Juvenile Delinquency is an issue the United States has focused on since the first settlers existed. It started in the 1600s in Europe as very limited, but by the 1900s a juvenile institution had been built and there were laws regarding children's rights. The idea of “what is best for the child in juvenile court” rather than being in an adult court was introduced.
Our country needed this system because it had a group of criminals who were children; this problem being more prevalent in this century. As a society, we have an intent focus on living without crime, and we can only strive to find a balance.
The costs of juvenile delinquency can be great in both victims and monetary ways. Juvenile delinquents make victims out of neighborhoods, schools, peers, families, and ultimately themselves with youth authority and/or prison eating away their future. Monetarily, juvenile delinquents who progress onto adult criminals cost society the most. A research article titled, “Crime Costs across Offender Trajectories” tells us there are two different ways to estimate costs for an individual crime: bottom up and WTP ( public’s willingness to pay),which is the more accepted estimate. For murder, the WTP estimate is 11.8 million dollars a year. More directly, an article titled, “ Estimating the Costs of Bad Outcomes for At-Risk Youth and the Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions to Reduce them” by Mark Cohen estimates a career criminal imposes $2.1- $3.7 million dollars throughout their lifetime (Cohen, Piquero, and Jennings 391-434).
Juveniles usually commit crimes to get something of material value like a car, money, shoes, electronics. The success of an endeavor tells the juvenile it will continue to be successful although that is not true. So, in the short run the kids think they are benefitting but when it comes to a future where crime is not necessary to survive, they are shorting themselves. It is shown in “Coping while Incarcerated: A study of Male Juvenile Offenders” that incarcerated juvenile males are not effective at dealing with multiple stressors that adolescents face and are more violent during the transitioning period of one month. Repeat offenses can be likely and this means a path of crime has begun.
The totality of the problem of juvenile delinquency cannot be blamed solely on the youth, even though it is youth who are committing the crimes. Researchers look at environments and cultures that juvenile delinquents share and come to a decision about whether one can be called a factor of juvenile crime. In the Cohen article, “Estimating the Costs of Bad Outcomes...” it rates different crimes and “bad outcomes” that cost the system money but those outcomes allow for juvenile delinquents to exist. For example, teenage pregnancy, domestic violence, and drug abuse are known to be important factors in predicting a delinquent outcome of youth.
Numerous programs are implemented but most beneficial have been intervening at a young age in a youth offender, and training young parents how to have a violence-free relationship with their children while getting the necessary balance between respect and love. Programs that aren’t as successful are drug treatment programs. They work if its court ordered, but after a person is determined sober and leaves the treatment, there is not enough support for staying that way and the success rate is low-about 25 percent of parolees according to “Differential Outcomes of Court-Supervised Substance Abuse Treatment Among California Parolees and Probationers.”
The future holds more legislation for getting programs shown to have results in a generally accepted treatment group. The government’s role is to provide the funds necessary to do so. Through the costs articles we see how much an offender costs the system, therefore how much we can save by treating that offender. That money can be used to fund effective programs which will save the government money over the long term.
The short term cost tends to be the deciding factor and social programs are usually the first to be cut or denied for funding but effective programs will save the taxpayers money, and of course help curb juvenile crime.
Cohen, Mark , Alex Piquero, and Wesley Jennings. "Estimating the Costs of Bad Outcomes for At-Risk Youth and the Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions to Reduce Them." Criminal Justice Policy Review. 21.4 (2010): 391-434. Web. 12 Sep. 2012. <http://cjp.sagepub.com/content/21/4/391>.
Cohen, Mark, Alex Piquero, and Wesley Jennings. "Studying the Costs of Crime Across Offender Trajectories." American Society of Criminology. 9.2 (2010): 279-305. Web. 17 Sep. 2012.
Clayton, J. (2012). Washington's Journey with Evidence-Based and Research-Based Programs in Juvenile Justice. Policy & Practice (19426828), 70(3), 20-22
Evans, Elizabeth, Adi Jaffe, Darren Urada, and M. Douglas Anglin. "Differential Outcomes of Court-Supervised Substance Abuse Treatment Among California Parolees and Probationers." International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 56.4 (2012): 539-556
Juvenile delinquency is a very interesting topic to research. As you suggested, issues surrounding juvenile delinquency are better understood when examining the root of the problem. The environment one lives in plays a major role in a person’s life. If a child is acting out in school there is a very good chance that things might be stressful at home for them. I also agree that it is not fair to solely blame youth for their behaviors. In order to truly understand why a child is behaving the way they are it is important to take a closer look at different aspects of their life.
ReplyDelete