The Use of Correctional and Rehabilitation Facilities and New Juvenile Laws - Research Paper Example

Victims of Juvenile System from an Applied Perspective Introduction In the recent past, the juvenile justice system has significantly changed regarding the prosecution of youths. As a result, many state governments have formulated policies that that prosecute youths like criminal adults. The concept of youth’s immaturity has long been neglected leading victimization of the young offenders. To address the problem, causal effects of juvenile delinquencies need to be undertaken so as to infer effective corrective measures to institute rehabilitation and restitution of the young offenders. What Is Being Done According to Willison et al (2007) there is the formulation of specialized services to address a particular population of youths. Examples include formulation of mental health or drug courts. The courts handle crime cases of youths that have drug problems or mental disorders as opposed to the normal judicial system. Willison et al (2007) adds there is also the enforcement of stringent parental accountability laws. The laws are being enforced whereby the parents of the offenders will be criminally or civilly held liable for the misbehavior of their children. The law determines that the actions of the children are based on their parents upbringing. Based on Kohlberg’s Cognitive Theory of Moral Development; Stage 1 of the Pre-conventional level stipulates that children behave based on what they are told by their authority figure. If children are threatened by punishments by their superiors, they will act in obedience. Therefore, the juveniles behave inappropriately due to lack of proper morals (Gauvain & Parke, 2009). Prevention and intervention measures. There have been numerous research regarding the causes of youth delinquencies. The researches are aimed at understanding the causes of youth delinquencies so as to provide a transformational program. Some of the measures include rehabilitation programs, for example for the mental and drug addicted juveniles. The programs focus on providing treatment measures so as to prevent future reoccurrences. Reduction of juvenile court records confidentiality. Nowadays, many states have minimized the confidentiality of juvenile court proceedings and records. The court process has been private whereby the records have been kept secret so as to be revealed when they are of right age (Willison et al, 2007). Controversy According to Okwendi (2014) several factors have necessitated controversy in the juvenile court system. They include political, social, economic and legal forces. Political influence has promoted the deviation of juvenile court system to the criminal justice system. Some of the policy makers are selected so as to favor the appointing party. An example is where some of the states judges are appointed by voters while others by governors. From the basis of this criterion, the judges infer tougher sentencing laws on the juveniles based on policies of their cities or the existing decision makers. Okwendi (2014) illustrates economic influences in the juvenile justice system arise as a result of allocation of limited funds for the daily operations of the court. The facilitators usually compare the benefits and costs of instituting different juvenile justice programs on the youths. The policy makers are normally caught in a dilemma between the incarcerating costs and the treatment programs. Based on Kohlberg’s theory, stage 4 of the conventional level require the prevailing laws to maintain the normal functioning of the society. In this scenario, the policy makers institute laws that favor their economic implications in instead of the general good of the rehabilitation program (Gauvain & Parke, 2009). Under legal, some present legal policies infer poor strategies that in turn favor juvenile crime rates. There is an issue in sentencing regarding juvenile racial and cultural differences. The ruling is occasionally tougher on minority ethnicities as compared to the other ethnicities (Okwendi, 2014). Tried solutions Based on OJJDP (2011) study the judicial drug courts (JDC) was formulated so as to handle juvenile drug offenders’ cases. The court has had mixed outcomes regarding its impact on the juveniles. The JDC have had limited if not short successes pertaining to its effectiveness. The judicial drug courts have led to minimized juvenile re-arrests and the number of juvenile offenses. OJJDP (2011) adds the court has 4 interventions programs: drug court, family court, drug court with multi-systematic therapy and contingency management and drug court with multi-systematic therapy. Their research findings outlined that the JDC intervention practices has led to positive treatment influence on the juveniles. On the contrary, the program has not yielded much benefit based on re-arrests of the juveniles in the intervention program. The program noted JDC program noted that 6 months after the juveniles completion program, an average of 2 participants were re-arrested. However, 11% of the re-arrested JDC participants had 3 or may be more new charges. This was compared to 46% of the offenders who did not participate in the JDC program. The unchanged juvenile behavior can be ascertained by Kohlberg’s Theory under stage 6 principle conscience principle. The principle provides that the juveniles’ behavior cannot change if they skip an initial development stage. No matter the intervention programs, the juveniles must move for example from the law and order stage to the principle conscience stage without passing through social contract stage. The change has to be instrumental in order for the intervention program to be effective (Gauvain & Parke, 2009). Barriers McClure & Gill (2010) outline juvenile curfew contribute to the lack of success of the juvenile system. Some professionals have argued that Juvenile curfew policies violate the youths civil rights. Since the policies are imposed at youths irrespective of whether they are offenders or not, it restricts their right to freedom of movement. The professionals argue that the blanket policies are unconstitutional due to infringement of liberty rights. McClure & Gill (2010) continues biasness has also been linked to lack of effective transformational culture among the juvenile due to courts biasness. There has been occasional biasness in the sentencing mostly on ethnic and racial grounds. The minority groups are normally given stringent sentencing than the ethnic groups. In return the juvenile court system becomes ineffective in its correctional mandate. Disproportional rulings hinder equality in the juvenile justice system. The juveniles are nowadays being sentenced using adult judicial system. The law disregards their maturity status basing their judgment on severity of the case. In Kohlberg’s Moral Theory, stage 6 Post Conventional principle provides that the youths will only attain principle conscience once they complete the six stages of the Moral Theory. Since the youths are minors, they subject to soft sentence due to their immaturity level. Tough sentencing would not bare much but only negative outcomes to their development (Gauvain & Parke, 2009). Community resources Schools Willison et al (2007) depict schools are a basic source to necessitate help among the juveniles. The schools through the help of the probation officers and the surrounding community should notify the school management on the juveniles undergoing drug, mental or behavioral rehabilitation so as to foster gradual change among them. Social services agencies The social services agencies enable admission of the juveniles so as to provide treatment and correctional measures. The school and the community should provide necessary information to the social services agencies so as they can undertake effective intervention measures (Willison et al, 2007). Community based rehabilitation centers The rehabilitation centers can provide treatment to youths who engage in criminal activities due to drugs, alcohol or mental disorder influences. The rehabilitation centers provide various services like screening, counseling, treatment related plans and assessments (Willison et al, 2007). Conclusion/Future implications Based on the findings of the scholarly articles, effective juvenile court policies need to be implemented. Formation of specialized courts like the drug courts and mental health court, need to created in every state. Additionally, the use correctional and rehabilitation facilities can help streamline their behaviors. The courts have the benefit of providing customized rulings on the victims. Through amendment or formation of new juvenile laws, the regulation can enhance and maintain future justice for the young people. References OJJDP, (2011). Journal Of Juvenile Justice, 1(1), 1-114. Willison et all, (2007). Past, Present, And Future Of Juvenile Justice: Assessing The Policy Options (APO), 1, 2-60. Okwendi, S., (2014). Lack Of Fairness In The U.S. Juvenile Justice System: Impact On The Criminal Justice Policy, 1(1), 49-57. Mcclure & Gill, (2010). Systematic Review Protocol: Juvenile Curfew Policies’ Effect On Criminal Behavior, Public Safety And Victimization, 1, 2-11. Gauvain, M. & Parke, R.D. (2009). Child Psychology: A Contemporary Viewpoint (7th Ed.). Boston: Mcgraw Hill. Read More