Juvenile delinquency is an adolescent disorder that affects children between the ages of about 7 and 17 years. Juveniles at this age normally experience adolescent disorder that affects their rational decision making abilities. The victims of the disorder may get involved in certain crimes making them subject to law enforcement agencies.
One of the contemporary issues especially in the American society is the measure(s) taken by the society in addressing the behavior of juvenile offenders. The number as well as the type of crimes committed by adolescents, 7-17 year-olds, has been overwhelming. The law enforcement agencies advocate for the increment of the severity of the punishment given to the juvenile offenders (Katel, 2008, p. 913). His article, Juvenile Justice, he is of the opinion that most of the law enforcement agencies as well as personnel are justified by in their argument that punishing the offenders is essential for the well-being of the society. Donegan supports the opinion of prevention advocates who believe that the most effective way to address the phenomenon is the use of intervention programs for at-risk children as well as their parents (1996, p. 217). In his article, Preventing Juvenile Crime, he argues that the belief that tough punishments on the juvenile offenders are the answer has made the Congress to withhold funding for the intervention programs. Intervention/rehabilitation programs offer the victims of juvenile delinquency the opportunity to not only change their behavior but also evade many years, which they could have spent in prison. The benefit of the intervention programs is twofold in that it curbs the number of crimes in the society besides making the person in question to become more productive in his/her life.
Kantianism, a deontological approach, is one of the theories that can be used to determine the most ethical action as far as dealing with juvenile offenders is concerned. The theory asserts that any action should be dictated by one’s duty in dealing with a certain phenomenon. The duty of any member of a society inclusive of the law advocates is to ensure the well-being of not only the at-risk adolescent but also that of the society. Imposing severe punishment on the juvenile offender serves the interest of the public only. The victims who in most cases suffer from juvenile delinquency require the attention of specialists to overcome the unwanted behaviors rather than being punished. As aforementioned, the intervention programs help the victims to become useful in the society without threatening the safety of the society. Severe punishment makes the youth more rebellious and increases their chances of violating the law after their sentence is over. Therefore, the long-term effect of punishment is detrimental not only to the juvenile offender but also to the society.
Punishment in the juvenile court or even in the adult courts may not be the most effective approach of dealing with the problem. Scott and Steinberg argue that juveniles who constantly commit crimes, “in contrast to the vast majority of juvenile offenders, their involvement in crime does not only appear to be the product of adolescent immaturity; it has additional roots in the neurological, psychological, familial, and environmental deficits” (2008, p. 225). Based on this argument, juvenile delinquency results from a complex youth disorder that requires not only intervention programs for the at-risk individuals rather than punishing them. Contemporary abolitionists want to merge criminal justice system and juvenile justice system without considering the unique needs of the juvenile offenders. It is imperative to realize and consider the unique psychological conditions of juvenile offenders.
The juvenile justice system has benefitted the juvenile offenders and the society for the last 100 years, thus giving harsh sentences to juvenile offenders may not be wise since it has been effective for all those years. “Juvenile courts allowed society to intervene early in the lives of troubled youth and they prevented a variety of horrors that occurred whenever young defendants were thrown in with adult criminals” (Butts, 2010, p. 25). The system has enabled many youths to change their behavior and pursue their dreams making them great people in the society and Harris is no exception.
The utilitarianism theory offers a different approach because it is dictated by the happiness of the majority. In the case of juvenile offenders, utilitarianism advocates for the necessary punishment to be taken on the juvenile offenders to ensure that the society remains at peace. Most of the juvenile offenders are tried in adult courts in most states in the United States to ensure that they receive harsh punishments. In such cases, juvenile offenders end up serving sentences that are similar to their adult counterparts. To the majority, severe punishments ensure that juvenile offenders stay away from the society for a long period enhancing its safety. Additionally, the severe punishments ensure that most of the victims do not indulge in similar crimes in the future, which benefits the society (Katel, 2008, p. 918). The fear of serving harsh sentences in prison prevents would-be juvenile offenders from committing crimes an aspect that is essential in maintaining peace and safety in any given neighborhood.
As discussed above, Kantianism and Utilitarianism theories call for different actions in dealing with juvenile justice. Kantianism advocates for the support and assistance of the juvenile offenders, which are essential in changing their behavior. Though a rather long process, it ensures both the well-being of the individual as well as the society. On the other hand, utilitarianism only focuses on the well-being of the majority (society) while overlooking the well-being of the juvenile offender. Both approaches aim at ensuring peace and safety in any given neighborhood.
REFERENCES
Butts, J. (2010). Can we do without Juvenile Justice? American Bar Association, 4(2), 22-45.
Donegan, C. (1996, March 15). Preventing Juvenile Crime. CQ Researcher, 2, 217-240.
Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com./cqresearcher/
Katel, p. (2008, November 7). Juvenile Justice. CQ Researcher, 18, 913-936. Retrieved from
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
Scott, E., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Rethinking Juvenile Justice. New York: Harvard University
Press.
