Youth Detention as a Measure to Deter Crime - Essay Example

Youth Detention as a Measure to Deter Crime ex: COM212 J. Doe) School Youth Detentionas a Measure to Deter Crime Over the course of the past 20 years, there has been a considerable reduction in the rates of youth crime committed in the US. This shift has largely been attributed to a correlative increase in the incarceration of delinquent youths within detention centers dedicated specifically to housing juvenile offenders. However, these statistics may be severely misleading as they do not account for the development of delinquent behaviors and attitudes during the course of incarceration. While these juvenile detention centers are designed to perform a variety of functions, much like adult detention facilities they are primarily designed to act as an effective deterrent to criminal activities. Initially not intended to house non-violent criminal offenders, current trends indicate that youths convicted of crimes, even very minor offenses, are being increasingly committed to detention centers in preference to the implementation of less stringent methods of punishment and rehabilitation (Foley, 2001). However, the large-scale use of detention centers as the sole method of deterring youth crime is insufficient to the purpose as it increases the familiarity and acceptance of criminal attitudes and behaviors, has a negative impact on the mental condition of detainees, and hinders both education and the healthy development of acceptable social behaviors. The detention of minors who have exhibited criminal tendencies and/or engaged in illegal activities within this type of large, secure holding facility does not result in a direct, significant level of discouragement to future crime. On the contrary, communal youth housing practices used in such detention facilities has been proven to create an atmosphere which aggravates the rate of recidivism among minors. Studies based on information compiled from multiple states suggest that as many as 60 percent of young offenders sentenced to time in a juvenile detention center have later been required to return, often to the same facility, following the commission of new criminal offense(s) (Sander, Sharkey, Tanigawa, and Mauseth, 2010). Such an excessively high rate of recidivism does little to support the notion of rehabilitation through detention. Though many factors have been blamed for the high rate of recidivist practices among delinquent youths, one influential element of this recurring criminality is the reinforcement of negative behaviors and attitudes within detention facilities themselves. Statistics concerning a seeming reduction in youth crime rates fail to consider this consequence, as minors housed communally are subject the influence of their peers and are at a high risk of adopting further delinquent behaviors which can pose a greater risk to the community. As the criteria for sentencing youth offenders to juvenile detention have broadened to include less violent and dangerous youths, this unnecessary measure ultimately achieves little more than to exposure of troubled minors to conditions which closely mimic those found in adult penitentiary systems (Foley, 2010). This creates an exponential rise in the scope of criminal activities that are deemed acceptable by these troubled minors, a circumstance which can contribute to the occurrence of more dangerous and possibly violent behaviors later on. By introducing youths to such tremendously stressful conditions, the underlying problems which form the cause for the initial criminal tendencies and behaviors are further aggravated while no possible avenue for rehabilitation is provided outside of the practice of detention itself. Youths housed in these facilities gravitate towards peers, often adopting the attitudes and values predominant among the delinquent youth surrounding them. As a large percentage of detainees in youth detention centers are considered to be likely to graduate into fully developed criminal tendencies and practices, it is apparent that the practice of utilizing detention as the primary means of deterring youth crime has in fact resulted in a de facto promotion of criminal behaviors. While youth detention is successful in removing youths convicted of criminal actions from the general population, it also eliminates the possibility of the minor obtaining positive help and support from their community which might ultimately deter them from future delinquency (Sheldon, 1999). Detention practices intimidate troubled minors, instilling a sense of isolation within them which significantly reduces the possibility of successful rehabilitation. Besides the negation of other sources of support and rehabilitation, research suggests that juveniles housed in detention centers are overwhelmingly likely to be pulled deeper into the American criminal justice system (Hughes, 2002). A minor exposed to rigid confinement practices within youth detention centers often responds by adapting to their conditions and adopting the perception that those conditions are normal. As among many of these young offenders it is common to make a petition to the judicial system intended to avoid detention, forcible confinement of this type is known to effect a deep resentment and entrenchment of delinquent tendencies. Unlike the effects of alternative sentencing, this reduces the likelihood that the confined youth will learn to control their attraction to previously experienced criminal offenses and increases the vulnerability of those individuals to negative influence. Furthermore, some studies suggest that these outcomes remain stable even among populations where factors such as race and age are held in common among participants (Sheldon, 1999). This shared reaction to the conditions of detention on the development of character implies a fundamental problem within the concept of juvenile detention and corrections. By comparison, the experiences and outcomes which result from alternate programs are largely positive. Studies involving youths which have been sentenced to community-based corrections programs rather than the more stringent method of juvenile detention, indicate a positive trend in rehabilitation. Youths involved in such programs have been found to be 14 percent less likely to face later incarceration for future offenses than first time offenders, suggesting the efficiency of such alternatives in instilling positive values while deterring future criminal behaviors. Such findings suggest that there should be a shift in focus from housing delinquents within youth detention facilities which closely resemble the prison systems to the large-scale adoption of community-based systems which can provide more of a useful, positive influence (Steinberg, 2009). There is a need for such positive support practices and programs which offer a viable alternative to detention in stemming the continuation of criminal tendencies and helping youths to embrace healthier behaviors in a less intimidating atmosphere. Furthermore, delinquent behaviors that have arisen from underlying mental disorders and conditions may be aggravated by detention of the afflicted minor. According to current statistics, in recent years there has been a marked increase in the prevalence of mental illness among juvenile detainees which does not correspond with instances within the general population. These findings suggest two possible implications for minors suffering from mental conditions. Firstly, this suggests that juvenile detention facilities have become a dumping ground for mentally ill and drug-addicted youths who might otherwise have found support or treatment within the community. Secondly, this upswing in the percentages of afflicted minors in detention indicates that prevailing environmental conditions in which these youths are detained impact their mental state negatively (Steinberg, Chung, and Little, 2004). The isolation, intimidation, strict discipline, and the continual stresses of communal living in a mixed population during detention can have a phenomenal strain on individual detainees. However, it is unclear whether these factors work independently to create the current concentration of youths suffering from various mental afflictions within youth detention programs or act as a combined method of reinforcement which increases the percentage present detainee population. Severe overcrowding within available youth detention facilities caused by the increased utilization of the detention system contributes to the overall chaotic atmosphere of such institutions. Similarly, the mixture of violent and non-violent offenders creates a shifting dynamic within conditions which can aggravate many types of mental disorders. While this does not definitively prove that youth detention facilitates mental illness, many such detainees report that this type of issue began only after entering the center, or in cases where the disorder was already present, that the symptoms of their disorder became more severe subsequent to detention Steinberg, Chung, and Little, 2004). By mimicking the adult prisons, the design of juvenile detention centers has created an atmosphere which may increase the possibility of active mental illness. . Besides the difficulties presented by the instance of mental illness within detention facilities and the instance of increased familiarity and increased likelihood of acceptance of criminal behavior and values by detainees, reliance on this system of rehabilitation creates other additional difficulties for youth offenders. By confining youths in detention facilities which isolate them from their peers within the general population, this system interrupts the maturation process. In the normal course of events, youths which exhibit delinquent behaviors stemming from a particular circumstance related to emotional, mental, and social development are unable to successfully experience normal processes of aging out of the behavior while being actively confined (Redding, 2003). By interrupting this natural course of events, the maturation of the individual is directly affected. In terms of psychological and emotional development, it is a common phenomenon for developing children and adolescents to exhibit mild criminal tendencies. However, over time the existence of these tendencies manifested by the child fades as the individual gains maturity and develops their social skills. Current findings suggest that as much as a third of minors who engage in anti-social behaviors related to criminal activities eventually outgrow this type of behavior. Anti-social and criminal behavior appear more often among male minors than females, however, the male detainees are also more likely to desist in these behaviors later on. This type of natural desistance occurs according to the individual’s rate of development, removed from outside interference. However, the strict implementation of detention on the troubled youth can effectively stymie the natural development of healthy behaviors, interfering with the natural pace of maturation. Community-based resources, such as mentorship programs, have may be used as a means of directing this development by youth offenders in positive avenues. However, there is no opportunity for healthy mentorship relationships within detention facilities as available participants usually exhibit similar delinquent behaviors (Redding, 2003). A lack of available mentors and the stringent conditions of detention eliminates the possibility of healthy, mutual development through bonded relationships. In addition to the inhibition of natural, healthy social development, youth detention disrupts the education of the incarcerated, effectively hampering their ability to continue with their education after release. This is particularly true of individuals dealing with mental disorders through therapies and other treatment methods who already face severe psychological impediments in their development. The impact education interruption on troubled youth is evident in the low rates of successful graduation by previously incarcerated individuals. Youths released from detention prior to reaching the legal age of employment are far more likely to enter fully into further criminal activities rather than turning their focus on education (Foley, 2001). A lack of education decreases the chances that a released youth will be able to build a secure, healthy lifestyle and secure a profitable, legal job. When coupled with the existence of a previous criminal record, the likelihood of attaining a work with a reputable company is virtually non-existent. As a result, it is clear that the disruption of education during detention has an intensely negative impact on future options available to the affected youths, limiting their ability to move away from criminal practices as they enter adulthood (Redding, 2003). This suggests that detention not only has an immediate negative impact on detainees in a number of ways, but can continue to do so well after release. Despite arguments promoting the practice of youth detention as a means of deterring crime, there is abundant evidence to the contrary. Though the threat of detention is intended to serve as a warning against engaging in criminal behavior within the general population, there is little evidence to support the belief that the existence and use of youth detention activities have had any success in effectually discouraging minors from crime. Though such practices may be appropriate for some youth offenders, immediately sending minors to detention without recognizing the factors which may be contributing to the delinquency does nothing to address underlying problem(s) or alter the behavior. Using the possibility of detention as a means of negative reinforcement often has little of no impact on the circumstances and mentality which caused the manifestation of criminal behavior in the first place (Sheldon, 1999). Only when the initial cause has been addressed in some manner, is there a reasonable chance that the behavior will be amended. The level of funding needed to administer and provide housing and care within youth detention facilities renders this method of punishment and rehabilitation the most costly option available to the public. In comparison, family and community-based programs are far more cost efficient option as well as are arguably more capable of improving the overall situation facing troubled youths within society now and in future generations(Sheldon, 1999). The relative expense and nominal value of detention as a means of criminal deterrence suggests that attention should be directed to finding alternate methods of decreasing the prevalence of crime among minors. Conclusion Although there has been a decrease in youth crime rates in tandem with increased instances of juvenile detention in recent years, research on this topic has failed to provide definitive evidence linking these two occurrences. Initially, these confinement facilities were designed to hold violent youths that had become a nuisance in the society. However, increased rates of detention as a means of addressing the criminal behaviors of minors has instead resulted in the overcrowding of available facilities by mixed populations which include non-violent offenders who might otherwise have been responsive to less structuralized penalties. Recidivism rates and re-incarceration among youth detainees are exceptionally high, as are the percentages of mental disorder present in the facility while the lack of opportunities in education and behavioral counseling fail to promote healthy social functioning among minors in the future (Steinberg, 2009). In light of these findings it is evident that youth detention does not significantly deter criminal behaviors, necessitating a shift in future towards alternate programs dedicated to addressing the complex issue of youth crime, mental health, and rehabilitation. References: Foley, R.M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional educational programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 248-259. Hughes, T.A. (2002). Juvenile delinquent rehabilitation: Placement of juveniles beyond their communities as a detriment to inner-city youths. New England Law Review, 36(1), 153-180. Redding, R.E. (2003). The effects of adjudicating and sentencing juveniles as adults: Research and policy implications. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1), 128-155. DOI: 10.1177/1541204002250875. Sander, J.B, Sharkey, J.D., Olivarri, R., Tanigawa, D.A., & Mauseth, T. (2010). A qualitative study of juvenile offenders, student engagement, and interpersonal relationships: Implications for research directions and preventionist approaches. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 288-315. Sheldon, R.G. (1999). Detention diversion advocacy: An evaluation. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Web. Retrieved Oct 20 2011: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/171155.pdf Steinberg, L., Chung, H.L., & Little, M. (2004) Re-entry of young offenders from the justice system: A developmental perspective. Youth Violence Juvenile Justice, (1), 21-37. DOI: 10.1177/1541204003260045 Steingberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, (5), 47-73. Read More