Juvenile Detention and Desistance from Offending - Essay Example

Juvenile Detention and Desistance from Offending Name: University: Instructor: Course Title: Date: Juvenile Detention and Desistance from Offending Introduction Various literatures have been used to explain why people engage in crime. Economic theory of crime/neo classical theory of crime shows that one has got free will to engage or not to engage in crime and thus, based on the expected reward or punishment one may engage in crime or not (Hall, 2007:7). This means one engages in a thinking process that he/she is aware of (Lipman, 2003:26). Moreover, social learning theory corroborates this thinking by acknowledging that behavioural patterns are acquired by links or contingencies established between the behaviour and its consequences (Borum, 2004:13).Crime as a learned behaviour is based on negative labelling and Cognitive theory. The theory derives its argument from social cognition. It posits that people interact with their environment based on how they perceive and interpret it or people build an internal cognitive map of their external environment, and these perceptions determine their behaviour (Borum, 2004:13 &14). The emergence of the criminal activities has forced states to respond with programmes like penal codes and containment with the hope of rehabilitating the offenders. However, Halsey (2007a: 342); Halsey (2007b: 1212) notes that this approach has not achieved much in converting offenders to be desisters. In Australia, this trend is even more worrying since those convicted are likely to go back to crime and be hardcore (Halsey, 2007a: 347).This paper examines Mark Halsey’s research into the experiences of young offenders’ in detention and on early-release supervision by identifying the major issues raised in terms of desistance from further offending and its relations with ‘risky systems’ of management within detention systems and their systems of ‘support’ both within detention and after release and how these systems of support can be changed in order to facilitate improvements in levels of desistance from crime. Issues in Desistance from Further Offending and Its Relations with ‘Risky Systems’ The principal aim of any correctional facilities is to make that person desist from committing crime by empowering them in various perspectives (Murray, 2009; Halsey, 2007b: 1212). Halsey (2008a: 100) observes that this expectation has not been the case as a result of certain situations and short comings during the juveniles stay at correctional facilities and at the post release stage in the society. Murray (2009:119); Cuneen & Luke (2008:204) notes that desistance is the ability of former residents of correctional facilities being able to maintain their resistance after being released from containment that they can gain non offending status. Halsey (2007a:341) notes that 91 % of juveniles who had been subjected to care and protection and supervised justice had progressed to adult correctional system. In order to gain in-depth insight on issues raised relating to desistance, Halsey (2007a) adopts an approach of analysing these people’s views on confinement and whether it is able to reform one or prepare one as a hardcore and more experienced offender. The answer that most respondents gave had no indication of character correction. The nexus between being a desister or a persistent young person lies with how the correctional facilities staffs are working towards reforming the convicts. This nexus is best captured by Halsey (2007a) on how inmates perceive these containment facilities. The first perception is of incarceration being a familiar and secure source. This means that those convicted to confinement as they go there they are sure of getting old friends who they were subjected with to care and protection order (Halsey, 2007a:341). The lack of containment facilities not being an agent for creating a desister person is clear here. The astonishing is that some of the inmates view the place a safe haven for them rather than leaving in the normal society set up (Halsey, 2007a:343). Moreover, most of these young people do not harbour that fear of being transferred to adult prisons if they continue with criminal activities (Halsey, 2007a:344). The other issue raised against incarceration from the perspective of inmates is of being a point of respite. Under this view, most of the convicts see these containment centres as neither being hard nor degrading. Most of them view these confinement facilities as points for taking time off and getting one’s body and mind in shape (Halsey, 2007a:344). Other serving and former inmates associates it with the luxury that is associated with these centres with the only limitation being physical movement. The contrast is that most of these convicts come from deprived background where these facilities are not available or are inaccessible. In a nutshell, the jails offer them a chance to escape from the harsh realities of the world as they plan what to do next. Hence, most of these state guests know that they are not in for reforms, but to cool their heels off for a while and escape harsh realities (Halsey, 2007a:346). Incarceration centres creates more hardened and smarter criminals who will engage in further offences once released. First, it contributes to churning out of more smart offenders than they were before incarceration. The supporting argument is that during their period of stay, the small offenders get to interact with other offenders who have a lot of experience. In the process of interaction, these people exchange ideas on how to conduct even more heinous crimes (Halsey, 2007a:347 & 348). The next blame lies on how the period of containment leads to disruption of the social fabric of these people and once they get out they be disfranchised as a result of rejection and sceptical view by the society at large (Halsey, 2007a:347). Moreover, the inmates are not allowed to have physical contact with loved ones (Halsey, 2007a:358). Based on this most of them are likely to return in criminal activities as there is no one to reintegrate them back into society (McAlister, 2008:18 & 20; Cuneen & Luke, 2008:199).On this rationale of being more refined as offender, it is why former inmates keep on coming back into jails. Closely connected to this is prisons acting senseless programme since it does not address the root cause of the problems (Halsey, 2007a:349). How Systems of Support Can Be Changed To Facilitate Improvements in Desistance from Crime A penal system is said to be effective when it is able to reintegrate former convicts into the society by empowering them socially and economically so that they cannot resort to previous criminal activities. To improve the level of desistance by former offenders, there are four critical areas of improvement. The first area is on the handling of the juvenile offenders while they are in the custody (Halsey, 2008b; Stubbs, 2010). The second area is on the follow up programmes on those released by empowering them to gain economic independence and reintegrating them back into the society (Halsey, 2007b). The third is analysing the effectiveness of the various legislations dealing with penal codes (Cuneen & Luke, 2008) and lastly is to address the root cause which deals with what are the impetus that makes young people engage in criminal activities (McAlister, 2008; Halsey, 2008a; Prior & Mason, 2010). Otherwise, as Halsey (2007a) puts it, the containment of the young offenders will be for nothing since it does not play any role in reforming the offenders, but rather make them more intelligent and hardcore offenders. One area for improvement is how the inmates are handled when they are in custody. Harlsey (2008b: 218) notes that when inmates are handled with disrespect, the probability of going back into criminal activities is higher. Buttny & Williams (2000:236) cited in Harlsey (2008b: 224) notes that respect contributes to making a person social. A social person is not likely to engage in criminal activities. Moreover, it would be a pure contradiction from the staffs towards the inmates for not showing respect yet one of the rehabilitation objectives is to impart respect (Harlsey, 2008b: 233). The other mistreatment that young men undergo through is the rigidity and inability to afford bail. Stubbs (2010:489), observes that bail system in NWS is restrictive and at a time subjects young offenders to jail. The next area that can be used for improvement is a follow up programme that can empower for offenders economically and socially so that they can integrate back into the society and be desisters. Harsley (2007b:1212) note that it is the reception that former young offenders get in post release period that sends them back to jails and not the threat they pose. Cuneen & Luke (2008:205) notes that since NSW juvenile department introduced post release support programme (PRSP) there has been reduction in the levels of re-offending by former inmates. However as noted earlier there is much to be done so that the people can be integrated back into the society. One area in PRSP is in education/training where the inmates’ intellectual capacity should be widened so that their ability to find job is easier. Apart from training it is worth finding for them job placements with their existing education (Cuneen & Luke, 2008:206). The other issues that should be addressed so as to reduce re-offending relates to income, legal issues and accommodation (Cuneen & Luke, 2008:207). Helsey (2008a) notes that there are numerous factors that lead one to re-offend or be a persister after being released. One cause of re-offending is marginalisation. McAlister (2008:15) observes that social exclusion and disconnection from the world plays a critical role in pushing young people to crime. Farrington, 1996, 2007; Graham & Bowling 2007 cited in McAlister (2008:15) indicates that factors like low self-control, poor ability to delay gratification, disrupted families, low-income and living in poor high crime areas make one prone to (re) offending. Marginalisation can lead to what McAlister (2008:18) terms as street-based leisure. Street based leisure is a sure way to committing or experiencing crime since one is socialised to anti social behaviours. To overcome the above challenges, there is need to adopt participatory collaborative approach in reducing re-offending activities (Prior & Mason, 2010:219). Conclusion One critical concern that has emerged over the penal system of handling young offenders is the inadequacy in deterring former inmates from engaging in crime after release. The various accusations that literatures points as the weaknesses of this system in Australia is on ineffectiveness. These centres do not act as reform centres, but rather where the young offenders go in to cool their heels, meet new acquaintances that are able to teach them even more advanced skills in crime. Moreover, these former convicts at juvenile level are comfortable to graduating into adult jails without any fear since they will meet former inmates. The essence of overcoming this is for state to have systems that deter criminal activities, transform the convicts during their stay, have post release follow up programmes that integrate the inmates back to society and empower them to find meaningful occupation and lastly, state should engage in reviewing the penal code to keep with societal dynamics. References Borum, R. (2004). Psychology of terrorism. Tampa: University of South Florida. Cuneen, C. & Luke, G. (2008). Recidivism and the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions: juvenile offenders and post release support. Current issues of criminal justice, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 198-210. Hall, A. (2007). Socio-economic theories of crime. Retrieved on 28 May 2012 from: http://www.arichall.com/academic/papers/hs8373-paper.pdf. Halsey, M. (2007b). Assembling recidivism: the promise and contingencies of post-release life. The journal of criminal law & criminology, Vol. 97, No, 4, pp. 1209-1260. Halsey, M. (2008a). Pathways into prison: biographies, crimes, punishment. Current issues in criminal justice, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 96-110. Halsey, M. (2008b). Risking distance: respect and responsibility in custodial and post-release contexts. Hasley, M. (2007a). On confinement: resident and inmate perspectives of secure care and imprisonment. The journal of community and criminal justice, Vol. 54 (4), pp. 338-367. Lipman, M (2003). Thinking in education second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McAlister, A. (2008). Predictable pathways? Negotiating risk in the context of marginalisation and social exclusion. Current issues in criminal justice, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 15-29. Murray, C. (2009). Typologies of young resisters and desisters. The national association for Youth justice, Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 115-129. Prior, D. & Mason, P. (2010). A different kind of evidence? Looking for ‘what works’ in engaging young offenders. The national association for youth justice, Vol 10, No. 3, pp. 211-226. Stubbs, J. (2010). Re-examining bail and remand for young people in NSW. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 485-506. Read More