Treatment vs. Punishment

Treatment vs. Punishment

Introduction

When reviewing the inter-relation between criminal justice and social justice, two over-arching concepts have been the subject of much debate and discussion, particularly when addressing the sensitive issue of juvenile delinquency. These two concepts are the treatment and punishment of juvenile offenders. While social justice largely emphasizes upon the need to provide appropriate treatment to juvenile offenders in order to help them overcome the impulse to commit criminal offenses, criminal justice suggests the adoption of much harsher methods to ensure the same outcomes (Fixsen et al., 2005). Different states of America have adopted different policies pertaining to juvenile delinquency and this means that where some states rely on corporal punishment or capital punishment for juvenile crimes, other states are more lenient and prefer treatment to be more productive. The purpose of this paper it to conduct an assessment of the overarching concepts of treatment and punishment in juvenile delinquency and then suggest which one of the two is a better option for states in order to reduce juvenile crime. In addition, the study also reviews the juvenile crime statistics of three different cities across the United States and compares their statistics on juvenile crime before suggesting whether it is better for states and cities to implement a philosophy of punishment or treatment for juvenile offenders.

Thesis Statement

Rather than meting out corporal or capital punishment to juvenile offenders, there is a need to devise constructive intervention strategies that actually help the offenders through rehabilitative treatments



Discussion

Differences between Treatment and Punishment Concepts

The US Juvenile Justice system has struggled for a long time against inherent tensions between its roles of meting out severe punishment for criminal offenses and its responsibilities to work as an authoritative force that brings about positive constructive changes among youth who commit such violations. The primary aim of a Juvenile Justice System should ideally be to ensure the safety of the public while also making positive changes in the life-trajectories of juvenile offenders so as to decrease the chances that they will exhibit criminal tendencies in the future (Finckenauer & Gavin, 1999). The United States Juvenile System puts a great amount of emphasis on improving the chances that juvenile offenders have to function as productive and prosperous members of the society.

Juvenile systems employ elaborate measures to control juvenile behavior. Some of the most common measures adopted in order to yield positive results include custodial care and community supervision. Throughout the 20th century, policies pertaining to state sentencing mainly revolved around offenders and rehabilitative models of individualized sentencing. In the 1960s, the national crime rate saw a significant rise and this prompted the state to adopt more punitive measures as a means to discouraging potential offenders from violating the law (Finckenauer & Gavin, 1999). Many states and the federal government worked in unison and enforced offense-based sentencing policies. The notion that rehabilitative treatments were not effective and efficient was common through until the 1980s. However, with the availability of advanced assessment tools, scholars began to through assess the ...