The Juvenile Justice System - Report Example

The Juvenile Justice System vs Society’s Perspective Against Juvenile Criminality Introduction The juvenile justice system is based on the concept that children are developmentally different from adults, hence juvenile delinquents are more receptive to treatment and rehabilitation than adult criminals. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) recommends that children and youth who enter the juvenile justice system should be treated appropriately through every stage of the program, including “prevention, early intervention, diversion, detention, probation, residential care, incarceration and post-release care”. Without an effective treatment program, children’s delinquency conditions worsen through time and develop into adult criminal behavior. A result oriented treatment plan consists of: “screening, assessment, treatment and aftercare protocol” (NASW, 2008). However, public demand for a tough retributive approach to juvenile crime such as the fatal shooting tragedies in schools, can compel the use of high levels of punishment by the justice system, thus undermining the possibilities of improvement in the youth’s delinquency conditions. The purpose of this paper is to examine the juvenile justice system, and whether it relates to society’s point of view against juvenile criminality. Discussion Globally, the number of children deprived of liberty as an outcome of conflict with law enforcement agencies is estimated to be around one million. Children may be arrested for committing an offence, for being found at risk of delinquency or in an “irregular situation”, because of law enforcement authorities acting in an arbitrary or improper manner, or other reasons. The juvenile justice system consists of the laws, policies, guidelines, customary norms, institutions, professionals, systems and treatment focused on children in conflict with the law (United Nations Office, 2007). On the other hand, due to the often serious nature of crime committed by juveniles, the public’s demand is that juvenile offenders should be treated the same as adult offenders, and that they should receive harsh punitive correctional measures. Society wishes to do away with the juvenile justice system, and to have the same criminal justice system for all offenders, both adults and juvenile. The Juvenile Justice System Government systems that deal with children in conflict with the law may vary in different countries. Such systems as the court, welfare system or administrative system may operate within the adult criminal justice system, or may function outside the judicial system through committees, commissions or administrative panels. Wherever the justice system includes a degree of specialization for children, whether the system is based on courts, the welfare system, or an administrative system, it is termed as a juvenile justice system. In countries where there is no specialization to any extent, children in the criminal justice system are treated in the same way as adults (United Nations Office, 2007). Even while specialized procedures for children in conflict with the law may be used, an assessment of the varying needs of children, reference of the children to appropriate services, offer of care and assistance with support for reintegration into the community are important actions that need to be taken. Further, according to the United Nations Office (2007), the juvenile justice system should provide a child-friendly environment, using appropriate language and the minimum possible employment of physical restraints. In a justice system that is not responsive to a child’s needs, children under detention are at increased risk of abuse, violence, exploitation and consequent impact on health by injury, HIV/ AIDs. Preventive action against deep-rooted causal factors such as poverty, broken homes, lack of education, drug abuse, etc. are required to be undertaken for children who are at risk of encounters with law enforcement authorities. Prevention will help reduce the costs which will otherwise need to be incurred in correctional facilites (United Nations Office, 2007). In contrast to the punitive or correctional approach, treatment programs help offenders to understand the root causes of their misconduct, experience the rewards of positive or prosocial behavior, and assist youth in re-integrating into the family, school and community. Research reveals that recidivism or relapse rates among those delinquent youth who received some type of treatment was found to be 25% less than among untreated control groups. Further, evidence-based best treatment programs reduce recidivism to an extent of 80% (Gendreau & Goggin, 1996). Since juvenile offenders are not identical to one another, individualized treatment for each young person works most effectively when certain common features essential for success of treatment programs are included. Effective Treatment Programs in the Juvenile Justice System Effective programs change specific behaviors by using structured and intensive interventions Behavior modification techniques for improving interpersonal and basic social skills, self-control, anger management, and resistance to substance abuse have been found to reduce recidivism or relapse by as much as 50%. Behavioral modification techniques punish negative behaviors similar to the correctional model, but also reward positive behaviors (Abrams et al: 9). Those treatments which involve longer contact hours with the emotionally disturbed youth achieve better results, and in institutional settings, treatments given by mental health professionals reveal improved outcomes as compared to interventions by corrections staff. Further, individual counseling that directly addresses behavior, attitudes, and perceptions is also important (Factsheet, MHA, 2008). The cognitive-behavioral approach is effective for youth in the juvenile justice system because it is highly structured and focuses on the triggers for their disruptive or aggressive behavior. The therapy teaches youth intensively about the thought-emotion-behavior link, and works with them to modify their thinking patterns towards improved, more adaptive behavior when faced with challenging situations. By teaching thought control, that is halting or changing thoughts to avoid impulsive or criminal behaviors, cognitive behavioral therapy is found to reduce recidivism and re-arrests for at least one year after the treatment (Abrams et al, 2005). Community-based treatment programs are superior to institution-based program Intensive, community-based, and family centered interventions are found to be the most promising. Only some youth may need treatment in institutions; many more juvenile offenders can be appropriately treated in the community, where youth behavior can be addressed in its social context. Research on community based delinquency prevention programs worked on the principle that known risk factors for delinquency and substance abuse can be reduced by enhancing known protective factors. “Healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior in the family, school and community, which form the protective factors, directly promote healthy behaviors in children” (Welsh et al, 2005: 87). Hence, it is important to encourage bonding with the family, school and community that promote healthy beliefs and standards. The importance of involvement of family members in treatment and rehabilitation According to research conducted by Mulford & Redding (2007), training parents is found to be effective in treating behavior problems among children. In high risk youth, parent training has to be used in combination with other corrective and treatment methods, for beneficial outcomes. Further, “family-focused interventions have shown positive impacts on child and family functioning, delinquent behavior, and recidivism” (Factsheet, MHA, 2008). An effective treatment model is the Multi-Systemic Therapy. The ultimate goals of MST are to empower families to cope with the challenges of raising children with behavioral and emotional problems and to empower youth to cope with family, peer, school, and neighborhood difficulties. MST has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism by up to 70% and out-of-home placements by up to 64% in comparison with control groups in a number of randomized clinical trials. Moreover, Multi-Systemic Therapy is cost effective; implementing this intervention would result in a net gain for a community of over $21,000 per participant, from savings in the criminal justice system and in protection against crime. Integrated, multimodal treatment approaches are essential This approach is a collaboration across a number of public agencies, such as juvenile justice and mental health, towards developing coordinated plans for family-centered, community-based services based on youth and family strengths. The “wrap-around” model for the treatment of juvenile delinquency, ensures that a family conceptualizes a single, individualized treatment plan, and receives a wide range of services and supports as part of that coordinated plan. Examples of wrap-around programs are the DAWN Project in Indianapolis and Wraparound Milwaukee. Wraparound Milwaukee has demonstrated a significant improvement in juvenile behavior, and a 42% drop in the number of residential placements over the first two years of the program, which represents a savings of $5.2 million. “In some communities Wraparound has served as a comprehensive systems reform to coordinate all agencies working with emotionally troubled youth: including child welfare, mental health, special education and juvenile justice” (Mendel, 2002). Some other important common factors in effective treatment programs Recognizing the developmental stage of each youth and building on the individual strengths of each youth; restorative restitution of victim directly by the juvenile offender through a combination of victim input, community service and other approaches; helping the young offenders to understand how their actions have affected their victim, discouraging them from viewing other people as potential targets, and teaching the youth to make positive choices, resolving disputes without aggression; understanding the futility of intensive punishment measures, and using flexible and graduated degrees of sanctions; empowering families to support their child’s positive activities and efforts to succeed academically; encouraging youth to forge links with prosocial peers; and conducting activity programs in the communities in which youth under treatment live, and also for youth returning to the community after confinement, with supportive programs to help in continued improvement and avoid recidivism (JAIBG, 2003). Graduated sanctions are applied as follows: secure institutionalization for repeat serious, violent offenders; intermediate sanctions such as probation and electronic monitoring for first time serious offenders and repeat minor offenders; and immediate sanctions for non-violent offenders consisting of community-based diversion and day treatment (Siegel & Welsh: 2004). The Harsh Correctional Approach as in the Adult Penal System Due to the serious nature of crime often committed by juveniles, society’s point of view is to treat juvenile offenders on par with adult offenders. This means that they should receive punitive treatment with a harsh correctional approach. As in the adult penal system, the basic principle of correctional programs is punishment, relying on “systems of harsh penalties to correct offenders’ attitudes and behaviors” (Abrams et al, 2005: 8). Although punishment when applied in the right amount and at the right time, can be effective, a strictly punitive environment does not help to improve the delinquency conditions of youth. It has the negative aspect of correctional staff tending to look out for even minor rule breaking offences, while overlooking positive actions by the youth. Further, the correctional approach does not focus on equipping youth offenders with skills and resources to prevent future criminal behavior. From research evidence, it is clear that punishment is not an effective deterrent and does not reduce recidivism in the long run. Different types of punishment including regular incarceration and “scared straight” programs, actually produced higher recidivism rates than when no punishment was given (Gendreau & Goggin: 5). Programs found to be ineffective at reducing recidivism when used alone, are “increased surveillance, psychodynamic or unstructured counseling, home confinement, regular probation services, frequent drug testing, wilderness / survival programs, electronic monitoring, and boot camps” (Factsheet, MHA, 2008). However, for high risk youths, an integrated approach that blends corrective methods with appropriate treatment programs, is now acknowledged as most effective in correctional institutions (Abrams et al, 2005). Conclusion This paper has highlighted the workings of the juvenile justice system, and the various treatment options that are beneficial in correcting and rehabilitating the juvenile offenders. The use of harsh punitive methods of correction are demanded by the public, who have been frequently and seriously impacted by highly violent crimes committed by juvenile offenders. But, it was found that the use of harsh correctional methods does not improve the situation. High risk youth as well as children with emotional and behavioral disorders present a unique set of challenges to the juvenile justice system. Only by means of an integrated specialized approach and case specific treatment for young offenders, can they be corrected, brought into the mainstream, and their recidivism be reduced. References Abrams, Laura S., Kim, Kyoungho & Anderson-Nathe, Ben. 2005. Paradoxes of treatment in juvenile corrections. Child and Youth Care Forum, 34(1): 7-25. Factsheet, MHA. 2008. Treatment works for youth in the juvenile justice system. Mental Health America (MHA). Available at http://www1.nmha.org/children/justjuv/treatment.cfm Gendreau, P. & Goggin, C. 1996. Principles of effective correctional programming. Forum on Correctional Research, 3:1-6. JAIBG (Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program) Bulletin. 2003. Best practices in juvenile accountability: overview. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Mendel, Richard A. 2002. Less hype, more help: reducing juvenile crime, what works – and what doesn’t. The United States of America: Diane Publishing. Mulford, Carrie, F. & Redding, Richard E. 2007. Training the parents of juvenile offenders: state of the art and recommendations for service delivery. Journal of Child and Family Studies, Research Review: 1-20. NASW (National Association of Social Workers). 2008. Juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Available at: http://www.naswdc.org/resources/abstracts/abstracts/juvenile.asp Siegel, Larry J. & Welsh, Brandon C. 2004. Juvenile delinquency: the core. California: Thomson Wadsworth. United Nations Office. 2007. Manual for the measurement of juvenile justice indicators. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Austria: United Nations Publications. Welsh, Wayne N., Jenkins, Patricia H. & Harris, Philip W. 1999. Reducing minority overrepresentation in juvenile justice: results of community-based delinquency prevention in Harrisburg. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 36: 87-111. Read More