Youth Detention as a Measure to Deter Crime - Essay Example

? Youth Detention as a Measure to Deter Crime Introduction There has been a considerable reduction in youth crime within the last 20 years, which has been largely attributed to a hefty lockdown of deliquescent youth in detention centers. The detention centers perform a number of functions with the main one being to deter criminal activities. Initially, these facilities were not meant for non violent offenders but trends are fast changing to include minors on very minor offenses. These statistics may give a sense of falsehood since these youth who are detained there, may develop deliquescent behaviors by the time they live the detention and pose a larger risk to the community. The unnecessary use of detention centers may expose some of the troubled youths into conditions that resemble penitentiary conditions which instead of solving their problems aggravates them further (Foley, 2001). It is the aim of this paper to argue against youth detention as a deterrence measure since it rarely solves the underlying problems besides compounding it. Detention of youths that have crime tendencies together in large secure holding facilities has been shown to have a very small positive effect in future deterrence of the same. This in fact forms a fertile ground for recidivism aggravation among those minors that are detained together. Studies carried in different states show that 60% of the youth that had been detained in juvenile detention centers returned later in the same facilities for correction purposes. Many factors have been blamed for this observation but the key one is reinforcement of deliquescent behaviors since these youth are detained together. The large number of the detainees that are likely to graduate fully into crime tendencies does not show the effectiveness of detention in deterring crime but rather it promotes criminal behaviors. The success rate of detention is almost negligible apart from mopping out youth from the community who would have been helped in other ways (Sander, et al., 2010; Sheldon, 1999). Previous studies carried on detained youth show that these children are usually pulled deeper in the criminal justice system. Once these youth have been exposed to the confinement within detention centers, their will to control prior offenses goes down and they are more vulnerable than those that had not graced the detention facilities. Most of these studies have been carried in instances where other factors have been held constant such as race and age. Most of the outcome show increased probability of petition before the judicial system which deeply entrenches deliquesce tendencies in them. This is in total contrast of the studies that involve youths that have been committed to community based corrections which stand at 14% less likely to be incarcerated than first time offenders. It therefore helps to have a form of community based correction as opposed to detentions that have similar conditions to those found in jails and prisons (Hughes, 2002; Sheldon, 1999; Steinberg, 2009). Instead of deterring crime, detention deters or interrupts the process of aging out of deliquescence behaviors which should happen naturally. It is a common phenomenon for children when growing to show mild tendencies of crime which goes out with time. It has actually been shown that as much as a third of children engage in antisocial behavior that is crime related but they eventually outgrow it. This behavior is usually high in males than females but also the rate of desistance is also unusually high which compensates for the disparities between the genders. The most interesting thing is that desistance happens on its own time with no outside interference and therefore detention in a large way interferes with it. The best way that has been prescribed to help in aging out deliquescence behavior is having a mentorship program that can guide and help the youth to focus in life. The only mentorship that is available in detention is fellow crime offenders which cannot help (Redding, 2003). Deliquescence behaviors are associated with mental disorders which are made worse when these youths are detained. There is a reported increase in the number of mental illnesses among those youth have been detained which is not at par with the outside youth population. This can mean two things as far as youth and mental conditions are concerned. Firstly, these detentions have become the dumping grounds for youths that are either mentally ill or have abused drugs and secondly the prevailing environment conditions affects these youths negatively. These two factors may work independently or reinforce one another in support of the disparity in mental cases. Most of the detention centers are overcrowded due to confinement of youths that exhibit nonviolent behaviors which creates a chaotic atmosphere and consequently aggravates mental conditions. Many of the youth with these mental problems report that the problem started or became worse after detention (Steinberg, Chung & Little, 2004). Detention interrupts the education of incarcerated youth and most of them find it hard to continue with education once out of detention. It even becomes harder for the youth who had been undergoing some form of therapies or mental treatment for them to continue with their education. The success rate of formerly incarcerated juveniles is very low which only shows that these youth join crime in full force since they cannot go to school and have not reached legal limit for employment. Dropping out of school casts a very gloomy future for these children and their chances of securing a good job are very thin. As if this not enough, they already have bad records with judicial system which renders them unemployable in most reputable jobs. In a nutshell, education and employment as a consequent are impacted negatively which inadvertently destroys the future of the youth (Foley, 2001; Redding, 2003). Arguments abound that portray detention in terms behavior reinforcement that is supposed to discourage criminal tendencies. While this may be the intended outcome, it does not apply in the case of deliquescence which is controlled by many factors within and without an individual. These extenuating factors render the purpose of negative reinforcement in detention futile which makes it not worthwhile. Studies carried in detention show that it is in fact the most expensive method that can used to handle deliquescent youth. Besides, it does not improve the situation of the youth who are the hope of future generations. There are better ways to handle these young minds other than condemning them early in life and alienating them from the society. Whatever argument that is fronted to justify the use of detention like deterrence; it does not match the negative outcome of the practice in youth and their future (Sheldon, 1999). Conclusion A reduction in crimes committed by the youth is not evidence enough to support presence and increased use of detention facilities for them. These detention facilities have increased instrumentally and their populations have soared with the holding of nonviolent youths. Initially, these confinement facilities were designed to hold violent youths that had become a nuisance in the society. Studies carried among youths that had passed through detention have showed that the practice does not deter crime but increases chances of former detainees committing crimes and being incarcerated. Besides increasing the chances of incarceration among detainees, it also impacts negatively on their future and health. Cases of mental conditions in those detentions are unusually high which is blamed on the overcrowded conditions just like real penitentiary facilities. References Foley, R.M. (2001). Academic Characteristics of Incarcerated Youth and Correctional Educational Programs: A Literature Review. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 248-259 Hughes, T.A. (2002). Juvenile Delinquent Rehabilitation: Placement of Juveniles beyond Their Communities as a Detriment to Inner-City Youths. New England Law Review, 36(1), 153-180 Redding, R.E. (2003). The Effects Of Adjudicating And Sentencing Juveniles As Adults: Research and Policy Implications. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(2), 128-155 DOI: 10.1177/1541204002250875 Sander, J.B., Sharkey, J.D., Olivarri, R., Tanigawa, D.A. & Mauseth T. (2010). A Qualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders, Student Engagement, and Interpersonal Relationships: Implications for Research Directions and Preventionist Approaches. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 288–315 Sheldon, R.G. (1999), “Detention Diversion Advocacy: An Evaluation.” Juvenile Justice Bulletin Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DDAP n=271; Comparison n=271) Steinberg, L., Chung, H. L. & Little, M. (2004). Reentry of Young Offenders from the Justice System: A Developmental Perspective. Youth Violence Juvenile Justice, 2(1), 21-37 Doi: 10.1177/1541204003260045 Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 47-73 Read More