Incarceration is used to deter juveniles from committing crimes, making the juvenile system more punitive. Serious juvenile crimes are those of a violent in nature, as reported in the FBI Uniform Crime Report. Juvenile arrests for robbery were alarming as this increased more than 30% since 2004 (Roberts 3). Female offenders for robbery have also increased, as reported in 1985 to 2002. Drug abuse violations rank next, but could also be the reason for committing robbery and violent crimes. This kind of juvenile offenses can be considered serious and needs more severe punishment. However, the question here is the kind of juvenile justice model that should be used in reducing juvenile offenses: should it be punitive or rehabilitative?
The theory of punitive justice for juvenile offenders is based on the notion of accountability, which is defined as “the assurance of consequences” for juvenile offenses that force youths to take responsibility for their action (Cooley 3).
The question whether to focus on deterrence or rehabilitation or incarceration offered means to control and deter juvenile crimes, and in order to prevent recidivism. Snyder and Sickmund indicate that many juvenile courts in the United States have adopted variations of a Balanced and Restorative Justice Model, which suggests offender accountability to victims and society, public safety, and the development of skills to promote productive and law-abiding citizens (qtd. in Roberts 10). This means that whatever the type of juvenile crime, rehabilitation and accountability should be enforced with particular balance. In this model, victims are given the chance to address personal consequences of the offense committed by juvenile; at the same time suggest the type of retribution the juvenile offender receives. This means there needs a family group conferencing that can provide an outlet to make all parties work out for a solution, including the victim, the offender, the juvenile justice system, the police officer. They can discuss harm caused by juvenile offender.
Conclusion
Violent crimes can be addressed this way, with some slight modification. As mentioned, punitive system is not applicable in the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model. Robbery (with homicide) needs more focus from the Family Group model. The FBI Uniform Crime Report did not mention an alarming rate for serious juvenile crimes like robbery with homicide. Drug related crimes can be addressed by the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model, and this needs more severe sanctions. Juvenile crimes that need immediate and serious focus are those committed often, i.e. by recidivists.
Brink (qtd. in Dharamrup 2) states that juvenile delinquents transferred, or waived, to criminal courts started in the 1990s when there was greater availability of guns in urban areas. This time of increased juvenile violent crime gave rise to the idea that a new kind of juvenile offender, someone called “superpredator”, was evolving. They are pictured as pitiless and morally impoverished young offenders, who must be given harsh treatment than the juvenile court system could. This also led to the belief that the juvenile justice system was not competent enough to effectively deal with the superpredator adolescents.
As public outcry regarding juvenile violent crime intensified, increased accountability from the juvenile offender is called for. Laws were passed that changed focus from the juvenile’s best interests and more consideration of public safety. Rehabilitation was changed to harsher and more punitive adult criminal court system.
Works Cited
Cooley, Valerie. “Implementation and effects of graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders.” PhD thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2009. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Web. 6 Sep. 2016.
Roberts, Jill. “Recidivism in the Juvenile Justice System: An Analysis of Critical Variables.” PhD thesis, Adler School of Professional Psychology, 2010. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Web. 7 Sep. 2016.
