How Should Children in Trouble with the Law Be Responded to - Essay Example

How should children in trouble with the law be responded to, by prioritizing their welfare or by prioritizing justice? The cognitive development of children is not at the same level as it is when they have reached adulthood. The way in which they understand complex social concepts is not the same as the concepts that adults have developed. Therefore, when children commit crimes they do not have the same perspective from which to draw logical choices. The decisions that lead to an illegal act are driven by concepts that have been twisted to include the acceptability of those decisions. Children have a centralized need to draw in all of the education that they can take, which often includes exploring less than legal experiences. As well, sometimes they perceive an action that must be taken because they do not see an alternative. The problem with treating children as criminals is that they begin to behave and adopt the identity of a criminal. The crime that they commit later in life can be far worse than the crimes of childhood, thus creating a scenario where society has the choice of growing a better adult or creating a new criminal. Because the actions of a child do not define the future identity of the potential adult within, the welfare of the child should be protected and nurtured in order to prioritize the security of justice in the future by implementing a welfare approach to handling youth offenders. According to Barrouillet and Gaillard (2011), children do not have the capacity to understand all of the factors involved in situations that have sophisticated complexities in forming the circumstances. Cognitive capacity increases with age allowing for more information to be considered in making a decision (p. 2). Children do not have the capacity to considered highly complex situations, thus creating impulsivity and spontaneity in the way in which they react to different situations. Circumstances are often such that the immediacy of the benefit will outweigh any ability to fully consider the consequences of the action. Therefore, it is often the case that illegal activity is not framed from the point of view of an understanding of all of the potential outcomes. Without the ability to form and recognized all of the outcomes, a child does not have the ability to make a true decision about right and wrong. Using the perspective of prioritizing justice does nothing to address the causes of youthful crime. It does nothing to attend to the safety of the public and causes more harm further down the line when now trained criminals are released from prison. This is not to suggest that children cannot be taught right from wrong, but it is too much to expect that every situation can be successfully framed within that conceptualization. According to Smith, Cowie, and Blades (2003), children are seeking to learn what is right and wrong and why it is right or wrong and as they grow, they are better able to comprehend more complex concepts (p. 270). However, children will not necessarily understand what makes a situation right or wrong and this misunderstanding can create a gap between understanding the action in regard to the outcome. As an example, take into consideration a childhood activity of throwing apples at cars as they pass. The child is aiming at a moving target, creating a game out of the explosion of the apple as it hits the car. However, the possible outcomes of startling the driver and causing an accident, causing damage to the car, or of breaking a window and injuring the passengers, may be well beyond the capacity of the child to understand. Even if those concepts are known, the child may still believe that nothing bad will happen and give into the temptation of throwing the fruit to see what will happen. Pearson (1984) writes eloquently about a world that has become more dangerous and filled with socially reforming do-gooders who have tied the hands of those in authority. It may be that the culture of the U.K. has become more dangerous and has more people within it willing to commit crimes (p. 5). Pearson (1984) makes a point then to go over the last decades of the 20th century in order to show that every age has had its share of ’hooligans’ who plague the city. One of the most remarkable concepts was that in the 1950’s the ease of earning money for the young through a full time job was corrupting them by putting too much disposable income into their hands (p. 16). However, it is the lack of doing hard work that is often considered the problem in this era. What this shows us is that every generation has an eye on the criminal behaviour of juveniles and searches for a way in which to find a cure for the problem. The problem with finding a cure for juvenile criminal behaviour is that too often punishment of the offender takes a higher level of consideration than does the prospect of the effect of that punishment on the offender. Where children are involved, they have yet to have created their identity; their minds still trying to discover what aspects of life are most relevant to who they are and who they intend to be within the community. Putting a child in a juvenile facility can formulate an identity that was never intended. According to Lightfoot, Cole and Cole (2009), children will find their identities by trying to look, act, feel and be like those who hold significant roles in their lives (p. 336). Therefore, it is in the best interest of society to help identities form through significant exposure to those who can best help to form socially acceptable identities. Incarceration with other children with like-mindedness will lead to a solidified criminal identity. According to Roche (2005), the juvenile detention centres, young offender institutions, youth custody centres and similar have proven to only create higher levels of bullying, self-harm and suicide, with an 88% recidivism rate. This does not serve society. Children have the opportunity to come from a place where they commit crimes, whether they are violent crimes or not, to find an identity that allows them to become a contributing member of society. Because their identity is still forming, they still have the chance to change the direction of their lives. Teaching children to respect themselves and others is far more beneficial to the culture, their concept of identity reformulated towards the betterment of their world. Self-respect, along with honesty, fairness, trust, and self-discipline, has been identified as a core attribute for U.K. educators to instil in their charges (O‘Hara 2000, p. 48). Children can be moulded, their ideals shifted and changed so that they work within the law and not outside of it. A good example of this is the way in which trauma will change the course of the mind of a child. It is known that an average of 64% of children who experience abuse often grow up to be abusers (Wazir 1998, p. 6). Therefore, the question is then reformed to ask if they were not abused would they have been abusive. It is most likely that they would not have found an identity as an abuser had they never gone through the events of abuse themselves. Therefore, in trying to help a child find an identity, guidance is needed. This does not mean that children should be treated as little people on pedestals, their role as a child affording them complete and utter forgiveness. Just as they need to learn to have others earn their respect, they need to learn that they must earn respect from others. Children who have committed a crime have lowered their capacity to be trusted within a society, therefore, they must be treated according to the level that trust has been lowered. Punishment can be viewed as a way to break the hubris from which crime during youth has been accomplished. However, warehousing them in a juvenile detention facility will not afford them the education and transformation that is needed to give them the possibility of a good future. Giving them the educational benefits of training in how to be good citizens allows them to have the opportunity to grow from their experience, thus protecting the public from the crimes they may have committed had they been merely warehoused with other children who can share their knowledge, their anger, and their resentment of the state to the point that any hope that a child had to contribute is lost. The ultimate goal in treating children who have committed crimes is in preventing any future crimes they may commit due to a loss in opportunity. Success in life is often determined by the level of privilege into which a person has been born. When privilege has created a socio-economic hardship, stressors are much higher on both parents and children, thus leading them into believing that because they cannot achieve on the straight path, they must find one that is outside of the laws of the community. In teaching children how to provide for themselves on the straight path, they find that the respect they are given from that achievement is enough reward that they will not need to stray again. Telling them that they will never succeed by putting them in a place where their identity cannot find a way back onto the straight path will doom them to a life of continued frustration and hardship. There is no mistake, however, that some instances allow for the possibility that a child has developed enough cruelty, immorality, or lack of ethical control. There is evidence in history of children who have committed heinous crimes for which the system had no real way in which to deal with their punishment. In 1993 two ten-year old children abducted 2-year old James Bulgar. He was later found beaten to death. There is no way to justify or understand how this act came to pass. There have only been 27 such deaths of children killing children in 250 years of history, but society is ill prepared for such events and has no way in which to socially consider this behaviour. The belief of the innocence of children becomes culturally disrupted when these types of events occur (Muncie 2004, p. 3). Muncie (2004) states that the youth question is a “singular nexus of contradictions”, that youth are “at one time feared and at another time piteied for their vulnerability. They are simultaneously constituted as of need in control, but also protection.” (p. 10). The question that must be asked when considering the prioritization of either the welfare of children or of justice is what is the intended outcome of legal interference in the situation of criminal behaviour? The intention of justice is to look to the past, to pay for what has occurred and to create a balance between the losses of the victim and the payment by the offender. However, the past is done, the action taken, and the only victims that need protecting are those that might exist in the future. This is not to deny victim’s rights. Victim’s rights should include repayment in kind, not just in time taken away from a child’s life. Time taken from a child without it being purposeful has no hope of creating an adult who can successfully contribute to society. Putting the welfare of the child first is the same as putting society first. In helping to make a better citizen, the community is protected from what may have been the result of a punishment that puts the child into an atmosphere that takes away the possibilities of that life. Therefore, it is clear that in order to provide for justice and to create the best possible hope for the future, the welfare of the child must take precedence over the concept of justice. In furthering criminal experiences within a child through experiences that identify the child with criminal behaviour, the child will develop a deeper identity as one who behaves outside of the law. However, in teaching self-discipline and self-respect, and in providing a framework towards higher education, a child may redeem a criminal act and shift directions towards a future that is positive and full of growth. When the confused actions of a child, made with decisions that don’t have the benefit of either social construction or full cognitive reasoning, result in detention of some sort, society loses the benefit that might have come from that child instead been taught how to find opportunity within a lawful framework. Pearson (1984) uses the example of the ’Teddy Boys’ to show how each decade brings about the feeling that ’twenty years ago’ it was better. Each generation believes that one’s own generation behaved in a much more innocent manner and with less criminal behaviour. In order to prove this point, the examples of the ’cosh boys and blitz kids’ of the 1940’s can be used to show that each decade has its hooligans (p. 21). However, the truth is that in every generation there are terrible things that happen and that there are always gangs of youths, in one form or another, who realize that by combining their efforts they can dominate through criminal behaviour. As children, it is possible to reframe their experiences, providing for their welfare while at the same time securing a safer community from the crimes they may commit as an adult. In the end, providing for prioritizing their welfare creates more justice within the society. References Barrouillet, Pierre and Vinciane Gaillard. 2011. Cognitive development and working memory: A dialogue between neo-piagetian theories and cognitive approaches. London: Taylor and Francis, inc. Lightfoot, Cynthia, Michael Cole, and Sheila Cole. 2009. The development of children. New York, NY: Worth Publishers. Muncie, John. 2004. Youth & Crime. London: SAGE. O'Hara, Mark. 2000. Teaching 3-8: meeting the standards for initial teacher training and induction. London: Continuum. Pearson, Geoffrey. 1983. Hooligan: a history of respectable fears. London: Macmillan. Roche, Jeremy. 2005. Youth in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice. London: Sage Publications. Smith, Peter K., Helen Cowie, and Mark Blades. 2003. Understanding children's development. Oxford (UK): Blackwell. Wazir, Rekha. 1998. Child sexual abuse: what can governments do? : a comparative investigation into policy instruments used in Belgium, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway. The Hague [u.a.]: Kluwer Law Internat. [u.a.]. Essay Plan This essay will explore the concept of the best framework for handling juvenile offenders. The question that is raised is centered on the prioritization of the welfare of the child or of justice. In searching for the answer to this question, the possibility of future criminal behavior is the first concept that seems to take priority over all other questions. Therefore, in providing for the welfare for the child, it is probable that further criminal behaviour can be thwarted and a productive life put into place. This serves the needs of society over all other needs. Creating a system that intends for every child to later contribute honorably to society provides for both the welfare of the child and, ultimately, to justice. The essay will look at the cognitive abilities of children in comparison to adults, to their search for identity, and for the ways in which incarceration has caused harm. In creating a dialogue about the purpose of the legal system in regard to the future of the community, the question will be approached from the point of view of the best possible outcome. The resources that will be used for this project will be: Barrouillet, Pierre and Vinciane Gaillard. 2011. Cognitive development and working memory: A dialogue between neo-piagetian theories and cognitive approaches. London: Taylor and Francis, inc. Lightfoot, Cynthia, Michael Cole, and Sheila Cole. 2009. The development of children. New York, NY: Worth Publishers. Muncie, John. 2004. Youth & Crime. London [u.a.: SAGE. O'Hara, Mark. 2000. Teaching 3-8: meeting the standards for initial teacher training and induction. London: Continuum. Pearson, Geoffrey. 1983. Hooligan: a history of respectable fears. London: Macmillan. Roche, Jeremy. 2005. Youth in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice. London: Sage Publications. Smith, Peter K., Helen Cowie, and Mark Blades. 2003. Understanding children's development. Oxford (UK): Blackwell. Wazir, Rekha. 1998. Child sexual abuse: what can governments do? : a comparative investigation into policy instruments used in Belgium, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway. The Hague [u.a.]: Kluwer Law Internat. [u.a.]. Read More