The criminal justice system serves two, often diverging, purposes by seeking to punish criminals, and thus deter crime, as well as rehabilitate the offenders so that they can become upstanding citizens who contribute to society. There is often dispute in the adult justice system about how to achieve both purposes, or which goal should be emphasized above the other. The juvenile justice system has effects as great as, and often greater than, the adult justice system because “[a]nnually, in the United States more than 2.2 million juveniles are arrested with more than 110,000 juvenile incarcerated in juvenile correctional facilities (Snyder, 2006)” and “[n]ot only are these adjudicated adolescents at increased risk of committing future crimes
…show more content…
Kathryn Monahan, Laurence Steinberg, and Alex R. Piquero discuss in their article how adolescent development changes understanding of juvenile offenders (2-3).
Since the mid to late 1990s, scientific research has provided consistent evidence that adolescents are developmentally different from adults in ways that have implications for the treatment of young people in the justice system. Adolescents demonstrate unique decision-making processes compared with adults, there are continued changes and growth in brain functioning and maturation from mid adolescence to the mid-20s, and most criminal offending ceases as youths move from adolescence into adulthood.
Juveniles’ brains and decision-making abilities are different from adults’ and thus must be treated differently from adults. Adolescent brains are less capable of self-regulation and react more vividly to rewarding stimuli than matured adult brains, both “mak[ing] youths susceptible to becoming involved in criminal behavior and reckless behavior more generally” (Monahan, Steinberg, and Piquero …show more content…
They cite a South Carolina study where “it is estimated that 46% of juvenile offenders held in residential placements will enter the prison system as adults…[but] only 14% of juveniles serviced by community-based programs” (Great Lakes Economic Consulting 5). They continue to describe another study from Arkansas that found “that the experience of confinement is the most significant factor in increasing the odds of recidivism” and that in Texas “32 to 37 percent of young people given employment and behavioral programs were estimated to recidivate, as compared to a 50 percent recidivism rate for the group of youth not given this intervention” (Great Lakes Economic Consulting
Kathryn Monahan, Laurence Steinberg, and Alex R. Piquero discuss in their article how adolescent development changes understanding of juvenile offenders (2-3).
Since the mid to late 1990s, scientific research has provided consistent evidence that adolescents are developmentally different from adults in ways that have implications for the treatment of young people in the justice system. Adolescents demonstrate unique decision-making processes compared with adults, there are continued changes and growth in brain functioning and maturation from mid adolescence to the mid-20s, and most criminal offending ceases as youths move from adolescence into adulthood.
Juveniles’ brains and decision-making abilities are different from adults’ and thus must be treated differently from adults. Adolescent brains are less capable of self-regulation and react more vividly to rewarding stimuli than matured adult brains, both “mak[ing] youths susceptible to becoming involved in criminal behavior and reckless behavior more generally” (Monahan, Steinberg, and Piquero …show more content…
They cite a South Carolina study where “it is estimated that 46% of juvenile offenders held in residential placements will enter the prison system as adults…[but] only 14% of juveniles serviced by community-based programs” (Great Lakes Economic Consulting 5). They continue to describe another study from Arkansas that found “that the experience of confinement is the most significant factor in increasing the odds of recidivism” and that in Texas “32 to 37 percent of young people given employment and behavioral programs were estimated to recidivate, as compared to a 50 percent recidivism rate for the group of youth not given this intervention” (Great Lakes Economic Consulting