Juvenile Justice: Incarceration vs. Intervention
Juvenile Justice: Intervention versus Incarceration
Lisa Whipple
Professor Sinclair-Appelt
English Composition II
May 1, 2012
Abstract The national trend towards getting tough on juvenile crime by altering the juvenile justice system to more closely mirror the adult system was examined in order to determine whether secure confinement of juvenile offenders is as effective as community-based rehabilitative and treatment programs for these youth. Politicians and public perceptions have allowed the juvenile justice system to evolve from one of reform based thinking to one of punishment based thinking, placing more young offenders in secure facilities than ever before. The social repercussions of secure confinement of juveniles, without the use of proper rehabilitative tools, including education and life-building skills, are evident as youth are being ‘set aside’ rather than being encouraged to become productive members of their communities.
Lisa Whipple
Professor Sinclair-Appelt
English Composition II
May 1, 2012
Juvenile Justice: Intervention versus Incarceration
Not a day goes by where our national media doesn’t report on stories involving heinous and criminal acts committed by juveniles in the United States. Juvenile delinquency is a fact of life – ranging from minor status offenses to unimaginable acts of violence. When dealing with young offenders, there are always difficult decisions to make concerning appropriate punishments that take both public safety and the needs of the juvenile into account. In response to a recognizable increase in youth crime, getting tough on juvenile delinquency and holding young offenders more accountable has been the national trend in the past two decades (Brinks, 2004). Many argue that removing juveniles from the environment in which their crimes were committed is the most successful deterrent of future negative behavior. But what does secure confinement provide these
Lisa Whipple
Professor Sinclair-Appelt
English Composition II
May 1, 2012
Abstract The national trend towards getting tough on juvenile crime by altering the juvenile justice system to more closely mirror the adult system was examined in order to determine whether secure confinement of juvenile offenders is as effective as community-based rehabilitative and treatment programs for these youth. Politicians and public perceptions have allowed the juvenile justice system to evolve from one of reform based thinking to one of punishment based thinking, placing more young offenders in secure facilities than ever before. The social repercussions of secure confinement of juveniles, without the use of proper rehabilitative tools, including education and life-building skills, are evident as youth are being ‘set aside’ rather than being encouraged to become productive members of their communities.
Lisa Whipple
Professor Sinclair-Appelt
English Composition II
May 1, 2012
Juvenile Justice: Intervention versus Incarceration
Not a day goes by where our national media doesn’t report on stories involving heinous and criminal acts committed by juveniles in the United States. Juvenile delinquency is a fact of life – ranging from minor status offenses to unimaginable acts of violence. When dealing with young offenders, there are always difficult decisions to make concerning appropriate punishments that take both public safety and the needs of the juvenile into account. In response to a recognizable increase in youth crime, getting tough on juvenile delinquency and holding young offenders more accountable has been the national trend in the past two decades (Brinks, 2004). Many argue that removing juveniles from the environment in which their crimes were committed is the most successful deterrent of future negative behavior. But what does secure confinement provide these
References: Brinks, D. O. (2004, Jan). Immaturity, normative competence, and juvenile transfer: How (not) to punish minors for major crimes Browne, J.A. 2003. DERAILED! The schoolhouse to jailhouse track. Washington, DC: Advancement Project. Cullen, F., and Gendreau, P. 2000. Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects in Criminal Justice, vol History of America 's juvenile justice system. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.lawyershop.com/practice-areas/criminal-law/juvenile-law/history Lipsey, M., and Wilson, D. 1998. Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. In Serious and violent juvenile offenders, edited by R Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions McCord, J., Widom, C.S., and Crowell, N.A., eds. 2001. Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Mendel, R.A. 2000. Less hype, more help: Reducing juvenile crime, what works—and what doesn’t Puzzanchera, C. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. (2008). Juvenile arrests. Retrieved from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention website: Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Rethinking juvenile justice. Harvard University Press. Shelden, R. 2009. Detention diversion advocacy: An evaluation. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Sickmund, M. 2002. Juvenile residential facility census, 2000: Selected findings. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S Swift, M. I. (1911). Humanizing the prisons. The Atlantic Monthly, 108(2), 170-179. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95nov/prisons/humanizi.htm Wasserman, G., Ko, S., McReynolds, L. 2004. Assessing the mental health status of youth in juvenile justice settings Wiebush, R., Wagner, D., McNulty, B., Wang, Y., and Le, T. 2005. Implementation and outcome evaluation of the intensive aftercare program Young, M. C., & Gainsborough, J. (2000, Jan).Prosecuting juveniles in adult court: An assessment of trends and consequences Prevention. (2005, Aug). Planning community-based facilities for violent juvenile offenders as part of a system of graduated sanctions