Critical Thinking of Criminal Behavior - Annotated Bibliography Example

Critical thinking of criminal behavior Introduction Juveniles are individuals who have not yet acquired adult status. This definition implies that minors are in their developmental stages to adulthood. At this phase of development, irrationality and impulsiveness are characteristic traits demonstrated among the juveniles. They become more vulnerable to peer pressure including arrogance and recklessness that are potential sources of criminal activities and havoc to the society. It is fair reasoning that below the age of 18 years, individuals are naturally inclined to act insensibly since their cognitive ability is still modeling and maturing towards adulthood. The institutionalization of efficient and just juvenile justice system faces the challenge of merging the critical welfare of the youthful offenders and public protection from criminal acts. The blameworthiness of juveniles casts aspersions on the legitimacy of any judicial system in mitigating their reckless acts of crime. SECTION A Reynolds, K.M, Seydtz, & Jenkins, P. (2000) Do juvenile curfew laws work? A time service analysis of the New Orleans Law, Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 205-231 It is a common dictum that the rights of juveniles should never equal that of the adults. However, it is worthwhile that even in the prevalence of such inclinations; it is fairer to acknowledge the inalienable rights of the juveniles (Reynolds et al., 2000, 212). Curfews borrow from the assumptions that homes are the safest places for juveniles while in several practical cases; it is proven that home environments may be dangerous too. For instance, a family marred by violence may be a source of juvenile deliquescence. The enforcement of curfews presents repression by the government to delimit the roles of parents in children upbringing. In essence; curfews offer a rigid definition of correct family conduct thus violating the autonomy of family institution. It is logical reasoning that every individual, despite age limits is liable to take responsibility for their actions. However, it beats logic that if the analysis of juvenile cognition reveals their incompetence in judicial matters, any criminal process that ignores this vulnerability is unfair (Reynolds et al., 2000, 208). Juvenile policies should focus on rehabilitative processes rather than punitive processes to underscore the significance of fairness and justice. Youth Affairs Council Western Australia (YAC), (2003) the public fight for young people to be in the city. Indigenous law bulletin, 55 This article analyzes the applicability of juvenile curfews in crime control and the underlying issues. The stringent response to juvenile delinquency and delinquency through a restriction of movements is a legitimacy concern. The application of curfews in America has a long history, which has attracted controversies world over (YAC, 2003, 55). Juvenile curfews have proximate cost practical implications on crime reduction but equally attract infringement of civil rights and liberties. The common discourse in support of juvenile policies draws from the proposition that curfews clear the streets thus making them safer. The two principles underlying juvenile curfews are the restriction of youth presence in public places over particular periods and preventing the predisposition of juveniles to crime during the curfew (YAC, 2003, 55). In this context, juvenile curfews invoke the application of opportunity theory and common-sense thinking that the juveniles are less predisposed to crime and victimization if they are not on the streets. The use of curfews reinforces social values by relegating the responsibility of children to the parents. Curfews, therefore, are incentives for the reinstatement the family roles. In essence, the role of juvenile curfews transcends the mere sense of checking insecurity. Ideal juvenile curfews curtail the presence of minors in specified public places in a given period (YAC, 2003, 55). This stance casts aspersions on the consistency of such policies with the fundamental civil rights and liberties. Imposition of limits to juvenile rights of movement, privacy, assembly, and travel not only contradicts constitutional subscriptions of states but also undermine the provisions of the international human rights treaties. Adams K. (2003), The effectiveness of juvenile curfews at crime prevention, The animals of the American Academy of Political and social science, 587(1), 136-159. A systematic review of case application of curfews in America reveals impracticability of the policies. Insufficient scientific arguments point to the applicability of curfews in crime reduction among the youth. Adams (2003, 144) Postulates that the enforcement of curfews realizes negligible deviations in crime and if anything, serves to increase criminal acts instead of reducing them. The criticisms on the statistical insignificance of crime changes from curfews are compounded by the allegations that curfews are representative of a hasty-quick-fix approach to crime that infringes on a broad array of fundamental civil rights. The pros of the juvenile curfews possibly conceal the inherent uncertainty of implications. It challenges whether juveniles should be held accountable as adults for their various criminal acts (Adams, 2003, 148). However, critical reasoning points to the fact that the low levels of maturity of the juveniles should not prevent people from being responsible to the outcome of their actions. It is psychologically conceivable that as the teenagers advance to adulthood, they become progressively induced to act consciously with the discrimination of good and bad actions. Violation of the law or any engagement in criminal acts, therefore, permeates age consideration in the administration of justice. Nonetheless, it is acknowledgeable that the proper dispensation of justice must adequately consider the accused mental status. The trial of juveniles in courts raises the credibility of such proceedings, since the American judicial system permits active participation of the accused in court proceedings accompanied by their possession of factual and rational understanding of the course of at the court process. Research on age and eligibility to lawsuits indicate that teenagers bear judicial deficits that inevitably impose their inability to stand a lawsuit (Adams, 2003, 154). Legal definition of maturity takes into account the ability to account for long-term consequences, perceive, and comprehend risks, and withstand peer influence. The inability of teenagers to participate proactively in legal processes, manifest their inclination, for instance, to plead guilty to a case in which they have promises of leniency from the judicial systems. Reynolds, K.M (2006) Do juvenile curfew laws work? A time service analysis of the New Orleans Law, Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 205-231 The total elimination of a specific group of people from the streets may bear positive connotations in the first instance as a means of public crimes. However, research does not sufficiently support the proposition that curfews reduce crime in public places. A 2000 multiple studies in Monrovia revealed that the implications of curfews vary among the juveniles (Reynolds, 2006, 217). While periods of curfew in some regions follow approximate decline in crimes, some areas registered an inverse correlation. In an 18year analysis of impacts of curfew in 21 Californian cities depicted curfews as useless. The understanding of implications of curfews necessitates a shift in understanding of juveniles. The enforcement of curfews is only familiar with dictatorial regimes on the verge of civil dissension (Reynolds, 2006, 227). SECTION B: Curfew constitutionality issues Combating Juvenile crime is a specific concern in America. There are several strategic approaches to curbing incidences of juvenile crimes and curfews have been embraced as the most applicable weapon. However, the uses of curfews raise particular constitutional concerns on the rights of the parents to raise their children without undue government interference. Statists reveal that several incidences of heinous crimes in American town are committed by adults and not by teenagers as the juvenile policies seek to suppose. The discriminatory application of curfews for juveniles alone therefore mirrors injustice to the children at the expense of the ideal adult criminals. The progressive American constitution subscribes to the notion of “innocent unless proven guilty.” If this proposition has to hold, the enforcement of curfews for teenagers remains inconsistent with the supreme law of America. Curfew policies affect the personal autonomy of minors. An ideal curfew must be consistent with the rights of minors as provided with the first amendment rights. On the other hand, the curfew must not impinge family rights on child upbringing. Furthermore, available statistics indicates that despite the infringement of the rights of teens, curfews do not work to change criminal rates in public places. In conclusion juvenile curfews overly undermines fundamental rights but in most cases fail to achieve a reduction in crime rates. References Adams K. (2003), The effectiveness of juvenile curfews at crime prevention, The Animals of the American Academy of Political and social science, 587(1), 136-159. Reynolds, K.M, Seydtz, & Jenkins, P. (2000) Do juvenile curfew laws work? A time service analysis of the New Orleans Law, Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 205-231 Reynolds, K.M (2006) Do juvenile curfew laws work? A time service analysis of the New Orleans Law, Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 205-231 Youth Affairs Council Western Australia (YAC), (2003) the public fight for young people to be in the city. Indigenous law bulletin, 55 Read More