More handpicked essays just for you.
Effectiveness of community based corrections
Psychological factors underlying criminal behaviour
Psychological factors underlying criminal behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effectiveness of community based corrections
Although many might be trying to tie delinquent offenders and status offenders together, the reality is simply that these are two very different types of offense, committed, in general, by two very different types of people. That is to say, delinquent offenders are indicative, in general, of criminals that will, if not properly rehabilitated and/or punished for the crime, continue on this path. However, on the other hand, it is literally impossible for status offenders to continue performing their crimes into adulthood as, according to the textbook, these status offenders are committing crimes that are impossible for adults to commit, because they are only considered to be crimes if the offender is a minor (Siegel & Welsh, 2014). This means that …show more content…
Indeed, on the most basic level, both offenders are committing an illegal act, in some form or fashion. As a result of this, there is no doubt that immediate action is required in both cases to hopefully curb this crime and prevent any future crimes in the future. The distinction, then, comes from the exact measures that are to be taken to prevent these crimes. That is to say, status offenders should not merely be lumped into the same category as delinquent offenders because the very nature of the crimes that they are committing is fundamentally different. As a result, this would no doubt have a salient effect on policy in this area. That is to say, status offenders would not actually be seen as juvenile offenders at all, complete with all of the implications and consequences of that. Rather, these status offenders would be placed into the same category of juveniles who have some sort of mental disorder, needing rehabilitation only, with no punishment at all. This would help to ensure that these juveniles are not unjustly punished, and are allowed to immediately get the help they
He is a decorated veteran, scholar and successful business leader upon graduating. In comparison to the other Wes Moore who never seemed to escape his childhood and ended up in prison. The theory that best explains the authors’ noninvolvement in a life of crime vs. the criminality of the other Wes Moore is the social disorganization theory. Shaw and McKay, the founders of this theory, believed that “juvenile delinquency could be understood only by considering the social context in which youths lived. A context that itself was a product of major societal transformations wrought by rapid urbanization, unbridled industrialization, and massive population shifts” (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2015). The theory is centered around transitional zones and competition determined how people were distributed spatially among these zones (Lilly et al., 2015). This model founded by Ernest Burgess showed that high priced residential areas were in the outer zones and the inner zones consisted of poverty (Lilly et al.,
Since I am a minority I was already a bit accustomed with the inequalities or wrongdoings that occur to those of a minority group. Before reading this book I used to think that those who commit crime or engage in delinquent behavior are considered “lazy people” or people who just want “the easy way out;” or maybe they just weren’t trying hard enough to attain that “American Dream”. After reading Victor Rios’s book I realized how much the system has an impact on your future depending on where you come from. Right in the beginning Victor Rios mentions the “youth control complex.” The youth control complex is this idea that the system criminalizes young people for acting in everyday behaviors. (2011; pg.xiv). They are criminalized through schools, families, police officers, probation officers, community centers, the media, businesses, and other institutions. (2011; pg.xiv). These institutions are supposed to be
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
Laub and Sampson (2003) discuss the prominent theories of crime over the life course with an emphasis on the work of Terrie Moffitt. Moffitt (1993) attempted to explain life course persistence and some discontinuity. According to Moffitt (1993), there are two distinct categories of offenders concealed by early offending: adolescent-limited offenders and life-course persistent offenders. In this taxonomy, adolescent-limited offenders are those who offend temporarily and discontinue use while life-course persistent offenders are those who offend continuously, with an earlier beginning in delinquency (Moffitt 1993). Adolescent limited offenders only participate in antisocial behavior during adolescence while life-course persistent offenders participate in anti-social behavior throughout the life course beginning in early childhood and into adulthood (Moffitt 1993). Moffitt’s theory (1993) all...
I believe that instead of incarcerating them they should be put in facilities that will help them get treatment for their disabilities, disorders, and drug addictions. If they are being rehabilitated the right way it will help prevent further crimes and also will help the offender go back into society and live a crime free lifestyle. For Christel Tribble being locked up actually helped her out to realize that she doesn’t want to be a delinquent. She was motivated by her mother to continue her education and to realize that it’s not worth being in the court system at such a young age because it will be a never ending cycle. For Keith Huff, he went to Kentucky State prison five times serving a total of 27 years in the criminal justice system. He was incarcerated for drug problems, which in the long run won’t help him. It would be more beneficial for him to receive help to prevent him from using drugs. If they sent him to a rehabilitation center where he can receive the appropriate help he need it would prevent him from future imprisonment. As for Charles McDuffie he was an addict and a Vietnam veteran suffering from PTSD. He was sentenced to prison, which was no help for him in his situation dealing with PTSD. He needed mental health treatment to help him deal with the tragedies that he was remembering from the Vietnam War. Luckily when McDuffie got out of prison his friends, who
It is typically thought that sex offenders are the type of individual that needs to be tried in our courts and then sentenced because there is really no hope for an individual that harms the most innocent of our society. But there just may be an exception to this way of thinking. Juveniles who at one point themselves may have been victims, and as they have grown into adolescence not knowing why they are thinking the way they are, turn around and abuse others. Then what happens is that these adolescents once found out, are then tried in our courts as adults because in the mind of the court they are committing an adult crime. But there are alternatives for these juveniles that are being placed in our court system. Because at this stage in their development they are more receptive to treatment options and there are treatments available with valid research to substantiate them. Our judicial system just needs to recognize these options in order to try to lessen the amount of trauma inflicted on these already potentially traumatized individuals.
As Laub and Sampson (2003) analyze crime over the life course, they highlight Terrie Moffitt’s theory and discuss the limitations of her developmental explanation. In Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy, she acknowledges two categories of offenders...
Through the eyes of the juveniles, they feel that they are a product of the states neglecting. Many, such as George Trevino, were shuffled from foster home to foster home. Having never received a loving and supporting home environment he was forced to turn to street gangs for a sense of community. It was no surprise that he ended up in the system early and often. For others it was the fitness laws that failed them. The fitness law states that any juvenile at or above the age of sixteen can be tried in the adult courts and sent to a federal penitentiary. However, a juvenile under the age of sixteen must be tried in the juvenile system and receive lesser punishment than those tried in the adult courts. In both instance the court fails juveniles.
... proponents say 'cracks down on the worst of the worst among teen criminals.' It is unbelievable that our society will allow for such a law. It seems unfair that a fourteen year old child can make a mistake and pay for it the rest of his/her life. The reason our system has never tried youth as adults is because they are not mature enough to think like an adult and take responsibility for themselves. At such a young age there is still hope for an alteration in his/her lifestyle, locking the child up only diminishes the chance of change. Children act out for attention and in many cases do whatever it takes to get that attention; even if it means bringing a gun to school, or going into a store and stealing a pack of gum. Our society must realize there is a problem with today's youth and find where it stems from - only then is there any hope for change. Putting children into prisons is like pushing dirt under a rug; the dirt can only sit for so long until someone realizes there's a problem and looks to see what the problem is. Our society has been pushing dirt under the rug for so long now that it's only a matter of time until the dirt chafes a hole right through the worn out rug.
...ing beckoned in with the 21st century. While U.S.’s JLWOP laws are inconsistent with many human rights treatises and with international law, it is more important for our policies to be based on a thorough understanding of the issue- the most essential being a separation of the processes for juvenile and adult criminal offenders. With an emphasis on rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, and the goal of encouraging maturity and personal development after wayward actions, the futures of many teens in the criminal justice system can become much more hopeful.
Over the last few decades classification systems for offenders have been used for a variety of organizational purposes. Over time these classification systems have evolved, not only as a whole in the criminal justice system, but also varying between different organizations. Classification systems that create models based on the risks and needs of offenders are most popular. Throughout the years these models and the purposes for their use have been in a state of change, as well as the way their effectiveness is gaged.
The Criminal Justice system was established to achieve justice. Incarceration and rehabilitation are two operations our government practices to achieve justice over criminal behavior. Incarceration is the punishment for infraction of the law and in result being confined in prison. It is more popular than rehabilitation because it associates with a desire for retribution. However, retribution is different than punishment. Rehabilitation, on the other hand is the act of restoring the destruction caused by a crime rather than simply punishing offenders. This may be the least popular out of the two and seen as “soft on crime” however it is the only way to heal ruptured communities and obtain justice instead of punishing and dispatching criminals
Almost all people are or were adolescent limited offenders, but there are certain factors that make some people carry on that behavior throughout their life. There are certainly things, such as drug addiction, that can lead someone to a life of crime, but some people contain traits that may make them naturally predisposed to committing crime throughout their life. According to Moffit's studies, life course persistent offenders are display anti-social behavior from an early age. It is believed that in these individuals, brain development is disrupted by an outside factor. This can happen either in the womb or after birth. Things that may disrupt brain development include poor nutrition, exposure to drugs, or toxins. Other things commonly found in life course persistent offenders are problems in the central nervous system and neuropsychological defects, both of which can lead to behavioral problems and an inability to socialize properly. Life course persistent offenders often work alone, but become role models for adolescent limited
Delinquency and gang violence has disturbed many communities in Urban African American areas. Engaging youth in community programs may take away from the violence, focusing on the missing factor within delinquents. Youth delinquents are molded into violent criminals before they have a chance to build themselves, the known reason is there communities have a part in there behavior.
“It’s really clear that the most effective way to turn a nonviolent person into a violent one is to send them to prison,” says Harvard University criminologist James Gilligan. The American prison system takes nonviolent offenders and makes them live side-by-side with hardened killers. The very nature of prison, no matter people view it, produces an environment that is inevitably harmful to its residents.