Juvenile Deterrence Theory
Reflection Paper #2
How to deal with juvenile offenders is controversial. In the 1960's and 1970's, sociologists warned treating juveniles like common criminals would make them more likely to break the law. The nation listened to this and began diverting youths with minor or status offenses away from the juvenile justice system. They would experience other, less punitive sanctions such as counseling. What is interesting in this scenario is that this actually "widened the net." More juveniles were actually in the system, which would not be otherwise, because the punishment was less punitive. In the late 70's the public began to demand harsher punishments for juveniles. Research indicates that a juvenile accused of a violent crime was more …show more content…
Specific deterrence could occur is Dyleski is charged as either an adult or juvenile, because the punishment for murder could be severe enough to keep him from committing another one. The relativist definition under the labeling theory says the murder of Pam Vitale is only a crime because it is labeled as so. Therefore Scott Dyleski is a deviant, because he is labeled as so by those with power, lawmakers and those involved with the court. Labeling often reduces law abiding opportunities for employment, for this and other reasons Lemert would argue that Dyleski is likely to commit secondary (continuous) deviance. If the labeling theory holds true Dyleski should be tried as an adult and given the maximum sentence so he will not have the opportunity to commit secondary deviance. This is different from deterrence, because it argues the label of deviant will cause/increase Dyleski's deviance. Deterrence argues that the deviant label that will apply to Dyleski will increase his chance of arrest in the future. It appears official labeling promotes deviance for some and deters
How to deal with juvenile offenders is controversial. In the 1960's and 1970's, sociologists warned treating juveniles like common criminals would make them more likely to break the law. The nation listened to this and began diverting youths with minor or status offenses away from the juvenile justice system. They would experience other, less punitive sanctions such as counseling. What is interesting in this scenario is that this actually "widened the net." More juveniles were actually in the system, which would not be otherwise, because the punishment was less punitive. In the late 70's the public began to demand harsher punishments for juveniles. Research indicates that a juvenile accused of a violent crime was more …show more content…
Specific deterrence could occur is Dyleski is charged as either an adult or juvenile, because the punishment for murder could be severe enough to keep him from committing another one. The relativist definition under the labeling theory says the murder of Pam Vitale is only a crime because it is labeled as so. Therefore Scott Dyleski is a deviant, because he is labeled as so by those with power, lawmakers and those involved with the court. Labeling often reduces law abiding opportunities for employment, for this and other reasons Lemert would argue that Dyleski is likely to commit secondary (continuous) deviance. If the labeling theory holds true Dyleski should be tried as an adult and given the maximum sentence so he will not have the opportunity to commit secondary deviance. This is different from deterrence, because it argues the label of deviant will cause/increase Dyleski's deviance. Deterrence argues that the deviant label that will apply to Dyleski will increase his chance of arrest in the future. It appears official labeling promotes deviance for some and deters