Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of juvenile crime
The increase of juvenile crime
Effects of juvenile crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
For Determinate Sentencing
Determinate sentencing is becoming more popular in juvenile courts. It is a special statute that allows for the possibility of a juvenile serving a sentence beyond the age of 21. It specifically covers certain violent offenses and drug cases, like murder, capital murder, sexual assault, and indecency with a child. Aggravated controlled substances cases are also covered (TYC website). The alternative to determinate sentencing is blended sentencing, which allows judges to issue delinquent offenders both juvenile and adult dispositions. Depending on the behavior of the delinquent while serving out their juvenile sentence, a fail-safe postadjudication stage occurs to determine whether or not their adult sentence should be suspended or invoked (Belshaw et al, 2011).
I personally do support utilizing the determinate sentencing for these offenders and believe that it would fail the criminal justice system not to utilize them. This is considered a heinous crime and they should not be shown leniency. At the age of 12-14, the juveniles know that murder is wrong, and the fact that this young man had to lose his life at the age of 19 over an IPOD is atrocious. As we've discussed in class these offenders don't end up where they are because of their first offense. They are habitual and violent offenders. For that very reason they should remain behind bars. It bothers me that juveniles usually get out of prison at 21. I think that the capital offenders should definitely be transferred to adult prison. It is not justice to have a juvenile kill someone and get out a jail a year or two later simply because they are under the age of eighteen.
The Huber (2005) book “Last Chance in Texas” tells stories about trying to ge...
... middle of paper ...
... age population or to meet their unique needs as very young prisoner (Deitch, 2011).
Works Cited
Belshaw, S. H., Caudill, J. W., Delisi, M., and Trulson, C. R. (2011). A Problem of Fit: Extreme Delinquents, Blended Sentencing, and the Determinants of Continued Adult Sanctions. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 22(3) pp. 263
Deitch, M. (2011). Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Texas,
Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs
Hubner, J. (2005). Last Chance in Texas. The Redemption of Criminal Youths. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Knox, A. (2007). Blakely and Blended Sentencing: A Constitutional Challenge to Sentencing Child “Criminals”. The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.
TYC Webiste http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/about/sentenced_offenders.html (Received December 9, 2011).
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
Many people say that the systems first priority should be to protect the public from the juvenile criminals that are a danger to others. Once the juveniles enter the system there is however, arguments on what should be done with them. Especially for those deemed too dangerous to be released back to their parents. Some want them locked away for as long as possible without rehabilitation, thinking that it will halt their criminal actions. One way to do this they argue would be to send them into an adult court. This has been a large way to reform the juvenile system, by lowering the age limits. I believe in certain cases this is the best method for unforgiving juveniles convicted of murder, as in the case of Ronald Duncan, who got away with a much lesser sentence due to his age. However another juvenile, Geri Vance, was old enough to be sent into the adult court, which caused him t...
Hubner, John. Last Chance in Texas: The Redemption of Criminal Youth. New York: Random House, 2005. Print.
Last Chance in Texas dives into the lives of juveniles in the criminal justice system. It shows the step and progress in which administration take to assist these troubled youths to redemption and send them back into society as productive members. In this book Hubner shines light on the Giddings State School for the worst of the worst youths. What made this school unique is that they were producing results like no other. This paper addresses the core issues, policies of the school, and a situation that I would do differently.
Continuum sanctions is a new innovated system that allows judges to use more discretion when dictating the punishment or treatment of a juvenile based on how serious the offense is that the juvenile has committed (Bartollas, 2014, p. 388). In continuum sanctions judges can also decrease or increase the severity of the punishment or treatment given depending on how well the behavior of the juvenile is improving during the treatment, judges can rely on intermediate sanctions that are less intrusive if the juvenile is making good progress or more intrusive intermediate sanctions if the current treatment is not helping the juvenile (Bartollas, 2014, p. 388).
Losing Generations: Adolescents in High-Risk Settings. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. Petersilia, Joan. 1999. Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States. In Prisons, edited by M. Tonry and J. Petersilia. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
The inappropriate or unnecessary use of incarceration is “expensive, ineffective, and inhumane,” and initiates a “cycle of juvenile reoffending” (Bala et. al, 2009). A study conducted by Mann (2014) exemplifies this cycle of youth reoffending. The youth interviewed demonstrated that despite a stay in sentenced custody, the threat of future punishment was not enough to deter from future offences. Cook and Roesch (2012) demonstrate that youth have developmental limitations that can impair their involvement in the justice system; for example, not understanding their sentencing options properly or their competence to stand trial. Therefore, deterrence as a justification for youth incarceration is ineffective, as incarceration proves to be not a strong enough deterrent. Alternative methods such as extrajudicial measures and community-based sanctions were considered more effective (Cook & Roesch,
Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is entirely eliminating the use of the life without parole sentence for juveniles, regardless of the nature of the crime being charged.
Intermediate sanctions are a new punishment option developed to fill the gap between traditional probation and traditional jail or prison sentences and to better match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the crime. Intermediate sanctions served in the community now account for 15 percent of adjudicated juvenile cases (Puzzanchera, Adams, and Sickmund, 2011). All intermediate sanctions are enforced by the United States Criminal Justice System. The main purposes of intermediate sanctions: (1) better match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the crime, (2) reduce institutional crowding, (3) control correctional costs. Primarily, this is a needed method of punishment to make offenders accountable for the extent of crime and if so let offenders live in their communities to fulfil punishment if not too extensive.
The historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States is one that is focused on forming and separating trying juveniles from adult counterparts. One of the most important aspects is focusing on ensuring that there is a level of fairness and equality with respect to the cognitive abilities and processes of juveniles as it relates to committing crime. Some of the most important case legislation that would strengthen the argument in regard to the development of the juvenile justice system is related to the reform of the justice system during the turn of the 19th century. Many juveniles were unfortunately caught in the crosshairs of being tried as adults and ultimately receiving punishments not in line with their ability to understand their actions or be provided a second chance.
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
Juvenile do not deserve life in prison, they will not be able to handle it. I agree with the group of judges who believe juveniles to not deserve life sentences. They have a great chance at rehabilitation. It only takes something or someone to help them stay out of troubl
A deep look into juveniles in adult prisons. Touch bases on several smaller issues that contribute to juveniles being in and effects of adult prisons. The United States Bureau of Prisons handles two hundred and thirty-nine juveniles and their average age is seventeen. Execution of juveniles, The United States is one of only six countries to execute juveniles. There are sixty-eight juveniles sitting on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. Forty-three of those inmates are minorities. People, who are too young to vote, drink alcohol, or drive are held to the same standard of responsibility as adults. In prisons, they argue that the juveniles become targets of older, more hardened criminals. Brian Stevenson, Director of the Alabama Capital Resource Center said, “We have totally given up in the idea of reform of rehabilitation for the very young. We are basically saying we will throw those kids away. Leading To Prison Juvenile Justice Bulletin Report shows that two-thirds of juveniles apprehended for violent offenses were released or put on probation. Only slightly more than one-third of youths charged with homicide was transferred to adult criminal court. Little more than one out of every one hundred New York youths arrested for muggings, beatings, rape and murder ended up in a correctional institution. Another report showed a delinquent boy has to be arrested on average thirteen times before the court will act more restrictive than probation. Laws began changing as early as 1978 in New York to try juveniles over 12 who commit violent crimes as adults did. However, even since the laws changed only twenty percent of serious offenders served any time. The decision of whether to waive a juven...
Introduction: Recidivism or, habitual relapses into crime, has time and time again proven to be an issue among delinquents, which thereby increases the overall juvenile prison population. This issue has become more prevalent than what we realize. Unless a unit for measuring a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is enacted and used to determine a system to promote effective prevention, than the juvenile prison population will continue to increase. Our court system should not only focus on punishing the said juvenile but also enforce a program or policy that will allow for prevention of recidivism. So the question remains, how can recidivism in the juvenile prison population be prevented so that it is no longer the central cause for increased juvenile delinquency? Simply put, we must create a means of measuring juvenile’s level of risk and in turn, form an effective rehabilitation program that will decrease their risk level for future recidivism.
Indeterminate sentencing involves the judge handing down the sentence, specifying what the maximum and the minimum sentence is. However, the actual length of time served is determined by the parole board. Determinate sentencing involves prisoners being released early for good behavior. In other words, these inmates are given credits for good behavior or for participation in projects, experiments or educational programs (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011). The credits, in turn, reduce the sentencing.