Amazon.com Widgets

Would more severe punishments deter juvenile crime?

  • YES, It would deter juvenile crimes

    Severe punishment will help deter juvenile crimes. Why? Cause it will motivate their parents. The parents teaching is crucial for kids to not commit crimes. But when are parents motivated only when the punishment so harsh that it will effect the kids future and destroy it. So when it comes to that point the parents may start to teach the kid not to commit crimes which is very crucial.

  • Anyone can understand how something will affect them

    Even Juveniles, as they too can feel pain, want, and all the other normal feelings. Juveniles will, just like adults, respond if there are higher penalties. If we were to be extreme and suggest for example the death penalty for stealing, I am fairly sure that there would be some drop in the level of thievery in youths.

  • kids get off to easy

    Kids these days have a sense that if they commit crimes they wont get punished very harshly. So they will go out and commit crimes with their friends thinking its all just fun and games and that what their doing isn't that bad, but they dont realize that the things they do will affect their community.

  • Yes they should face the punishment

    I believe that they should face the punishment, because one, the age they are (14/15 and older), they should know better than that. They should know right from wrong. They should know hurting or killing people is wrong, and that it's going to effect them when they are older from getting a good job that they want!

  • juvy has failed me and most of all my son.

    I honestly believe my 16yr son would have never stuck a needle in his arm if they would have done their job. He's been sleeping with a 39yr woman since he was 14-15 and still. I have told everyone there is to tell and they have done nothing. If she was a teacher it would be all over the news. Apparently it's consentual at 16 but, he cant take his self to the dentist without a parent. Ive got so much more

  • Yes, because juveniles would be less inclined to commit crimes in society, if they knew a more severe punishment could be administered.

    More severe punishment would deter juvenile crime because juveniles would be less inclined to cause trouble in society. Currently, the punishment is not even that harsh for juveniles. If a minor murders someone, all the punishment they receive is something like probation or juvenile detention. The punishment should be way more severe in America's society. It would probably even make America a better place to live.

    Posted by: RMicheal
  • Adolescents, whose brains are still developing, are more impulsive, and their pain is routinely ignored.

    True, any sufficiently repressive system of monitoring and punishment can change the behavior of most teenagers or adults, at least while they are under lock and key. But if guiding someone toward responsibility and well-being is the goal, as it should be, of the juvenile justice system, then subtler means are needed. Helping young people to recognize and articulate their feelings; giving them enjoyable skills useful in the job market; and treating them with respect--which has all too rarely been done in this success-obsessed, surface-oriented culture--all these are parts of the answer. Discipline is also important, especially among violent or otherwise antisocial young people, but it is no silver bullet. Viewed as an end in itself, it treats offenders as objects rather than people. The problem is, that is how they often already see themselves; their misbehavior often reflects their despair, humiliation, and isolation. Remember, everyone has a story.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • I believe that punishing juveniles more severely would deter juvenile crime; it is important for them to learn their lesson as a child before they grow into a menace to society.

    As a former juvenile delinquent, I feel that if I had been punished more severely for my crimes as a juvenile, perhaps I would not have gotten into so much trouble as an adult! If I had a taste of jail in my teens or if I had gotten into treatment and counseling, I feel that may have straightened me up and cured my reckless behavior. Because it has taken me so long to learn my lesson, I am now almost thirty years old with a college degree, but unable to find work because of my criminal record.

    Posted by: bakuharusan
  • I believe that more severe punishment would deter juvenile crime because it would add more fear into the situation.

    Especially for youth, a more severe punishment might "scare them straight" when it comes to petty crimes like shoplifting and vandalism. However, for bigger crimes, like grand theft auto, assault, rape, and murder, the person committing the crime already faces a punishment and still commits the crime. I believe there is a certain point where a person will commit a crime no matter what the punishment is.

    Posted by: Iewie2cute
  • In my opinion people who have had more severe punishment have not done that crime again.

    If you are a juvenile and rob a store, you hypothetically would get 1 year probation. If you are an adult and do the same crime, you hypothetically would get 2 years jail and 1 year probation. That adult will realize it's not worth doing than the juvenile who will not take it seriously. Also, if the juvenile is over the age of 14-15, he/she knows right from wrong. We want to teach juveniles a lesson before they grow up and live a life of crime.

    Posted by: MiguelSimmons
  • The system is ruining any chance these youths had at a future

    Severely punishing juveniles is ruining any chance these kids have at a future. When we are young we all make mistakes, and no that is not an excuse to go out, join a gang or commit crime, although the young mind is easily influenced by others to do things they otherwise would not have. If your son or daughter was pressured into committing a crime would you want the court to throw them in prison for 7-15 years and ruin any chance they had at turning around their lives? When it comes down to it these harsh sentences are really just closing the door on their future and opening the for to a life of crime and prison sentences

  • Classical and operant conditioning find that punishment does not change behavior

    I think the preface to this discussion should be that we are considering imposing constraints on the portion of the population that is least likely to know and understand those constraints, and who stand to lose the most from enforcement of those constraints: the formative years of their lives. I propose that even in a punishment-based system, this is a poor model. On to the actual point:

    My argument stems from the basic teachings of classical and operant conditioning which find that punishment does not succeed in changing behavior and instead leads directly to more problematic behaviors, namely fear, aggression and avoidance, which serve as catalysts for further criminal acts.

    If your goal is to reduce juvenile crime, you need to expand your scope to examine the causes for current juvenile crime, and work backward through the system to change or eliminate those causes. Only when the community provides natural support and feedback conducive to prosocial behavior will crime lessen and finally cease. If the community is unable to reliably provide these cues, crime will perpetuate.

  • We have to get them before it starts

    Start by looking into their families, and what is making them go the wrong way. After we find the cause then we can build their future. I am a criminal justice major and I feel we are failing the children today,. Maybe we can fight a little harder and not wait for police and courts alone to mentor these kids.

  • It won't change anything

    Juvenile offenders probably don't know before hand what will happen to them if they commit so and so offense and probably don't care all that much. If they are committing crimes it is probably in the spirit of defiance or rebellion, or because it is seen as the cool thing to do. In these cases more severe punishments will make getting away with such a crime as even more impressive. Kids who break the law are probably having a pretty hard time anyway so I don't see how punishing them further will help anyone. Juveniles don't have a good idea of the punishment system in place or even what is or isn't against the law. Why should they be bothered to find out. Or they might be breaking the law for the adrenaline rush of getting away with it, simply for fun, in which case tougher punishments, which the probably aren't even aware of, won't change all that much.

  • Adults aren't deterred so why would juveniles be?

    Look at adult crime, the government has harsh punishments set in place for those who commit crime, yet they still do. We are not seeing any decrease in crime rates, in fact, it's only getting worse. More and more murders and thefts are being reported, you just have to watch the news to see that.
    If adults are not being deterred by severe punishments then what makes you think that juveniles will be deterred? They are more reckless and risk-taking than adults, so why would they listen to what the government threatens?

  • Do what is right.

    No it would not because most of the juveniles committing the crimes do not have a stable life in that their parents or care provider may be unfit by some means, a drug addiction or some other means of neglect. In this kind of environment there is a great number of things that could lead a minor astray. Mental capacity is the major concern.

  • I do not believe that increasing the severity of punishments will help deter juvenile crime.

    I do not believe that increasing the severity of punishments will help deter juvenile crime. With an increase in punishment, the stakes are even higher for juveniles who commit crime. When someone commits a crime, they don't think about the punishment. They just want to complete their crime, and if the police catch them, they know they would less to lose if they fought them. Juveniles are not as mature as adults and act more emotionally than rationally. They need to be educated and be engaged in other activities than to be part of crime.

  • Severity of punishment depends on the degree of the crime committed.

    Young people are vulnerable and susceptible to psychological problems. It can be triggered by very simple issues like not being comfortable with their own body-image. The media fuels the problem by glorifying slim and beautiful girls. This has led many young people to fall prey to life-threatening anorexia. If such issues are capable of having such a drastic effect on their minds and actions, then imagine the effects of abuse, neglect, witnessing abuse, fighting parents, drinking family members etc. There is no doubt that young people are easily influenced, and follow groups with whatever ideology they find cool without thinking carefully about their decisions and where it would lead them. Sometimes they are forced into doing things they initially disliked due to peer pressure and fear of oppressors. The lure of money and lust is also a factor that pulls young people into organizations that have links with thugs or comes with a lifestyle rife with crime.
    Juvenile delinquents should be counsel led and given another chance to turn over a new leaf under the watchful and guiding eyes of expert counselors. Sometimes love can wonders, and this should be the course of action as most of them may not have had maternal or paternal love and attention.

  • A 5-year punishment would deter just as many juveniles as a 10-year punishment.

    The title is self explanatory. Studies on the matter have shown that increased prison sentences do not affect crime rates. A lot of crimes are crimes of impulse, where no thought is really put into the consequences. If a juvenile, before committing assault, knew that s/he would definitely get 10 years in prison for it, s/he generally wouldn't do it. Similarly, if that punishment were 5 years in prison, s/he still wouldn't do it. There is a limit to when the punishment would stop juveniles who are acting rationally from committing a crime. However, when they commit crimes, they're generally not acting rationally. A 5-year punishment would deter just as many juveniles as a 10-year punishment.

  • Studies on the matter have shown that increased prison sentences do not work.

    The title is self explanatory. Studies on the matter have shown that increased prison sentences do not affect crime rates. A lot of crimes are crimes of impulse, where no thought is really put into the consequences. If a juvenile, before committing assault, knew that s/he would definitely get 10 years in prison for it, s/he generally wouldn't do it. Similarly, if that punishment were 5 years in prison, s/he still wouldn't do it. There is a limit to when the punishment would stop juveniles who are acting rationally from committing a crime. However, when they commit crimes, they're generally not acting rationally. A 5-year punishment would deter just as many juveniles as a 10-year punishment.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.