Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Juvenile recidivism rates and factors
Youth crime effects
Youth crime effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Juvenile recidivism rates and factors
Introduction Recidivism in young adults is a challenge that affects every community, state, nation, and country. In the United States, young adults released from secure facilities have a 50-70 percent chance of recidivism (Council of State Governments, 2017). The vast numbers of juveniles and young adults have very little contact with the criminal justice system and courts. But for the considerable minority who do have contact with law enforcement, courts, and corrections it is worth investigating the reasons for their contact and the variables that affect their outcomes. In addition, a disproportionate number of young adults are targeted based on color and ethnicity, resulting in higher arrest rates and being sent to juvenile court, secure
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
The United States has a larger percent of its population incarcerated than any other country. America is responsible for a quarter of the world’s inmates, and its incarceration rate is growing exponentially. The expense generated by these overcrowded prisons cost the country a substantial amount of money every year. While people are incarcerated for a number of reasons, the country’s prisons are focused on punishment rather than reform, and the result is a misguided system that fails to rehabilitate criminals or discourage crime. The ineffectiveness of the United States’ criminal justice system is caused by mass incarceration of non-violent offenders, racial profiling, and a high rate of recidivism.
The current criminal justice system is expensive to maintain. In North America the cost to house one prisoner is upwards of eighty to two hundred dollars a day (Morris, 2000). The bulk of this is devoted to paying guards and security (Morris, 2000). In contrast with this, community oriented programming as halfway houses cost less than the prison alternative. Community programming costs five to twenty five dollars a day, and halfway houses although more expensive than community programs still remain cheaper than prison (Morris, 2000). Tabibi (2015c) states that approximately ninety percent of those housed in prison are non-violent offenders. The treatment of offenders in the current system is understood to be unjust. By this, Morris (2000) explains that we consistently see an overrepresentation of indigenous and black people in the penal system. Corporate crimes are largely omitted, while street crimes are emphasized (Morris, 2000). This disproportionately targets marginalized populations (homeless, drug addicted and the poor) (Tabibi, 2015c). The current system is immoral in that the caging of people is highly depersonalized and troubling (Tabibi, 2015c). This is considered to be a barbaric practice of the past, however it is still frequently used in North America (Morris, 2000). Another moral consideration is with the labelling of youth as offenders in the criminal justice system (Morris, 2000). Morris (2000) argues that we should see youth crimes as a social failure, not as an individual level failure. Next, Morris (2000) classifies prisons as a failure. Recidivism rates are consistently higher for prisons than for other alternatives (Morris, 2000). The reason for this is that prisons breed crime. A school for crime is created when a person is removed from society and labeled; they become isolated, angry
This paper will argue that post-secondary education is the most effective method of rehabilitation in American prisons. Education is not only cost-effective; it also has proven long-lasting effects on recidivism, employment, and personal growth. The majority of offenders in the American prison system are non-violent perpetrators, many of whom lack the resources for post-secondary education. By providing easily accessible education, offenders will have greater job prospects upon release and an improved sense of morality in connection to social values. Such a system must be slowly integrated into both federal and state prisons nation-wide. Implementation will be assisted by the use of electronic surveillance to monitor inmates, providing them a safer environment and access to the internet for research. In addition to this, online university programs will be used by the inmates to enable studying at recognized institutions. Grants, government-funded loans and public sponsorship are all necessary to provide the monetary funds needed to offer low-income offenders the opportunity to improve their quality of life through education. Access to post-secondary education is essential to improve the lives of non-violent offenders in the American justice system.
According to the National Institute of Justice, recidivism is one of the most fundamental concepts in criminal justice. The NIJ defines recidivism as a person’s relapse into criminal behavior, often after receiving sanctions or undergoing intervention for a previous crime. Recidivism is often utilized in evaluating prisons effectiveness in crime control. Reducing recidivism is crucial for probation, parole and to the correctional system overall.
Race and Juvenile Justice addresses the correlation between race, juvenile delinquency, and justice. Through various essays addressing historical backgrounds, part one discusses racial disparities regarding the juvenile delinquency of White, Latino, Black, Asian American, and Native American youth. Part two explores significant issues such as domestic violence, gang involvement, the application of the death penalty to juveniles, disproportionate minority confinement, the due process revolution, and the positive and negative effects of both prevention and intervention. Through this compilation, Everette Penn, Helen Taylor Greene, and Shaun L. Gabbidon attempt to provide answers for the occurrence of racial disparity with regard to juvenile delinquency and solutions as to how to address and prevent the age old problem that continues to plague The United States.
What is important to understand in terms of the difference between the juvenile and adult system is that there is a level of dependency that is created between the two and the juvenile system focuses on how to help rather than in prison individuals at such a young age. However, it usually depends on the type of crimes that have been committed and what those crimes mean for the families and how they impact the greater society. The adult system distinguishes between dependence and delinquency mainly because there is a psychological transition that occurs with juveniles that is not always a predictor of a cyclical life of crime. However, if an adult is committed to the justice system, there can be a dependency of delinquency and a cycle of crime that is more likely to be sustained at that age and level of cognitive ability than in comparison to a juvenile. The reasoning behind this is important is that it is focused on maintaining a level of attention to the needs and capacity abilities of individuals living and working in different types of societies (Zinn et al., 2017).
The adjustment from incarceration to society causes a series of problems, making rehabilitation difficult. When the juvenile’s leave home to be detained, all ties with society, the support systems they had, the gangs they associated with, school they attending are no longer in close proximity, which is essential for successful rehabilitation (James, Stams, Asscher, Katrien De Roo & van der Laan 2012). Another problem association with the reintegration is that juveniles are in a particularly fragile state in that they are not only transitioning from society to detention, but from adolescence to adulthood, both of which are overwhelming adjustments. Research has shown, however, that if youths stay out of trouble within the first few months
Another study seeking to establish effective deterrence to delinquency found out that most states transfer youths aged fourteen years and above, who have committed serious violent offenses to adult court systems. Many of the states apply the th...
In 1899, the nation’s first juvenile court for youth under the age of 16 was established in Chicago to provide rehabilitation rather than punishment. By 1925, following the Chicago model, all but two states had juvenile courts whose goals were to turn youth into productive citizens utilizing treatment that included warnings, probation, and training school confinement(Cox et al. 2014, p.2). Treatment lasted until the child was “cured” or turned 21. Although judges spoke with the offending children and decided upon the punishment, the lack of established rules and poor rehabilitation led to unfair treatment. In 1967 “ U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault held that juveniles were entitled to the same constitutional due process rights as adults, beginning a national reform in juvenile justice and the system was repaired to afford children many of the same rights that adults have in court” (Cox et al. 2014, p.4). Also, state legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, as recently, states have attempted strike a balance in their approach to juvenile justice systems as research suggests that locking youth away in large, secure juvenile facilities is ineffective treatment towards different genders in which it doesn’t provide appropriate rehabilitation.
The modern teen court concept began in the early 1970’s when a small number of local communities in America began to establish the first Global Youth Justice programs (Peterson, p. 2). In 1994 there were 78 youth court programs in existence. As of March, 2010, there are over 1,050 youth court programs in operation in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Teen courts serve as a “diversion” program used to divert first time offenders away from a lifetime of criminal activity. The primary function of most teen court programs is to determine a fair and restorative sentence or disposition for the youth respondent. Although the primary function of teen courts is to rehabilitate offenders, some may wonder if teen courts are actually beneficial to young offenders.
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.
Sex offenders have been a serious problem for our legal system at all levels, not to mention those who have been their victims. There are 43,000 inmates in prison for sexual offenses while each year in this country over 510,000 children are sexually assaulted(Oakes 99). The latter statistic, in its context, does not convey the severity of the situation. Each year 510,000 children have their childhood's destroyed, possibly on more than one occasion, and are faced with dealing with the assault for the rest of their lives. Sadly, many of those assaults are perpetrated by people who have already been through the correctional system only to victimize again. Sex offenders, as a class of criminals, are nine times more likely to repeat their crimes(Oakes 99). This presents a
An estimated 650,000 offenders are released from prisons each year. Most generally leave with only a few dollars, some clothes, and possibly a bus ticket. Release practices like this are common and can be especially disastrous for mentally ill inmates. If immediately released without access to health care, the mentally ill will suffer from interruption of continuity of care. In prison, they may have been receiving medication, therapy, or other forms of treatment. Interruption of care could lead to excelled deterioration in their mental health. This tends to lead to a higher rate of recidivism among mentally-ill former prisoners. (Hummert, 2011.).
One of the primary purposes of the juvenile justice system is to punish delinquent children for their criminal acts while simultaneously providing them adequate rehabilitation. In 2016, there were over 850,000 arrests of persons under age 18 in the United States (“Law enforcement,” n.d.). Although this is a notable downward trend since 2007, the amount of juvenile arrests is nevertheless substantial. Some juvenile justice staff, counselors, and social workers are concerned about whether the overwhelming number of youthful offenders are receiving the proper balance of punishment and rehabilitation (Mears, Pickett, & Mancini, 2015, 459). The State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services Juvenile Justice and Rehabilitation Administration