Justice System, Term Paper Example

One of the central questions about the juvenile justice system is whether the system should be focused on punishment of rehabilitation. The debate on this topic is complicated, fierce and has been going on for a very long time. Those who support the idea of punishment generally point to statistics which show a steady increase of juvenile crime and violent juvenile crime over the years. Those who favor rehabilitation are quick to point out that numerous psychological, sociological and even medical studies indicate that juvenile offenders are distinct from their adult counterparts not only in intellectual and emotional development but in standards of guilt and responsibility. As Corriero points out in Judging Children as Children: A Proposal for a Juvenile Justice System (2006) the starting point for treating juveniles differently than adults in the criminal justice system is scientific. Corriero writes that “scholars have researched the psychological effects of adolescence on criminal behavior. They have concluded that children, particularly those under 16 years of age, are developmentally different from adults—physically, intellectually, and emotionally.” (Corriero, 2006, p. 22). In keeping with this observation and in reference to a number of additional supportive materials and ideas, the following examination will show clearly that rehabilitation is the better point of focus for the juvenile court system.

Many people observe crime and belive at an instinctive level that a criminal who is caught breaking the law deserves punishment plain and simple. Although there is merit in this point of view, it fails to take into account the reasons for a given crime being committed and it also fails to take into account the potential costs and consequences of punishment. The costs and consequences of punishment, as will be shown in the following discussion, must always be weighed against the potential benefit in order to determine whether or not punitive practices are of of practical value. After-all, even the most rabid supporter of punishment over rehabilitation would admit that the point of punishment is to produce a desired result. If it can be shown that a specific punishment for a specific crime has not resulted in deterring the crime or changing the criminal behavior, then the punishment is ineffective. According to the article, “Better Models for Juvenile Justice.” (2007) the results of punitive measures are often not only ineffectual, but in the case of juveniles, actually counterproductive.

The article notes that after a spike in criminal prosecutions of juveniles over the years of the late twentieth century, a massive fallout of “lost” teenagers was the result. in other words, according to the article, the increasing of punishment against juvenile offenders only resulted in a deterioration of social stability. The article insists that “Thousands of adolescents, locked up during a critical period of development, returned to their communities without the skills or support to lead productive lives” and that this fact resulted in “reduced public safety and the loss of human potential.” (“Better Models for Juvenile,” 2007, p. 9). therefore, it can be shown clearly that punishment is an ineffective means for preserving public safety. If this is the case, then what incentives remain for encouraging tougher standards of punishment for juveniles?

More importantly, are there alternatives to punishments which can be shown through scientific means to reduce juvenile crime and therfore increase public safety? The answer to the first question is, obviously, that little or no incentive remains for punishment. The answer to the second question is that rehabilitation in connection with intervention and modified or individualized punishment actually can work to reduce juvenile crime. The associated consequences of this approach are also generally positive and extend to law enforcement, courts, and the community at large. Whereas punishment of juvenile offenders, alone, can often be unproductive and costly, rehabilitation in association with other methods, including some forms of punishment, can be both cost-effective and productive. In the case of impacting law-enforcement, reducing occurrences of juvenile crime is one of the most important considerations. The additional burden that juvenile crime puts on law enforcement is considerable. There are two important factors to keep in mind in regard to law enforcement and juvenile crime. The first factor is that many instances of juvenile crime are committed due to extenuating circumstances that are far outside of the control of law enforcement. The second factor is that additional arrests of juveniles will not result in any easing of the burden on law enforcement. the only way to decrease the burden on law enforcement is to lower incidents of crime. A great many studies suggest that the patterns of criminal behavior that sometimes begin to emerge in juveniles is a temporary change. that is to say, a number of juvenile defenders are simply acting out of a temporary stage of their emotional, physical, and brain development and therefore the behaviors that they demonstrate as juveniles are unlikely to continue manifesting throughout their adulthood.

Levin and Lubow in their article, “Juvenile Rehabilitation versus Incarceration” (2012) cite a range of scientific studies all of which reached a consensus of near consensus on a range of important issues relative to the problem of juvenile crime. From these studies a substantial amount of new knowledge was gained about the nature of the motivations behind acts of juvenile crime and also about the effectiveness of rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration or punishment. Levin and Lubow write that “Support for rehabilitation versus incarceration is also consistent with new knowledge regarding teenage development, which clarifies that adolescents make foolish, sometimes dangerous decisions in part because their brains are not yet fully formed.” (Levin & Lubow, 2012). Therefore, what is risked by early and sustained punishment of a juvenile defender is that temporary behavior patterns may be encouraged to develop as lifelong patterns which will result in a greater number of both repeat juvenile offenders and repeat adult offenders. This will of course, in turn, place additional burdens on law enforcement.

The same can be said in terms of the burden that is placed by repeat offenders on the court processes. For every offender that is punished a great deal of economic cost and human labor is needed to move each individual case through the system. In fact, not only the court system, but the penal system itself is simply insufficiently funded to handle every criminal case in juvenile jurisdiction with an approach that is based in sustained incarceration. the court system can’t afford to be bogged down and bled dry by cases committed by juvenile offenders that, as previously mentioned above, involve more than simply criminal behaviors. Similarly, the department of corrections can only realistically house and provide for the most serious of offenders. If the reality of juvenile crime is that it is has increased statistically while the laws and punishments have become more strict, then the continued reliance on tough punishments will only bring the courts and corrections system to a crippling overload.

This means that the idea of punishment must be broadened to include methods of punishment that serve a dual purpose: one to provide a deterrent to the potential commission of a crime and two, to provide a connection between the offender and the community in order to strengthen a mutual sense of responsibility and obligation. This is an especially important point in regard to juvenile offenders for two main reasons. The first reason is that, as previously mentioned juvenile offenders are often simply veering from a “correct” path and can be encouraged to better behavior by developing stronger bonds with the community and the second reason is that by working to provide services to the community in compensation for criminal activity, juvenile offenders are able to perform needed work and tasks while also paying their debt to society.

Both community service and probation are viable alternatives to incarceration. On the one hand, probation ensures that the courts remained informed about a potential criminal threat while at the same time reserving actual space in a correctional institution for violent or repeat offenders. In terms of probation it is most useful when it is applied in connection with other actions such as intervention and treatment. The basic impact of focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment and incarceration is to relive the burden on the courts and correctional facilities in two ways: first in preventing useless or even harmful incarceration of juvenile offenders, and second by working to reduce the chance of a juvenile offender becoming a repeat offender and an adult offender. In the case of the last statement, the saving of manpower is coupled with a corresponding reduction in economic costs.

Corriero points out that when punitive strategies lead to the cementing of criminal leanings in juvenile offenders, the results are long-lasting and destructive. Corriero writes that “State and federal governmental leaders have come to recognize the destructive consequences of policies that unnecessarily expose young offenders to lifelong criminalization, not only in human terms but also in economic terms.” (Corriero, 2006, p. 180). So, the potential benefits of adopting rehabilitation strategies may appear, at first glance, to increase the financial burden on state and local governments, the fact is that intervention programs, probation, community service, and treatment programs all help to reduce recidivism in juvenile crime. The facts bear the connection between rehabilitation and crime-reduction in action.

The article “Better Models for Juvenile Justice,” for example, examines the implementation of a form of criminal justice known as “balanced and restorative justice” that was put into operation in the state of Pennsylvania. This form of criminal justice seeks to find methods of dealing with criminal behavior, particularly in juveniles, that results in the full eradication of criminal potentiality. According to the article, the approach in Pennsylvania was based on “an individualized approach that considers the goals of accountability, community protection, and youth development at the same time.” One of the ways in which the state is better able to curtail crime is by addressing the reality of crime at multiple levels. For this reason, Pennsylvania “is also one of the first states to mandate that counties report race and ethnicity data at key points in case processing, a critical step in reducing disparities” (“Better Models for Juvenile,” 2007, p. 9). The results of the approach used in Pennsylvania have been positive, indicating that not only rehabilitation but intervention is a particularly successful tactic for dealing with criminal behavior.

In the article “Restorative Justice: New Horizons in Juvenile Offender Counseling” (2004) J.S. Ryals, Jr. writes that a holistic approach is the best method for dealing withe the threat of juvenile crime. the article insists that “The juvenile justice system looks toward treatment providers and offender-focused interventions to prevent further delinquent behaviors. As a result, treatment providers are tasked with providing an array of therapeutic services aimed solely at the rehabilitation of the juvenile offender.” (Ryals, 2004). this is, according to Ryals a good first-step, but is most effective when used in conjunction with additional programs and strategies. the idea that rehabilitation is something that should only be directed at the perpetrator of a crime is, according to Ryals, a limited and incorrect assumption.

Instead, by the article’s argument, the reality of juvenile crime is that it often emerges from deeper influences than those which are visible through a purely legal perspective. Ryals writes: “Current treatment for juvenile offenders involves various interventions focused on individual and environmental influences […] Juvenile offenders are processed through screenings […] ranging from psychological evaluations to substance abuse screens.” (Ryals, 2004) The integration of various levels of intervention and treatment is viewed, by Ryals, as offering the most comprehensive and therefore most reliable solution to juvenile crime. Obviously, this viewpoint is in direct keeping with the prevailing beliefs of those who advocate the use of rehabilitation rather than punitive justice for juvenile offenders.

Those who oppose the idea of using time and resources for the aforementioned programs usually bolster their argument by pointing to the continued rise in crime among juvenile offenders. According to Jenson and Howard “Increases in violence have been attributed to the proliferation of juvenile gangs, greater availability of handguns, and drug-related crime […] Homicides committed by juveniles with firearms have tripled in number since 1983” (Jenson & Howard, 1998). The increasing occurrences of juvenile crime are cited by those who advocate more extensive punishment as evidence that the treatment of juvenile offenders has been too lax. The only recourse, according to this viewpoint, is to increase punitive measures.

This idea, however, is opposed to the vast majority of research that has been conducted on the topic. According to Levin and Lubow “Studies repeatedly show that putting large numbers of young people behind bars fails to reduce future offending, provides little if any overall benefit to public safety, wastes taxpayer dollars and routinely exposes young people to violence and abuse in juvenile correctional facilities.” (Levin & Lubow, 2012). As the preceding examination has clearly shown, rehabilitation and intervention are much more effective ways of dealing with juvenile crime than punishment and incarceration. If future strategies are to be developed that genuinely incorporate useful practices of intervention and rehabilitation, a great deal of financial and stress and social-burden will be taken off of the court system and the corrections system. This, along wit the greater advocacy that rehabilitation and intervention provide for individual juveniles establishes that forms of rehabilitative justice are superior to and therfore more desirable than punitive systems.

References

Better Models for Juvenile Justice. (2007, August 22). The Christian Science Monitor, p. 9.

Corriero, M. A. (2006). Judging Children as Children: A Proposal for a Juvenile Justice System. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Jenson, J. M., & Howard, M. O. (1998). Youth Crime, Public Policy, and Practice in the Juvenile Justice System: Recent Trends and Needed Reforms. Social Work, 43(4), 324+.

Levin, M. A., & Lubow, B. (2012, June-July). Juvenile Rehabilitation versus Incarceration. Corrections Today, 74(3), 10+.

Ryals, J. S., Jr. (2004). Restorative Justice: New Horizons in Juvenile Offender Counseling. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 25(1), 18+.