Success rates if juvenile programs differ from one institution to the other, largely because of the different strategies employed by each. Although there are other factors such as how individual offenders respond to the program, the difference in strategies remains the single most determinant of the success rates. In Colorado, the state administered Youth Offender Services (YOS) is managed by the correction Commission, which also does the same for the adult corrections (May, et al, 2007 ). The program is only open to youth judged as adults by the nature of their crimes.
Juvenile offenders who commit class one and class two felonies are not subject to this program. Overall however, it is agreed that early intervention programs are the most vital success factors of the programs no matter where they are located within the United States. The programs can for example put up specialty courts to address addictions, disadvantages of peer pressure and self-defeating behaviors. Government intervention can also ensure that all programs offer illegible juvenile offenders with training programs.
The programs should also expose the disadvantages of gangs in order to discourage any juvenile offender who may seek to join a gang in future. Those who have committed hate crimes can be counseled to understand, respect and appreciate differences in the communities they live in. In short, the components of the corrective and rehabilitation programs should be engineered to address the psychological needs of the young minds in order to save them from waste and probable crime careers in adult hood. Success Rates of Different programs
Ranking top of the other corrective and rehabilitation programs are those programs, which seek to prevent young people from engaging in delinquent behaviors (Greenwood, 2008). Such include programs that ensure that pregnant teens are visited at home as this reduces the risk of killing their unborn infants. School based programs also scores high in preventing drug use, and thus prevents delinquency, school-dropout and anti-social behavior, which results from drug use. Community based programs address both the adults and the children thus encouraging interaction between the two.
The adults are thus better skilled on supervising the children, while the young people are better informed of the consequences of engaging in delinquent behavior. As such, these programs succeed in preventing repeat offenders and even discourage high risk youths from engaging in vices that may have exposed them to the justice system. Other programs that have registered success include multi-systemic therapy, family therapy and the multi-dimensional treatment and foster care (Mihalic et al, 2001).
These results were attained through meta-analysis, whereby individual findings on program performance were analyzed and compared by the juvenile justice system. The results were published in the Juvenile justice journal dated 2001. Rehab Theory and its application on Juvenile rehabilitation. The rehab theory states that a convicted juvenile offender can be rehabilitated back to the society through guidance, counseling, special learning programs, extra curricular activities and health assistance (Gardner Et al.
2009). The theory has it that rehabilitation makes the offender to realize his errors and therefore transform his or her character. The theory also states that rehabilitation reduces recidivism and even strikes out the criminal tendencies completely (Miller, 1989). It is a potent alternative to incarceration but still continues to draw much criticism from antagonists who believe it is unlikely that juvenile offenders can be integrated back to the society without reverting back to crime.
The application of the rehabilitation theory is today done through principles of youth development, which assume that the youth are not yet adults and therefore lack the ability to make informed decisions about crime and cannot therefore be exposed to the same correction measures that adults are liable to. This perception is wide spread through out the juvenile system, which treats juvenile offenders with more care and consideration than they would adults.
As such, the convictions and sentences offered are lenient and often address the need for the juvenile offender to find the right examples, role models and guidance in order to pull their lives back on course. The assumption is that the juvenile offender’s mind is not fully developed to make weighty decisions that prompt crime. The need to rehabilitate such offenders thus always takes precedence over incarcerating them and presumably wasting their lives in correction facilities, no matter what the magnitude of their crimes were.
The application of rehabilitataion theory focuses on addressing the source of risk dynamics, ways to change them and how to focus on the offenders strengths. Programs that feature rehabilitation as their strategy use evidence based strategies. However, the risk profiles of individual offenders determine the interventions that different programs pursue (Hoge et al, 2008) The true test to rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents lies in the success rates of such programs.
Because juvenile courts are seen as too lenient most states have laws that allow judges in the juvenile courts to consider transferring the juveniles to adult courts. The argument raised to support the law is that the new breed of juvenile delinquents needs stricter means to rehabilitate and deter them from repeat crimes (May ET al, 2007). This is done through judicial waivers, prosecution waivers or legislative excursions. There is also the option of blended sentences where youths who fail to meet the requirement of the juvenile sentence are subjected to a harsher adult sentence.
Delinquent behavior’s application in the criminal justice system is better understood by defining the criminal justice system as an institution of the government, which affects and is affected by whatever happens in the society. Delinquency thus affects the criminal justice system because the players therein have to figure out ways to counteract the rising delinquent cases. The actions adopted by the criminal justice system consequently affect the entire society. Conclusion The importance of rehabilitation in correcting juvenile Delinquency cannot be gainsaid.
This concept however rides on the faith that a combination of rehabilitative treatment and punitive measures where a crime warrants such will not only keep the society safe in future, but most importantly that such measures will save the live of the youth who can be rehabilitated back to the society from wasting in prison. It is also hoped that such measures will instill proper behavior on youths who would otherwise be a menace to the society. On an economic perspective, rehabilitation programs reduces congestion in the correction facilities and in the process reduces the costs spent each year by states in maintaining the facilities.
References Center on juvenile & Criminal Justice. (2009). Juvenile Justice Overview. Retrieved 27 March 2009 from http://www. cjcj. org/juvenile_justice_overview Gardner, M. Et al. (2009). Sports Participation and Juvenile Delinquency: The Role of the Peer Context among Adolescents and Girls with Varied Histories of Problem Behavior. Journal of Development psychology. Vol. 45. No. 2 Greenwood, Peter. (2008). Prevention and Intervention programs for juvenile Offenders. Future of Children Journal. Hoge, Robert Et al. (2008). Treating the juvenile offender. Ed. New York: Guilford press JRA (2009).
Juvenile rehabilitation Administration. Retrieved 27 March 27, 2009 from http://www. dshs. wa. gov/jra/ Juvenile Justice Reform. (1996). Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States 1994-1996. Retrieved 27 March 2009 from http://ojjdp. ncjrs. org/pubs/reform/ch2_h. html Kierkus, C and Hewitt, J. (2009). The Contextual nature of the family structure/Delinquency relationship. Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 37. No. 2 Lonardo, R Et al. (2009). Parents, Friends, and Romantic Partners: Enmeshment in Deviant Networks and Adolescent Delinquency Involvement. Journal of Youth & Adolescence. Vol. 38. No. 3
May, D Et al. (2007). Corrections and the Criminal Justice System. Ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barlett Publishers Mihalic, Sharon Et al (2001). Blue Prints for Violence Prevention. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved 27 March 2009 from http://www. ncjrs. gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/187079. pdf Miller, Jerome. (1989). The Debate on Rehabilitating Criminals: Is it true that nothing Works? Printed in the Washington post. Retrieved 27 March 2009 from http://www. prisonpolicy. org/scans/rehab. html Minkner, Frank. (2005). State of Colorado: Juvenile justice System flow Chart. Retrieved 27 March 2009 from http://www.
cdhs. state. co. us/dyc/PDFs/juv_just_flowchart. pdf OJJDP. (2009). Office of Juvenile Justice and delinquency prevention. Retrieved 27 March 2009 from http://ojjdp. ncjrs. gov/grantees/pm/index. html Roucek, Joseph. (1970). Juvenile Delinquency. New Jersey: Ayer publishing Snyder & Sickmund. (1995). Juvenile Offenders & Victims: A National Report. Ed. Chicago: Diane publishing. Stout, Bruce. (2003). Community Re-entry of adolescents from New Jersey’s Juvenile Justice System. New Jersey institute for Social Justice. Retrieved March 27, 2009 from http://www. njisj. org/reports/stout_report. html