Rehabilitation_and_the_Juvenile_Justice_System

Juvenile Justice and Rehabilitation The juvenile justice system should focus on rehabilitation. The philosophy that has brought the juvenile justice system this far has been one of change. The earliest treatment of juvenile delinquents was severe punitive treatment, the confinement of juveniles and adults, together and the accepted wisdom that the state should have parental rights over all children. As social changes were emerging, and the needs of troubled children were recognized, things changed for the future of juvenile delinquents. As of late, the “get tough” on crime philosophy has surfaced once again, this has influenced the juvenile justice system. As juvenile crime increases, the uncertainty becomes what to do with this crisis in the United States. Although the courts are handing out harsh punishments to deter juvenile delinquency, the delinquency crime rates are increasing rapidly, and the crimes are more violent and the children more destructive, it does not seem this philosophy is working. When rehabilitation is the main focus, the underlying causes of juvenile delinquency can hopefully be explained, and abated. Since The Illinois Juvenile Court Act was created in 1899, the initiative of the juvenile court was formed (Schmalleger, 1997). The concept of putting the best interests of the juvenile first was what was advocated with this act. The courts were there to support the juvenile. Unlike adult prosecutions where due process requirements were endorsed, the juvenile courts allowed “informal procedures designed to scrutinize the child’s situation; by sheltering the juvenile from the punishment philosophy of the adult system, the Illinois juvenile court emphasized reformation in place of retribution” (Schmalleger, 1997, p.529). As the 1990’s brought more juvenile crime, violence, drug abuse, and gang associations, the alternative to the rehabilitation and treatment philosophy in the juvenile justice system would focus on punishment instead of rehabilitation and the examination of the causes of delinquency. Deterrence strategies became the juvenile justice system’s resolution. The thought was a rational youth would not commit crimes if he/she recognized that there would be a severe punishment for criminal behavior. “General deterrence” was one such theory; that the threat of punishment would control juvenile delinquency; the distress of punishment would outweigh any benefit of criminal behavior (Siegel & Welsh, 2005). Another concept of crime prevention is “specific deterrence”, which holds that anyone who is subjected to arrest and imprisonment will not continue the behavior that would produce that penalty. These crime deterrence policies have varied positions. Studies do show that these deterrent strategies have some merit; that punitive measures deter delinquency, and the fear of punishment will decrease delinquent behavior. But other studies show that harsh punishment actually escalates the probability that first time offenders will recidivate. Moreover, many juveniles may actually feel the need to rebel instead of conform when punitive measures are used to control delinquent behavior (Siegel & Welsh, 2005). Although, in the past, while these methods have given the impression that some juvenile crime rates have decreased, other reasons may explain the decline. Social factors comprise reasonable explanations; “lower rates of drug abuse, reduced teen pregnancy, and a strong economy” (Siegel & Welsh, 2005, p.55). Through the 1990’s until recently, the increase of juvenile offenders who are being punished more stringently is more widely accepted, and so is the tendency of some jurisdictions to waive juveniles to adult courts or sentencing delinquents to secure juvenile or adult correctional facilities. Juveniles who are convicted in adult courts of serious violent crimes are being sentenced to life in an adult prison without the possibility of parole, and the ultimate ruling of capital punishment. For example, as of May 2008, there are approximately 2,484 juvenile offenders serving life sentences without parole (The Human Rights Watch, 2008). In a summary written by The Human Rights Watch (2008), it was found that “in 11 of the 17 years between 1985 and 2001, youth convicted of murder in the United States were more likely to enter prison with a life with out parole sentence than were adults convicted of the same crime” (¶ 2). This would seem to be a cruel and unnecessary punishment. Because juveniles are young, their potential for rehabilitation is promising, and should not be completely disregarded. This sends the message to these juveniles that society is giving up on them, and they are destined to live and die in prison. These juveniles committed serious crimes and should be punished, but not unfairly. For those juvenile delinquents who are serious, violent, repeat offenders, severe sanctions are appropriate, but all juvenile offenders should not be treated the same. Furthermore, more and more states and cities are spending more funds on incarcerating non-violent offenders. Mendel, (2005) stated that “More than half of the youth in state institutions were committed for property or drug crimes and were serving their first terms in a state institution. Delinquents sentenced to youth correctional facilities typically suffer recidivism rates of 50 to 70 percent” (¶ 2). If this should be the continued course of action of how the juvenile justice system deal with juvenile’s who commit crime, the result could be disastrous. The basic goal of the juvenile court is rehabilitation, appropriate services and interventions. The most important reason for this objective is to prevent delinquents from continually breaking the law. Instead of treating all juvenile offenders the same, regardless of their background, age, circumstances of their crime, and their reoffending record, individualized treatment is a more responsible action, and a more evident way to prevent reoffending. Carnell (2005) stated, “More than two-thirds of nonviolent offenders never reoffend at all, without any sanction or intervention whatsoever” (¶ 1). So it makes sense fiscally to keep these juveniles out of the justice system, and it would lessen any long term damage to their life. For these juveniles, who are not a risk to their community, there are programs that are economically more efficient than institutionalizing these juveniles. There are methods that are reducing recidivism rates, and are cost effective. One such strategy is the Multisystemic Therapy, which works with juveniles and their families in their homes and communities (Mendel, 2005). Another problematic practice for youth who have been institutionalized is re-entry into the community. To ensure a juvenile offender is meeting their release responsibilities, many states focus more on supervision and monitoring rather than aiming their focus on the difficult move a young offender has to reestablish themselves back in to the community (Christian, 2005). These juveniles are in need of support and services to help them return to a life that is quite different from the structured environment of an institution. When these kids are left to cope with outside influences, such as old friends, dysfunctional families, the chance of recidivism is going to be high. The impact on intervention programs that rehabilitation has is the expansion of services. Juvenile drug courts are still a relatively new process in the justice system, they provide, to substance-involved juveniles, services that include family services, life skills training, and mental health services. Early results have demonstrated positive outcomes, for example, considerable reductions in recidivism, substantial reductions in drug use, and improved family relationships (JAIBG Bulletin, 2001). Drug courts, specializing in substance abuse, are taking a positive course of action that uses individualized treatment and rehabilitation to give the participants more one-on-one commitment and more accountability from the child. Furthermore, the juvenile justice system must manage the efforts of agencies and systems that don't often work together, and coordinate all efforts from all organizations and communities to give kids a fighting chance not to reoffend, once they are released from secure institutions (Christian, 2005). The practice of transferring juveniles to adult criminal courts is not going to help recidivism, community safety, or the already clogged criminal justice system. Mendel (2005) stated that “In study after study, juvenile offenders who are transferred to criminal court recidivate more often, more quickly, and with more serious offenses than those who are retained under juvenile jurisdiction. In Minnesota, 58 percent of transferred youth committed an additional crime within two years versus 42 percent of youth retained in juvenile courts” (¶ 2). Opponents argue that punishment is the only method that will stop juvenile delinquency, and that rehabilitation does not work. The fact is, many of these delinquent kids will be reentering society, and most are a product of their environment; if they are not supported with individualized programs, they are going to reoffend. Moreover, challengers of treatment insist imprisonment does reduce crime, which studies show to be true; the juvenile criminals are locked away, and can not commit crimes. The long term disadvantage here is these offenders will be released, typically worse than when they went in, and the cycle of violence and crime will continue. The line of reasoning that Reynolds (2005) maintains is a good point; that a juvenile delinquent should be held responsible for their actions, and that does not necessarily mean incarceration is the only option. “For example, Anne L. Schneider found in six random-assignment experiments involving 876 adjudicated (convicted) delinquents in six American cities that victim restitution and incarceration both lowered reoffending while probation did not; victim restitution meant monetary restitution, community service or work to repay the victims” (Reynolds 2005, para.3). It would seem reasonable that the juvenile justice system determine the significant predictors of juvenile delinquency as the most constructive way to meet the goals of the juvenile system. Punishment is appropriate in some instances, but for a cost-effective reduction of both the problems facing our youth today, and the rate of juvenile delinquency, the rehabilitation programs and services must emphasize the fundamentals; the quality of family life, economic conditions in communities, appropriate socialization of our children, and supportive social institutions. Policymakers have to be aware of programs and services that work and do not work. Fund the programs that work, and eliminate the ones that do not. Punishment is not the answer to all that affects youth today. Let’s not remove punishment from the table, but let us not eradicate rehabilitation because of fear. References Carnell, L., H. "Harsh Punishment Is Not the Best Way to Prevent Juvenile Crime." Opposing Viewpoints: Juvenile Crime. Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. Retrieved February 14, 2009 Christian, S. "Helping Juvenile Offenders Reenter Their Communities After Incarceration Can Reduce Crime." Opposing Viewpoints: Juvenile Crime. Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. Retrieved February 12, 2009. Human rights watch bulletin. (2008). Executive summary. The rest of their lives: Life without parole for youth offenders in the united states in 2008. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from, The Human Rights Watch website: http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005execsumsentencingyouthtolife.pdf Mendel, R., A. "Punitive Approaches to Addressing Juvenile Crime Are Ineffective." At Issue: Alternatives to Prisons. Ed. Jennifer Skancke. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. Retrieved February 15, 2009. OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants (JAIBG) Best Practices Series. (2001). Retrieved February 14, 2009 from, Juvenile Drug Court Programs web site: http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jaibg_2001_5_1/page2.html Reynolds, M. "Incarceration Reduces Crime." At Issue: Alternatives to Prisons. Ed. Jennifer Skancke. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. Retrieved February 14, 2009. Schmalleger, F. (1997). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the twenty-first century. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Simon & Schuster. Siegel, L. J. and Welsh, B. C. (2005). Juvenile delinquency: The core. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.