The rational choice theory works from the idea that for many juvenile offenders, illegal behaviors are not undertaken in idle but instead are the result of a carefully constructed weighing of the possible gains and consequences. The model in question "is based on the idea that offenders do indeed think and make choices. From this perspective, property offences are the result of rational decision-making reached by men and women who confront a problem faced by many others -- a need or a desire for money." (Desroches, 1) In many cases, rational choice theory is a great window into the broad sociological conditions and the individual motivations that cause people not just to engage in criminal behavior but to feel that this is truly their only choice. The best way to undermine this sentiment is to create community outreach programs, assistance programs and others that significantly improve the range of choices available to at-risk juveniles. For those living in communities where stealing, gang violence and drug-dealing are seen as among the more attainable options for survival, it can be difficult to dissuade them of the logic of their choices. Therefore, the only way to reduce the tendency to choose criminal activity is to provide at-risk communities with a wide array of legal choices for personal improvement or for mere survival.

This requires the following steps: 1) identification of at-risk populations 2) establishment of youth outreach programs fostering education/employment opportunities 3) ongoing engagement between schools, community leaders and youths.

As these outreach programs create a sense of inclusion for young at-risk populations, success may be measured both by the level of involvement of community members of all ages and by any change in the rate of juvenile delinquent criminal offenses within said community.

5.

There are several...

The two standards considered here are Guilty but Mentally Ill or Innocent by reason of Insanity. The former of these two is designed to allow prosecutors to proceed with a case against a defendant given the understanding that the defendant concedes guilt in a case based on insanity or mental illness. The primary distinction with this type of plea is that the defendant will likely be placed in a facility for the criminally insane as opposed to in a traditional prison context. This is also often employed as a protection against prosecution cases in which there is an attempt to prove pre-meditation or, in the most severe cases, to seek the death penalty.
By contrast, with Innocent by reason of Insanity, the burden is on the defense to prove that the crime in question occurred because the individual is either permanently or was temporarily deemed insane. Especially in the case of the former, the imperative is to prove that the defendant lacked the capacity to differentiate between right and wrong. This denotes that the subject is most likely to be remanded to a mental health facility for treatment as opposed to punishment. Like the standard identified above, this also denotes that the individual will not be evaluated for pre-meditation of crime or subjected to the death penalty.

The impact of changing from one standard to another could be significant to the outcome for the defendant. As noted above, the best way to evaluate the implications of changing this standard is to review the likely site of institutionalization for the defendant. Indeed, whether a defendant is remanded to a facility for the mentally disabled, the criminally insane or even just house arrest with regular clinical attention will be highly dependent upon the standard of defense utilized. Statistics connecting certain insanity pleas with specific institutionalization outcomes can help to measure the impact of change between the two standards outlined here above.

Works Cited:

Desroches, F. (1995). Behind the Bars: Experiences in Crime. Canadian Scholars' Press.