Youth behind Bars: Doing Justice or Doing Harm - Assignment Example

Youth Behind Bars: Doing Justice or Doing Harm? Number Juvenile delinquents who have gone through the criminal justice system are usually incarcerated in the same way as adults to ensure public safety. The only difference is that children are often given lenient sentences because their capacity to make adequate judgment when committing crime is somehow compromised by their age. Therefore, on the one hand, as a matter of policy, criminal convicts are usually kept away from the rest of the society to deter repeated criminal behavior and as punishment for their delinquency. On the other hand, keeping behind bars, children who barely know that they are engaging in crime does more harm than good to them. Introduction Jailing the youth who have been found guilty of criminal behavior is an important issue that has attracted controversy as to whether it ensures justice to the victims and the convicts or it harms the youth by denying them the opportunity to change and become more productive citizens in the future. On the one hand, it is natural to keep any individual behind bars as long as he or she has been proven guilty of criminal behavior by courts. This prevents recurrence of crime. In addition, incarceration arguably helps to reform criminally culpable youth and serves as justice for their crimes. This paper argues that keeping youth behind bars does harm to them. Part A: Themes, trends and model standards Children who are under 18 years of age are normally tried by juvenile courts in various jurisdictions around the world. But sometimes, especially in Michigan, United States 17 year-olds are taken through the adult criminal justice systems. The United States leads all of her Western allies on the number of youth behind bars. This is reflective of a trend known for casting the widest nets to lock detain more youth. In 2010, an estimated 70,800 juveniles were put behind bars in US’s youth detention centers as compared to UK’s 43, 601, most of whom were handed more lenient sentences in 2012-2013 in the latter case. The US sends an estimated 500,000 children behind bars every year (Cesaroni, & Peterson-Badali, 2013). Almost half of the cases are locked up in privatized, business facilities. The system witnesses youth being incarcerated differently. Some juvenile inmates are or were enrolled as status offenders. Such persons are known to have engaged in acts that are not legal for adults, but controlled for juveniles (Obrien, 2011). Status crimes encompass consensual carnal acts; absenteeism from school, breaches of curfew, substance use, leaving ones residence without parental permission, chronic insubordination of parents, guardians, teachers, or government agents and unruliness among other offenses. In putting youth behind bars for these offenses, many jurisdictions have eased restrictions for their sentencing as adult in the 21st century (Hess, 2009). The new trend has been influenced by the need to ensure justice as the convicts grow into adulthood. According to Sherman and Jacobs (2011), the decision has been more preferred by lawmakers and the prosecution as a deterrent measure against repeat cases of crime by the youth in question. By contrast, judges seem to stand for justice, judging by their preference of the correct choice of court systems for every criminal offender. But with laws requiring 17 year-olds to be sentenced as adult in some jurisdictions, judges are expected to enforce the law to the letter. The declining distinction between the criminal trial process for youth and grown-ups has raised much controversy within the justice system, with some opinion leaders arguing that such practices render the juvenile justice system irrelevant (Harper, & McLanahan, 2004). However, the primary theme of “cracking down on crime” embodied in most of the current-day legislative practices mirrors the huge preference of such motive by the society (Mallett, 2009). This is factual since the bulk of various policy reforms on criminal justice systems in the US’s recent past. According to Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2013), criminal justice reforms, especially for juvenile justice are highly influenced by public opinion. The popular opinion has built a perception that young criminal offenders must be put behind bars, but reformers of juvenile justice believe that a change of public understanding aimed at bridging the divide between security threats and the actual facts behind youth offending could resolve the issue (Obrien, 2011). This way, the high number of underserving youth behind bars, whose continued incarceration does more harm than justice, would be reduced. Part B: Policy, operations, procedures, and reform in the juvenile criminal system Current policy, operations and various procedures in juvenile detention centers are based on conventional theories of deterring crime (Goldson, & Kilkelly, 2013). Despite the fact that putting youth behind bars is based on serving justice for the criminal and the vulnerable general public, the system needs reform. Like the wider attempt to abolish prison, juvenile justice system needs reform because it is unjust, unproductive, and ineffective in terms of meeting the primary goal of serving justice for the main stakeholders: the public, the victim and the culprit. As Sherman and Jacobs (2011) noted, youth detention facilities are usually filled beyond capacity and are affected by shortage of staff. In light of this, the most commonly cited case is Cheltenham facility in Maryland, United States, which sometimes held 100 boys in small units designed for 24, with the ratio of inmate to staff ranging from 1:25 to 1: 33. Youth in these facilities cannot escape brutal cruelty from their colleagues and staff, who often suffer burnout and poor remuneration. The challenges experienced by the youth such as fights, sexual violence and stabbings have become common in the wake of budget cuts and need reform. Amassing criminal youth yields a negative consequence on their behavior; it increases their delinquency and threatening themselves and their peers. According to Hess (2009), the peer delinquency conditioning among youth who are behind bars substantially increases their likelihood to experiment with substances, develop learning difficulties, violence and problems integrating into the community in adulthood. Incarceration also has the potential to worsen mental diseases among the youth. According to Cesaroni and Peterson-Badali (2013), many youths behind bars end up in such facilities because they did not have access to mental health care. Most of detention facilities are known to be ill-equipped to provide adequate cognitive and emotional care (Harper, & McLanahan, 2004). In addition, as many as 30% of detained youth suffering from anxiety disorders showed the first symptoms of their condition immediately after their enrolment in an incarceration center. These youth encounter a higher risk of injury to their person including suicide in a worst case scenario. As Sherman and Jacobs (2011) put it, incarcerated youth practice self-injurious acts at twice the rate of youth out of such facilities. Moreover, administrative policies practiced by incarceration centers often aggravate the risk of self-injury among the inmates by booking individuals with high suicidal ideation in solitary cells (Goldson, & Kilkelly, 2013). Such policies make the inmates feel rejected, lonely and worthless, hence their need to take their own life. Whereas most of the current-day detainment facilities provide care to youth requiring special care, the services are often inadequate. Among recipients of remedial instruction in detention, almost one-half stay out of school and up to 75% abandon school within a year of their re-enrolment (Harper, & McLanahan, 2004). Such trends not only pose a grave danger to the health of the ex-offender, lack of proper education denies the youth the knowledge and technical skills they need to secure proper employment and income that can enhance their life expectancy. Ineffectiveness of youth incarceration According to Obrien (2011), numerous studies have been conducted to determine the link between youth incarceration and juvenile delinquency or the general crime reduction efforts, with the outcomes showing a lack of a clear nexus between the two issues. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, for example, has said that the increase in the rate of incarceration since 1990s is unaffected by the rate of crime in United States. In addition, while it is natural to detain violent or high-risk juveniles, more than one-half of individuals who end up in prisons, detention facilities and jails are serving sentences for tolerable nonviolent crimes (Goldson, & Kilkelly, 2013). Interestingly still, not all criminal youth are put behind bars; an estimated 30% of all adults might have been delinquent in their adolescence (Maynaro, 2011). But the detainees are less expected to live a noncriminal life as compared to those that remained out of such facilities. As Obrien (2011) said, criminologists acknowledge a natural procedure of desistance of delinquency, in which an individual naturally desists from delinquent behavior in their course of development. In light of this, putting behind bars, youth who are merely experimenting with life during their course of maturation has the potential to prolong the delinquents’ experimenting with criminal behavior. In addition, the harm caused to the psychological, mental and social maturation of youth behind bars, combined with the stresses of staying away from one’s family and neighbors and the overcrowding of offenders in tiny units translates incarceration into the primary cause of repeat felony among delinquent youth in future (Hess, 2009). It is therefore evident that the conventional policy of ensuring public safety and eradicating youth crime by keeping delinquent youth behind bars is no longer serving justice; instead the practice is actually aggravating criminality among the population, leading to graver offenses. Part C: Recommendations The number of incarcerated juveniles is on the decline in the United States, despite the fact that the country still leads other industrialized economies on the issue. According to Goldson and Kilkelly (2013), the drop is attributed to three important factors: a) higher level of policing and declining rates of juvenile offenses; b) state budget shortfalls; and c) a change in public thinking about the more effective ways to deal with young individuals who engage in crime such as probation, community service, fines, restitution, and diversion. Firstly, probation and withheld sentences helps to decongest youth incarceration facilities and guarantee justice to the convicts as well as limit heavy budgets in such centers, hence a relief to the taxpayer (Obrien, 2011). Most of the youth commit offenses without their full knowledge, most probably when they are experimenting with deviant behavior. Therefore suspending their sentence to give them time to change prevents any unnecessary harm upon them, leaving detention centers for fewer, most stubborn cases only (Maynaro, 2011). Secondly, fines are another ideal alternative to incarceration, especially for the minor crimes. In addition, the fact that most of such delinquents are first-time offenders, fines accompanied by warning is ideal for crimes such as experimenting with cigarettes and alcohol, shoplifting, and minor traffic violations (Hess, 2009). In more repeated or other serious offenses among the youth, it is advisable for courts to order a fine in combination with other forms of punishments such as probation and or community service. Combining punishment is more effective at ensuring that the actual delinquent youth feels, since their parents or guardians often offer to settle the fine on their behalf. Restitution is the third alternative to putting youth behind bars. While government agencies are the recipients of fines, restitution money goes to the victim of criminal behavior or to a government fund. Restitution often witness offenders being ordered to return or replace the property they stole or destroyed (Cesaroni, & Peterson-Badali, 2013). As Mallett (2009) said, this form of compensation settles the tangible injuries or costs incurred by victims in the process of dealing with the loss. In some situations, the society may be the aggrieved party, such as in vandalism of water pipes, where the delinquent may be ordered to settle the repair costs. Again, owing to the fact that a family member may settle the costs, such delinquent youth should be handed an additional sentence for purposes of punishing the individual delinquent. Community service is the fourth alternative to putting delinquent youth behind bars. Juvenile courts should sentence culpable offenders to perform free community work to repay the costs stemming from the damage they caused (Hess, 2009). Community service may be combined with probation, a fine, restitution or diversion in order to meet the same level of punishment as incarceration in serving justice. Lastly, some of the youth found guilty of using controlled substance could have the charges dropped under diversion option so as to give them time to learn about the dangers of their criminal behavior and avoid a recurrence of such behavior in future (Goldson, & Kilkelly, 2013). Above all, there is need to limit youth incarceration by: involving families of delinquent youth in building a better future for them; supporting positive development of children through good parenting and schooling, and; channeling more funds towards youth empowerment programs instead of building more youth prisons. Conclusion Generally, putting youth behind bars does more harm than good to the delinquents whose detention is meant to correct their behavior and make them more productive citizens. Overcrowded detention centers and the shortages of staff take the toll on inmates by deteriorating their physical and emotional health. As such, they often become more violent to themselves and to their peers and by the time they complete their sentences, they experience problems re-joining school or integrating into the community. In light of these problems different alternatives to incarceration such as probation, community service, fines, restitution, and diversion have been found to yield better outcomes. References Cesaroni, C., & Peterson-Badali, M., (2013). The Importance of Institutional Culture to the Adjustment of Incarcerated Youth and Young Adults. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 55(4), 563-576. Goldson, B., & Kilkelly, U., (2013). International Human Rights Standards and Child Imprisonment: Potentialities and Limitations. International Journal of Childrens Rights, 21(2), 345-371. Harper, C.C., & McLanahan, S.S., (2004). Father Absence and Youth Incarceration. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Wiley-Blackwell), 14(3), 369-397. Hess, K., (2009). Juvenile Justice. New York: Cengage Learning. Mallett, C., (2009). Disparate Juvenile Court Outcomes for Disabled Delinquent Youth: A Social Work Call to Action. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26(3), 197-207. Maynaro, R., (2011). Incarcerating Youth as Justice? Canadian Dimension, 45(5), 25-27. Obrien, W., (2011). Youth justice: challenges in responding to young people convicted of sexual offences. Deakin Law Review, 16(1), 133-154. Sherman, F., & Jacobs, F., (2011). Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011 Read More