550 class
350 words
board 4
The juvenile justice system covers a number of categories of children: delinquent, undisciplined, dependent, neglected, abused, and status offender. As a result, the law has sought to adapt the rights, institutions, and treatment options available to an increasingly diverse juvenile population – gangs, substance abuse, mental health concerns, sexual orientation, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, sexual-oriented texting, and school violence. Beginning with the material conveyed in the assigned reading and presentation, select 2 scholarly articles from the university criminal justice databases, and integrate those resources to discuss the challenges facing the juvenile justice system as it seeks to respond to a perceived need to pursue the “adultification” of juvenile criminal behavior. Finally, integrate within your discussion the impact of a Judeo-Christian viewpoint for treating juvenile criminals as adults
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
REPLIES
board 3
Janae Brown
DQ3
Collapse
Total views: 10 (Your views: 1)
With many prisons facing overcrowding and high incarceration cots, there have been many innovations in sentencing. These innovations or alternative sanctions can include half-way houses, court-ordered community service, home detention, day reporting, drug treatment centers and counseling. As the prison populations continue to rise, alternative sanctions are being more attractive. Many people question if alternative sentencing programs increase the threat to public safety (Schmalleger, 2017).
Understanding public safety, one must examine how risk perception and decision making plays a significant role in how people perceive the validity of alternative sanctions. With crime decision making, the concern is focusing on choosing between alternative courses of action between criminal and non-criminal behavior. Many offenders that have the choice of receiving alternative sanctions and sentencing are those who are non- violent and most time first time offenders. Many people in society are focused on the perceptions of the severity of the crime. The implications of perception can cause the people of society to feel unsafe about have criminals in the community rather than serving their time in jail (Apel, 2013).
Focusing on the current sentencing options such as indeterminate sentencing, truth-in sentencing law, and the three strike law, all of these sentencing options have their implication from inequality to strict sentencing. Decision makers have to focus on reforms for sentencing. With reforming, a new innovative is justice reinvestment. Justice reinvestment is designed to tackle the underlying problems which lead to offending and reoffending. It is an evidence-based paradigm that focuses on provision of options for policy makers, reinvestments in high risk communities and effective crime-prevention programs (Albertson, Fox, & Wong, 2013). Justice reinvestment can be a good alternative if implemented correctly. All reforms can have implications. One must understand the social influences of criminal justice policy making. With understand the social influences; the offenders themselves can also become problematic. Many inmates can become institutionalized and this can also can for them to reoffend and be sent back to prison.
In conclusion alternative sanctions and innovated sentencing can help with decreasing population in prisons and reconnecting offenders back into the community. Risk perceptions play an important role in how society reacts to the thought of public safety. Implications with risk perceptions can cause alternative sanctions to be seen as negative due to the natural of criminal behavior. Jeremiah 26:13 (NIV) states “Now reform your ways and your actions and obey the Lord your God. Then the Lord will relent and not bring the disaster he has pronounced against you” (Bible Gateway, n.d.). One must examine ways to show that alternative sanctions are a positive cost that helps society by not only focusing on prison overcrowding and reducing cost-benefits, but also positive benefits for society as a whole. Positive benefits can include rehabilitation and reconnecting with love ones.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
REPLY
Jasmine McKenzie
Discussion Board 3
Collapse
Total views: 5 (Your views: 1)
In the human services field, it’s preached that individualization is important in the work that’s done with youth or adults. Individualization provides patients with some sense of themselves. It caters to who they are as a person and allows them to see that they are all not the same. This is an important aspect in life, in general. Regarding law enforcement, it’s important to crimes case by case. That’s not to say that justice shouldn’t be served for one citizen and not for the other. It simply means that the same consequences through sentencing or other court proceedings may not be effective for everyone. Justice should always be served, but if the mission is to rehabilitate citizens of America, every case has to be individualized while keeping society, as a whole, in mind.
Regarding structured sentencing, it’s interesting to read that much of sentencing has had to do with if someone looks trustworthy or not. Wilson and Rule (2015) states that judging the trustworthiness in someone’s eyes usually calls for very extreme sentencing practices. Although this may be seen as a mechanism to structure sentencing, it’s prejudice and invalid. Wilson and Rule also go on to mention that how someone looks doesn’t dictate how someone necessarily behaves. (2015) In a world where rehabilitation and restoration is becoming more prevalent, extreme sentencing isn’t supportive of that.
Schmalleger (2017) discusses the five goals in criminal sentencing and the success of the goals seems to come down to time. Of course justice is to be served and each of the five goals can play a part in that but also rehabilitate citizens in order for them to function in society. Incapacitation and the act of deterrence can be used in order to invoke consequences and the desire to not want to commit crimes anymore, but when that process has done it’s job, it’s important for rehabilitation and restoration, especially for non-violent crimes. Time is a determining factor of the success of these goals possibly coexisting, but also the purpose. Showalter discusses a quote by Robert Ingersoll that states “In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are only consequences.” (1995) If consequences are the purpose of sentencing these goals are able to work together because unintentionally, punishment is happening through consequences. Consequences bring a level of accountability, which allows criminals to see what they’ve done and need to take accountabililty for, but also leaves hope in their spirit for rehabilitation and restoration. Christianity teaches us that all fall short of His glory and also teaches forgiveness. Forgiveness in the context of criminal justice, can be seen as allowing the chance for rehabilitation and restoration after consequences are given.
