Sentencing_Policies_Analysis_Paper

Sentencing Policies Analysis Paper AJS/582 Public Policy Issues Sentencing Policies Analysis Paper If a child or adolescent is handing out with his or her friends, someone might suggest robbing a passer-by to get money for beer. The adolescent might choose to go along by default, despite mixed feelings, because of a strong need to fit in with peers at his/her age. The need to maintain status with the group may trump the opposite choice because of the inability to project effectively the outcomes in the future; these and more immediate rewards weigh more heavily than the negative abstract concepts of getting involved with the police, as well as the feeling of being ‘ten feet tall and bulletproof’ and cockiness that often comes with adolescence and juvenile punishment has become increasingly punitive (Redding, Richard, Fuller, and Elizabeth, 2004).   For many years in our society; minorities and the youth have had an disadvantage when they run against the laws of our nation and with this message passed on to them today from the system that they are not worth the effort of being helped to turn around so that they can have a decent future.   Many are in essence told that they are hopeless cases that not only cannot be fixed, but that they have nothing positive to contribute to society ever and are expendable.   It is sad and inappropriate in a country in which a large percentage of individuals declare themselves to be Christian and strongly support the right to life of even unborn fetuses, these same individuals are often at the forefront of efforts to mete out the harshest of penalties to those who could potentially get the most benefit from mercy and rehabilitation (Redding, Richard, Fuller, and Elizabeth, 2004). The focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation, family support and other community resources. The courts were used unnecessarily with youth cases because it relied on court and custody based responses for non-violent crimes instead of using community resources such as family group conferencing. The unfairness in youth sentencing and transfers to the adult justice system was likely the result of inconsistencies among judges. Each states and their judges held a great deal of power in determining consequences for breaking the law. The cause for the line between serious and less serious offences to be smeared is simple, but in the end, decisions were often based on mere discretion. As for the lack of concern for victims, this was caused due to the focus on punishing the offender. It was assumed that once the offender has been dealt with, all other factors will fall into place. The history of the Youth Criminal Justice Act dates back many years. Prior to the 19th century, legal doctrine asserted that criminals performed rationally when committing crimes and therefore ought to be held accountable. Furthermore, it was believed that law breakers considered the risks and the benefits of their plans before carrying out the offence and for this reason as well should be held accountable for their actions (Holman and Ziedenberg, 2013). These policies applied to both adults and children alike. Both were punished equally and imprisoned together. That is it was determined by law that children under the age of 10 years old could not form the intent to be labeled as conducting criminal behaviors. The basis of the different act's was that youth crime was the result of detrimental situations of life and poor role models. Policy makers believed that these young offenders could be reformed by intervention strategies within the community and that imprisonment was the least favorable option. The youth were deemed as in need of guidance and assistance, but most importantly, their best interest was most important. When dealing with youth criminal cases, judges used undefined sentences. As a result of this, sentences varied and were inconsistent. Furthermore, traditional court room rules were not being abided by. Lawyers were often discouraged from representing their young clients. Also, many rulings were influenced by parties , where as the government would assume legal guardianship over young offenders who they deemed as being in need of protection or who did not have any parents (Lally, 2013). This therefore caused it to lack the due process guarantee. Furthermore, the Act's also played a role in creating tensions surrounding social and child welfare issues and legal principles. Also, the way in which delinquency was defined was far too broad, therefore causing some serious crimes to be down played and less serious offences to be amplified.  The Youth Criminal Justice Act and other act's; reflected a purely criminal law perspective, different from the welfare orientated standpoint. With the new legislation, there was a major emphasis on due process and it asserted that young offenders be held accountable for their conduct, although not in the same way in which adults would be held responsible. The idea of reforming these young people was not a priority under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The Youth Criminal Justice Act recognized the legal rights of youth and reflected that which was outlined that their rights and freedoms regarding due process and equal treatment (Lally, 2013). Sentences were more consistent and the legislation itself was more detailed and specific. This regulated each area of the youth justice system including arrest, police interrogation, sentencing and the right to legal representation. Youth Criminal Justice Act was criticized for a number of things as discussed above. However the main and most significant concern with this act was that it was inadequate and too punitive, as detention centers were reaching capacity despite a decrease in youth crime and far too many young offenders being transferred to adult courts and handed lengthy sentences. As a result, there was a need for a new legislation for young offenders that would be a balance between the overly lenient Juvenile Delinquents Act and the punishment based Youth Criminal Justice Act. Theories are key to almost any existing policy. With regards to youth crime in particular, they assist in understanding what causes crime, they help make sense of the seriousness of a crime, they explain the social impact of a crime; all of which enables society to better control, deter and/ or prevent criminal behavior. There are a number of theories that have played a role within the youth justice system including; positivism, psychoanalytic theory, social disorganization and opportunity theory to name a few. However, the most prominent theories that informs that assumptions and goals of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and its processes are conflict theory, labeling theory, social construction and feminist theory (Lally, 2013). During the early 19th century, immigrant adults and children from Europe and rural areas of the provinces flooded the larger cities for employment and opportunity. The upper class examined the immigrants and feared that these changes would affect their own social economical position. They also placed blame on the working class parents for youth deviance issues. This immigrant movement prompted criminologists to utilize conflict theory as a way to address the issues. Conflict theory focuses on the struggle between different groups within society, especially religious, social, political, economical and ethnic struggle (Lally, 2013). Through this theory, the law is perceived as a tool to control behaviors of individuals who do not have power or are marginalized. Which in turn led to Industrial Schools as a means to control working class young people. Proceeding Industrial Schools was the Probation Movement and the Anti-Institutional Discourse. All of this, including the application of conflict theory, assisted in establishing separate courts and laws for young offenders. Left realism, a theory within conflict theory, emerged to address creating research, developing social and criminal policies that tackle consequences of crime and explain them through social policy. As a result, this theory as well has been significant in creating a basis for the Youth Criminal Justice System. Labeling theory refers to society applying a name or label to someone and in turn, the individual acts on that label, fulfilling the name that was applied to him or her. Social constructionism denotes the study of society as it is perceived inside its members. Applying the label criminal or deviant to an individual is a social construction. Society has accepted the fact that these behaviors are a normal part of life. The media is a major source in creating labels for youth and enforcing social construction (Ball and Walsh, 2008). Throughout the years, within the media, youth delinquency has been embellished. It was done so that within great detail was involved in explaining just ways in which to sentence youth and laws ensuring the privacy rights of young offenders are protected.      The Youth Criminal Justice Act takes on a reform liberal ideology. This perspective suggests that individual ability and achievement and access to opportunity are paramount and that resources should be re-distributed, thereby making use of the taxation system and the welfare system. Furthermore, humans are perceived as being ethical and balanced; therefore if they are surrounded by or at least have access to adequate social conditions, they are likely to better themselves (Ball and Walsh, 2008). These views are evident in the Declaration of Principle section of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It outlines the importance of the community’s role when responding to crime among youth, such as restorative justice, the value of the role of the victim in repairing harm and the significance of the familial role, including an interest in strengthening family relationships. Overall, the principles of the Youth criminal Justice System focuses on the importance of those responding to youth who have committed offenses to reinforce respect, promote a compensation of harm view, demonstrate meaningfulness and respect diversity. Neo-liberalism is another political perspective that has assisted in shaping the Youth Criminal Justice Act. New liberal perspectives suggest that individuals ought to be responsible for their own situations, which is consistent with the rights focused Youth Criminal Justice Act legislation. Within youth justice legislation, young offenders are held responsible for their actions (Ball and Walsh, 2008). Moreover, in some cases, parents are also held accountable for their children’s actions. One of the sections within the Youth Criminal Justice Act states that the government is able to seek reimbursement from parents for legal costs that their children incurred. This part of legislation directly reflects the views of neo liberalism. The introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act has thus far proved to be an overall success in responding to the problems within the youth justice system. One of the most significant problems it was created to address was the high level of youth incarceration. In the first month of its enactment, the number of imprisoned youth dropped by 20%. This occurred because of a number of reasons; youth were given warnings from police and extrajudicial measures instead of being arrested and going to court, less use of pretrial imprisonment, increase in releasing the youth on supervision, judges utilizing more community centered sentences and the fact that young offenders were allowed to spend the last third of their sentence under supervision within the community (Ball and Walsh, 2008). The Youth Criminal Justice Act was also expected to protect the legal rights of youth. Another problem the Youth Criminal Justice Act intended to address was the non- existent philosophy within youth justice. This new legislation is extremely detailed and has a Declaration of Principle that clarifies a number of issues that had previously been blurred (Holman and Ziedenberg, 2013). At this point the Youth Criminal Justice Act has many components to it and has only been in place for four years. As a result it is unclear as to whether or not there are any unintended or latent consequences from its implementation. As of right now, the Act appears to be a success; however the outcome of the future will provide a more definite answer to its triumph. This legislation could be improved by implementing stronger provisions regarding the rights of young offenders. As mentioned above, its predecessor, the Young Offenders Act, was stronger when it came to protecting young offender rights. It is important that when new legislation is created, each aspect is improved and none are left behind. Also, this policy could be improved if there was more funding available to create more programs and better quality detention centers. In conclusion, for the most part, the Youth Criminal Justice Act has met the expectations that it initially set out to meet. After analyzing this act from many different angles, it is easy to see that it has taken many years for the youth justice system to get to the point at which it is at now. Seldom is there a legislation created that is meeting the needs of all of its target population; however, as of now, the Youth Criminal Justice Act comes quite close. Only Time will tell. Reference Redding, Richard E. & Fuller, Elizabeth J., (2004). What Do Juvenile Offenders Know About Being Tried as Adults' Implications for Deterrence. Juvenile and Family Court Journal. Retrieved from http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/Redding_What.pdf Barry Holman and Jason Ziedenberg, (2013). The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incrcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/06-11_REP_DangersOfDetention_JJ.pdf Jasdeep Lally, (2013). The Youth Criminal Justice Act. Retrieved from http://prezi.com/3wbtotdizgcr/the-youth-criminal-justice-act/ Jeremy Ball and Anthony Walsh, (2008). predicting Public Opinion about Juvenile Waivers. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi'article=1005&context=crimjust_facpubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dthe%2520impact%2520of%2520demographic%2520variables%2520on%2520public%2520opinion%2520regarding%2520juvenile%2520justice%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D4%26ved%3D0CEQQFjAD%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarworks.boisestate.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1005%2526context%253Dcrimjust_facpubs%26ei%3DaP4HUpnAJqHOyAHdyYCoAQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFMGmZ9UQE_TuRehzpn9BAK3ZNPGw#search=%22impact%20demographic%20variables%20public%20opinion%20regarding%20juvenile%20justice%22 Go to Page • 1 • ...