Oct 28, 2019 in Law

Introduction

Fighting the crime, many citizens do not realize that the crime is in their own selves. It means that to change the situation with the crime, they have to change the ways they think and see the world. Adults are to pay attention to children, teenagers and young people in order to keep them interested in the family matters rather than street matters. However, the most important key factor is the young people’s treatment. Treating someone who made a mistake as a criminal for the rest of their lives and transferring young adults to adult correction facilities and rehabilitation centers is a grave mistake for the society and an ineffective means for the whole incarceration system.

Analyzing the issue of crime prevention, it is vital to point out that preventing crime at the earliest stages of its development is much better than dealing with the causes of “untreated crime” later in life. Teenagers, troubled youth, and children who do not get enough love in the first 10 years of their lives pretty soon become criminals. Despite the fact that teachers in elementary, middle, and high schools do their job concerning raising these children, it plays little or no role at all. Children spend most of their time at home, which means that ninety percent of their time is spent with these children’s parents, acquaintances and relatives. In this way, it is impossible for high school teachers to keep these children away from all kinds of dangers and situations where they can get into troubles. This is where the issue comes into play. Building one’s character at the earliest stages is more important than dealing with the psychological issues and consequences of the wrong treatment later.

Order now

Troubled youth often starts their criminal career early in high school. Many students start it with trying drugs, coming late to school, missing it at all and behaving rudely and socially unacceptable. Even Friday detentions, staying at school after classes for doing one’s homework, and having long conversations with friendly staff and psychologists do not help in this case. It happens because most of the whole time a person spends at home with one’s parents. Not doing one’s homework, coming late for school, dropping out of it or getting expelled play a great role in destroying one’s life. Juvenile detention centers are one of the first steps when young adults can still turn back to the previous life and try to improve its status. Still correctional facility for young people does an outstanding job in certain cases. This is explained by the fact that it is still possible to show young adults the correct way of living before they go to prison for adults and more mature inmates.

Safety and Precautions

Among various crime educational prevention programs are public safety, safety in the city, at home, and alcohol and drug awareness. This fact is found in the Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting (2011). Crime Prevention and Awareness provide various programs to all kinds of audiences including students and staff. Taking into account various students and residential assistants’ requests, the programs are built up to make the lives within the community easier and reduce the crime level everywhere. The specific needs are aimed at different kinds of audiences who are in desperate need of their safety. These individuals try to avoid unsafe situations and often resort to Public Safety service. Visiting sessions last about one-and-a-half hours. In most cases, they are aimed at ensuring that teens are safe both at home and in public.

Task Force on Community Preventative Services is amongst one of the main organizations in the country that provide recommendations in various supplements to the American Journal Preventative Medicine. The latter is fully involved in analyzing the juvenile and adult behavior and distinguishing certain patterns, which further lead to the crime commitment. These patterns are violence, obsessive behavior, hysterical demeanor and many others. Some of these patterns are innate while some of these individuals grow into during the whole time of their life. The point of studying and practicing this study is the transferring young people to adult correctional facilities where they become worse. This mean that it is next to impossible for these young people to go back to their previous lives where they were happy and free of grief, misfortune, and mourn.

Statistics of Violent Crimes in the U.S.

Across the nation, the law enforcement accounted for more than 12,196,959 arrests. Out of all these arrests, 521,196 were connected with violent crimes. More than 1,646,212 were crimes connected with property violations. However, the UCR Program holds no collection information concerning the citations of traffic violations. The two-year arrest trend depicts the change in violent crimes – 1.8% in 2012 – in comparison to 2011 arrests. At the same time, arrests connected with property crimes increased by 0.3% in comparison to arrests made in 2011. Juvenile arrests connected with all kinds of offenses dropped to 10.4% in 2012. The adult arrests declined up to 0.9%. The following data was collected from The FBI official government website (2011).

The statistics shows that overall 33.7% of youth offenders are transferred to adult prisons while they can still stay at youth correctional facilities and various detention centers. Task Force’s findings just provide a clear and vivid picture of the way these people go and the lives that they live. Such harsh policy is considered by many to be undesirable and unwanted apart from being unjust. Sadly, the policy was adopted by the United States’ correctional system between 1975 and 2000. Still, in the 1970s, many public officials and prison administrative representatives were witnesses of unlawful treatment and strongly opposed to the policy. This factor contributed to the policy’s postponement and its further practice and adoption. The two organizations that mainly opposed to the policy were Juvenile Justice Standards Commission and Juridical Administration Commission.

History of the Correctional Facility System Development

Prior to the year 1980, the points of view and a notion that adult correctional facility is better than one for young people was mainly shared by the majority of the whole population. Moreover, it was shared by the young people too. Most of them could not wait to become strong, independent, and tough. When it comes to doing time and facing the reality, many young people regret their desires and preliminary and unthinkable cravings for something they consider being modest and honorable. Nevertheless, time works only in one direction, and it is always impossible to turn it back. That is why nowadays many individuals do not share this point of view and do not consider adult correctional facilities to be more useful in terms of improving the younger generation to the better.

Several years ago, many politicians believed that citizens became more punitive toward criminals. The majority of them demonstrated willingness by adopting policies, which expressed much greater punitiveness and vindictiveness. One of the most striking characteristics of the American juvenile’s recent policies was longing for punitiveness. A law, which reduces the age of adult court jurisdiction from 18 to 17 or 16, exposes hundreds of thousands of young individuals to adult courts. The latter depends on a state’s population.

Limited time offer! Limited time Get 15% OFF your first order Order now

However, the result should not be very surprising. Individuals that receive harsher handling in general and prison sentences in particular might be expected to be damaged in many different respects. These respects foreseeable reduce their life chances in certain ways associated with much higher prospects of future criminality. They include increased self-identification, stigmatization, and socialization into certain deviant values from other offenders’ exposure. Also, the respects include normal features’ disruption and prosocial development trajectories (e.g. work and family relationships.) Foreseeable harms to offenders (along with future law-abidingness) suggest that harsh treatment needs to be kept to a bare minimum in relation to young people.

Task Force’s juvenile justice policy implications and recommendations are straightforward. States now setting adult court jurisdiction at the age of 18 must keep it. Other states are in a desperate need to changes their laws concerning young adults, leaving the age barrier at the age of 18 or even lifting it up to 21. All laws that are connected with automatic jurisdiction in adult courts for young individuals under the age of 18 charged with designated heinous crimes must be repealed. Laws, which permit case-by-case transfer by prosecutors or judges, must be re-examined. This has to be done to make sure that the officials permit transfers only in cases not amendable to juvenile court handlings. This idea was clearly explained and stated by Michael Tonry in his educational journal article “Treating Juveniles as Adult Criminals: An Iatrogenic Violence Prevention Strategy if Ever There Was One” (2007).

The core of report finding transferring increases towards future violence rates is not very likely to apply just to people under the age of 18. The transition towards adulthood appears to be a developmental phenomenon. It varies widely from person to person. People are mature at different rates and different times in respect of various capacities. One-size fits all policies. It inevitably produces different anomalies, various injustices and certain unwanted side effects: recurrence of the committed crime, increased violent re-offending, etc. Systems have to be put in place for accommodation the transitions into adulthood. New York for a long time has had special policies and programs. Its institutions permitted individualized treatment of young offenders of age 19 to 25. Certain states even blended overlapping jurisdiction between the courts of adults and juveniles. Some courts in Germany allow judges to sentence people of age 18 to 20 if they are juvenile delinquents under the age of 18.

Conclusion

Long time ago, it was one of the most important lessons drawn from the reports of the Task Force. According to their opinion, juvenile delinquents’ transfer to adult courts did more harm to them than all kinds of crimes they have ever committed. It was made through their life chances’ reductions through society in general and through the elevated future violence rates. Edwin Schur’s Radical Nonintervention started the prevailing views long before the quite recent juvenile justice policy’s politicization started. Pretty soon it became known as a universal truth by the majority that intervention of the whole juvenile justice system into the world of young people’s lives does only harm to them. A young person must have a chance in life to be fully aware of all his/her actions and failed attempts. The only way to succeed in life is to learn from one’s mistakes. Although, for some people, these mistakes are general stuff, for other individuals it is basically ruining their life and ending up on the pavement of this life. Thus, unspeakably it is undoubtedly and without a question a concept and philosophy of the everyday life: if one treats other people like criminals, it is exactly what these people will become in the nearest future. Another conclusion that can be drawn from everything above said is that pretty often adult people do not know the world their children live in. Often adults’ intervention and strict treatment does more harm than good to young people through the stigma it attached to these persons in others’ eyes. Sometimes, the same happens because of the enhancement of deviant self-conception. Both cases should be fully examined in order to help young people avoid going to prison and stay away from for as long as it is possible.

Related essays