IS THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TOO LENIENT ON THE YOUTH

IS THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TOO LENIENT ON THE YOUTH

Historically, juveniles across many jurisdictions have been accorded different treatment in the criminal justice system compared to their adult counterparts. Retribution is an integral feature of any criminal justice system, particularly in cases of a criminal nature. However, teens and youths are often accorded leniency with their punishment assuming a rehabilitative nature in most convicted sentences. Consequently, there has been a growing concern about youth reoffending and the severity of crimes committed by juveniles and the nature of the crime and the degree of sentencing. Per Contra, the perceived leniency of the criminal justice system on young offenders has been defended by certain quarters on the basis that there is a need for the encouragement of rehabilitation based on individual juvenile’s needs in the case of a criminal offence instead of the retributive sentences of the adult criminal justice system. This study examines whether the perceived leniency of the criminal justice system towards juvenile offenders is justified or whether there is a need for stricter sentencing for criminal youth offenders.

The Youth Criminal Justice System has the duty of preventing reoffending by juveniles that have already been convicted of criminal offences. The government should prevent reoffending by minors through a personalized approach for each juvenile offender. Consequently, the criminal justice system should not be focused on punishing young offenders through long-term incarceration or detention. Instead, the government, through the criminal justice system, should examine the risk factors that dispose of the particular individual to the criminal offence and offer a tailored measure to mitigate the chances of recidivism (Dünkel 2016). For example, in the case of assault, the criminal justice system should conduct a thorough review of the juvenile criminal and determine why they are violent and aggressive behaviour. In response, the juvenile offender may be forced through a court order to attend an anger management course to aid them in coping with their aggression and violent tendencies. Compared to retributive sentencing such as detention and long-term incarceration, the young offender is more likely to understand their crime and focus on measures of avoiding re-offence when they are trained on avoiding the offence.

Furthermore, the criminal justice system in preventing recidivism by juvenile offenders should offer proper guidance and support for released offenders. Detention and incarceration are probable outcomes for juvenile convictions in the criminal justice system. However, recidivism prevention is often not achieved through a jail term. Consequently, the government should collaborate with consultative bodies and agencies established to properly reintegrate juvenile offenders in society through probation. The probation process for released juvenile criminal offenders entails monitoring, guidance, and assistance to the juvenile who has an official police report of committing a crime of a criminal nature. Probation may be applied for several years or months until the justice system makes the determination that the risks for recidivism are minimal.

Social welfare provision is another core duty of the government to prevent recidivism among juvenile offenders. Convicted juvenile offenders face a myriad of challenges in their bid to reintegrate in the society ranging from stigmatization by family and the community to ostracism, which portends a negative impact on their ability to get enrolled in schools or return into formal education, get housing services or even employment opportunities. Consequently, young offenders may find themselves in a vicious cycle of failed integration, reoffending, and reconviction. Criminal offences by juveniles often have an underlying social cause. The government can prevent such social causes like poverty by providing the released criminal offenders or juveniles under probation with social welfare amenities such as education, housing services, or even income generation activities (Burke 2017). The United Nations standards and legally binding international human rights conventions in criminal rehabilitation agree on the positive impact of social integration in preventing recidivism.

Another approach that can be assumed by the criminal justice system in the case of a juvenile offender is a diversion, which is primarily enrollment of the Youth into a facility or program that assists with behaviour modification instead of retributive justice of incarceration (Bode 2019). The diversion of the juvenile offender depends on the personal circumstance of the offender and the nature of the offence. In the case of drug and substance abuse or a drug-related criminal offence, the courts may determine that the juvenile offender be enrolled in a treatment facility to aid with behaviour modification.

Compliance among juveniles with probation rules stipulated by the criminal justice system is dependent on various social, personal, and economic factors in the life of the juvenile offender. The interventions that portend the least instances of recidivism among juvenile offenders are the ones that prioritize the safety of the public through the engagement of the community in their formulation and implementation. For instance, parents or guardians of the juveniles should be part of the process from the arrest phase, custody phase to the release phase to assist the criminal justice system in determining the underlying cause of the criminal activity. At the community level, law enforcement and representatives of the community should be involved in the process of social integration of the juvenile offender to give the community a sense of ownership of the intervention (Basic 2018). Consequently, a collaborative approach will prevent stigmatization and ostracism of the released juvenile offenders, which will accord them more social capital that will enhance their chances of re-enrolling into formal education, gaining housing services, or income-generating activities such as employment.

The probation period of a juvenile offender is characterized by close supervision, motoring, and assistance, which may be construed by the juveniles as too intrusive into their privacy, resulting in a rebellious attitude that enhances recidivism. The criminal justice system should, therefore, ensure an appropriate balance between surveillance or control and help and assistance that holds the young offenders accountable for their criminal actions and prevents rebellion among the juvenile offenders undergoing rehabilitation within the community. Consequently, recidivism is likely to decrease when the young offenders are able to comprehend that the surveillance is meant to ensure good behaviour adherence for their rehabilitation and not just intrusive control in their lives.

Finally, successful interventions for criminal juveniles at the community level are those that are age and gender-sensitive. Juvenile crime is associated with stigmatization and ostracism (Jordan and McNeal, 2016). Juveniles under the ages of twelve cannot be subjected through a trial or strict probation since they may not be fully cognizant of their crimes while probation intervention may be appropriate for juveniles between the ages of fifteen and seventeen since they are fully cognizant of their crimes and the repercussions of their actions. The intervention should also consider the gender of the juvenile offender; for instance, a community service program should be gender appropriate to prevent embarrassment.

However, despite the rehabilitative and social welfare provision rationale for the leniency of the criminal justice system on young offenders, the cases of criminal activities committed by young offenders are on an upward trajectory. The measures taken by criminal justice on young offenders suffice for the rehabilitation of the juvenile offenders but are insignificant at deterring criminal activities by young offenders hence too lenient. The leniency of the criminal justice system is evident through less severe sentences for crimes which, if committed by an adult, would warrant long-term incarceration or even capital punishment (Jordan and McNeal 2016). Moreover, blatant criminal activities by first-time juvenile offenders may attract a verbal reprimand when clearly the juvenile committed the incident with an ulterior motive. Furthermore, criminal juvenile offenders have the right to appeal a disposition order as which is another form of leniency shown to juvenile criminal offenders only and not their adult counterparts.

The criminal justice system should be stricter on young offenders by not only focusing on the rehabilitative aspect of the sentence but also the deterrence, restitution, and retribution. Children and juveniles under the age of twenty-one are responsible for some of the organized and heinous criminal acts ranging from murder to drug and arms smuggling with full knowledge that the criminal justice system will show them leniency in the event of apprehension. Consequently, more children and juveniles are growing even bolder in the commission of criminal activities based on the leniency shown towards previous offenders. In conclusion, the leniency of the criminal justice system towards juvenile offenders should be dependent on the age of the offender and the severity of the crime. Juveniles between above the age of seventeen should be subjected to the harsh retributive punishments of the adult criminals.

References

Basic, G., 2018. Successful Collaboration in Social Care Practice: Beneficial Success Points of Interest for the Young Person in Swedish Juvenile Care. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 13(2).

Bode, J., 2019. Juvenile Punishment System in View of the Need for Education and Reintegration. European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(3), pp.21-29.

Burke, S.W., 2017. The Integration of Restorative Justice Principles and Multisystemic Therapy to Reduce Recidivism in Juvenile Offenders. Mississippi College.

Dünkel, F., 2016. Juvenile justice and human rights: European perspectives. Women and children as victims and offenders: Background, prevention, reintegration (pp. 681-719). Springer, Cham.

Jordan, K.L. and McNeal, B.A., 2016. Juvenile penalty or leniency: Sentencing of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), p.387.