First I am going to talk about the supporters. They believe that all youth should be responsible for their actions. Their key arguments are: Stiffer charges will make the youths think twice before they do the crimes; this will lead to lower crime rates in future. Youths who commit crimes are sent to rehabilitation, while sometimes their victims are left to suffer forever. The youth’s age shouldn’t be a bias factor for receiving punishments.
To successfully accomplish this, offenders are trained to alter their views in a pro-social direction, realize the negative consequences of their actions both for themselves and others, establish a less distorted view of their deviant behavior, develop more acceptable responses to meet their needs, and learn strategies to control deviant sexual arousal (Marshall, & Barbaree, 1990). As with any corrective measure in individuals, the effectiveness of these approaches rests in part on the offender’s cooperation and dedication to the treatment process. The old saying goes: a person cannot change unless he has the
Society will benefit from this bill keeping the offenders out of the public area and locked up. This bill will cover all offenders regardless of age so this will help rehabilitate the juvenile offenders. Goals of the bill The goal behind this bill is to decrease the number of armed robberies through deterrence. With the increase in time and punishment the
There punishment needs to be in proportion to the crime that was committed. Deterrence is the philosophy of a way of preventing crimes by threatens a punishment. With this philosophy society is making a statement, they are setting an example that certain actions will not be tolerated. Incapacitation is the philosophy that preventing crime by detaining wrongdoers in prison. This is taking them out of society and reducing their ability to commit any other crimes.
Rebuttal: If a juvenile has chosen to commit a violent attack on someone, then they have made the choice to act in an adult fashion. The justice system should treat the juvenile as the adult that they were trying to be at the time of the crime. Harsh sentencing can act as a deterrent to the juveniles who may consider on committing a crime. Giving light sentences does not teach the juvenile the lesson that they
It is politically advantageous and morally satisfying position to take without any regards to the consequences of these actions. I personally would like to see tough sentences act as a deterrent or at least as a satisfying punishment for committing a crime against society providing that punishment bettered society as a whole. What this new crime bill does not take into account is the fact that people will one day get out. There is no planning for reintegration back into society in this bill. Other shortfalls include; addiction counseling, anger management, job training, and after-school programs for children.
The punishment should also increase for repeat offenders. The victims and victim’s families should be able to feel some kind of peace and closure from the punishment given to the criminal. As a future juvenile probation officer, justice does not mean punishment. Yes, there may be some punishment involved, but rehabilitation means more. As juvenile crime rose throughout the 1980’s and 90’s, public policy makers had little choice but to begin implementing more punitive sanctions based on the offense that was committed rather than the offenders characteristics.
With the influx of juvenile crimes in the past decade, the criminal justice system has had a heavy burden. Knowing that juvenile delinquency has become a problem in most states there has been much debate over how to reduce or end this trend. In Pennsylvania the numbers are just growing to unmanageable numbers. In 1978, The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency originated with the mission to improve the criminal justice system (PCCD, 2012). Working closely with the Governor’s Office, the Commission helps coordinate the work of state and local criminal justice agencies to increase communication, effectiveness, and efficiencies by providing training to deputy sheriffs and constables.
I will attempt to prove that the benefit of merely punishing criminals is minimal and that a justice system that prioritises rehabilitation would have far more overall benefit to society as a whole. A third important aspect to the justice system is keeping dangerous and violent individuals off the streets. This often seems to be equated with punishment, while the two are actually quite distinct and separate aims. I agree that there is often a need to isolate dangerous people from society at large, the question here is what our aims for the individual should be while they are in isolation. Emotion (1) Of the arguments one tends to hear in favour of prioritising punishment, the most persuasive are often emotional arguments.
However, research that has been done to date shows that restorative justice principles are strategically valuable in addressing youth offences, because it has a positive effect on the offender’s behaviour and attitude as the focus is not on their faults or weaknesses, but on repairing the harm that was caused by the crime [ (Van Ness, 1996, p. 23) ]. Other elements of restorative justice principles are offering restitution to victims and communities as this is where most harm is done and not leaving all control in the hands of government bodies, but allowing active participation by victims, communities and offenders [ (Van Ness, 1996, p. 23) ]. In an article by Kim Brook, the mother to a young female victim of a violent crime committed by a 16 year old boy, she discusses the impact on the victim and victim’s family after surviving a violent attack [ (2006) ]. Brooks talks about the questions and the need for answers from the offender she goes on to say that once these needs were addressed and victim-offender mediation with the offender concluded the she felt the process was empowering and that