With increased underage indulgence in crime and criminal activities, it is essential that the American judicial system invests and emphasizes on corrective measures that impact and promote positive use of time and better ways of venting out. This paper explores the role of the juvenile rehabilitation programs across the country and some of the ways in which it can help not only reduce these juvenile crimes but provide better avenues and community-based programs that teenagers can engage in during their leisure time instead of exploring their energy negatively.
Juvenile Rehabilitation
Introduction to Juvenile System and Rehabilitation
Traditionally, the American juvenile system has been such that it focuses on passing judgments that are meant to punish the lawbreaker, in this kid the underage culprit in a bid to tame their negative and unproductive characters. But as the nature of juvenile crime continues to evolve, and the culprits become more used to such conventional punishment measures, it is correct to say that more needs to be done to ensure that such teenagers do not feel like they are being punished, but somewhat corrected.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There is a new probation strategy that links the duration of the probation supervision to the maximum amount of intervention an offender needs to reduce the risk of committing the offense again ( Carter & Sankovitz, 2014). This intervention provides a framework and policy upon which the new model of supervision can be constructed (Miller, 2015). It offers a review of evidence-based mechanisms to reducing recidivism in the community and describes the model's promise for increasing community safety, as well as achieving fiscal savings by reducing periods of supervision. In simple terms, this model emphasizes, not on the oversight of a program, but on the creation of alternative programs that will help redirect the youthful energy into productivity. It builds on the fact that engagement in crime and illegal activities is an act driven by the lack of positive channels of expression.
Juvenile delinquency and rehabilitation
Juvenile delinquents continue to flock the juvenile justice systems with an array of problems which have caused them to commit delinquent acts. It is true that once juvenile delinquents have finished their sentence in the correctional facilities, they have to reenter the society to continue with their lives. These correctional facilities are faced with the issue of overseeing the rehabilitation process for juvenile delinquents, and as such must address the following three points.
Providing adequate treatment that reduces the likeliness of recidivating.
Providing realistic and obtainable resources for use in the society.
Thoroughly preparing the delinquents for the transition back into the society.
Many delinquents are faced with the issue of poverty, substance abuse, and being victims of child abuse and rape. Any of the above items can trigger the juvenile to lash out and commit delinquent acts (Mittleman, 2018). The main issue is what happens to the delinquent after the lashing out. When the juvenile delinquent is proven guilty of the delinquent acts, they have to serve time in a juvenile correctional facility. By going through the juvenile justice system, they get the opportunity to have a clean start; a second chance. But the man issue is what happens next for these juvenile delinquents once they get out of the system and try to migrate back into the society. What support do they get from the correctional facilities that help them establish back into the community? This is the central question rehabilitation programs answer.
Why should one be rehabilitated?
Juvenile crime can be severe and grave, thus, denoting a substantially rational of the gross criminal records in the United States. Adolescents by nature are in a transition period of their lives and as such deserve distinct keen monitoring to ensure the regulation of their behavior.
Rehabilitation comes in handy rectifying the victims appealingly and lovingly as opposed to corporal punishment that is administered directly, which in most cases have the opposite effect of the intended one when such victims react in anger to such treatment (Mears, Pickett & Mancini, 2015). Since rehabilitation for the young offenders incorporates adult curricula, the programs ought to be designed to be harmless to the offenders and act as delinquency prevention mechanism thus aiding significantly in reducing future lawbreaking by the youth.
How long does one stay in the juvenile rehabilitation facilities?
The juvenile rehabilitation length differs depending on the severity of the crime committed. However, it is a general rule that youth should not be rehabilitated beyond their 21st birthday. The juvenile commitment programs may be residential or non-residential programs depending on the degree of the crime.
Florida's Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) states that the time of stay in the rehab centers might vary but should not exceed the term of confinement that an adult is subjected to for the same offense (Hay, Ladwig & Campion, 2018). The other factor that determines the length of such a program is the number of occurrences that the individual has committed the crime. If the intensity case is low, the accused might be subjected to a short-term rehabilitation program.
Comparison Between Juvenile Systems in Several Regions
According to the Children court of law, children are categorized into two groups; below the age of seven, and above 14 years of age. The other category of children is of those between the ages of 7 and 14 (Carter & Sankovitz, 2014). In understanding the nature of the juvenile system in America, the paper draws a comparison between the California and Minnesota underage legal programs meant to rehabilitate the offenders.
To avoid contradiction on the nature of punishments among the two main groups of children, and where such judgment leaves the middle group, the juvenile court was established, with the primary objective of rehabilitating young offenders (Goswami & Mehra, 2014). The transformation in the juvenile justice system in America has taken a series of turns (Rothman, 2017). Currently, due to the number of increased number of juvenile cases, some are tried as adults, with such punishments as life imprisonment. But this varies from one state to the other.
The juvenile justice system in California
California recently passed new parole laws for young offenders which serve the juvenile convicted as adults. In this new law, aggressive children are incarcerated and forced to take a mandatory rehabilitation program. The Californian policy has three main categories (Liles, Blacker, Landini & Urquiza, 2016). These are; juveniles sentenced for 25 years and/ or life imprisonments have their hearing done during the 20th year of incarceration. The second category is of those juveniles whose sentence is below 25 years to lie having their hearing done during their 20th year of confinement. The last class of young criminals with other convictions must have their cases heard by the 15th imprisonment year.
The juvenile justice system in Minnesota
According to the Minnesota Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (MJJAC), Minnesota's delinquency services are organized at both the state and local level. Secure detention is administered in different ways; at the local level by a county commission or board, county executive, or the sheriff. At the state level, detention is administered by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MDOC).
The MDOC administers commitment to state juvenile correctional facilities as well as reentry services for youth leaving such correctional facilities (Cubellis & Ackerman, 2015). It also allows for solitary confinement (Red Wing). In this case, Disciplinary Room Time is approved for up to 5 days for major rule infractions. The decisions for the release of youth committed to MDOC are made by the agency based on the facility's determination that the offender has successfully completed the case plan. Since the juvenile court relinquishes jurisdiction to DOC upon committing a juvenile to the state, there are no court review requirements.
Rehabilitation and Incarceration for Minors
Rehabilitation is a broad terminology in the juvenile courts, and as such involves several activities. Since the establishment of the American Juvenile Justice System, the adolescent treatment has been punitive progressively.
With the reforms in the juvenile policy act, rehabilitation and incarceration were introduced to ease the treatment of the delinquents and to better their programs, though it was later discovered that reconstruction had more of an impact than imprisonment (Barrett, 2017). While rehabilitation focuses on replacing negative traits with positive ones, incarceration mainly concentrated on impacting fear to the offenders through the confinement in prisons, and at the end of the day did not do much in showing the offenders the right way to go instead of the wrong one they had taken.
The effectiveness of incarceration on juveniles
Incarceration implies imprisonment; in this case, it is the legal state of confinement in a jail or penitentiary. Prison is an essential and integral part of the criminal justice system, and if used the correct way plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law.
Incarceration is useful in ensuring that alleged offenders are brought to justice and provides a sanction for wrongdoing (Hay, Widdowson & Young, 2018). Prisons and confinement centers offer a human experience with opportunities for the offenders to obtain assistance and help with rehabilitation. But in the worst case scenarios, which usually is the case, incarceration provides a site of appalling suffering, incubators for disease or act as mere warehouses from which prisoners return to the society not properly equipped to lead a law-abiding life.
What happens in the juvenile courts and improved to enhance the treatment of the juveniles?
During the hearing of the minor's case in their juvenile administration, the judges pay special considerations before sentencing the offender, though the consideration of certain legal factors.
Some of the factors that juvenile courts consider in their judgment include the age of the offender (Emerson, 2017). This is the level of maturity which is believed to have triggered the actions of the minor with or without their full understanding of the implications of their actions. The second factor to consider is that juveniles are more vulnerable to undesirable peer pressure and influence. As such, it is crucial to establish the intentions of the act. Similarly, personal attributes and ethics play a pivotal role in such actions and, therefore, it is essential to determine how they can be affected by the judgment to be passed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this research stresses on the fact that no child is born guilty of a crime, and that their innocent, happy, joyful and delighted childhood should be promoted through the creation of better avenues to express themselves. For the children that grow in aggressive environments and adapt to harsh criminal surroundings that ultimately contributes to their breaking of the law, it is essential that state and federal governments develop mechanisms to correct these behaviors. The juvenile court systems should not only focus on punishing juvenile law offenders in the bid to reduce crime rates but instead, come up with programs that holistically provide solutions and alternative avenues for child growth and development.
References
Barrett, C. J. (2017). Mindfulness and rehabilitation: Teaching yoga and meditation to young men in an alternative to incarceration program. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology , 61 (15), 1719-1738.
Carter, M., & Sankovitz, R. J. (2014). Dosage probation: Rethinking the structure of probation sentences. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy .
Cubellis, M. A., & Ackerman, A. R. (2015). Innovative efforts in prevention, research, and policy. Sex offender laws: Failed policies, new directions , 277-294.
Emerson, R. M. (2017). Judging delinquents: Context and process in juvenile court . Routledge.
Goswami, S., & Mehra, N. (2014). Juvenile Justice Systems in United States and India: Modern Scenario and Much Needed Modifications. Journal of Law and Criminal Justice , 2 (2), 251-263.
Hay, C., Ladwig, S., & Campion, B. (2018). Tracing the rise of evidence-based juvenile justice in Florida. Victims & Offenders , 13 (3), 312-335.
Hay, C., Widdowson, A., & Young, B. C. (2018). Self-control stability and change for incarcerated juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice , 56 , 50-59.
Liles, B. D., Blacker, D. M., Landini, J. L., & Urquiza, A. J. (2016). A California multidisciplinary juvenile court: Serving sexually exploited and at ‐ risk youth. Behavioral sciences & the law , 34 (1), 234-245.
Mears, D. P., Pickett, J. T., & Mancini, C. (2015). Support for balanced juvenile justice: Assessing views about youth, rehabilitation, and punishment. Journal of quantitative criminology , 31 (3), 459-479.
Miller, J. (2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the “synthetic” officer?. Justice Quarterly , 32 (2), 314-336.
Mittleman, J. (2018). A Downward Spiral? Childhood Suspension and the Path to Juvenile Arrest. Sociology of Education , 0038040718784603.
Rothman, D. J. (2017). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America . Routledge.
