The purpose of the juvenile pretrial diversion program is to divert delinquent youths that have violated the law from further involvement with the formal criminal justice process, (Development Service Group, 2017). In essence, the program should be backed up because it offers more benefits than drawbacks. For instance, the diversion is essential in preventing or deterring juveniles from criminal behavior or involvement in the same. Also, upon completion of the program’s requirements and procedures, all the charges levelled against the offender will be dismissed and the records deleted. This will allow the youth to mature into adulthood not as a convicted criminal but as a free and clean citizen able to obtain meaningful employment. Further according to Saunders County (2019), the program is a vital opportunity for our community to develop a sense of communal responsibility as well as accountability for our youths. Thus, the purpose of the program is not to exempt the teenagers from the consequences of their criminal behavior but instead give them a second chance through restorative procedures meant to impart comprehension and acceptance of the consequences of their criminal acts.
Indeed, the youths should be accorded more consideration given their age as opposed to adult offenders. In essence, according to Guy (2018), the adolescent brain does not resemble an adult’s fully mature brain until he or she reaches the early twenties. Therefore, this development is coupled with physical and psychological development which makes their behavior irrational, impulsive, risky, and without thoughtfulness. Consequently, they engage in experimentation of drugs and alcohol which impair the decision-making process of their developing brains resulting in criminal activity. Thus, unlike adults, they should be given more consideration and exemption from the formal criminal justice process in the bid to reduce stigma, coercive entry into the system, recidivism, unnecessary social control, and give them broader community services alternatives, (Development Service Group, 2017).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Certainly, drug offenders that have committed other crimes while intoxicated or looking for drugs should be handled differently. The criminal justice system and the corrections system should move away from conviction and mandatory minimum sentencing and begin considering treatment of the drug offenders. Essentially incarceration and imprisonment are having a backlash effect in terms of overcrowding and an increase in extreme disproportionate sentences, (American Civil Liberties, 2015). ACL further asserts that the number of incarcerated individuals in the US in the last four decades quadrupled to 2.3 million as of 2015. Indeed, as corroborated by US Supreme court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the idea of total incarceration is no longer working, (ACL, 2015). Therefore, for nonviolent drug offenders, the CJS and corrections system should consider treatment which has been proven to have a tremendous impact in reducing recidivism and improving public health and safety, (Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow, 2009).
For violent drug offenders; even though they should be incarcerated as a consequence of their violent acts, treatment should still be a mandatory concept towards improving their outcomes. According to Chandler, Fletcher, & Volkow (2009), addiction is a treatable brain disease, and as such, the criminal justice system should take action in exposing the addicts whether violent or nonviolent offenders to treatment programs as a means of reducing recidivism as well as substance abuse. Indeed, rehabilitation alone as a concept of the criminal justice system is not enough when half of the prison population regardless of the nature of their offences meets the criteria for the diagnosis of drug abuse or dependence. Primarily, during treatment, the CJS should focus its efforts on medicine-based therapies, detoxification, as well as the psychological and psychosocial characteristics of the drug offenders.
Therefore, while total incarceration or conviction seems to be ineffective, treatment should be considered as the baseline approach towards improving the prisoners’ outcomes. Moreover, the strategy should be implemented generally for all individuals satisfying the drug abuse diagnosis criteria despite the prisoner being a violent or non-violent offender. However, for violent drug offenders, jailing and treatment should be combined while nonviolent offenders should be transferred to correctional facilities such as rehabilitation centers for medicine-based treatments. All these strategies will be essential in reducing the burden and strain resulting from overcrowding in US prisons.
References
American Civil Liberties. (2015). Overcrowding and overuse of imprisonment in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/RuleOfLaw/OverIncarceration/ACLU.pdf
Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., & Volkow, N. D. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: improving public health and safety. Jama , 301 (2), 183-190. Doi: 10.1001/jama.2008.976
Development Services Group, Inc. (2017). Diversion from formal juvenile court processing. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Diversion_Programs.pdf
Guy, F. (2018). Teenage brain development and criminal behavior. Crime Traveler . Retrieved from https://www.crimetraveller.org/2015/06/teenage-brain-development/
Saunders County. (2019). Juvenile pretrial diversion. Retrieved from https://saunderscounty.ne.gov/pdfs/juvenile/what_is_diversion.pdf
