Whether the Law Should Deal with Juveniles in the Same Manner that It Treats Adult - Term Paper Example

CRIMINOLOGY ESSAY [The of the will appear here] [The of the id will appear here] [The of the will appear here] [The name of the course number will appear here] Critically Discuss, ‘It is in the interests of society to ensure that the best possible treatment and support are put in place to rehabilitate these children and young people to reduce their risk of offending and re-offending’. As juvenile crime rate is increasing throughout the world, the public demands more punitive measures to be adopted as compared to rehabilitative measure. The public is becoming increasingly concerned over the increasing episodes of mass shootings and hate crimes being executed by children and young people nowadays. They demand effective implementation of their tax money regarding this aspect of law and this increases pressure on policy makers. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who propagate the use of rehabilitative measures to reduce risk of offending and re-offending. They argue that treating children and young people as criminals may harden them towards society and law in general. These children would then have difficulty in healthy mental development. The core issue that will be discussed within this paper is whether the law should deal with juveniles in the same manner that it treats adults or should they be treated differently considering their age. This paper supports the stance that rehabilitation is the best available option for children and young adults to decrease the risk of offending and re-offending; considering the state of the prison and the impact of punitive measures on young people. Current surveys on this topic reveal the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs to a great extent. In one survey conducted by Hagel (2002), it was found that 88 per cent of young British males between the ages of 14 to 16 were involved in reoffending within a period of two years. A similar situation is found in other countries such as North America and Australia. This calls into question the effectiveness of punitive measures in this particular case. And thus the need for proper rehabilitative measures is felt. Recent studies on punitive measures lead to the findings that they do not substantially decrease the possibility of re-offending. Criminals who spend more time in prison are more likely to commit crimes as compared to those who have not visited prisons or had been there for a limited time period. This has raised serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of punitive measures and thus focus on rehabilitative measures have increased; specifically for juveniles. Laurence Steinburg, co-author of ‘Rethinking Juvenile Justice’ here brings into focus an important perspective. He points out that our criminal law is based on penal proportionality; meaning that the seriousness of the crime is directly linked with the number of years the offender spends in prison. Therefore serious crimes are treated more harshly. He goes on to say that juveniles should be held less accountable for their actions under this same concept. This is because juveniles are in the process of developing a strong mental foundation and therefore they do not understand the full implications of their actions (Steinburg, 2012). This view is supported by many people who argue that young people tend to engage in criminal activities because they are impulsive by nature. However, this is not a character trait as their minds have not been totally formed (Laum, 2009). Considering the same logic, the Supreme Court has banned the imposition of death penalty on juvenile offenders. The reason presented was that ‘people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer-pressure and often capable of change’ (Scot, 2012). Thus death penalty is not a punishment for juveniles, yet they can be sentenced to extended prison time. This raises another serious concern. If punitive measures are enforced on young people for committing criminal activities, they may turn out to be hardened criminals. One reason behind this is that these young people when sentenced to prison would be exposed to a very harsh environment. They would interact with adult criminals who may influence them in the wrong way. Since these young adults are prone to developing strong impressions, they may adopt the lifestyle of other inmates, thus increasing their risk of re-offending in the future. Another case against punitive measure can be made after carefully evaluating the prison life. The harsh environment of prison life is not suited for impressionable young minds that already have gotten the taste of crime. Also when these young people enter into prison life, they have to abide by the rules of the adult criminals. Thus, young people are treated very harshly and may be beaten, molested, raped or abused. This could hamper both their mental and emotional development. We should realize that the young people still could be changed with proper guidance and prison life is hardly the right path towards giving that guidance. Prison is not a good option for juveniles also because of the fact that prisons are quickly being overcrowded. As crime rates are increasing throughout the world, it seems as if there are never enough prison and resources to keep up with the increasing crime rate. More budgets have to be allocated to prisons in order to keep up with the increasing crime rate. This translates into increasing burden on the tax payers who already are suffering from the low economic times. Despite this, the public is keen on enforcing punishment on juvenile offenders. Thus politicians and policy makers have to pass laws to enforce punishment on juveniles because of the fear of being labeled ‘soft on crime’. The public argues that if the law does not hold the juveniles fully accountable for their own actions, they are indirectly encouraging the rest of the young people to avoid taking full responsibility of the criminal oriented actions. All this calls for a balance between rehabilitation and punitive measures. At present there are various models available for implementing rehabilitative measures and each model views the offence from a different perspective. The basic aim of rehabilitation can be covered in three broad statements: to allow juveniles to cope up with the change; to transition them safety into the society and mainly to reduce the risk of reoffending. The core of the rehabilitative model aims to uncover the reason behind committing a criminal activity. According to Lober, Farrington, Petechuk, (2003), the core reason behind juvenile delinquency is family characteristics, anti-social behavior and peer pressure. By family characteristics, he refers to issues of poverty, substance abuse, physical and emotional abuse, large families, and violence within the family. According to the Differential Association theory, juveniles commit crimes by initiating their adults and their surroundings. Thus when children and young adults are exposed to criminal activities as a daily occurrence, they are more likely to commit crimes. Another important theory, with respect to this topic, is the Control Theory that was developed by Hirschi. According to the Control Theory, young people are less likely to commit criminal activities if they have a secure attachment with their family and specifically with their mothers. It is because the social bond restricts the person from committing crime as he is afraid of offending his mother or family. All these theories focus on the fact that rehabilitative measures can result in change in behavior. The rehabilitative model stresses on the need for training, probation supervision, behavior therapy, skill development and work readiness to reduce the rising rate of juvenile delinquency (Ward and Maruna, 2007). Even though research on this particular topic favors rehabilitative programs over punitive measures, rehabilitative programs also have their limitation. The most inherent limitation is the impact rehabilitative measures have on the rest of the society. Since it is the tax payers’ money that funds these programs, the tax payers demand better results. Rehabilitative measures give off the feeling that the offenders are being let off easily. It is a common perception among people that since juvenile offender did not go through the harsh prison life, therefore they did not understand the damage that their act has on the lives of other people (Siegel and Welsh, 2011). Even though, this is true to a great extent, we must realize that juveniles are not adults. They have the ability to change as their minds are still developing and taking impressions from their surroundings. They may have been exposed to the wrong environment which led them to commit crimes. But this can be improved if the right environment is provided to the juveniles through rehabilitative programs. However, rehabilitative programs should not be uniform. They should be designed in a way so as to conform to the needs of the individuals. This requires individualistic attention to each offender. However, this also allows for the understanding of the core of the problem. If all juveniles are treated in a similar manner, the rehabilitative program will also fail to meet its expectations. Therefore understanding of the background of the individual and the reason for committing the crime is an important step in rehabilitative programs (Burfeind and Bartusch, 2011). In some cases, juveniles commit crimes because they belong to dysfunctional families that either did not also for the inculcation of proper ethical and moral principles or they resulted in the revolt of the juvenile against the family. In such cases, sending the juvenile back to the family during the rehabilitative program is obviously not feasible (Shoemaker, 2009). In such cases, community placements are the best option where the juvenile is sent to community residential facilities. In such facilities, the juveniles are presented with good opportunities to improve upon their condition. These include ‘college placement, vocational training, work experience and community service, as well as continuing cognitive behavioral treatment services’ (DSHS, 2010) In my opinion, rehabilitative measures are more effective as compared to punitive measures because rehabilitative measures are positive in nature. They assume that human beings are capable of change given the right circumstances. Also because juveniles have not yet formed definite patterns of personality, they do have the room for change that rehabilitation offers. Here the Strain Theory developed by Merton can be taken into account. According to this theory, human beings are in a state of strain because of the inherent social structure of the society which increases the aspirations of the human beings. When these aspirations are high, sometimes humans are not able to achieve them in their given means which leads them to commit crimes (Agnew and David, 1989). The rehabilitative theory in this case provides a solution to the dilemma. It allows the juveniles a channel through which they can achieve their required goals by providing vocational training, behavioral treatment services, work experience etc. Another reason why rehabilitation is a better option than giving punishment is the long term impact of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation allows the juvenile to improve on his actions and his thought process so that he can later on contribute positively towards the society (Moon et al, 2000). On the other hand, punitive measure only restricts the admission of the juvenile in the society. Punishment will not have the desired impact as some juveniles do not even understand what they did wrong. They have no idea about the full impact of their action on the society. Rehabilitative programs aim at developing responsible citizens who later on improve the society. Since the juveniles have to be admitted to the society at one point or another (since death penalty is not an option for juveniles), it is better to aim at some sort of rehabilitative program (Carmen and Trulson, 2005). Despite evidence suggesting that rehabilitative programs are a better option as compared to punitive measures, there are those who argue against rehabilitative programs. These people present the argument that rehabilitative of such juveniles occurs at the expense of the tax payer’s money. Tax payers spend a lot of money on juveniles who have little room for change after committing a number of crimes. However, this argument can be refuted with fact that tax payer would still have to pay for these juveniles if they are resent to prison again and again. This is because it is the tax payer’s money that funds the development and maintenance of prisons that are already too crowded (Lipson and Cullen, 2007). In conclusion, I believe that rehabilitative program is more effective than punitive measures especially in the case of juveniles. References Agnew, R. and David M. P., 1989. Leisure and Delinquency. Social Problems, Vol. 36, pp. 332-50 Burfeind, J. and Bartusch, D., 2011, Juvenile Delinquency: An Integrated Approach, London: Jones & Bartlett Learning Carmen, R. and Trulson, C., 2005, Juvenile Justice: Process and the Law: The System, Process, and the Law, Ohio: Cengage Learning Darbouze, K. 2008, Rehabilitative Methods and the Effect on Juvenile Delinquents, Maryland: University of Maryland, pp. 104-117 DSHS (2010) Rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, Washington: Department of Social and Health Services. Hagell A 2002. The mental health of young offenders – bright futures: working with vulnerable young people. London: Mental Health Foundation Moon, M. et al, 2000, Is Child Saving Dead? Public Support for Juvenile Rehabilitation, Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 38-60 Laum, C. 2009, Young Offenders deserve a chance for Rehabilitation, Retrieved from http://www.rollcall.com/news/-40524-1.html Lipsey, M. and Cullen, F., 2007m The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 3: 297-320 Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P., & Petechuk, D. (2003, May). Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2-19. Retrieved June 23, 2008, from OJJDP database Scot, G. 2012, Prison is too violent for young offenders, NY Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/05/when-to-punish-a-young-offender-and-when-to-rehabilitate/prison-is-too-violent-for-young-offenders Shoemaker, D., 2009, Juvenile Delinquency, London: Rowman & Littlefield Siegel, L., and Welsh, B. 2011, Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law, Theory, Practice, and Law, Ohio: Cengage Learning Steinberg, L, 2012, Seeing Juveniles’ Immaturity and Maturity, NY Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/05/when-to-punish-a-young-offender-and-when-to-rehabilitate/sentences-should-acknowledge-juveniles-maturity-and-immaturity Ward, T., and Maruna, S., 2007, Rehabilitation, New York: Routledge Read More