Secondly, individuals think and act differently when they are in a group is because they are being controlled by the group. For instance, if there are four people in a group when the accident occurs, one of them wants to help the victim, but the others might want to ignore the scene. Then the person who wants to help the victim thinks that nobody else in group wants to help. That person is more likely to stay with the
As such, the best way to deal with them is through rehabilitation rather than punishment. The Time U.S magazine ran an article in 2001 titled, “Should the Law Treat Kids and Adults Differently?” Reasons why they should not treat kids and adults differently stated by the article were: • The juvenile prison system can help kids turn their lives around; rehabilitation gives kids a second chance. • Children don’t have the intellectual or moral capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. • Children should be able to get deadly weapons in the first place. Adults who provide kids with guns used in violent crimes should be held accountable.
I think it is clear that young people are not deterred from bad behavior by just the fear of punishment. Kids know then a person's “bark is bigger than their bite.” At the same time,if a young person sees someone else get punished for problem behavior, this might deter them by proxy. The idea of general deterrence is that just one punishment is enough todeter other people if the situation is taken care of quickly enough. General deterrencerelies on the idea that, if young people believe that society both intends to punish criminalacts and that they are able to, they will be deterred from committing a crime by thesefactors and this awareness. One example of this is that more police officers can go onto the police force, so that the young person sees them everywhere and believes that they mightcatch them.
• Obliges local authorities, the police and other local bodies to draw up a crime and disorder strategy covering their area. Criticism about the bill Civil liberties groups argue that asbos mark an unacceptable blurring of criminal and civil law because a breach of their asbo can incur criminal penalties including up to five years' imprisonment. Children's rights campaigners argue that asbos are disproportionately used to target young people. They point out that although many forms of anti-social behaviour can be alarming or distressing, they are often not criminal. Even though the original action may not be criminal, for example playing loud music, breaching an asbo can lead to a sentence of up to five years in
People resist change for several reasons. Some people resist change because of poor communication. The changes may not be communicated thoroughly or efficiently therefore leaving people confused and more inclined to resist; miscommunication can cause resistance. Fear of the unknown is also a reason to resist change. People may be scared to do something different because they don't know what the outcome will be; they are scared to take a chance or a risk.
How did the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 change the sentencing process for young people? The 1999 Criminal Evidence Act was introduced for the following reasons; to provide for the referral of offenders under 18 to youth offender panels; to make provision in connection with the giving of evidence or information for the purposes of criminal proceedings; to amend section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; to make pre-consolidation amendments relating to youth justice; and for connected purposes.’ [27th July 1999] The Act is about improving the effectiveness of the youth court and preventing offending by children and young people. This is now the principal aim of the youth justice system. Changes to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act gave further reforms to the youth court, these changes created a new sentence of referral to a youth offender panel, known as a Referral Order. A Referral Order will be available for young people convicted for the first time and its primary aim is to prevent re-offending.
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
Jail is not effective in changing the values of youth offenders or aiding the youth; it never has been and never will be. Addressing this, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) was implemented in 2003 to keep more youth out of jail, following reports that Canada had the highest rate of youth incarceration in the western world. The act instead aims to rehabilitate and reintegrate youth who break the law, through various extrajudicial measures. Since the YCJA, incarceration rates of youth have gone down by 60%; however, the overall effectiveness of the YCJA is currently being debated. The YCJA should not be amended by Bill C-10, to be tougher on youth offenders because jail doesn’t work, to incarcerate youth because it is costly, and because the YCJA’s founding principles would deteriorate if Bill C-10 were to be passed.
juveniles act on emotions or wants, without thinking their actions through completely. Oftentimes, juveniles are being influenced by an adult in their life. Courts and judges should look at who made the juvenile the way they are, and the living environment that the juvenile is from. It should not be fair that a 17 year old should be treated differently then an 18 year old, if they are a repeat offender. No matter the crime or the brutality of the crime, they should still know that wont be okay in the real world so why not be made aware from an early
This approach contends that, No compelling reasons exist to maintain separate from an adult criminal court, a punitive juvenile court whose only remaining distinctions are its persisting procedural deficiencies. Abolitionists believe that the juvenile justice system has failed because it has forgotten its historical commitment to rehabilitation and has instead turned to retribution and punishments, making it too much like our criminal system only with more flaws and inequality. Their solution is to combine the juvenile and criminal court to eliminate the confusion, complication, and injustice that comes from having two separate systems. They believe that juveniles often fall through the cracks of the two systems, so a combination would keep juveniles from getting away with crimes and get them the treatment they deserve. Abolishing the juvenile court may enable them to see that children should have status as rights holders.