Category: Juvenile Delinquency

Introduction

It is the responsibility of governmental institutions, particularly, police departments to maintain order. It is expected that they do everything in their power to curb and prevent the occurrence of crimes. However, at times, the situation can get out of the control of police forces, and some changes of strategies employed need to be introduced.

Main body

Recently, our department faced problems connected to the rise of the incidence of crimes involving young people. These crimes vary from graffiti and vandalism to simple assaults and minor larcenies. Several cases of street-level narcotics transactions have also been detected. While minor offenses do not attract as much public attention and are relatively less threatening, they still have destabilizing effects on our society and contribute to a long-term increase in criminal activity. Younger people involved in narcotics transactions and consumption jeopardize the well-being and development of our community, and simple assaults can quickly evolve into more serious violent crimes. There have also been many public complaints regarding not being able to feel safe on the streets anymore; therefore, this situation calls for action.

It is important to conduct several arrests to show that police forces do not underestimate the importance of the situation and take action. It will calm the public and may make young people more cautious while deciding whether to commit a crime or not. To achieve this goal, we should start by determining the areas where the majority of crimes occur so that large numbers of officers can be concentrated there. While it is vital that the polices vehicles are constantly on the streets and ready for urgent calls, significant numbers of police officers should also be patrolling the streets on foot. This is expected to improve the situation, particularly in the areas known to be problematic. It will allow officers to respond more rapidly and will contribute to higher numbers of arrests. Regarding the public, it is also crucial to conduct a campaign reminding local people that they should immediately call the police if they see a crime occurring.

While it is our immediate goal to curb the current spike in criminal activity among young people, we should also employ strategic approaches to preventing the future incidence of crimes. Therefore, much awareness-raising work among younger people on the streets is demanded. It is a well-known fact that many interactions between police officers and younger people remain undocumented and do not proceed to legal action (Myers). Hence, the work which police officers conduct on the streets is important for the prevention of juvenile crimes.

The officers interacting with young people must follow the established procedures. The one which is recommended involves several significant evaluations: assessing the safety of the area, the medical, and the mental health condition of a person (Cox et al, p. 216). If the youngster appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, they can be taken into protective custody (Cox et al, p. 216). The person can also be sent to a facility that specializes in helping people to overcome the particular crisis they seem to be dealing with, be it drug abuse or anger issues (Cox et al, p. 216). The police forces should work in conjunction with different facilities that aim to assist young people experiencing problems connected to mental health issues, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, poverty, or unemployment. Therefore, patrol officers should be aware of these institutions in the area and of the services they can provide. However, in many cases, forced transitions of youngsters to such facilities should be avoided.

For underage individuals, it might be important to contact those who are responsible for the  parents or other family members, schools, or orphanages. However, in some cases, if the situation does not demand an arrest, protective custody, or immediate contact with a young persons caretaker, police officers can just warn young people about the consequences of juvenile delinquency  it is important not to disregard the benefits which can be derived from preventive discussions. On the other hand, police officers should be careful to avoid emotional pressure which will only discourage youngsters from further communicating with the police or other governmental institutions. This can disrupt the relationship between law enforcement officers and youth and only exacerbate the situation. It is crucial that the officers can distinguish between the situations which demand immediate taking into custody, which should entail contacting a youngsters guardian, and in which it is enough to make a caution.

Conclusion

The objective of the polices strategy of preventing juvenile delinquency should be that no crime, however insignificant, remains undetected and no problematic young person overlooked. Since right now we are facing a spike in criminal activity among young people in our area, taking strict measures, including more officers patrolling the streets and conducting more arrests, is highly recommended to curb the crisis. However, our strategy should not be confined to such measures  preventive discussions are also highly important. Patrol officers should understand their role in making the community a safer place both for the general public and for the young people themselves.

Works Cited

Cox, Stephen M., et al. Juvenile Justice: A Guide to Theory, Policy, and Practice. 9th ed., SAGE Publications, 2017.

Myers, Stephanie M. Police: Handling of Juveniles. Ecyclopedia.com. 

The problem of juvenile delinquency has been always a burning problem for the society. Adult generation is always concerned with impropriate behavior of the youth and gives different explanations to the increased rate of juvenile crimes. The eternal conflict between generations exists due to the reluctance of the law to perceive this phenomenon not the infringement of the law but the youth desire to be independent. Nevertheless, in fact, the government and legislative bodies pay little attention to the psychological aspect of the problem, namely, to the nature of the youth misbehavior. Thus, the article Private Pain and Public Behavior written be R. Robinson depicts the veritable reasons for the incorrect behavior of the youth and explains the nature of female delinquency.

In the article, Robinson emphasizes that there is a distinction between the female victim and the female offender, which is frequently confused by the legislative authority. In this respect, Robinson advises to focus on the fact that working with delinquent girls needs a special consideration since it differs greatly from the male delinquency. The distinction of the victims and offender, however, is an important one, since it contributes to a more profound role of the girls hidden behavior.

According to him, the problem of the female offenders lies in the irrelevant attitude to the sexual relationships and can be explained as the girls protest against the girlhood framing. In other words, the lack of upbringing forms wrong outlook of young girls on the independence. Therefore, the girls desire to be independent and safe should be considered in terms of their lives and legislature could eliminate the problem by more effective methods. Robinson calls for rethinking of the problem and start perceiving the girls opinions more seriously and regarding them as personalities that need help but not punishment.

Analyzing the article, it should be mentioned that Robinsons statements are of great value and can have an enormous value for the reconsideration of the law system in terms of juvenile punishment. Secondly, the article will surely influence the governments attitude to the problem of the female delinquency. Hence, it will help to realize the veritable girls needs and their problems who were involved in the sexual abuse relations beyond their will. Thirdly, the government should decide how to provide the delinquent girls with a diligent education and appropriate jobs in order to introduce the equality of the social status.

In addition, juvenile justice should be more sensible to the problematic layer of girlhood whose misbehavior was predetermined by the unhealthy environment in the family. The state should give second chances for the girls who are passive and dependent on the circumstances. Hence, there is a strong necessity to define new principles in coping with problematic girls and make effort to reveal their individual talents instead of pressuring them by a rude attitude.

In conclusion, due to the fact that this phenomenon is strongly influenced by the public behavior, and is the result of the political and economic instability in the country, the current society must also participate in elimination of this problem. Therefore, special rehabilitation organizations for difficult girls should be established so that they could feel safer. The society as well as the government should not refuse such girls. Instead, they should do their best to make the girls to adopt to the current social situation.

Reference List

Warsheit, R. & Culberstson, R. (2000) Juvenile Delinquency. US: Waveland Press, Inc.

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

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 (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.

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

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 (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.

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.

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.