: A Comparison of Siblings Approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(5), 1300–1314. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12343
5. Porter, L. C., & King, R. D. (2015). Absent Fathers or Absent Variables? A New Look at Paternal Incarceration and Delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 414–443. https://doi-org.nsula.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0022427814552080
6. Bates, K. A., & Swan, R. S. (2018). Juvenile delinquency in a diverse society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
7. Munson, W. W., & Estes, C. A. (2002). How Recreation Professionals Can Design Programs that Really Work. Parks & Recreation, 37(6), 31.

Restorative Justice As A Way Forward To Reduce Reoffending In Youth Delinquency

Restorative Justice (RJ) is a relatively young discipline in the Criminal Justice system, aiming to enable a safe communication between victims of crimes and offenders. Evidence suggests that restorative interventions have been successful in serious and complex offences, and now a significant amount of work is focusing on the use of restorative approaches to support young offenders to provide opportunity to make amends for their actions and to reduce reoffending rates.

The elegant definition of Restorative Justice

The main aim of restorative intervention is to provide an opportunity for the victims to explain the impact a crime has had on them and for the offenders, a chance to make amends. The participation is completely voluntary and usually goes at a pace to suit everyone involved. It is imperative to understand that the restorative process does not encourage participants to apologise – it gives them the opportunity to apologise but it’s not about forgiveness, it’s about communication. If there is no apology it doesn’t mean it’s not successful, the process is led by the participants needs and preferences, and the outcome they wish to achieve from participating in the process.

During restorative conference, trained practitioners who are facilitating these meetings have to follow strict guidelines and procedures to ensure participants’ safety. Their most important feature is to be impartial and support safe communication between all involved.

The golden five restorative questions which are asked to both participants at the restorative conference are:

1. What happened?
2. What were you thinking?
3. How did you feel?
4. Who was affected by what happened?
5. What would you like to happen in the future?

For offenders – What needs to happen now to repair the harm?

These questions are the base of every RJ conference and the script is designed so that each participant is asked these questions and is given an opportunity to answer and respond to what has been said.

To sum up, RJ is a process which:

• Brings victims of crime and ASB together with the person or people that has caused them harm
• Encourages harmers to take responsibility for their actions
• Allows questions to be asked of each other and consequences explained
• Uses face to face or indirect communication
• Results in mutual agreements being made

The origin and philosophy of Restorative Justice

The origin of the use of restorative interventions to crime and conflict resolution is not an entirely new approach. Ancient cultures in the UK and worldwide have practised restorative approaches, some, for example in Asia and Africa ,as a basis upon which to build current legal systems (Elechi, 2006; Letha & Thilagaraj, 2013). When talking about use of restorative interventions and Europe and more specifically, in the UK – it was completely lost for a time to an emphasis on punitive retribution.

The original philosophy of Restorative Justice remains the same – it is focusing on healing, reparation for harm and accountability to those who have been offended against. It encompasses forgiveness, mercy and compassion.

Most ancient cultures, including Aboriginal, Maori and Anglo Saxon, practised this system making offenders face those who they have harmed. In England, during the reign of Henry the Second, the responsibility of harmer to make amends was shifted to seeking reparation for the State. The criminal justice system (CJS) reflected the fact that essentially King and Country had been harmed and punitive sanctions were enforced to reflect that.

Restorative Justice was officially introduced when New Zealand passed the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act in 1989 and marked its first formal use of family group conferencing as a response to Maori activists. In 2000, the Restorative Justice Trust launched a pilot project that facilitated restorative conferences in serious adult cases at Auckland’s Waitakere District Court. The training delivered by RJ Trust to CJS lawyers, and RJ Trust facilitators became an essential tool to successfully facilitate an RJ case.

A few years later, Australian Police Sergeant, Terry O’Connell was credited with the adaptation and development of ‘the script’, together with MacDonald and Moore (2001) who introduced a theory behind the RJ conference and the process of facilitating a case, drawing on the theories from Braithwaite (1989), Tomkins (1995) and Nathenson (1992). This led to the introduction of scripted restorative conference model which is now used by all RJ service providers worldwide. In 1989, Austrian juvenile justice allowed prosecutors to refer cases to independent RJ services who reported outcomes to prosecutors indicating whether the intervention was successful (Aertsen, 2004).

In the UK, reform from 1998 of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales which introduced Youth Offending Teams saw a significant increase of referrals involving your people. Similar changes were observed in Scotland, where the guidance from 2005 of ‘Restorative Justice Services in the Children’s Hearing System’ was introduced.

One of the first RJ approaches used in the UK was those introduced by Thames Valley Police where their initiative brought young offenders of theft offences to face store management to hear how their actions had affected others. As a result, Thames Valley Police extended their involvement with restorative approaches though work in schools, youth justice and in the handling of police complaints.

Outside of Criminal Justice System, Hertfordshire County Council trained their staff in a young person’s residential unit. The evaluation of that training in 2002 showed significant positive benefits for both the staff and the young people. Hertfordshire then extended the use of restorative interventions in their work in the looked after children system.

The success of restorative approaches led to a significant change in legislation in almost every piece concerning victim’s rights and offender’s management plan:

• Restorative Justice has become a part of the National Action Plan (Ministry of Justice, 2012) as a key element to reduce reoffending.
• Under the Victim’s Code of Practice (Ministry of Justice,2015) every victim now has a right to access Restorative Justice.

When Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) were introduced in the UK in 2012, they were given a statutory responsibility to support victims of crime and to enable access to restorative justice programmes. Each PCC was given a choice with regard to how they would like to run RJ services in their area – some, like Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Yorkshire – decided to commission the service to external providers, such as Restorative Solutions or Remedi; others, like Essex and Gloucestershire decided to set up their own RJ services, working directly from PCC office.

Juvenile Justice System: The Characteristics And Effectiveness Of Short And Long-term Confinement Facilities

Introduction

The juvenile justice system is a specific component of the judiciary that processes cases of youth aged 18 years and below accused of involvement in delinquency or criminal acts. There exist multiple similarities between the system and the adult justice system, especially the mode of executing the process. The processes involved include arrest, detainment, petitions, hearings, adjudications, dispositions, placement, probation, and reentry. The application of the juvenile justice system embraces the fact that youth are different from adults in terms of responsibility and rehabilitation potential. In this context, it is essential that the characteristics and effectiveness of short- and long-term confinement facilities are outlined, the juvenile aftercare, and the evolution of juvenile correctional treatment from the mid-twentieth century to today.

Confinement Facilities

Both the short-term and long-term juvenile confinement facilities aim to facilitate the reformation of the youths so that they can refrain from crime. The short-term juvenile confinement facilities consist of jails, detention centers, and shelter care facilities (Mistrett & Thomas, 2017). The short-term facility is mainly adopted to provide temporary care in a physically restricting setting for the juveniles in custody pending court disposition and those adjudicated to delinquent and awaiting transfer to another jurisdiction (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark, 2016). The facilities provide correctional measures and ensure that the youths access age-appropriate services. The local authorities who ran the short-term juvenile confinement facilities are obliged to provide security. There are no severe corrective programs incorporated in short-term services, indicating why many legislators have suggested its elimination. The principal objective of the short term facility is to host the suspects as they await hearing or sentence (Schiraldi, Western & Bradner, 2015). However, it is worth noting that the juveniles are exposed to the rights of incarcerated youth comprising of right to assistance of counsel and the right to remain silent when questioned about involvement in criminal activity.

The long-term confinement facilities consist of boot camps, ranches, forestry camps, and training schools. In the United States, approximately two-thirds of the youth are held for longer than a month, a quarter for over six months, and almost 8% for more than a year (Mistrett & Thomas, 2017). The long-term facilities are the most common placement for the sentenced youths (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark, 2016). The facility aims to apply corrective measures to ensure that the youths refrain from criminal activities. The juveniles are mostly subjected to pepper spray, mechanical restraints, and solidarity confinement (Schiraldi, Western & Bradner, 2015). However, the minors are liable to incarceration rights such as rights to expression, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.

The Juvenile Aftercare

Juvenile aftercare refers to the reintegrative programs aiming to prepare juvenile offenders who have been either serving short-term or long-term confinement facilities back to the community. The primary objective of aftercare or reentry is to reduce the recidivism rate of juvenile offenders (Monahan, Steinberg & Piguero, 2015). Different states adopt diverse mechanisms in the process of releasing the youths from training schools. In most cases, the juveniles are released after the expiry of the confinement period (Walker et al., 2015). The judicial system might opt to release youths who portray a high sense of responsibility and appears to have reformed. The juvenile release might also occur the case is reviewed, and the convicted found not to be guilty. After the youths are released, appropriate measures should be adopted to ensure that the juveniles are adequately incorporated in society.

The critical issues involved in the formulation of aftercare decisions include determining the difference in the kind of facility the youth are leaving, the challenges associated with the return of the youth, the individuals to be involved in aftercare planning, the anticipated outcomes, and the federal initiatives (Monahan, Steinberg & Piguero, 2015). The essential aspects of facilitating promising juvenile care should focus on family relationships, mental health, substance abuse treatment, and social recreation. Such elements are principal in ensuring that a conducive environment is established for the juveniles to implement the learned corrective measures (Walker et al., 2015). The juveniles might face major shocks upon release to the community, such as the progress of their age mates in multiple aspects such as education (Monahan, Steinberg & Piguero, 2015). The failure of the family to intervene and the realization that the legal system is real might also be shocking to the juveniles. The community plays an essential role in determining the juvenile’s success after release. The process involves the perception of juveniles and their assistance towards the implementation of the adopted corrective measures (Walker et al., 2015). The youths are also liable to due process rights, which protects them from any activities interfering with their life, liberty, and possessions. Such rights are instrumental in protecting juveniles from any potential unlawful oppression or discrimination.

The Evolution of Juvenile Correctional Treatment from the Mid-Twentieth Century to Today

The juvenile correctional treatment process evolved in phases comprising of rehabilitation is not an appropriate stage, the nothing works stage, and some treatments work step, the numerous programs, and innovations work step. The rehabilitation is not a necessary stage was associated with violation of human values (Farn, 2018). The phase termed rehabilitation to be a disaster in practice indicating high criticism. The nothing works stage the juvenile correctional process was exposed to increased imperial criticism. The evolution persisted between the 1960s and early 1990s (Weber, Umpierre & Bilchik, 2018). Although society embraced the need for effectiveness in correctional treatment among juveniles, some individuals projected their opinions.

Some treatments work stage; the correctional strategies appeared to work effectively when the juveniles were subjected to amenable to treatment firstly. However, when dealing with less trained individuals, the programs were reported not to be productive. In the 1970s, it was decided that some treatment mechanisms have a considerable impact on recidivism (Weber, Umpierre & Bilchik, 2018). In the numerous programs and innovations work stage, much support is accorded to treatment, but supporter’s claim multiple modalities must be incorporated (Farn, 2018). The intensity of contact should be increased in various programs as well as more considerable attention to the offender’s needs and traits. The argument behind the phase is to match the juvenile’s needs characteristics with specific characteristics. The process has proven to be effective in transforming youths to become useful people in society.

Conclusion

The juvenile justice system is a broad field that addresses multiple aspects with the primary aim of preventing youthful participation in the crime. The juvenile system evolved systematically up to date. The process also aims to apply effective corrective measures to juvenile offenders so that they can become useful people in society. The confinement process is composed of both the short and long-term. The short-term facility involves juveniles waiting to be sentenced or case hearing. Long-terms involves juveniles serving their sentence. After completion of the sentence, the youths are entitled to aftercare services to ensure that they fit appropriately in society.

References

1. Farn, A. (2018). Improving Outcomes for Justice-Involved Youth through Evidence-Based Decision-Making and Diversion​.
2. McCarthy, P., Schiraldi, V., & Shark, M. (2016). The future of youth justice: A community-based alternative to the youth prison model. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
3. Mistrett, M., & Thomas, J. (2017). A Campaign Approach to Challenging the Prosecution of Youth as Adults. SDL Rev., 62, 559.
4. Monahan, K., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Juvenile justice policy and practice: A developmental perspective. Crime and justice, 44(1), 577-619.
5. Schiraldi, V., Western, B., & Bradner, K. (2015). Community-based responses to justice-involved young adults. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
6. Walker, S. C., Bishop, A. S., Pullmann, M. D., & Bauer, G. (2015). A research framework for understanding the practical impact of family involvement in the juvenile justice system: The juvenile justice family involvement model. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56(3-4), 408-421.
7. Weber, J., Umpierre, M., & Bilchik, S. (2018). Transforming Juvenile Justice Systems.

How Do Parents Contribute To Juvenile Delinquency?

Juvenile delinquency is a problem we are beginning to face every day. “In 2014, almost 975,000 youths reached juvenile court for delinquency.” Therefore it is a big problem. But to solve a problem, we have to know the cause of it. A few causes are substance abuse, economic problems, and parental involvement. Although they are all serious contributors; the one I want to focus the most on is parental involvement. Are parents to blame for their child’s actions? Being a parent comes with tons of responsibility. When a child is born the parents then become responsible for physical needs, emotional needs, and legal needs. Parents tend to use the go with the flow method. Raising a human being doesn’t come with instructions. So what happens when they make a mistake? Do you give them a slap on the wrist and let them off with a warning or do you punish them and make sure they never do it again? The choice you make could make or break your child’s future.

Parents contribute a lot to a child. They give them a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, basic necessities that a human needs. I am sure you know a parent who puts drinking, drugs and work in front of their kids. It could be the mother or father. Kids have feelings. They feel unworthy, waste of space, and not loved. So what happens? Sometimes they turn to things to “numb” the pain they feel every day. Such as, drugs, alcohol, fighting, getting involved in a gang, and acting out at school. Regardless of what they chose it gets them attention. And when the child gets the attention they begin to feel they are worthy and loved. They feel important.

Mental abuse is a big reason too. From parents treating the child like they are nothing to the teacher saying they aren’t good enough. Have you ever been told that you need to be more like your sibling or another member of your family? How about physical abuse? Physical abuse starts as small incidents and grows into bigger problems. “In 1990, over 2 million cases of child abuse and neglect were reported to social service agencies. However tragic and sensational, the counts of deaths and serious injuries provide limited insight into the pervasive long-term social, behavioral, and cognitive consequences of child abuse and neglect. Reports of child maltreatment alone also reveal little about the interactions among individuals, families, communities, and society that lead to such incidents.”

Divorce is also a common cause for kids to act out. “The divorce rate per 1000 married women is nearly double that of 1960, but down from the all-time high of 22.6 in the early 1980s. 6. Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation.” Divorce takes a huge toll on kids. And I can vouch for that. I have personally been through it. It felt like my family was being ripped apart. That I wouldn’t be loved the same. So I acted out. I got in trouble at school and got in trouble at home. In my mind, I thought the more I got in trouble the more my parents would talk. And if my parents talked more then maybe they would get back together. So I got in so much trouble that I got suspended from school, lost all of my friends, and got grounded for a year. I was relentless. I didn’t stop because I had one goal. So I do believe that divorce causes juveniles to act out. For attention and love. At least I did.

Juvenile And Adult Courts: A Comparative Analysis

Introduction

Juvenile courts and adults’ courts are similar in the structural system but different in ideas. The ideas vary because of their purposes and goals in each court. Chapter four of the juvenile justice system describes that a juvenile can decide to commit a crime because of his own choice or due to the environment he lives. Juvenile courts were established to deter delinquencies from engaging in more crimes. The U.S Supreme Court decided that children were guilty of their actions, and therefore they could not be tried in adult criminal courts.

In the case McKeiver V. Pennsylvania of 1971, the United States Supreme Court decided that juveniles can access a jury trial only if they relate to the adult court system. The case involved a 16-year-old who was charged with larceny charges (FindLaw, n.d.). The attorney of the boy had requested a jury trial but, because the case was not bound over the adult system, it was retained in the juvenile system. The Supreme Court agreed with the state court decision. The judge said that a jury trial would only ruin the character and the formation of the juvenile proceedings. He added that the jury trials in the juvenile courts would only affect the clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution.

If the juvenile was an adult and tried in an adult court, the Supreme Court could have ruled that the accused had the right to a jury trial. Each person charged with a misdemeanor offense has the right to a jury trial for a fact-finding. The outcomes of McKeiver could be different if he were tried in the adult courts. He could have been given the right to a jury trial. If the jury finds him guilty of the crime beyond any reasonable doubt, he could go to prison.

The first juvenile court was established in Chicago, Illinois. The court has undergone some changes since then. The process of the court involved the conversation between the judge and the youth. ‘The original theory behind separating juvenile offenders from adult offenders was to provide care and direction for youngsters instead of isolation and punishment’ (Meng et al., 2013). Therefore, it is believed that children are not fully mature, either mentally or physically; they cannot really be held accountable for their crimes such as adults are. During Roman times, juveniles were disciplined by their parents depending on their age and the extent of the crime. In 1825, a society called Prevention of Pauperism opened the first house of refugees, and by 1828, similar organizations followed (Meng et al., 2013). With these past practices during Roman times, it influenced the way the juvenile justice system is setup.

When a juvenile is arrested, a decision is made based on the extent of the crime. the court decides whether to send the matter further into the system or transfer the case out of the system (alternative programs). The law enforcement officer decides some of the cases after talking to the parties involved. The juvenile system was specifically designed for the children since they are not entirely responsible for some of their actions. The juvenile offenses are referred to as ‘status offenses.’ Such offenses that fall under this category are ‘runaway behavior, truancy, unruly behavior, and curfew violation’ (Champion et al., 2013). These are just some known examples.

‘Juvenile courts are civil proceedings designed for juveniles, whereas criminal courts are proceedings designed to try adults charged with crimes’ (Champion et al., 2013). With that in mind, there are several key differences between both courts. First, in a juvenile court, juveniles are not found guilty or not guilty, whereas adults are in an adult court. Juveniles do not obtain a criminal record. The second key difference is the proceedings. In a juvenile court, they are informal, whereas, in an adult court, they are formal.

Moreover, cases are sometimes held in a judge’s chamber, and judges tend to ‘address juveniles directly and casually’ (Champion et al., 2013). For an adult, cases are held in the courtroom. The third difference is trial by jury. Adults are entitled to a trial by jury, whereas juveniles are not. The fourth key difference is a representation by counsel. In an adult court, adults are obligated to be represented by counsel, whereas juveniles have the option to opt-out. A fifth difference is the courts of records. In a juvenile court, written records of court proceedings are not kept. In other words, they are not courting of records like an adult court is. In an adult court, everything is scripted and transcribed, and a court reporter is presented. For a judge in a juvenile court to request a court reporter to be present in a juvenile case, it all ‘depends on the specific jurisdiction’ (Champion et al., 2013). In adult court, the standard of proof is utilized, whereas, in juvenile court, the preponderance of the evidence is used. Lastly, the range of penalties differs. In an adult court, a penalty could extend to life with no parole or penalty of death, whereas, in a juvenile court, it is limited. With these differences, the champion noted that in an adult court system, “criminal court actions are more serious and have harsher long-term consequences for offenders compared with juvenile court proceedings.’

Certain factors followed during the transferring of a youth being tried as an adult, such as; how violent was the crime, any aggravating circumstances, and are they a danger to the community. It is a substantial choice transferring an adolescent offender to an adult prison. The possibility of moving youth to an adult prison could more than likely expose them to the possibility of harsher punishment, therefore exposing them to the possibility of ‘physical, sexual, and psychological victimization by other inmates'(Mulvey & Schulbert, 2012). The juvenile court system focuses on rehabilitating the juvenile. However, based on the extent of the crime or if the juvenile is a repetitive offender, the juvenile court may petition to transfer to an adult court. The decision to move youth to an adult court exposes the juvenile to waive their protective rights.

Even though there are differences, there are some similarities in regard to their structures, yet differences are apparent. For example, in both courts, the individual must be proven guilty before being sentenced in any way. All in all, juvenile and adult court systems differ. Juvenile courts are mostly based on a rehabilitation model, whereas adult courts are not. Adult courts are harsh and more of a punishing model Overall, both courts aim in assuring that any individual, whether it is a juvenile or an adult, who has a court proceeding, adhere to all laws.

References

1. Champion, D. J., Merlo, A. V., Benekos, P. J., & (2013). The juvenile justice system: Delinquency, processing, and the law (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
2. FindLaw, (n.d.). United States Supreme Court. McKEIVER v. PENNSYLVANIA (1971) No. 322. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/403/528.html
3. Making. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 25(3), 275-278. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2013-0062
4. Meng, A., Segal, R., & Boden, E. (2013). American juvenile justice system: History in the
5. Merlo, A. V., Benekos, P. J., Champion, D. J. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing, and the Law. [University of Phoenix]. Retrieved from https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323145074/

Civic Engagement And Juvenile Justice Section

Macro/systemic factors that disempower young people in these systems A discussion about civic engagement for juvenile justice involved youth begins with an understanding of the experiences and systemic barriers that contribute to civic disengagement. One such example is characterized as the “School-to-Prison Pipeline” (Nussbaum, 2018) which traces the disparate impact of zero tolerance school discipline policies (automatic school expulsion for pre-determined codes of conduct) on youth and families of color. Under these policies and practices, schools as civic communities foster a punitive rather than civil culture of engagement for these youth (Kupchik & Catlaw, 2015). Citizenship, a component of civic engagement, is characterized as a status (Hart & Atkins, 2003) reserved for members of a community who have agency and standing among members. As disproportionate numbers of youth of color are suspended from public schools under zero tolerance policies and overrepresented in our criminal justice systems, these youth are ultimately excluded and marginalized from early civic opportunities and community membership. Since the 1970s, schools have experienced a massive shift in how they respond to misbehavior in the classroom. The suspension rate for all students has nearly doubled, with students of color and students with disabilities incurring exclusion at an even greater rate. In Massachusetts, 17% of all incidents involved low-income Black or Latino students receiving special education, a rate that is estimated to be 10 times greater than their enrollment (The State of School Discipline, 2014).

Negative developmental and life course outcomes, such as high school dropout and longstanding emotional trauma, are associated with youth who experience school suspension, expulsion, and school arrest (Ispa-Landa, 2017): “Adolescents are developmentally primed to notice societal hypocrisy, and rebel or disengage when institutional practices contradict the principles of civility, respect, and fairness that adults espouse” (pg.4). Rubin (2007) identifies the educational experiences of youth of color from low-income communities as having an impact on their civic engagement and feelings of empowerment as agents of change. Rubin’s (2007) study links inconsistencies between young people’s personal lives and community circumstances and the civic ideals and texts taught in school with uncertainty about whether change was possible and discouragement about being able to impact inequalities they personally experienced and a sense of hopelessness about using established channels of civic participation to bring about change. Rubin (2007) asserts that what is described as “disengagement” by these marginalized youth may be a rational response to the civil disparities between purported equalities in our society and the injustices they experience.

Kirk and Sampson (2013); Sampson and Laub (1997) utilize labeling theory framework to explain that being labeled a ‘‘criminal’’ changes the way school systems treat youth and begins a “life-course turning-point” for youth whereby the stigma of such a label damages prosocial peer relationships and leads to rejection from teachers, parents and community members. Labeling and stigmatization generate negative consequences for youth related to social networks, jobs, and self-esteem. Social rejection (Sampson and Laub, 1997) undermines the attachment of youth to the school and creates a vicious cycle of negative interactions. Kirk and Sampson (2013) identify a detachment process experienced by youth excluded from school linked to juvenile arrest and a snowball effect that can lead to more deviance and school drop-out. Among Chicago adolescents otherwise equivalent on prearrest characteristics (Kirk and Sampson , 2013), 73 percent of those arrested later dropped out of high school compared with 51 percent of those never arrested.

Kupchik and Catlaw (2015) associate school discipline as a negative predictor of long-term civic participation rates among adults with a history of school suspensions. In their research, high suspension rates (Kupchik & Catlaw, 2015) are correlated with adults voting less often and being less likely to participate in community volunteer activities. Nussbaum (2018) sites extensive documentation of the correlations between widespread adoption of Zero-tolerance policies in schools across the country and increases in school suspensions, school arrests, and dropout rates as well as lower attendance rates and academic performance among low-income, youth of color and youth with disabilities.

Atkins and Hart (2003) associate structural factors such as neighborhood and socioeconomic status as barriers for low income and youth of color in the development of strong civic identity and community participation into adulthood. These researchers define civic identify as a sense of connectedness to one’s community, in which schools are also considered primary communities for young people. Atkins and Hart (2003) identify community participation as a key component in the development of civic identity. Community participation is defined as contributions and responsibilities such as voting and community service activities. Adolescence is highlighted by Atkins and Hart (2003) as a critical time for the development and sustainment of civic identity and a stage during which community membership advantages begin to be accrued. They explain that it is during this stage that adults (other than parents) and prosocial communities (to include schools) begin to exert influence on a young person’s development of social identity and “social capital.” After controlling for age, race, gender, and parental educational attainment, the researchers find that youth living in a high-poverty, urban neighborhoods are 50% less likely than their suburban counterparts to participate in community service activities (Hart & Atkins, 2003).

Godsey and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2012) associate regular interaction and involvement with the criminal justice system for youths in low-income communities with lower participation in civic and community activities. Lack of youth engagement in community is linked to hostility towards authority and hopelessness about having an impact on changing problems. An analysis of data from the Black Youth Project Survey (Godsey & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2012) finds that, “the act of being arrested has a negative and statistically significant impact on almost all indicators of political efficacy”.

Policy Review Passed in Massachusetts, An Act Relative to Student Access to Educational Services and Exclusion from School, as Chapter 222 of the Acts of 2012. Provisions ensuring that students who are suspended or expelled from school continue to have an opportunity to make academic progress through educational services provided by their district or charter school. Requires principals and headmasters to create a “school-wide education service plan” for all students who are suspended or expelled for more than 10 consecutive school days, whether in or out of school, so that students have an opportunity to make academic progress. The Principal shall exercise discretion in deciding the consequence for the offense and in cases not involving possession of a controlled substance, a weapon, an assault on staff or felony charges, shall avoid using long-term suspension from school until alternatives have been tried. Non-exclusionary Alternatives: Mediation; Conflict resolution; Restorative justice; Positive intervention and supports; Probation; Detention; Saturday School; Contracting; Loss of Privileges; Restitution. To ensure there is not an overrepresentation of low-income, youth of color and youth with disabilities among those suspended from school, each year the Department of Education is required to publish the district level data, to include an analysis dis-aggregated by student status and categories to be established. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the most recent version (2015) of the federal government’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Each state is required to set statewide, long-term goals and interim progress targets for improving outcomes for all students and including economically disadvantaged students, students from major ethnic and racial groups, children with disabilities, and English learners. All states must also submit an annual Civil Rights Data Collection survey that includes disaggregated data on the following: in-school suspensions; out-of-school suspensions; expulsions; school related arrests; referrals to law enforcement; allegations and reports of bullying and harassment; chronic absenteeism. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/What-is-in-ESSA.pdf

Strategies, their effects, limitations Zeldin (2004) identifies restorative justice strategies, such as peer juries and peace circles, as antidotes to punitive discipline policies by promoting instructive and inclusive approaches. Suvall (2009) notes restorative justice approaches in schools show promise in helping to address broader issues of youth connectedness and agency within by providing youth an opportunity to resolve discipline problem and make repairs to the school community through reflection and participation in the correct action process. Such restorative approaches have the potential to increase school community safety with evidence of a positive impact on youth re-engagement and reduction in interpersonal violence rates and delinquent behaviors. There is, however, a lack of evaluation research on restorative justice curricula and best practices with the reasons cited (Nussbaum, 2018) as inconsistent implementation, as well as, lack of local, state and federal funding for development and school staff training.

Civic education advocates (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2018) also point to the need to include intercultural competence as an important component of restorative justice programming and youth re-engagement initiatives. Teaching youth of color the history of racial inequality and the systemic and structural policies and practices that act to sustain such inequalities, works to empower youth towards social action and away from internalized messages of self-blame and marginalization.

Kiesa and Vito (2018) highlight the need for youth-centered participatory approaches to help youth develop civic literacy and individual civic agency: “Democracy needs all young people to see themselves as participants and for leaders and practitioners to ensure they have received messages supporting and welcoming their participation” (P.2). Formal programs like YouthBuild and AmeriCorp, designed to provide career/vocational and civic activities, show immediate and long-term impact on youth perceptions and levels of community engagement (Godsey & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2012). A study by Godsey and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2012) finds that graduates of these and seven other similar programs, are more likely to be employed and less likely to be arrested: “African American men who graduated from the program were more than four times as likely to have voted than their counterparts in a control group” (P.43).

Pasek et al. (2008) identified positive long-term impacts on civic engagement associated with the Student Voices program, a combination of hands-on service-learning activities and education about how political institutions address problems in local communities. In this program, students are given independence and autonomy to identify local problem(s) and to practice communicating with stakeholders and lawmakers. The use of interactive media opportunities for youth as part of civics education programming has shown initial increases in internal sense of control and sense of empowerment to affect change (Feldman et al., 2007).

Youth interviews (Evans, 2007) reveal that opportunities for decision-making and direct influence over agenda setting and action steps is closely associated with youth “sense of community”. Additionally, empowerment and agency are positively influenced when young people believe that adults and figures of authority value and act on their ideas and suggestions (Evans, 2007). Positive skill and knowledge development as well as positive self-identify are associated with youth advisories models (Roholt, VeLure, & Mueller, 2013) that include youth participation in program evaluation, civic projects and community organizing activities. A review of advisory models utilized with juvenile justice involved youth found highest rates of sustained positive civic engagement and social connectedness was associated with authentic opportunities for youth to shape policies, program design and community projects, prepare and train in civics and effective group skills, and that provided youth with multiple platforms for self-expression (Roholt, VeLure, & Mueller, 2013).

References

1. Atkins, R., & Hart, D. (2003). Neighborhoods, adults, and the development of civic identity in urban youth. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 156-164.
2. Baldi, S., Perie, M., Skidmore, D., Greenberg, E., & Hahn, C. (2001). What democracy means to ninth graders: U.S. results from the international IEA Civic Education Study. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
3. Checkoway, B., & Aldana, A. (2013). Four forms of youth civic engagement for diverse democracy. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1894-1899.
4. Evans, S. (2007). Youth Sense of Community: Voice and Power in Community Contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 6, 693–709.
5. Feldman, L., Pasek, J., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2007). Identifying best practices in civic education: Lessons from student voices Philadelphia. American Journal of Education, 114, 75–100.
6. Fine, M., Weis, L. & Powell, L. (1997). Communities of difference: A critical look at desegregated spaces created by and for youth. In Harvard Educational Review, 67 (2), 247–284.
7. Ginwright, S. & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development. In New Directions for Youth Development. 96, 27–46.
8. Godfrey, E. B., Santos, C. E., & Burson, E. (2019). For Better or Worse? System-Justifying Beliefs in Sixth-Grade Predict Trajectories of Self-Esteem and Behavior Across Early Adolescence. Child Development.
9. Hahn, C. (2001). Student views of democracy: The good and bad news. In Social Education, 65(7), 456–460.
10. Ispa-Landa Simone. (2017) Racial and Gender Inequality and School Discipline: Toward a More Comprehensive View of School Policy. The Southern Sociological Society.
11. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2003). Teaching democracy: What schools need to do. In Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 34–66.
12. Kirk, David and Robert Sampson. 2013. “Juvenile Arrest and Collateral Educational Damage in the Transition to Adulthood.” Sociology of Education 86(1):36–62.
13. Kathleen Knight Abowitz and Jason Harnish, “Contemporary Discourses of Citizenship.” Review of Educational Research 76 (2006), 653-690.
14. McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Journal of Sociology. 71, 401-425
15. Niemi, R., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Rubin, Beth, C. (2007). “‘There’s Still Not Justice’: Youth Civic Identity Development Amid Distinct School and Community Contexts.” Teachers College Record 109 : 449- 481.
17. Rubin, Beth, C. (2010). “Youth Civic Identity Development in the U. S. History Course.” Social Education 74(3), pp 144–147
18. Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub. 1997. ‘‘A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency.’’ In Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency (Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 7)
19. Suvall, C. (2009). “Restorative Justice in Schools: Learning from Jena High School.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 44:547–69.
20. VeLure, R., Mueller, M. (2013) New Directions for Youth Development. Youth advisory structures: Listening to young people to support quality youth services Vol. 2013 Issue 139, p79-100. 22p.
21. http://lawyerscom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Not-Measuring-up_-The-State-of-School-Discipline-in-Massachusetts.pdf

Juvenile Justice System In India And Contemporary Challenges

Abstract

The study of children under Juvenile Justice System in India. This research gives the perspective in the light of which the vast child rights has to be made. The concept of the juvenile justice system was derived from the concept of juvenile delinquency. The young children are unable to see the society in a broader sense as by adults so they fail and indulged in crimes. They are not easily consistive to the legal framework and the processes of criminal law. The Juvenile Justice System, therefore, are made for the care and protection of the juveniles for those who are in direct conflict with law.

One of the main aspect of the juvenile justice system is to provide proper treatment of the children as by various institutions. The child is the national asset of the nation. Their need and care are our responsibility. Therefore, it is imperative for us to uplift children. Children are forever innocent and they are unaware of good and bad. In addition, they are not physically and mentally fit than adults. So the children are to be treated physically and mentally in a whole instance for their better upliftment so in this paper we will discuss the whole scope and parameter of the juvenile justice system according to the rising challenges in this century.

INTRODUCTION

The dynamics of Juvenile offenders is completely different from that of other offenders. The role of the police officer in the Justice system is noteworthy and has an evident impact on the juvenile. In 21st Century India faces several number of challenges in the propogating and securing the interest of a Juvenile or accused as the case may be. Some glaring issues which our paper emphasis on is farcical implementation of Juvenile Justice Act leaves much to be desired. The researchers have used doctrinal method of research carrying out qualitative as well as quantitative data analysis, triangulating on major empirical sources. The researchers feel that there is an urgent need for us to fight against all that is degrading and demeaning our society today, for only and only then will we give our children something to fight for tomorrow. The need of hour is to identify the venerable group, create awareness and to educate the young population of India. The educated need to aware the uneducated, for the lack of awareness is a major challenge. The researchers have tried to address the issues subsequently identifying the strategies to deal with the same.

Children in conflict with law belong to one of the most vulnerable sections of children in India. Rule of law and access to justice are the basic requirements for a country’s development and is as imperative for the reduction of social differences as the provision of basic services such as proper health and education systems. However, it has been recognised that children, when dependent on the same justice mechanism as adults may find themselves further victimised by the system itself. It is this recognition that has led to the development of a separate child justice system or juvenile justice system in many parts of the world. In some countries, despite recognition of the need of a separate juvenile justice system, children in the higher age group may be treated through the adult criminal justice system for certain offences and in many punishment for heinous crimes committed by juveniles is stringent and at par with that prescribed for adults.

The stage of development of the understanding, discourse and even the law in the area of juvenile justice vary fromone region to another, depending on the history and culture of its citizens, their approach to human rights, their legal and technical capacities and their government. There are many aspects of a juvenile justice system, those who are involved in it, the way they act, the procedure, the physical and other facilities. For example, it is about the manner in which police apprehend or interrogate children, the attitude of lawyers and prosecutors ; the way that judges make decisions about guilt or sentencing; handling by prison staff, the living; educational; recreational and safety conditions at places where children are being keptand programmes for rehabilitation and reintegration. Three models or approaches have been identified in the Juvenile Justice System across the world, the welfare or the parens patrie model, the Due Process Model and the Participatory Model. Many countries of the world have combined all these models to evolve their own. Even the understanding of what constitute juvenile justice differs. For example, the juvenile justice system in most countries deals only with children in conflict with law, while other social and state-specific laws are used for children in need of care and protection. In India, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 deals with two categories of childreni.e. who are in conflict with lawand those who are in need of care and protection. The reason for including children in need of care and protection is that these are children who are living on the edge and are vulnerable to comein conflict with the law, if there is no timely intervention to prevent them from coming into such situation. [2: Chaudhary, R.N, Law Relating To The Children And Juveniles, Allahabad law Agency]

INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATIONS

The preamble to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 says that the act was enacted with an object to incorporate the standards prescribed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) 1985, the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles deprived of their Liberty 1990 and all other relevant international instruments. In the matter of construction of juvenile legislations, the Supreme Court observed that the Constitution is a source of, and not an exercise of, legislative power. The principles of international law whenever applicable operate as a statutory implication. In the matter of juvenile justice legislation, India followed the British pattern as well as the development taking place at the international level under the auspices of United Nations Organisation. Therefore, the origin, growth and development of Indian juvenile justice system can be traced back somewhere else and not in India itself. To facilitate understanding on the Indian juvenile justice system, the relevant international instruments are cited here with discussions at relevant places. The Third International Congress for the Welfare and Protection of Children (1902)-The Third International Congress for the Welfare and Protection of Children was held in London from 15th to 18th July 1902, under the patronage of His Majesty King Edward VII. The Congress considered the problems of neglected children and the probabilities of their turning towards delinquency if due care of them was not taken. Thus, this is the point where the Congress emphasized the linkage of neglected juveniles and juvenile delinquency. The Covenant of the League of Nations (1919)

Article 23 of the Covenant obliges the Members of the League to endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both is their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend. The Covenant also proposed that the Member of the League should establish necessary international organisations for that purpose.Of course, this provisions related to conditions of labour for children, however, this led to development of today’s children’s rights. The Human Rights of the Child under the Geneva Declaration (1924)-The Declaration provided that the child that is hungry must be fed, there should be no child without food and shelter. [3: Bajpai, Asha, Child Rights In India, Oxford University Press]

NATIONAL LEGISLATION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

As many acts has been passed from certain era or time as firstly in 1986 the act was passed which give a written form to it for the proper welfare of children as for their adjudication and how to be treated in same sense but due to some instant it is to be amended than comes amended act of 2000 it also made certain bodies as we can say the homes for their treatment but it also been amended in 2007 and again in 2015 as after the famous NIRBHAYA case which bring the great revolution in the country against it and many major amendments are been done which we will discuss further.Nowadays, we all know that heinous crimes are being committed by juveniles and now we are in a situation debating about the juvenile’sage and punishment which is not given to them according to the crimes committed by them. Age determination is the most important factor to find out whether the accused falls under the purview of the Juvenile Justice Act. Accurate recording of the age is also important to form child welfare committees and institutes.

In the case of Ram singh and others v. State of Delhi also known as Nirbhaya or the Delhi Gang Rape case, 2012 created huge havoc regarding punishments given to the juvenile convict should be same as given to other convicts. Yes, the juveniles should also be treated in the same way because they have committed the same crime and also if they are below statutory age of majority they need to be punished for the crime they have committed, because if they get away with it will become a habit which will carry on till the later part of their life, definitely they should get same treatment. The sooner a child is held accountable for their actions, the sooner they will come to know there are consequences for their consequences for their actions. Giving punishment is a positive thing so they should receive this understanding and rectify them in their upbringing itself. They should be punished the moment they commit crime that is the best gift they can receive. The sooner the better while their minds are in developing stage. [4: AIR 1959 SC 518]

Next issue arises, whether any special provisions should be made for juveniles? No special provisions have to be made for them, opposing this point because there is no inclusion of extra punishment for them. The difference is only that they are tried in juvenile courts now they will be tried in regular courts where they will be questioned the facts of the crime, their intention behind the crime , mensrea behind crime, etc.

Another issue that the age of a juvenile should be 16 or 18 so as to treat them adults:- as per National Crime Record Bureau in the year 2011 – 64 per cent of the crimes has been committed by juveniles between the age of 16 and 18. Many heinous crimes are committed between the age of 16 and 18. This age is highly volatile and highly unstable. Particularly during this period they don’t know what to do, they don’t know how to react. But rapid mental development occurs during that stage. If they keep on indulging in these type of activities their life is at stake. Whatever may be the age , they have committed a crime so they should be put behind the bars.

Despite the introduction of comprehensive beneficial schemes for children, the implementation is defective. Appropriate training is not there and the main concern is about the accountability. The police officers are highly brutal towards the juveniles and abuse in the observation homes. It is high time now that government should take necessary steps to seek charge of juveniles pending or on completion of inquiry.

And also there are been certain provisions in the constitution of India which firmly deals with the children as to their rights etc and how they to be dealed in certain circumstance as it is been mentioned in certain articles as in Art. 15, 21, 21(a), 23, 24, 39(e), 39(f) etc so these all deals with the children or juveniles and their protection as to care and assistance. [5: Pandey, J.N, Constitutional Law Of India, seventh edition]

JUDICIAL TRENDS

As from time to time many trends had been made over the juvenile justice system in india as by different judgement by various courts and legislations and some out of that are as follows-

The Supreme Court of India in Gaurav Jain v. Union of India while dealing with writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution pertaining to the plight of the prostitutes or fallen women and their progeny, spoke about the Preamble of the Constitution and stated that it is an integral part of the Constitution of India and that the children have the right to equality and the opportunity for all well beings, dignity and care for the proper protection and rehabilitation by the society with open hands open to make them onto the particular way of social life without any mark based on them for no fault. [6: AIR 1990 SC 292]

In Laxmikant Pandey v. State[ the hon Court of India observed that every juvenile has a right to proper care and assistance and affection and of morality and proper security and this is only claimable only when the juveniles will be brought up in proper family and good environment.. [7: AIR 1992 SC 118]

In Subramanian Swamy v. Raju Thr. Member, Juvenile Justice Board [8: AIR 1955 SC 661] Some incidence becomes mileage stone that shook the psyche of the society or nation.

One of such is the case of the delhi gang rape as where the 5, 6 persons rape a girl though brutally and killing her by putting rod in private part and the justice system is as such the juvenile involve in it is to be released after small imprisonment.In the particular case Dr. Subramaniyam Swami a senior lawyer of Supreme Court moved to the Supreme Court of India requesting the court for an order restraining the release the set juvenile from special home. The Supreme Court of India maintain that they are unable for the same as due to the law made for it not tend to do son and affirm him to move to parliament and make proper law for it. Here, it would not be out of context to mention that set juvenile was kept in a special home along with an accused Delhi Blast Case. Thus, one can easily imagine the influence of the blast case accused on the sad juvenile and vice versa.

It has further been observed that juvenile released from observation home and special home were found to commit a more heinous crime. Thus, a question naturally arises whether this reformatory home is capable serving the objectives for which these homes were established.

CONCLUSION

The heinous nature of the crime. The cover-up afterwards. The denial. They were all, to me, earmarks of someone who was acting as an adult.”- Gary Gambardella The above quote summarizes the methodology adopted to hoodwink the Indian criminal system by hardcore criminals. The law of the juvenile justice act like a system of opportunity which can be taken easily to any instance and can be mould in any way. Section 16 of the JJ Act lays down provisions for orders that may be passed regarding a juvenile, wherein the maximum penalty a juvenile has to pay is to remain in the observation home for three years or till he attains the age of twenty-one. In Bhoop Ram. V. State of UP, although the Supreme Court found that the accused had in fact committed the offence but had to quash the sentence as the accused was already twenty-eight years of age and could not be sent to an observation home. Arnit Das v. State of Bihar has been a highly controversial case and has been criticized to the core but the court seems have to have taken a contrary view from the earlier case because it is known to have taken same set of persons which evolve juvenile justice action till they turn 50 years of age. The problem with this decision was that it set the same yardstick for everyone – whether a serial criminal or a petty offender So, an amendment in the existing act is definitely necessary in order to thwart any attack on the nation. Apart from terrorists taking advantage of the lacuna in the system, serious crimes like rapes and murders also go unpunished with the offen [9: AIR 1989 SC 1329] [10: AIR 1989 PAT 217] der wearing the garb of juvenility. The legislators of the country have their task cut up as they need to work out a middle path that takes the country’s and society interest into account but does not go to extremes like in the case of Arnit Das.

Poor School Attendance as a Key Factor Leading to Juvenile Delinquency

In our textbook, Christopher A. Mallett defines delinquency as “the ongoing committing of criminal acts or offenses by a young person, normally younger than 18 years of age”. Delinquent behavior can come in all shapes and sizes and can range from minor violations like skipping school all the way up to more serious crimes like burglary and assault. There are many factors that lead juveniles down a path towards a life filled with committing delinquent acts. Some examples of these factors are lack of moral guidance, substance abuse, peer pressure, violence at home, poverty and much more. This essay will touch upon what is most likely the main factor leading to juvenile delinquency and that is poor school attendance and school connectedness.

There are obvious links made between academic struggle, trouble at school, bullying, truancy and school exclusion policies that lead to juvenile delinquency. This is why schools play such an important role in helping to grow and shape the future for today’s youth. Education is the foundation for success. Without education, the chances of these juveniles going down the wrong path and committing delinquent acts skyrockets. “Schools are not only a place to learn and grow, but it is also a structured routine that provides children with a goal to accomplish each day” (Baysinger. (2019, August 9). Not only do schools give the youth a time and place to be during the day but it also gives them the opportunity to be able to visualize and achieve goals on a daily basis. This isn’t the case with all schools though. Unfortunately, not every school system gives children the best opportunity for success. Schools that are overcrowded and underfunded may lack discipline and order and therefore give the children the opportunity to take part and carry out in more delinquent behavior. “Schools that are poorly organized, that function below minimum safety standards, and do not promote safe learning environments are additional risk factors leading to delinquency” (Mallet, C. A. (n.d.)).

School discipline and suspension/expulsion are also factors that lead to delinquent behavior. Excluding a youth from attending school not only takes the youth away from receiving an education but also puts that youth at a disadvantage because we are forcing him/her to hang out in the streets of their neighborhoods where crimes are present. By doing this we aren’t giving the youth a fair chance to want to go to school. Why would a child want to go to school where they are getting yelled at and getting in trouble on a daily basis when they could be at home hanging out with other youths from the neighborhood with little to no responsibilities. Studies have shown that individuals that are less connected to their schools are more likely to commit delinquent acts. Therefore keeping kids out of schools gives the kids a greater chance of getting involved with a gang.

Adolescence is a time period that is marked by change, immaturity, impulsiveness, and ongoing development for preteens and teens alike. This is a crucial stage in life for directing and putting youth on the right path to succeed in life. “Early aggressive behavior may lead to difficulties in the classroom. These difficulties could then result in a child receiving poor grades and evaluations from teachers. This then could lead them towards a life of delinquency” (Baker, M. L. (2001, September).

Truancy has been linked to higher delinquency rates in youths. Sometimes an abundancce of delinquent behavior as a youth can carry over into adulthood. “As a risk factor for delinquent behavior in youth, truancy has been found to be related to substance abuse, gang activity, and involvement in criminal activities such as burglary, auto theft, and vandalism” (Baker, M. L. (2001, September). Truancy can lead to punitive actions from the school or law. Not only can the truant student get in trouble but his/her legal guardian may also get in trouble. This could jeopardize the relationship between student and school officials. If a child continues to get in trouble or they get arrested at school, it could leave a bad taste in their mouth whenever they go back to that specific area where the incident occurred. This could trigger a PTSD response only making situations worse for the child.

Juvenile Diversion Programs in South Africa

Children who commit minor unlawful behaviors were exposed to harsh punishment, therefore this is the inappropriate treatment for children in conflict with the law, as it disobeys act 108 of 1996 in section 28 of the constitution. In the 1990s South Africa introduced diversion to focus on the best interest of the child, providing appropriate treatment and punishment for children in conflict with the law (Steyn (2010). Z. K. Hamilton et al. (2006) define diversion as channel out, children in conflict with the law from the child justice system. According to Heidi Sauls (2018), South Africa experienced a transition when the Child Justice Act 75 of 2008 (CJA) was implemented in April 2010. Child justice act considers diversion as the backbone of the juvenile courts; it is essentially assisting the court to make decisions on how to treat young offenders and try to support young offenders with the goal that they could continue to have better lives (Mears et al. 2016).

According to Section 48 of the Bill of rights, the purposes of diversion are to: “encourage the children to be responsible of their unlawful behaviors; encounter individual needs; to reconcile with their families; victims are allowed to express their view and how the crime affected them and benefit from some form of compensation; promote reconciliation between the offender and people affected by the crime; prevent stigmatization and prevent adverse consequences flowing from being subject to the criminal justice system, and prevent the offender from having a criminal record”. The diversion process follows a restorative justice system, it discourages upcoming unlawful actions. According to Anderson (2003), restorative justice emphasizes the importance of consensus and reconciliation, it also restores the imbalance and creates peace within communities which is caused by the offender. It does not encourage punishment however it offers to heal the wounds caused by crime and mending the relationships that have broken. It involves all people affected by the crime, such as the victim, offender, and the community.

Diversion is a voluntary program, so the person who is referred by the state attorney gets to decides whether to participate considering the benefits of the program (Muntingh, 2001). According to Anderson (2003), the Diversion process can also be called out-of-court contract settlement. it is considered as a contract between the offender and the prosecution whereby the offender’s trial is withdrawn in exchange for participating in the diversion program and obeying the terms and conditions of the contract. The contract is a list of activities that are required to be done for the program to be successful. When the contract is completed the court diversion program informs the state attorney and the case is dismissed by the court. If the offender does not commit unlawful behavior after two years, the court will order the case sealed. If the contract is not completed the case will return to the state attorney to be prosecuted. The person will go to court for the original charge and may end up plea guilty of not (Muntingh 2001).

The two important components to all diversion programs are namely screening and assessment. The screening process helps program staff to be able to identify offenders that are appropriate to be diverted (Z. K. Hamilton et al. 2006). Assessments need to occur before the prosecutor decides to divert the young offender. The information that is shared during assessment helps to identify the appropriate diversion scheme for individual child offenders (Merwe & Dawes 2019).

Diversion can be used whereby the child understands and admits the charges against him/her and willing to plead guilty; where the caregivers do not consent to diversion; and where there is unsatisfactory evidence to prosecute (Nielsen & Gallinetti, 2004). According to P. Daniel Mears 2016 diversion may improve the lives of young offenders and decrease offending, however, if it is used inappropriately, it may worsen recidivism.

Steyn (2010) listed diversion intervention programs and their services namely:

1. The Noupoort Youth and Community Development Project in the Northern Cape specialized in its life skills program. Lifeskills training focuses on providing skills that are needed everyday basis working effectively in society, skills on how to react healthily to live’s stressors and be able to deal with conflicts excellently.
2. The National Youth Development Outreach in Pretoria is known for its mentoring initiative. This service helps the young offender to deal with life’s challenges.
3. The National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) in Bloemfontein popular for its outdoor intervention. It suggests nature-based experiences, using physical and emotional difficulties, that achieve the mental awareness that is needed to develop behavioral change.
4. The Restorative Justice Centre in Pretoria is known for its family group conference program. Fixing the damage brought about by the offense and accommodating those influenced by the activity are two significant ideas in family bunch conferencing.

The life skills training, mentoring, and conferencing, involves young offenders ranging from 13 and 18 of age, whereas outdoor intervention involves young offenders from 16 to 18 years of age. From 1999 to 2000 diversion was still implemented in child justice courts (Wood, 2003). The aim was still to encourage children’s rights, and for children to be treated in a dignified manner to be respected self-worth (Merwe & Dawes, 2019). The most popular diversion intervention was found to be NICRO, it was also found to be the most effective intervention program due to fewer cases returning to court. NICRO still finds that the majority of its participants are pre-trial referrals (Wood, 2003). NICRO is South Africa’s largest diversion program established in 1910. it aims to assist offenders to be diverted from the criminal justice system by providing life skills training, community service, victim-offender mediation, and outdoor intervention. NICRO has branches all over South African in nine provinces. It focused on offender reintegration, community victim support, economic development, and diversion and youth development (Steyn, 2010).

Facilitation has a major contribution to the ineffectiveness of the diversion program (Gxubane, 2019). The probation officer’s lack of specialized skills during the assessment process affected the quality and completeness of assessments. Specialized training in the field of probation was requested (Sauls, 2018). The other challenge of the diversion program is the staff shortage and insufficient organizational resources such as the venue for facilitation and aftercare services (Merwe & Dawes, 2019). Security of venues, transporting children to and from the programs, and the time schedules for the diversion programs have been identified as major challenges in implementing these programs (Sauls, 2018). Sauls (2018). The placement of child offenders’ inappropriate diversion programs was also considered as a challenge, therefore children were placed on the available and suitable diversion programs being presented in the areas where they reside. Parents support has also found to be essential especially in life skills and outdoor processes where they need to be actively involved, without the support it has been discovering that children return to their unlawful behaviors (Steyn, 2010).

All societies have rules that abide by them; social rules define appropriate behavior for a specific group of people or society. According to Becker’s (1963) labeling theory, deviating from social norms result in one being labeled as an outsider. Outsiders happen to have a different perspective and have accepted this label. Lemert (1951) argues that self-identification is essential to individuals, therefore being regarded as a criminal destroys the way an offender perceives themselves. According to Becker (1963) and Lemert’s (1951) perspective of labeling, Patrick & Marsh (2005) argue that labeling offenders affect the juvenile as it increases recidivism. Hence, diversion aims to keep young offenders out of the criminal justice system and discourages labeling.

References

1. Anderson, A.M., 2003, August. Restorative justice, the African philosophy of Ubuntu and the diversion of criminal prosecution. In 17th international conference of the International Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, The Hague, Netherlands (pp. 24-28).
2. Becker, H., 1963. Outsiders-Defining Deviance.
3. Van der Merwe, A., and Dawes, A., 2009. Toward good practice for diversion: the development of minimum standards in the South African Child Justice System. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(7), pp.571-588.
4. Gxubane, T., 2019. Facilitation of residential diversion programs for youth sex offenders in South Africa. Southern African Journal of Social Work and Social Development, 31(2), pp.1-18.
5. Hamilton, Z.K., Sullivan, C.J., Veysey, B.M., and Grillo, M., 2007. Diverting multi‐problem youth from juvenile justice: Investigating the importance of community influence on placement and recidivism. Behavioral sciences & the law, 25(1), pp.137-158.
6. Lemert, E. M., 2010. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Primary and Secondary Deviance, Issue @SAGE, p. 8.
7. Mears, D.P., Kuch, J.J., Lindsey, A.M., Siennick, S.E., Pesta, G.B., Greenwald, M.A. and Blomberg, T.G., 2016. Juvenile court and contemporary diversion: helpful, harmful, or both?. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), pp.953-981.
8. Muntingh, L.M., 2001. The Effectiveness of Diversion Programmes-a longitudinal evaluation of cases. Cape Town: NICRO.
9. Patrick, S., and Marsh, R., 2005. Juvenile diversion: Results of a 3-year experimental study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), pp.59-73.
10. Sauls, H., 2018. An evaluation of the diversion program for young offenders, Cape Town: Western Cape Government Social Development.
11. Sloth-Nielsen, J., and Gallinetti, J., 2004. Child Justice in Africa: A Guide to Good Practice, Community Law Center.
12. South Africa. 2008. Child Justice Act, 2008 (Act No. 75 of 2008). Pretoria: Government Printer.
13. Steyn, F., 2012. Challenges of diversion strategies in meeting the diversion objectives of the Child Justice Act (75 of 2008). Acta Criminological: African Journal of Criminology & Victimology, 2012(Special Edition 2), pp.76-86.
14. Wood, C., 2003. Diversion in South Africa: A review of policy and practice, 1990-2003. Institute for Security Studies Papers, 2003(79), p.22.