Would more severe punishments deter juvenile crime?
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: M4I4cFeIinekids 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.
Posted by: AnonymousI 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: Iewie2cuteIn 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: MiguelSimmonsI 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: bakuharusanYes 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!
Posted by: AnonymousI think that appropriate consequences for juvenile crimes would prevent these young miscreants from escalating their misdeeds.
Too often today, parents abdicate the parenting role and fail to impose any real consequences for the misbehavior of their kids. As a result, these misdeeds escalate from pranks to real harm. Since parents and society aren't doing a good job of imposing consequences, the criminal justice system will have to. But the punishments need to fit the crime and teach a lesson.
Posted by: Th4FireGreater the risk, lesser the will to commit crime
Every person thinks of risks involved in doing something before actually doing it, even if it is as small as driving on the wrong side of the road or crossing the road when the traffic is on. So if the punishments (or risk) is greater in a crime this would obviously deter people from committing it.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, 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: RMichealjuvy 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
Posted by: Anonymous
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.
Posted by: AnonymousJuvenile crime is often about impulsiveness and immaturity.
Juveniles do not often think out the long term consequences of their actions. This is why juvenile crime is separated from adult crime, because juveniles are seen as not being capable of making the same risk/reward decisions that adults can make. Making punishments more severe would have no effect as a deterrence, because juveniles are not thinking in those terms. They are not thinking about what the punishment may be. They are thinking about the action, alone, and the short term.
Posted by: KnownEvanSelf Deterrence
It is up to the individual to want to change in order to deter crime. Harsher punishments, in my opinion will only make matters worse instead of helping the situation. More involvement from the community as well as the parents would be beneficial as well in help todays' youth. In my opinion, if society would stop worrying about punishing some of these youth and help them instead, things would be so much better.
Posted by: AnonymousSevere punishments will not deter juvenile crime because juvenile crime is usually committed without any real thought about the consequences.
Most juvenile crimes are committed by an unthinking and unformed individual. The thought of a severe punishment would rarely enter the dim world of the juvenile offender's mind. For a punishment to have a deterrent effect it has to be a consideration for the offender. Most juvenile offenders just act without thinking first. This is why most juvenile offenders are not tried as adults. They lack the mental capacity to form the requisite criminal intent to be convicted of an adult crime. Therefore, the lesser and lighter juvenile punishment is not only imposed, but also appropriate.
Posted by: TickoNaIINo, overall I don't think so.
A lack of punishment is usually not the reason why juveniles commit crimes. The problem is usually deeper than that. A juvenile might commit a crime because they have been victimized themselves, or they have mental health issues, not because they are unafraid of the consequences. So, increasing punishments would only serve to take away more of people's freedom, not to necessarily stop the crime from happening in the first place. When it comes to juvenile crime it would be more constructive to approach the problem from a preventative angle, or one of reformation of the individual. Helping young people deal with their issues, before they fester into criminal acts, would have more of an impact on the crime rate. Increasing the severity of punishment wouldn't necessarily deter the criminal, but it would keep society free of their unlawful behavior for longer. However, once they are released, if nothing is done to address the root of the problem, they will just keep repeat offending.
Posted by: MohaI0v35Lighter works better.
Lighter punishments work better as deterrence because they are more likely to actually be applied.
Posted by: AnonymousMore severe punishments would not deter juvenile crime committed by gangs, because they just do not care.
It is sad to say, but there are certain juveniles that would not be scared into being good, even if stricter punishments were put into place. These individuals are so much into acting out, or being wanted to be accepted by somebody, that they do not care what would happen to them in the end.
Posted by: eyeslikethatSevere punishments wouldn't deter juvenile crime, as it exists largely due to the fact that juveniles can't comprehend consequences.
The juveniles that commit the most crimes have the least understanding of the impact that their behavior has on their community. A far more effective approach would be crime prevention via mentoring programs in at-risk areas, namely those in which high rates of crime already exist. In these areas, crime is their model and that must be fixed, or else it will continue to perpetuate itself.
Posted by: daveyxhI 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 catches 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.
Posted by: M4xFaceMore severe punishments would not deter juvenile crime because juveniles need more time to develop and understand such punishments.
Juvenile crime cannot be deterred by offering more severe punishments. The reason for this is that juveniles are still developing humans. The word 'juveniles' is a distracting word, because it masks the fact that we are talking about children. Children need proper time to develop their sense of right and wrong, as well as their ability to see the long-term consequences of their actions. Punishments are supposed to deter a person because the person thinks about that punishment before he or she acts. However, children do not have enough life experience, or knowledge of what the actual punishment is, for them to actually consider, for instance, that they could go to prison for 10 years if they do a particular action. Children need help in particular forms - educational, psychological, moral, etc. Severe punishments only stunt their growth in these areas, making them more dangerous in the future.
Posted by: SpikyWesleyDo 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.
Posted by: AnonymousImpunity exist therefore no.
Impunity exists despite our best efforts. As long as it exists punishment will be seen as hypocrisy. Not only that, but putting the punished in one place only gives them access to more people and methods of those like minded in subverting the system. Therefore, we must move from the 19th century thinking about punishment to 21st century SCIENCE about the fact humans are animals like any other and direct control of animals results in severe mental illness.
Posted by: AnonymousA 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.
Posted by: AnonymousStudies 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.
Posted by: AnonymousJuveniles generally don't commit crimes expecting to get caught.
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.
Posted by: JSterling8I do not think that more severe punishments in juvenile crime cases will deter crime because these punishments often make juveniles more likely to commit crime in the future.
Increasing the severity of punishment for most juvenile offenders will not reduce the crime rate but increase it. More punishment, often in the form of detainment, only exposes juveniles to other criminal elements for longer amounts of time. Additionally, increasing the severity of juvenile punishments will also mean more juvenile offenders will be placed in adult detention centers when they are too old to be housed with other juvenile offenders. This will only increase their likelihood to return to a life of crime. Instead a more therapeutic type of treatment should help by offering counseling, community service, and victim impact panels.
Posted by: VampireShuMore severe punishments don't necessarily act as a deterrent, and crime can be prevented in other ways.
In the mid 1700's, England's jails were full to overcrowding. Crime was rampant. Stealing and pick-pocketing did not stop, just because you could get 10 years for taking a loaf of bread. Juvenile crime prevention or reduction can effectively be produced by other means, such as early intervention with families and in communities with high crime rates. Programs, such as mentoring, involvement in activities like volunteering, sport and community-purposed events have been shown to be effective. Teaching kids leadership, creating a sense of connection to their community and helping them succeed in sport and school can help prevent children from engaging in crime-related activities. Success, support, encouragement and activity keeps children occupied, fulfilled and focused, which reduces the chances of them becoming involved in crime.
Posted by: MindlessDominick98Severity 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.Posted by: AnonymousChildren misbehaving begins at home, with the way they are raised.
If parents paid more attention to their children, and were more involved
with their academic, athletic and social lives, then maybe more children
would be less inclined toward criminal activity. Harsher punishment will
probably not deter them at all, as sometimes they can be tried as adults and
face severe punishment anyway, and that doesn't stop them.Posted by: MarsBIue