20 February 2009
Does Rehabilitation work on Juvenile Offenders?
Rehabilitation of juvenile offenders is ineffective as shown in the current rate of incarceration of youths in America. Other alternatives to deter youths from criminal activities should be explored. Since1899, juvenile courts have been established to rehabilitate and create safe heavens for juveniles, but the enforcement of youth criminal justice is outdated. Overhaul is needed to accommodate the youths. The recidivism of American youths is 79%. The juvenile justice system is mandatory for criminal youth reform.
Youth crimes have been risen 5% annually since 1990’ because the leniency of the youth justice system, other approaches should be implemented to accommodate the youth criminals. Punishment is one the better ways to result in a decrease in the frequency or seriousness of criminal activity; and some of those ways are incompatible with the concept of rehabilitation. People neither expect youths to be criminal nor expect crimes to be committed by them; the unforeseen intersection between childhood and criminality creates a dilemma that most of us find difficult to resolve. The only way out of this dilemma is redefine the offense as something more serious or redefine the juvenile offender as someone who is not really a child. .
Moreover, most reasonable people agree young offenders as adults expose at least some youths to the possibility of capital punishment for the crime they committed as juveniles. Many states suggest that there should be any reason to maintain a separate punitive youth courts, however, today, in almost every state, youths who are 13 or 14 years of age or less can be tried and punished as adults for a broad range of offenses; all youth offenders in one integrated criminal court to save taxpayer money. In addition, various opinion surveys have found public support generally for getting tougher on juvenile crimes. Most victims’ people agree that young offenders should be transferred to the adult system because they pose a genuine threat to the safety of juveniles; the severity of their offense merit’s a relatively more severe punishment or their history of repeated offending bodes poorly for their ultimate rehabilitation and punishing youths as harshly as adults counterparts. At the same time, scrutiny of sources of information about public opinion reveals that the view that the public supports adult punishments of juveniles is based largely on either response to highly publicized crimes such as school shooting or mass opinions that typically ask a few simplistic questions. Providing juvenile offenders rehabilitative services in community are far more expensive and often less effective than less harsh alternatives punishment. Transferring juvenile offenders to adult court claim that it is an effective method of dealing serious juvenile offenders. The empirical result support the idea that adults court sentencing of juvenile offenders is consistent, and equitable to diminish the rates of juvenile delinquency.
Furthermore, more than 60 percent of youth male thugs are committing another offense within less than two years of ending their sentence. The recidivism rate for young people in custody has been reported to be as high as 96 per cent (Lewis et al. 1994). In another study, 88 per cent of youth males 14 and 16 years re-offended within two years of release from custody (Hagell2002). (DHS) reported that nearly half (41%) of a sample of more than 1500 juvenile justice service clients re-offended. Such statistics provide a strong rational for juvenile justice service to scrutinize their models of service delivery and minimize the ineffectiveness of their rehabilitation program. On the other, the empirical result that jails are overloaded, meaning staffs have less time to work with youth offenders; and make it unworkable to rehabilitate the youth offenders. The California Youth Authority, the state agency that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document