Social Features of Juvenile Reprobates & the Repercussions on Family, Class and Education
It has become a commonplace observation that juvenile offenders are often predisposed to certain factors that have measured to trigger regular offending. The risk that a juvenile offender will get involved in violent offending or become a real victim of violence tends to vary based on certain factors. These factors touch on daily activities, neighborhood environment, school/peer influences, family characteristics, and individual characteristics. Looking at the family structure, it is evident that family characteristics including antisocial parents and guardians, child mistreatment, home dissonance, the size of the family, and poor parenting guiding skills are associated with risk factors related with a juvenile felony. Regarding peer influence, a study by Annino (2000) found a constant relationship between engagements in a peer group with delinquent conduct. Observers have postulated that factors like peer pressure, allegiance or attachment with peers, peer endorsement of delinquent behavior, and delinquent behavior. The influence coming from peers and their acceptance or approval of delinquent approval are substantial; thus, this association is always magnified whenever youngsters have little space interaction with their parents ( Beckman, 2004).
Whether Mandatory imprisonment for chronic juvenile offenders should be implemented
Obligatory imprisonment in this contextual matter is defined as the placement of a juvenile delinquent in a juvenile detention center, and not necessarily a prison. It has always been observed that criminal courts tend to give very little consideration to the nature of young juveniles, despite the fact that youths are not same to adults about determining culpability. For instance, the youths have very limited understanding towards perceiving the repercussions of their youthful actions. Those mandated with the task of making juvenile justice decisions have a tendency to rely mostly on intuition and not evidence-based models whenever they assess the related risks surrounding juvenile offenders and consequently matching them with interventions and sanctions. A study by Bishop (2004) affirmed that laws that are applied when prosecuting a larger number of young offenders to be prosecuted as adults in normal criminal court have neither reduced recidivism nor lowered juvenile crime rates.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Mandatory incarceration ought to be applied because, in contrast to adults, youngsters are more susceptible to matters of peer pressure, and often appear less mature regarding managing their actions and emotions, adoption of a future orientation, and judging a risk ( Kurlychek, M.C., & Johnson, 2004) . Since this character is taken to be unformed, their decision-making capability is undeveloped.
Whether this Move can Help Control Continuing maladaptive behavior
Incarcerating of juvenile offenders in respective juvenile detention centers serves to endow them a chance to acquire social, psychological, and educational treatments. These three models will resultantly assist them in their rehabilitation to control their current maladaptive behavior, this leading them to commit juvenile offenses and making a repetitive continual of the same offences ( Kurlychek & Johnson, 2004) .
Instances when a Court should be Lenient toward an Addicted Juvenile Reprobate
Yes, I think it is important that a court applies the rule of leniency toward a chronic juvenile offender. This can be considered whenever the offence being committed are associated with cyber-bullying, family problems, and extreme poverty levels. Among the above mentioned three criteria, it is common knowledge that poverty is the dominant cause for a minor to undertake a crime. Whether the at-risk minor is just stealing foodstuffs to feed their siblings or grabbing a handbag to feed a hungry stomach, the court in question ought to be lenient towards the real motive behind the crime being committed ( Corrado, Cohen, Glackman & Odgers, 2003) .
References
Annino, P.G. (2000). Children in adult prisons: A call for a moratorium. Florida State University Law Review , 28, 471-490.
Beckman, M. (2004). Crime, Culpability, and the adolescent brain. Science , 305, 596-599.
Bishop, D. M. (2004). Injustice and irrationality in contemporary youth policy. Criminology & Public Policy , 3, 633-644.
Corrado, R.R., Cohen, I.M., Glackman, W., & Odgers, C. (2003). Serious and violent young offenders= decisions to recidivate: An assessment of five sentencing models. Crime & Delinquency , 49, 179-200.
Kurlychek, M.C., & Johnson, B.D. (2004). The juvenile penalty: A comparison of juvenile and young adult sentencing outcomes in criminal court. Criminology , 42, 485-517.
