DISSERTATION CONCLUSION
Introduction
We live in a social set up that has revolutionized the way people and citizens of any country are governed by a set of written laws, perceived norms and acceptable culture. A breach of the laws, perceptions and norms of any cultural set up causes outcry for justice for the victims and punishment for the offenders. In medieval times, most such offenses would have invited an execution: there were no police and children witnesses execution to impart the consequences of crime. However, given the development of societal views on negative punishment that only propagates more violence, the systems of incarceration was therefore developed to handle offenders. Systems of laws, lawmakers and law enforcers were developed over time to what they are now.
Summary
The views and issues discussed in this dissertation explore the realm of incarceration with regard to child offenders. I want to believe the original ideologists who came up with a system of rehabilitation of offenders did not envision that kids should be put through the system too. The subject matter “should we lock children up or should we look at alternative methods” therefore invites conflicting views in different societal set ups facing varying prevalence of child offenders. Oxford English dictionary defines crime as any action that is subject to punishment by law. Criminals who are convicted are subjected to isolation with a belief that it may give them time to contemplate their actions and consequences as a result. Crime can be committed by anyone young or old. More and more youth, however, seem to be embracing a life in crime in a lot of the countries and the different societal set ups around the globe. A young offender is basically a person convicted of a criminal offence: it can be a male or a female. Most governments around the globe have judicial systems designed to deal with young offenders in a special manner as compared to adult offenders. This is usually due to the fact that most of the adult incarceration facilities are harsh in terms of standard that a young offender should be able to handle .Children have soft minds and as such should be treated with care during rehabilitation if the objective is to incorporate them back into the society as reformed citizens. It is a point to note, however, that the age of a young offender is a subject of controversy in most countries all over the globe. For instance, the crime rates among young offenders in the Europe are quite high. The age of a young offender in Wales and England, for instance, is capped at 10-13 years. Such children can be arrested and presented before a court of law if they commit crime. In France, the minimum age for criminal responsibility is set at 16 years, whereas the same in Scotland is set at 12 and in most American states, the value is set at 18years. This is a subject of controversy given the fact that children are named as such – a child – given their lack of mental awareness: the reason parents do most of the decision making on their behalf up until they attain an age they are believed to grasp the concept of decisions and consequences. The child is therefore supposed to be molded by the society and the systems in place. The situation however becomes more complex when more and more children commit crimes of higher degree such as murder. This causes the government, therefore, to introduce tighter measures to curb a growing concern of criminal tendencies affecting the tender ages: a fact that is entirely unprecedented. Children should not possess the capacity to commit crime, let alone murderous crime. This therefore call to action the prevailing issues responsible for predisposing kids to conditions that might cause them to commit higher degrees of crime.
Incarceration without clear and concise rehabilitative objectives has been documented in studies as making an already bad situation, worse. Most young offenders who fall victim to tight measures by the government to curb increasing rates of crime in youth end up in harsh environments meant for adults that quickly predisposes their minds to more criminal activities. They therefore come out worse than when they went in for rehabilitation. The implications are never and only serve to escalate the situation further. The government introduces tight measures, the youth are predisposed to adult incarceration facilities and when they come out worse, the government introduces them to harsher penalties: and what becomes of an effort to eradicate crime is a perpetual circle that serves to escalate crime.
Conclusions Drawn from Research
In recent years, much of the research done in this area has arrived at rather interesting conclusions over the predisposing factors driving youth to crime. Youth crime occurs due to many factors ranging from personal to social factors. Among these research findings, the fundamental role that parents play in a child’s life: which if not taken seriously, opens the child to experiences that nurture violence in them. It is this violent nature that manifests itself when, say, a kid commits robbery with violence or beats up another kid to a pulp. The way a parents control and exercise responsibilities, duties and privileges of their child influence their children’s behaviour. Therefore, the way parents behave around their children is paramount. If a child grows in a family that is always in a crisis or broken homes they are more likely to commit crime in the future. The parents consequently should be held responsible by society in cases where relationship issues such as divorce spill over to kids to young to understand why the two pillars of their lives are crumbling. Other notable finding published by researchers is peer pressure, low family income, drug abuse. Economic status also plays a crucial role in youth crime. Kids born into poverty are predisposed to engaging in crime compared to kids from well to do families. Children from poorer backgrounds may feel that they can only cope or aspire to have luxuries by turning to crime. It is also a belief that children who are allowed too much freedom to do as they please without consequences are also likely to participate in activities that are criminal in nature given the fact that they are afforded excess privileges extended to them which therefore leads them to overlook their reasoning capabilities: grows in them a culture of lawlessness. In addition to this, children from well to do families are more likely to engage in crimes like drug abuse and use of firearms because they can afford the money to buy them. For instance, several cases on said subject are discussed in this dissertation beginning with the Silja Rederguard case in 1994: a case of two boys beating a girl up and leaving her out in the snow to freeze to death. Given that the two were young, no legal action was taken by Norwegian authorities against the two young offenders who committed the crime. Instead, the relevant authorities chose the parents to continue giving support to the kids within the family set up. The Norwegian government also provided support in addition to that provided by the parents, by incorporating psychiatrists and social workers in the process. The issue was addressed to the satisfaction of all parties involved, however, the trauma and grief inflicted upon the victim’s family was not addressed by the state unlike the other case study, popularly known as the James Bulger Case. Two boys took a third and murdered him on the train tracks at only age ten. The case caused public outcry which extensive media coverage adding gasoline to an already incendiary situation. The two cases show how both societies dealt with the issue of kids involved in criminal events: the Norwegians focussed on reforming the young offenders but their system was flawed given that they did not address the victims. The Britain side were outraged by the actions of the two and were ready to lynch the offenders: in this case the victims’ pain was further escalated by emotions flying high in the country and the kids would face harsh fate that has been documented to only escalate incidences of crime further.
Importance of this Research
This research is very important to authorities and also to inform measures put in place to curb crime in youth. The finding in this research explore the subject of locking kids up and the accompanying consequences or whether to explore alternative methods given what is knowledge on kids and failures in current system that can be used to mitigate further escalation of crime among young offenders. The varying issues discussed in previous chapters addressing the age cap on criminal responsibility and the accompanying predisposing factors that push youth and kids to crime should be crucial in informing governments – that have tight measures in place like incarcerating kids in adults rehab center – to go back to their drawing board and revisit some of the flaws plaguing the systems in place with a fresh pair of eyes. Information of self-inflicted deaths of young offenders put in jail should also inform prison systems to revise their methods of rehabilitation and discover what the true objectives of housing the inmates really is.
On a broader perspective, parents can also learn how marital issues such as divorce, absenteeism of one parent or both and how parents partake in decision making affects and moulds the kids. In effect, the society – the collective of minds that dictates morality and social norms – are responsible for how the kid turn up as they grow.
Recommendations for future research
Much of the research has been done on how governments regulate parental responsibilities through social workers, how students learn through their teachers, how crime is propagated among youth. However, more research needs to be focused on why there is a sudden spike in offences featuring young kids. This paper has discussed what constitutes crime with regard to young offenders and present how locking them up would affect them. Research therefore needs to focus more on these alternative positive methods that in the long run will break the perpetuation of crime in young individuals.
Recommendations for practitioners
Practitioners in the arena of providing social services need to be informed on what transpires when kids go through foster homes that may not be equipped to handle the responsibility of taking care of a child. Also, the issue of abuse in authoritarian parents and in fosters home only serve to teach children violence even though the intentions may be aimed at socially reforming such kids.
Psychologists play a crucial role in informing the society on how best to handle deviants in a positive way that resolves the problem effectively and how best to intervene to curb criminal tendencies in young kids. As such, psychiatrists should also step up and guide the state on how to best tune a young mind to conform: and explain why the current systems may be crude, uninformed and serve only to escalate the process of rehabilitation. Given the finding in this paper, they are the authority best equipped to address the issue at hand. Rehabilitation centers should also revise the way young offenders are dealt with in view of the fact that their minds can easily be molded: like hot wax that takes the shape of the area it settle in or bears the insignia of whatever pressure is applied.
References
Andrews, C., 2001. Medieval Realms: Lower ability pack. Illustrated ed. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd.
Blackwell, W., 2015. Education, A Companion to Ancient. 1st Edition ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Catalano, R. F. & Hawkins, J. D., 1986. THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL: A THEORY OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR. Center for Social Welf~re Research , Issue 56, pp. 2-6.
Covell, K. & Howe, R. B., 2006. The Challenge of Children’s Rights for Canada. Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.
Government of United Kingdom, 2015. Age of criminal responsibility. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility[Accessed 03 April 2016].
Human Rights Watch, 2009. Corporal Punishment of Children in U.S. Public Schools , s.l.: s.n.
Jacobson, J. & Kirby, A., 2012. Public attitudes to youth crime, England: Governament of UK.
James, E. & MacDougall, I., 2010. The Norway town that forgave and forgot its child killers. [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2010/mar/20/norway-town-forgave-child-killers[Accessed 03 April 2016].
KORFF, S. B., 2010. TREATMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND THEIR REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY, Jo'burg: SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE.
Levine, M., Wallach, L. & Levine, D., 2006. Psychological Problems, Social Issues, and Law. 2nd ed. s.l.:Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
