Juvenile treatment versus punishment approaches in the United States justice system
Juvenile crime is often serious because of the ability to represent a significant proportion in relation to the total criminal activity within the community. Treatment has high probability to be recidivate in accordance with various research concepts in relation to the juvenile justice system in the case of the United States. In addition to the treatment options in handling cases by the juvenile justice system in the case o the United States, the relevant law enforcing authorities have massive influence in relation to implementation of punishment. This research exercise will focus on examination of the concepts of treatment vs. punishment with the aim of offering effective and efficient solution to the juvenile justice system in the context of the United States. This is through examination of the juvenile statistics in the case of three cities or states as well as the recidivate indicators in the essential regions.
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
Treatment vs. Punishment
Treatment Concept
Juvenile crime is often serious because of the ability to represent a significant proportion in relation to the total criminal activity within the community. The normal assumption indicates that adolescents deserve and require special handling during the formative period. Criminal behavior during this stage of life might not continue into adulthood thus the need for integration of special handling by the relevant justice systems within the case of the United States. Theoretically, treatment concepts focus on the correction programs for the juveniles or minor criminals. This relates to the ability of the state and federal governments in enhancing the development of the minors or juveniles in order to reduce the criminal activities within the society. Treatment has high probability to be recidivate in accordance with various research concepts in relation to the juvenile justice system in the case of the United States.
Punishment Concept
In addition to the treatment options in handling cases by the juvenile justice system in the case o the United States, the relevant law enforcing authorities have massive influence in relation to implementation of punishment. This is essential towards minimization of the cases of crimes within the society as well as deterring future crimes among the juveniles as they continue to develop in life. Unlike the case of treatment, punishment seeks to achieve instant or short-term results in relation to the objectives and targets of the juvenile justice system. In the development of the justice system for the juveniles, it is ideal to focus on the elements of punishment and treatment with the aim of detailing the best and most effective approach towards reducing criminal mentality among the minors in the United States. This research exercise will focus on examination of the concepts of treatment vs. punishment with the aim of offering effective and efficient solution to the juvenile justice system in the context of the United States. This is through examination of the juvenile statistics in the case of three cities or states as well as the recidivate indicators in the essential regions.
Juvenile Crime Statistics
Chicago
Racial Breakdown of Percentage of Youth & Arrests by District (2012)
District
% Black Youth
Black % of Youth Arrests
% White Youth
White % of Youth Arrests
% Hispanic Youth
Hispanic % of Youth
Confinement in Illinois: 1997 and 2010
1997
2010
Change 1997-2010
Number
Rate per 100,000
Number
Rate per 100,000
Number
Rate
3,426
2,217
-1,209
-36%
According to the findings by the Chicago Police Department, approximately 22,877 youths under the age of 17 were arrested in the case of 2012 in more than one occasion (Mariame, 2013). This is a reflection of a decrease of 27% in the juvenile arrests in comparison to 2009. The findings also reveal that approximately 79% of the juvenile arrests in the case of Chicago were black youths. This is an indication that for every 100 youth, 7.6 times of arrests were black youth. It is ideal to note that this reflects ten times more frequently in comparison to the white youth (0.7 arrests per 100 youth). This is evident in the district-by-district breakdown of the percentages in relation to racial populations and cases of arrests of the members of the specific groups (Cook et al., 2013).
Michigan
**County
State
Population Served
1,211,335
10,095,643
Sworn Officer Count As Of 10/31/2006
N/A
19,406
Civilian Employee Count
N/A
6,726
MALE TOTAL
1,834
21,227
White
1,100
12,381
Black
8,294
American Indian/Alsk
0
75
Asian/Pacific Isle
12
92
Hispanic
0
0
Unknown
17
FEMALE TOTAL
9,125
White
6,019
Black
2,776
American Indian/Alsk
0
39
Asian/Pacific Isle
11
52
Hispanic
0
0
Unknown
12
GRAND TOTAL - Male & Female
2,782
30,352
According to the statistics for Michigan City, the rate of crime among the male juvenile is higher in comparison to the female in relation to the data obtained in 2006. This information continues to hold ground in 2013, despite the decrease in the case of crime among the youth in the region. It is ideal to note the disparities in the data with reference to race, gender, and age as the rate of crime in the Michigan City is spread across various ethnic races.
Boston
According to the data by the end of 2012, the juvenile crimes in the case of Boston were on the decline because of the reduced number of arrests by the law enforcement entities. This is through a representation of about 20% in the decline in comparison to 2010. According to the similar reports, there has been a massive reduction in the violent and property offences by juveniles in the city of Boston. This is through a representation of about 8% and 5% respectively relation to the 2010 findings. The rate of crime among the juveniles relates to critical factors in the region. Some of the factors determining the case of juveniles crimes in the city of Boston include age, race, sex, and gender. For instance, for every 10,000 juvenile crimes in the region, 800 are black youth. This data indicates that the integration of the juvenile justice system and strategy has been effective and efficient towards realizing the goals and objectives (Stoddard-Dare et al., 2011).
Recidivism in the case of Michigan
According to the study in 2005 by Michigan Department of Human Services, there were various elements of Recidivism as well as significant differences in relation to the demographic issues. In this research, recidivism was the new contact with the criminal justice system after release from the last DHS supervised residential treatment placement (McCollister et al., 2009). The critical was critical in integrating three definitions: new arrest for felony crime, new conviction for felony crime, and incarceration with the Michigan Department of Corrections
According to this research, 1978 persons took part in the experiment. About 83% of the participants were males while the remaining 17% females. The study also focused on the inclusion of 62% of the participants from the white race while other racial groups made-up 38%. According to the findings, there is a continuous reduction or decline in relation to the number of juvenile justice youths released from the treatment aspect. The decline percentage was huge thus a representation of about 24% in comparison to the data collected from 2002. It is also ideal to note the decline in the overall number of DHS juvenile justice youths in placement by about 48% between 2002 and 2005. This is an indication that the recidivism was approximately 37% at 2005. Recidivism rates were higher in the case of minority youths in comparison to the white youths. Currently, the case of recidivism rate is 27% following critical integration of punishment and treatment elements (Stoddard-Dare et al., 2011).
Recidivism in Chicago
Recidivism in the case of Chicago relates to four critical elements: re-arrest; any re-incarceration in a juvenile facility, re-incarceration from a conviction in juvenile court, and incarceration in the context of an adult facility. It is ideal to note that recidivism in the case of Chicago has been on the rise or increase following the cumulative expression of about 86% for re-arrest cases among the juvenile criminals within the region. In a study of about 2,549 participants, about 86% of the juvenile criminals were re-arrested within the period of four years of the study. This is a reflection of the data in 2005. Currently, the recidivism rate in the case of Chicago has been on the decline to stand at about 57%. This is because of the ability of the juvenile justice system in the region to integrate quality relationship between punishment and treatment or correctional approaches. S
Recidivism in Boston
Recidivism in the case of Boston City has been on the decline because of the ability of the correctional facilities to achieve their objectives and targets in relation to minimization of criminal activities within the region. This is critical towards deterring other elements of crime because of the effectiveness of the psychological sessions and development of the juveniles within the region. Currently, the case of recidivism is approximately 12% in the region because the programs and structures in place (Redondo, 2012). This is the lowest rate of recidivism in comparison to Chicago and Michigan.
Is recidivism the best indicator of success or failure or should we use a different indicator?
Recidivism is the best indicator of success or failure because of the ability to capture various factors in relation to the examination of the process. Success or failure of an approach in relation to treatment and punishment should focus on examination of the number of re-arrests and re-incarceration within the region. This makes it ideal to focus on quality and effective implementation of Recidivism because of its ability to capture the factors of success and failure of an approach.
Theory explaining juvenile delinquency
In the case of chapter 2 and 3 of the text, the theories that are crucial in explanation of the thesis include psychological and sociological theories. This is because of the ability of the theories to tackle holistic strategies in relation to elimination of criminal activities among the juveniles through the treatment approach. It is ideal to note that criminal activities among the juveniles are social problems thus the need to adopt and implement sociological and psychological approaches in handling the issues.
Effective Juvenile Justice Intervention Strategy
The most effective approach in relation to the juvenile justice intervention strategy is treatment as opposed to the integration of punishment. Treatment approach is appropriate and effective of four critical reasons and benefits over punishment. Treatment has the ability to be less expensive in comparison to a term of imprisonment (McCollister et al., 2009). As in the case of Maryland State, treatment approach is already saving money as an alternative approach to incarceration. This is because of the participative approaches in relation to the treatment while enhancing the development of the juveniles. It is also ideal to note that treatment does not require development of prisons because of the need to put up correctional facilities. According to a recent evaluation in the case of Maryland State, treatment approach has been crucial towards reduction of the recidivism and drug use as well as increase in the likelihood of finding employment and saving money in comparison to incarceration.
Treatment has the ability and capacity to be cost-effective unlike the aspect of punishment or incarceration. According to studies that have integrated cost-benefit analysis in relation to the measure of how money spent on treatment alternative compares to money spent on prisons with reference to crime rates and other societal benefits like employment and tax revenues continue to illustrate that treatment is cost-effective (McCollister et al., 2009). This is through its ability to reduce social costs of substance abuse more effectively in comparison to punishment. Treatment approach has the ability to reduce the case of substance abuse and recidivism as well as building of the societies and communities.
In addition to saving money and being more effective, treatment has the tendency of working better towards reduction of the substance abuse within the society. This is critical towards economic, sociological, and psychological development of the society and relevant communities (McCollister et al., 2009). These benefits are crucial in implementation of the treatment approach to the juvenile justice intervention system as opposed to the case of punishment.
Conclusion
Treatment and punishment approaches are critical approaches applicable in various states and cities in the United States with the aim of eliminating juvenile criminal issues. Treatment is the most effective approach in comparison to punishment because of its ability to address the issues relevant to economic, social, and psychological development. Treatment has the ability to reduce money expenditure, reduce substance use, and participate in the development of the society.
Create your account
- Kaba, Mariame (2013) Arresting Justice (Second Edition): Juvenile Arrests in Chicago, 2011 and 2012.
- Cook, Czykieta, Mack, Skrable & Kaba (2013) Trends in Chicago Juvenile Arrests, 2009- 2012.
- Males, Mike A. and Dan Macallair. (1999) “An Analysis of Curfew Enforcement and Juvenile Crime in California.” Western Criminology Review. 1.2: 1-26
- Kovandzic, Tomislav V., John J. Sloan III, Lynne M. Vieraitis. (2007). "Striking Out" as Crime Reduction Policy: The Impact of "Three Strikes" Laws on Crime Rates in U.S. Cities.” Justice Quarterly. 21.2: 207-239
- Abrams, L. S. (2006). Listening to Juvenile Offenders: Can Residential Treatment Prevent Recidivism?. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(1), 61-85.
- Redondo, S., Martínez-Catena, A., & Andrés-Pueyo, A. (2012). Therapeutic Effects of a Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment with Juvenile Offenders. European Journal Of Psychology Applied To Legal Context, 4(2), 159-178.
- McCollister, K., French, M., Sheidow, A., Henggeler, S., & Halliday-Boykins, C. (2009). Estimating the Differential Costs of Criminal Activity for Juvenile Drug Court Participants: Challenges and Recommendations. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 36(1), 111-126.
- Stoddard-Dare, P., Mallett, C. A., & Boitel, C. (2011). Association between mental health disorders and juveniles' detention for a personal crime. Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 16(4), 208-213.
- Letourneau, E. J., & Borduin, C. M. (2008). The Effective Treatment of Juveniles Who Sexually Offend an Ethical Imperative. Ethics & Behavior, 18(2/3), 286-306.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.