The impact on social class and youth justice. Youth criminality intertwines deeply with social inequality, as evidenced by the official statistics of crime. Statistical data often reveal a disproportionate representation of marginalised communities among young offenders. For example, in less economically developed third-world countries, there are higher rates of crime. Statistics show that 18% of black children were involved in stop-and-search. Edwin Sutherland, often known for his association theory, highlights the importance of peer groups and social roles. Due to these social inequalities, like lack of access to quality education, growing up in a single parent’s household, and lack of access to legitimate jobs, young individuals deviate. …show more content…
Adams shows that the American ideal of obtaining money is the goal for most youths; however, less importance is placed on the way it is obtained, leading to illegal ways such as the use and sale of illegal drugs or more serious white-collar crimes like fraud. In contemporary society, violent computer games and appreciation for violent movies are the norm and a potential cause of the current moral panics of young people, and as a result, there’s a drift away from the dominant culture and subcultures. Although there are other factors separate from social inequality, such as family dynamics and mental health issues, many criminologists agree that in the 21st century, social factors are more relevant due to the pattern of youth crime as we know it today, as explained by the youth justice system. The youth justice system was set up by the Criminal Act of 1991, with a majority of offenders aged 10–17. Most of these young offenders come from low-income households, …show more content…
That helps get an insight into sentencing, as factors such as poverty and unemployment can cause individuals to commit more serious crimes. In 1996, a highly influential audit commission report on Misspent Youth was very critical of the youth justice system being expensive and inefficient and stressed the need for some consistency, so he introduced the differences in sentencing aims and court disposals. Youth courts were first set up by the Criminal Justice Act of 1991 and replaced and extended the jurisdiction of the juvenile courts in 1908. They deal with offenders aged 10–17, as mentioned before, although some in this age group may be dealt with in the adult magistrates court or in the crown court when the defendant is guilty of homicide or man slaughter on women causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving while on the influence of alcohol and drugs, which is otherwise defined as any sentence that carries a maximum of 14 or more years imprisonment. Young people classified as dangerous under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 must be sent for trial in the Crown Court or committed to sentences where there is a significant risk of public harm from further offences. This
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
Many theories, at both the macro and micro level, have been proposed to explain juvenile crime. Some prominent theories include Social Disorganization theory, Differential Social Organization theory, Social Control theory, and Differential Association theory. When determining which theories are more valid, the question must be explored whether people deviate because of what they learn or from how they are controlled? Mercer L. Sullivan’s book, “Getting Paid” Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City clearly suggests that the learning theories both at the macro level, Differential social organization, and micro level, Differential association theory, are the more accurate of the two types of theory.
Today not only do we have adults committing crimes, but millions of adolescents are committing the same crimes as adults. “Statistics show more than 1.1 million youths being arrested on a daily basis, and more than 800,000 youths belonging to different gangs (Siegel &Welsh, 2014).” It is the state juvenile authorities to deal with these children and the cost is massive. So states came up with programs to put a stop to kids becoming delinquents. With doing so they hope to save money and help kids.
Youth crime is a growing epidemic that affects most teenagers at one point in their life. There is no question in society to whether or not youths are committing crimes. It has been shown that since 1986 to 1998 violent crime committed by youth jumped approximately 120% (CITE). The most controversial debate in Canadian history would have to be about the Young Offenders Act (YOA). In 1982, Parliament passed the Young Offenders Act (YOA). Effective since 1984, the Young Offenders Act replaced the most recent version of the Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA). The Young Offenders Act’s purpose was to shift from a social welfare approach to making youth take responsibility for their actions. It also addressed concerns that the paternalistic treatment of children under the JDA did not conform to Canadian human rights legislation (Mapleleaf). It remained a heated debate until the new legislation passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Some thought a complete overhaul was needed, others thought minor changes would suffice, and still others felt that the Young Offenders Act was best left alone.
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 the labelling of youth as offenders in the criminal justice system (Morris, 2000).
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, often called by the name of YCJA, is specifically made for youths ages varying from 12 to 17 that disobey the law. In April 1, 2003, the YCJA replaced the previous justice act called Young Offenders Act due to several negative concerns. “These concerns included the overuse of the courts and incarceration in less serious cases, disparity and unfairness in sentencing, a lack of effective reintegration of young people released from custody, and the need to better take into account the interests of victims.” The main purpose of the YCJA aims to have a fairer and more equitable system. Although the YCJA is an effective law within the justice system, a main aspect/characteristic that needs to remain, is keeping the
From 1990 to to the present there has been a sharp increase in juvenile crime across the United States. From 1996 to the present there has been a slight decline from the statistics in 1995(OJJDP). What was the cause for this uprise in juvenile delinquincy? I will discuss 2 different theories to why there was such an increase in juvenile crime rates. I will analyze the rise of the "Gangsta-Rap" culture in the early 1990's and how it may have affected teenagers that are in lower-income families. Many people believe that the increase in real life violence on television is a cause for violence in juveniles. I will discuss the evidence for this theory. It seems to me that the best theory to explain the rise in juvenile crime is the social constructionist theory. Different sub-cultures of teens have higher crime rates than others because of their interests, whether it be the music that they listen to or the types of television programs that they watched as child.
Few social issues get as much media attention as youth crime. Statistics Canada reported a 3% increase in crimes committed by 12- to 17-yearolds between 2005 and 2006. In the last 15 years, the rate of violent crimes among young people has increased by 30% (Youth crime, 2008). From gangland-style killings in Vancouver to the senseless beating of an elderly woman in Hali-fax, Canadian cities are struggling with a wave of youth crime that was unimaginable a couple of decades ago. According to Statistics Canada, most Canadians believe that youth crime is on the rise and 77% believe that the sentencing of young offenders is too lenient (Youth crime, 2005). Many experts attribute the spike in youth crime to the increased number of street gangs - often the perpetrators of youth crime (Catalano and Hawkins, 1996). Research indicates that youth seek comfort from those who welcome them and reinforce their sense of belonging. Unfortunate-ly, some youth have no choice but to turn to street gangs in order to satisfy their need for approv-al, belonging and self-worth (Clark, 1992). Street gangs are not just issues in big cities. Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in the presence of street gangs in non-metropolitan and rural communities. For example, in 1960, there were 54 cities in the United States with a gang population. In 1995, there were street gangs in approximately 800 cities and towns across the United States (Swetnam and Pope, 2001). There is no consensus among experts on how to reduce youth crime. Criminal involvement usually starts before the age of 15, with first-time of-fences declining markedly once young people reach 20 years of age. Young people who become involved in criminal activities before the age of 14...
“Our youths now love luxury, they have bad manners, they have disrespect for authority, disrespect for older people…” Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates acknowledges the escalation of delinquency among youth in the early age’s .The rise of young offenders furthers the Canadian government to record juvenile offenders, in addition, devise an act to better control the epidemic of young delinquents. The topic of proposal is the effectiveness of the youth justice system in its response to crime. Firstly, in order to determine the effectiveness of the youth justice system, one must grasp the premise that is a delinquency, in particular a young delinquents. Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the first act imposed in regards to young offenders,
... crime and should adopt policies that compliment better socialization of youths. The seriousness of youth crime trends must be addressed with punishments that pay retribution to society. It is equally important that youths are not excluded from society by a legal system that does not recognize their special needs. Rehabilitation measures must address the socialization problems that children are facing with their families, schools, and media pressures. Children will be given alternatives to their delinquent behaviours that may not have been obvious or initially appealing. These changes will result in the prevention and decline of youth gang related crime. Youth gangs are not inevitable. Some social reorganization backed by government policies will eliminate the youth perception that youth gangs are socially acceptable. The Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002) adopts socially focused policies that will better address the social disorientation of youth that lead them into youth gangs. Its implementation is a positive step towards effectively dealing with the changed social forces affecting Canadian youths. Better socialization of youths is paramount to eliminating youth gangs in Canada.
Youth and juvenile crime is a common and serious issue in current society, and people, especially parents and educators, are pretty worried about the trend of this problem. According to Bala and Roberts, around 17% of criminals were youths, compared to 8% of Canadian population ranging between 12 to 18 years of age between 2003 and 2004 (2006, p37). As a big federal country, Canada has taken a series of actions since 1908. So far, there are three justice acts in the history of Canadian juvenile justice system, the 1908 Juvenile Delinquents Act, the 1982 Young Offenders Act, and the 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act. In Canada, the judicial system and the principle of these laws have been debated for a long time. This paper will discuss how these three laws were defined and why one was replaced by another.
This theory however as some have argued has emerged from social disorganisation theory, which sees the causes of crime as a matter of macro level disadvantage. Macro level disadvantage are the following: low socioeconomic status, ethnic or racial heterogeneity, these things they believe are the reasons for crime due to the knock on effect these factors have on the community network and schools. Consequently, if th...
Some of them get connected in order to threaten other people in the society who are not engaged in gang operations (Klein & Maxson, 2006). Once they find a specific group that is willing to be a part of their unlawful deeds, then they connect and work with them. Conclusion This study illustrates that crime rates are on the rise in the world at present. Many young people experience a sense of loneliness and discrimination from the society at large. Due to this, many of them look for associates who appreciate the certainty that they feature.
In England, conforming to the Civitas’s Crime report Youth Crime in England and Wales (2010) the youngest age that someone can be prosecuted is as young as ten years old. It is also mentioned that trailing, patrolling and applying penalties on young offenders costs almost four billion pounds annually. The numbers of first time offences committed by a young person has decrease over the years; according to the Youth Justice Statistics (2014) youth crime is down by 63% since 2002. In regards to the offences themselves, nearly every offence category has decreased in reoccurrence with exception to drug offences declares Civitas’s Youth Crime in England and Wales (2010). The same report states that theft and handling remains the highest volume category taking up 21% of all youth crime. It is shortly followed by violence against a person, 19.5%, and criminal damage, 11.9%. It can be concluded from both aforementioned reports that crime in the UK is decreasing. Contrariwise to this, youth reoffending rates are soaring concludes Civitas’s Youth Crime in England and Wales (2010).
Youth justice is a complex concern. There are many different ways to approach it — and just like anything else, everyone believes that their model is the most effective for reducing crime. Q’oranka Kilcher, an American actor once said “[…] it’s important for us as a society to remember that the youth within juvenile justice systems are, most of the time, youths who simply haven 't had the right mentors and supporters around them - because of circumstances beyond their control.” This seems fair. Youth may not be able to control their circumstances, but should they be responsible for their own actions and be punished? Or, should they be supported and encouraged in order to get rehabilitated? Different opinions influence different models. Four