Treatment as a Way of Addressing Juvenile Delinquency - Research Paper Example

Treatment as a Way of Addressing Juvenile Delinquency s and Number) IntroductionIn the America every single person is affected by juvenile crime including families, teachers, parents, and neighbors. As evidenced by the perpetrators, crime victims and bystanders, juvenile delinquency is on the rise. Various interventions have been used to address juvenile delinquency. The most common strategy in the juvenile justice system is punishment. However, this strategy does not address the developmental stages of a juvenile. Therefore, the treatment strategy not only addresses the risk factors that will make the youth to engage in delinquent behavior in the later years of growth, but it is also cost effective as compared to punishment. The juvenile courts, in large part, exist so as to rehabilitate the youth who have done wrong. To that end, the paper will discuss treatment as the most effective juvenile intervention strategy to counter crime since it bests support the over arching concept of social justice. Discussion Statistics Based on the current population reports, there are more than 75 million children who are under the age of 18 years in the U.S. This is more that 25% of the total population. This number is projected to rise to over 100 million in 2050. These indicate that there are various issues that affect the American children, and there an increased risk of these children falling into the juvenile justice system. The Federal Bureau of Investigations in its 2013 report, Crime in the United States, reported that about 2 million youths below the age of 18 are apprehended every year for crimes ranging from loitering, to kidnappings, to arson, to drug dealing, to murder, and even terrorism. Besides that, the report also found that more than 850,000 youths belong to street gangs. The statistics also indicate that most youths were arrested for arson attacks and crime on property with 1% having driven a car after drinking alcohol, 25% arrested for robbery, and 41% were arrested for vandalism. Figure1: Percent of arrests involving juveniles in the Unites States. About 700,000 minors cycle through the juvenile detention facilities after being arrested as well as while awaiting further legal action. However, juvenile detention is reducing. Figure 2: Juvenile detention statistics. Most states and cities across the nation have enacted laws that automatically bypass the Juvenile Justice System. In Boston, New York and Chicago, there are higher rates of detention as well as probation within the minority ethnic and minority groups. Averagely, 57% were Black, 22% Hispanic, 10% White, 5% Asian, and 1% American-Indian. Figure 3: Black versus white juvenile arrest rates between 1994 and 2010. Boston According the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (2012), there are over 7 million youths in Massachusetts. Youths aged 19 years and below make up 27% of the population in the state of Massachusetts. In Boston, 89% of the youths apprehended in 2010 were charged with nonviolent crimes. Most of them are aged 12 to 17 years. Figure 4: Arrested youths’ rate per 100,000 youth (12-17 years) in Boston. Figure 5: Arrest rates of White and Black juveniles. The young people of color are disproportionately represented in the Massachusetts’ juvenile courts, with 53% being African-Americans and Hispanics as shown in Figure 5 above. In relation to charges, African-Americans represent 38% and Hispanics 25%. 60% of the Hispanic girls were detained while awaiting charges. Three in every five arrested were of color, and for every female arrested 10 males were arrested. However, most of the crimes in Boston are committed against property and not people. Figure 6: Juveniles crimes’ against property. A report by the Citizens for Juvenile Justice reported a decrease of 37% of juvenile crime in Massachusetts from 1980 to 2011. There has been a decrease in juvenile crime in Boston. Figure 7: Decrease in juvenile crimes in Boston. The early interventions have helped reduce the juvenile crime rate including educational and intervention programs. There has also been increased awareness of under-age drinking and social host responsibility. For example, the Juvenile Detention Alternatives that has been active since 2006 in Massachusetts tries to match the juveniles with the services they require (Morrison, 2013). Chicago The city of Chicago is driven by guns, gangs, and drugs. In Chicago, most of the accused persons are aged 14 to 18 years. Figure 8: Number of accused persons by age in Chicago. In 2013, they were 312 murders. Most of the dead as well as their killers were young black men. Poverty and family background are directly linked to youths engaging in criminal behavior. Most of the youths in Chicago live in impoverished neighborhoods where gangs sell drugs. Figure 9: Relationship between physical abuse, income, and family structure. There are over 20,000 incarcerated juveniles in Chicago. Three in every five youths are in gangs. Four in every five arrested youths are African-Americans. Most of them have been arrested on property crime charges. Figure 10: Juvenile crime rate. In 2011, the unemployment rate in Chicago was 22.5%. About 2,000 youths are in gangs in Chicago (Chicago Police, 2014). There are tough laws and enforcements in Chicago which has led to a decrease in juvenile crime. Figure 11: Decrease in crime rate in Chicago. New York New York has zero tolerance approach to juvenile crimes with aggressive and uncompromising law enforcement. However, juveniles aged 14 to 19 years are the notorious in crime. Bernard and Kurlychek (2010) argue that Black and Hispanic children were three times more likely as compared to White children of being poor. Most of youths arrested were Black and Hispanic from poor socio-economic backgrounds. Males make 95% of the total prison population and females make 5%. Black 66%, whites 24%, Hispanics 9%, and others 1%. The disproportionate representation of black youth increases as they advance through the juvenile justice system. Figure 12: Number of arrested persons by age in New York. In New York, nearly all the juveniles are detained and incarcerated as punishment. This has led to a reduction in juvenile crime since 1980. Figure 13: Crime rates per 100,000 juveniles aged 10 to 17 years. In summary, there is decrease in juvenile crimes in both males and females in all the three cities. New York, Chicago and Boston have all adopted a strong police led approach to crime involving young people in their jurisdictions as well as other suitable juvenile crime intervention strategies. Figure 14: Reduction in crime rates from 1995 to 2011. Biological theory Although there are many theories that explain why people engage in crime, the biological theory gives a better insight why young people engage in crime. The theory points out that the fundamental determinants of human behavior are constitutionally or physiologically based and often inherited. According to various criminals’ records, numerous juvenile offenders have their family members who have also engaged in crime thus inheriting criminal behavior from their parents (Shoemaker, 2011). The biological make up of someone influences the manner in which that person perceives his or her interactions others and can have a reciprocating effect on behavior. For example, most of the youth in the poor neighborhoods in Chicago and New York are less probable to resist the pressures of the environment or can be impulsive when the criminal opportunities if they are born with particular biological traits. According to a view set forth by Ellis and Walsh the biological trait offers a basis for the way in which people will interact in their environment. The biological theory also argues that identical twins may also have similar behaviors since they share the same genetic composition. Genetic composition also explains why siblings from the same parent can all exhibit delinquent behavior. The biological theorists also argue that behavior needs to be more similar to the biological parent. Most juvenile offenders inherit the delinquent behavior trait from their family members. Most people tend to learn more from their close family members, especially children. Since the adolescents’ brain is still developing, the delinquent behavior they exhibit is presumed to have been inherited. Research has demonstrated that exposure to lead can effect brain development, cause aggressive behavior, and lessen scores in IQ scores. The biological theorists affirm that individuals with low IQ scores are at a greater risk for delinquency given the possible influence on school performance. Youths with low IQs are less likely to do well in school and are more likely to drop out of school and engage in criminal behavior Statistics have shown that majority of the juvenile offenders are male. Boys are five times more likely as compared to girls to become juvenile delinquents. Since males have high levels of testosterone, they are usually more aggressive as compared to women. In the same way, men with higher levels of testosterone are more aggressive than those with less testosterone levels. Since hormones affect the brain, youths are associated with impulsive and emotional decision making which leads to delinquent behavior. They cannot rationalize their criminal behavior. Comparison of concepts (punishment and treatment) There has been debate on using punishment or treatment as way of de with juvenile violence. The proponents of punishment argue that juveniles will be responsive if they are exposed to punishments like adults. As a result, the juvenile criminal rates will reduce. They also affirm that punishment of juveniles by incarceration or any other punishment goes with the crime and the harsher the punishment the lesser the person will commit the crime again. Opponents of treatment hypothesize that treatment only addresses the needs of the offender leaving out the community needs since it asks little further than engaging in remedial services, counseling, and recreational programs. This is evidenced in the current juvenile justice systems where punishments for juvenile offenders are becoming more severe. There is an increasing trend of children engaging in complex crimes, such as, mass shootings in schools, suicide, use of dangerous drugs, and murder among other violent and non-violent crimes. Zagar, Busch, and Russell (2009) note that there is a close connection between lack of punishment and the forming of criminal habits. Most states emphasize on incarceration and punishment for juvenile delinquency. On the other hand, the proponents of treatment as a remedy for addressing juvenile violence set forth the view that punishment increases rather than reducing future criminal activity. The rehabilitationists argue that what makes children to engage in delinquency are are both biological and sociological including poverty, drugs, truancy, neglect, gangs, family structure, and discrimination, as well as criminal parents or family members. Punishment also arouses the childish idea of retaliation (Siegel & Welsh, 2014). In this regard, the paper focuses on the use treatment as an effective tool in addressing the issue of juvenile delinquency since it tackles the risk factors associated with juvenile delinquency. Treatment The most common problems in the juvenile criminal system include, use of illegal drugs, like, methamphetamine, suicide, school shootings, smoking, and many others (Lundman, 2003). Even though detention has become the most sought after intervention to address these problems, (Friedlander, 2010) notes punishment rarely reforms young people. The use treatment intervention is effective since young people are more likely to change. As the detention population increases, it has been found that four out five newly detained youths were of color (Greenwood, 2008). In most states, the rate of recidivism is high due to the failure to comprehend the nature of the problem. The use of treatment attempts to understand the nature of the problem unlike detention. By focusing on punishment and deterrence, the problem always grows bigger. Treatment reinforces desirable behavior. It also communicates expectations as well as rules and reduces the opportunities for the juveniles to engage in problematic behavior. Treatment offers various opportunities for the youth to engage in positive activities in addition to creating meaningful roles for the adolescents to develop skills and motivation. Treatment also reduces the congregation of juvenile offenders and also separates the lower-risk juveniles from high-risk juveniles. It also develops positive relationships between the troubled youth (Fox, 2011). Furthermore, treatment interventions make sure that the first-time offenders and lower-risk offenders have adequate contact levels with well-trained adults other than the problematic peers. A treatment-based juvenile justice system offer evidence-based services in substance abuse treatment, mental health, and effective development of the academic and social skills (Zagar, Busch, & Russell, 2009). Incarceration and mandatory minimum sentences make the young people’s long-term success less likely. Zigler (2004) affirm that more punitive, restrictive, and long-term environments goes against the development of the adolescent brain and denies the young people opportunities to learn new skills and ways of behaving positively. However, most states emphasize on incarceration and punishment, which interferes with effective treatment, diversionary, and rehabilitation practices.  A study on adolescent decision making reported that adolescents are associated with impulsive and emotional decision making. Besides that, they often do not put emphasis on the long-term consequences of the decision, but rather, on the intensity and novelty of the situation. Therefore, there is a need to come up with a system that responsibly adjudicates the troubled children. As a consequence, creation of a justice system that prescribes punishment for juvenile delinquency is not suitable to the needs of the children. Treatment interventions focus on the holistic development of the child. In treatment interventions, the youth can be taught how to deal with temperaments thus limiting the emotional and impulsive decision making. Children have young minds which can learn. Based on Boston’s approach, you can be “tough on crime” without simply locking more people up for long (Lipton, Martinson, & Wilks, 2008). According to Welsh and Farrington (2007), there is an inverse relationship between expected punishment and juvenile crime rate. Punishment increases future criminal activity. About 70 percent of the detained minors are not being held for violent offenses (Fox, 2011). As cited by Lundman (2003), when detention is not utilized inappropriately; these children pose a danger to themselves or others. There is need to eliminate the inappropriate use of secure detention, reducing re-arrest and failure-to-appear rates pending adjudication, make sure that there are suitable confinement conditions in secure facilities, redirect public funds to sustain successful reforms, and reduce ethnic and racial inequalities. The states of California and New Mexico are coming up with risk assessment instruments so as to objectively evaluate juvenile crime. Warehousing juveniles does not do anything to rehabilitate them (Ramirez, 2008). In New Jersey, the youths are usually incarcerated at the New Jersey Training School for Boys, in Jamesburg. The facility assists the participants to be oriented to life in the community. The counseling sessions in this facility focus on peer influences, work, conflict resolution, drug and alcohol abuse, and education. According to the U.S Department of Justice (2012), crime is not the sole problem of the state if the real differences are sought in the well being of families, persons, and the community. TThereore, a treatment-based community justice system articulates more meaningful roles in rehabilitating the juvenile offenders together with enhancing community safety for civic groups, learning institutions, religious communities, families, and other citizens. The funds used for detention programs need to be diverted into programs that truly the causes along with conditions of delinquency. Surveys have indicated that most people are willing to spend more on rehabilitation rather than incarceration programs. Adolescents do not think or behave like adults, and therefore, they are not supposed to be treated as adults (Mitchell & Williams, 1999). Recent studies in brain research have indicated that taking into consideration the age of the defendant before administering punishment is very crucial. Not all criminals need to be punished. Researchers at the Harvard Medical School along with the National Institute of Mental Health have traced the development of the juvenile brain. They reported that most of the adolescents’ brain responsible for complex thinking, control of impulses, organization, and prioritizing is underdeveloped. Therefore, the underdevelopment of the pre-frontal cortex is the source of immature decision making in adolescents. To that effect, the juvenile delinquency intervention strategy needs to deter the youth from engaging in crime in future since their brain is still developing. Treatment is considered as the most effective strategy since it assists the juvenile in making rational and mature decisions. Crimes characteristically induce a community of concern for the victim, the offender, families and friends, and interested citizens, as well as community groups. Therefore, in treatment interventions, it is satisfying for citizens when they assist the young offenders make restitution to their victims (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010). The punitive responses to juvenile crime, such as, the incarceration of juvenile offenders in correctional facilities are more expensive and often less effective as compared to the less harsh alternatives, for instance, offering the young offenders rehabilitative services in community settings. Conclusion Most states use punishment to address juvenile delinquency. Proponents of punishment argue that treatment will not make the minor offenders responsive enough not to engage in crime. The best way to keep crime down is to intervene early and sternly. This is attained through treatment interventions. Treatment is an intervention program that focuses on the holistic and general aspects of the child’s life other than targeting the crime itself, in addition to being cost effective. Currently, a significant amount of money in crime prevention goes towards incarceration. In supporting the over arching concept of social justice, treatment builds strong family and children ties. It provides support to the system of parental involvement and education improving family and children functioning. References Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, ‎.C. (2010). The Cycle of Juvenile Justice. New York: Prentice-Hall. Chicago Police. (2014). Chicago Police News Desk: Retrieved December 11, 2014, from, https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports Friedlander, K. (2010). A Psycho-Analytical Approach to Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Case Studies. New York: Routledge. Fox, J. A. (2011). Trends in Juvenile Violence: 2012 Update Washington, D.C: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Greenwood, P. (2008). “Journal Issue: Juvenile Justice,” Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders , 18 (2), 345-456. Lundman, R. (2003). Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency, New York: Oxford University Press. Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (2008). The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment. New York: Praeger. Mitchell J., & Williams, S., A. (1999). SOS: Reducing juvenile recidivism. Corrections Today 18(3):70-71. Morrison, J. (2013). Local law enforcement officials see drop in juvenile crime, Retrieved December 11, 2014, from, http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/01/03/local-law-enforcement-officials-see-drop-juvenile-crime/IP7T4yhTPsJqioOR2qJtKK/story.html National Criminal Justice Reference Service. (2012). Juvenile Crime in Massachusetts. Boston: Massachusetts Statistical Analysis Centre. Ramirez, F. (2008). Juvenile Delinquency: Current Issues, Best Practices, and Promising Approaches. New York: Sage Publications. Shoemaker, D. (2011). Juvenile Deliquency. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Siegel, L., & Welsh, ‎. (2014). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. New York: Sage Publications. U.S Department of Justice. (2012). Juvenile Justice. Indiana Avenue, Wahington D.C, : U.S Department of Justice. Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2007). “Save Children From a Life of Crime.” Criminology & Public Policy 6(4): 871-79. Zagar, R., Busch, K., & Russell, H., J. (2009). "Empirical Risk Factors for Delinquency and Best Treatments: Where Do We Go from Here?" Psychological Reports 104(1): 279-308. Zigler, E. (2004). "Early Intervention to Prevent Juvenile Delinquency." Harvard Mental Health Letter 11(3): 5-8. Read More