Juvenile Justice

Vineet Advani Mrs. Sheaffer English 7 4 December 2011 Should Juveniles Be Tried As Adults Unmoved by his mother's description of him as â€Å"a kind and gentle soul,† a Harris County jury come to a decision on Wednesday that 18-year-old, Robert Acuna, should be put on a life without parole sentence for murdering two elderly neighbors in a quiet town. Prosecutors presented little elucidation for why the Sterling High School junior, who worked part time at a fast-food restaurant, shot James Carroll, 75, and his wife, Joyce, 74, execution style. He has evil in his heart,† Assistant District Attorney Renee Magee told jurors as she urged them to return a death sentence (film). Acuna was 17 at the time of the murders. The U. S. Supreme Court plans to consider later this year whether it is constitutional to execute killers who were younger than 18 when they committed their crimes. The age of 18 brings about freedom for young people in America. At 18, an individual legally becom es an â€Å"adult†. An individual can now buy cigarettes or a home, enter adult-only clubs, vote, and even get married. Furthermore, from their 18th birthday and beyond, individuals are no longer tried for crimes in juvenile courts. Now, they are tried in adult courts. But, does one or two years make such a difference between sixteen year olds and eighteen year olds? Is it fair for one person, just seventeen years of age, to be tried in a juvenile court, receiving a lesser sentence for murder than an individual just six months older or more in age who committed the same crime? I think not. Many articles like â€Å"Kids are Kids – Until They Commit Crimes† by Marjie Lundstrom, â€Å"Supreme Court to Rule on Executing Young Killers† by Adam Liptak, â€Å"Startling Finds on Teenage Brains† by Paul Thompson and â€Å"Many Kids Called Unfit for Adult Trial† by Greg Krikorian show different views on this topic. But, I think trying juveniles as adults should be consistently allowed because juveniles are mature enough to that murder is wrong; it reduces crime; having consequences harsher for violent crimes in juvenile act as preclusion to the youth; and trying juveniles as adults allows society to express a simple message Maturity ought to determine culpability, not numerical age. While it is true that juveniles, as a group, are less mature and slower brain development rates and thus, level of maturity varies greatly from individual to individual. According Dr. Moin, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Alberta, â€Å"Simply because the average youth is less mature than the average adult does not mean that the particular juvenile who commits a heinous crime is less culpable. There may be very mature and calculating youth and very immature and naive adults. † Furthermore, Dr. Brian Woo of Pepperdine University Law School states that, â€Å"Rather than consider juveniles as a class in the aggregate, age alone cannot be substituted as a measure of an individual's maturity or psychological development†¦. Rather than adopt a bright line rule, the Court should allow the jury to factor in any mitigating evidence, i. e. , youth or immaturity, when determining an appropriate sentence. † Thus, trying juveniles as adults allows culpability to determine the degree and severity of punishment rather than whether or not an individual committed a crime the day before or the day after their 18th birthday. Punishment is expressive and sends a clear message against crime. Trying juveniles as adults gives society the ability to express the moral outrage of certain acts. According to David Gelenter of Yale University, â€Å"we execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable. A deliberate murderer embodies evil so terrible that it defiles the community. Thus the late social philosopher Robert Nisbet: â€Å"Until a catharsis has been affected through trial, through the finding of guilt and then punishment, the community is anxious, fearful, apprehensive, and above all, contaminated. Individual citizens have a right and sometimes a duty to speak. A community has the right, too, and sometimes the duty. The community certifies births and deaths, creates marriages, educates children, and fights invaders. In laws, deeds, and ceremonies it lays down the boundary lines of civilized life, lines that are constantly getting scuffed and needing renewal. † Thus, trying juveniles as adults allows society to express a simple message – certain acts are simply intolerable. Trying Juveniles as adults reduces crime. It is a simple law of economics that by increasing the cost of certain activities, individuals are less likely to engage in those activities. Dr. Moin states that in a study by Dr. Levitt â€Å"there was a statistically significant negative relationship between crime rates of juvenile offenders and length of sentencing. † Dr. Moin goes on to state that † What these studies show is that juveniles do respond to arrest rates and punishment, especially for violent crimes, and that they respond at least as much to punishment as adults do. Thus, trying juveniles as adults reduces crime by deterring others and preventing those susceptible to crime from having the ability to do so. Juveniles are more likely to be raped in the Juvenile Justice System. Rather than protecting juvenile offenders, the juvenile justice system endangers them far greater than the adult system. According to David Kaiser â€Å"Across the country, 12. 1% of kids questioned in the Bureau of Justice Statist ics survey said that they'd been sexually abused at their current facility during the preceding year. That's nearly one in eight. In total, according to the most recent data, there are nearly 93,000 kids in juvenile detention on any given day†¦ we can say confidently that the BJS's 3,220 figure represents only a small fraction of the children sexually abused in detention every year. † The reason for this epidemic is clear. According to David Kaiser, â€Å"Adults who want to have sex with children sometimes look for jobs that will make it easy. They want authority over kids, but no onerous supervision; they also want positions that will make them seem more trustworthy than their potential accusers. In a sense, juvenile detention facilities are like flashing neon lights for potential pedophiles. This is by no means rehabilitative. Having consequences harsher for violent crimes in juvenile acts as an avoidance to the youth. The prevention theory states that if the consequence of committing a crime outweighs the benefit of the crime itself, the individual will be deterred from committing the crime. Prof essor of law Scot and professor of psychology Steinberg said â€Å"first, the threat of harsh sanctions may deter future crime generally by discouraging youths from ever getting involved in criminal activity. Second, imprisonment prevents crime by incapacitating offenders. Third, imprisonment could reduce future crime by rehabilitating young offenders so that they will mend their criminal ways† Champion and Mays, Criminal Justice Professors at California State University said Deterrence presumes that punishing an offender will prevent him or her from committing further acts of deviance, or will dissuade others from law-violating behavior, and the transfer of juveniles to adult court should serve a deterrent function. The adult criminal justice system has a worse punishment than the juvenile court therefore it will serve as a better deterrent factor to stop the juvenile violent crime. Effective deterrence will be able to ensure safety because it will stop the crime before it happens. When the consequences are worse, there will be less crime; therefore Juveniles should be treated as adults in the criminal justice system if they committed a violent crime. Others might say juvenile’s brains aren't as developed as adults. However, you are taught to know what is right and wrong so how does your brain being not fully developed affect your capability of knowing that murder is wrong. According to Terence T. Gorski is an internationally recognized expert on substance abuse, mental health, violence, & crime and others qualified professionals, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam. ) â€Å"Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses,† states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Although juveniles should be punished for their crimes, they are not as responsible as adults. â€Å"This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces,† observes Ortiz. Indeed, this is why we refer to those under 18 as `minors' and `juveniles'—because, in so many respects, they are less than adult. † Murder however is a different story since you end someone’s life. As I said, Juveniles are TAUGHT to know what is wrong and right. The mentality of the newer generations is generally higher than the children from 30 years ago. Murder is wrong and if juveniles know it’s wrong and still commits murder, why should we still go easy on them and treat them as juveniles? In summary, trying juveniles as adults is justified by both deontological and practical views of justice by ensuring culpability is the standard of punishment all the while deterring crime and protecting juveniles from abuse. From writing this essay, I have learned that if I was a lawyer and I was against a juvenile in adult court, I would treat him like any other criminal because of the severity of their crime not the perpetuator’s age. Even though the juveniles are under 18, they still have learned that murder is wrong and I will treat them as if they know that murder is wrong because it is a idea everyone knows. Work cited page Film When Kids Get Life. Ofra Bikel. Dir. Nathan Ybanez, Erik Jenson, Trever Jones. Andrew Medina. Perf. PBS. 2007. film Articles Thompson, Paul. â€Å"Startling Finds on Teenage Brains. † Sacramento Bee [Sacramento, CA] 25 May 2001. Pg 1-2 Krikorian, Greg. â€Å"Many Kids Called Unfit For Trial. † The Sacramento Bee [Sacramento, CA] 3 Mar. 2003: 1-2. Print. Liptak, Adam. â€Å"Supreme Court to Rule on Executing Young Killers. † The New York Times [New York City, NY] 3 Jan. 2005: 1-2. Print. Lundstorm, Marjie. â€Å"Kids Are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes. † The Sacramento Bee [Sacramento, CA] 1 Mar. 2001: 1-2. Print. Juvenile Justice According to the article â€Å"Many Kids Called Unfit for Adult Trial,† 200,000 juveniles a year are being tried as adults in the United States. They are sentenced to life in prison and even the death penalty. But is that what is really best for them? Putting these teenagers in prison for life gives them no chance to change their lives around and learn from what they’ve done. I strongly believe that adolescents should not be sentences as adults but still deserve a huge punishment. Teenagers should not be tried as adults because teenager’s brains are not fully developed as adult brains are.In his article â€Å"Startling Finds on Teenage Brains,† Paul Thompson states, â€Å"The biggest surprise in recent teen-brain research is the finding that a massive loss of brain tissue occurs in the teen years. † How are these teens supposed to understand what they are doing if they are not fully mature and aren’t mentally stable? Thompson also says that, â€Å"Brain cells and connections are only being lost in the areas controlling impulses, risk-taking, and self-control. † These children are not aware of how serious their actions are and therefore, should be helped immediately.These kids who are being tries as adults are not mentally capable of defending themselves. According to Laurence Steinberg, a Temple University psychology professor, â€Å"It is a violation of constitutional right to be a defendant in a criminal proceeding when you are not competent to defend yourself. † These juveniles being tried as adults do not understand the proceedings. They don’t recognize the risks in different choices and are less likely to think about long term consequences. For example, Robert Acuna, a high school student from Baytown, Texas, was given the death sentence for killing two elderly neighbors.In the article â€Å"Supreme Court to Rule on Executing Young Killer,† Ms. Magee said, â€Å"He was very nonchalant. He laughed at inappropriate things. He still didn’t quite get the magnitude of everything he did. † There are many other teens like Robert who don’t think before their actions. Acuna may have killed his two elderly neighbors and stolen their car, but his punishment should not have been death. I don’t think that anyone should have the power to decide who should live or die, not matter what they have done. The judge who decides this and the executor who killed these kids should not be alive anymore than Robert Acuna is.Taking these kids’ lives away or putting them in prison for life gives them no chance to change their lives around. I highly doubt that they will learn a lesson in prison. Even though I don’t think kids should be tries as adults, they still need some sort of punishment. As Paul Thompson said, â€Å"While research on brain tissue loss can help us to understand teens better, it cannot be used to excuse their violent or homicidal b ehavior. But it can be used as evidence that teenagers are not yet adults and the legal system shouldn’t treat them as such. They could stay in jail with other teens but not for life. I also think that they need help from a therapist or psychiatrist. They are seriously impaired and need help to steer their lives in the right direction. Prison is a negative environment and will only make them worse and lead to more problems such as fights and violence. These juveniles are kids! They don’t have the same rights as adults. They aren’t allowed to drink, smoke, vote, get married, etc. They are not ready to take care of themselves or live on their own. In the article â€Å"Kids are Kids-Until They Commit Crimes,† a Democratic State Rep.Ron Wilson of Houston said, â€Å"You want to throw the adult book at kids? Fine! Lower the voting age to fourteen. † I agree with Wilson. Kids aren’t allowed to vote because they aren’t mature and for the sam e reason, they should not be tried as adults. Even though these kids have made huge mistakes, I think they deserve a second chance in life. They shouldn’t be tried as adults nor be sentenced to die. This doesn’t mean that they get away with the crimes they’ve committed, it just means they won’t be in prison their whole life for a crime they committed when they were kids. Juvenile Justice Treatment vs. Punishment There are many different types of crimes committed by juvenile delinquents in today’s society. These crimes consist of violent crimes, property crimes, forgery, fraud, vandalism as well as many others. In 2009, there were 32,638,900 youths in the United States and 1,906,600 of them were arrested for a type of crime. (Puzzanchera & Adams, 2012). There are many options that the Department of Juvenile Justice System can lead towards such as punishment or treatment, but the rehabilitation depends on the juvenile at hand.Most research suggests there is a reduced recidivism amongst juveniles who receive treatment. Treatment options are the ideal way to deal with juvenile delinquency. Juvenile Delinquency The definition of juvenile delinquency is a behavior against the criminal code, committed by an individual who has not reached proper adulthood by state or federal law. (Bartol & Bartol, 2011). Different states have different age of jurisdictions ranging fro m ages 15 through 17 which 37 states have adopted. â€Å"The age of the youth dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult court system has authority over the case. (Listwan, 2013, Sec 1. 2). For instance, if a juvenile committed a crime in Michigan at the age of 17 the jurisdiction would be in adult court system. Treatment and Punishment Concepts There is a debate on whether juvenile delinquents should be punished for their crimes, or if they should be rehabilitated for the crimes they committed. When many people look at the court system they may believe that the juvenile justice system is geared towards punishment but in the past, the juvenile justice system was geared towards rehabilitation. Historically, the juvenile justice system was oriented toward rehabilitation and care of the youth. † (Listwan, 2013, Sec 1. 3). In recent years, society is getting back to rehabilitation concepts by incorporating different treatment options whereas in the 1970’s a psycholog ist by the name of Robert Martinson did a study on whether or not treatment reduced recidivism rates. In his study, Martinson concluded that treatment did not lead to lower recidivism rates and stated, â€Å"Nothing works† when it came to treatment. (Listwan, 2013).Currently in the midst of juvenile delinquency, research is showing that treatment services are working by as much as 30–35 percent. (Listwan, 2013). In Australia, a study was conducted on recidivism rates for juvenile offenders and they reported that 1,500 juvenile justice clients reoffended, which was a 61 percent increase. (Day, Howells & Rickwood, 2004). They were astonished by this number and began to implement rehabilitation known as a â€Å"what works† approach to offenders. â€Å"This approach can be summarized by a core set of principles of human service delivery.Collectively, these principles suggest that reductions in recidivism can be maximized when programs select appropriate candidates, target factors that directly relate to their offending, and are delivered in ways that facilitate learning. † (Day, Howells & Rickwood, 2004, Para 5). This program appears to be working at the recidivism rates are decreasing. The United States is also implementing rehabilitation programs to help reduce recidivism rates. â€Å"More than 30 years of research has produced a body of evidence that clearly demonstrates that rehabilitation programs work. (Przybylski, 2008, Pg 2). Juvenile Sex Offenders and Juvenile Justice Intervention Strategy A juvenile sex offender is described as a youth who has been convicted of a sex crime which may include rape, sodomy, fondling, or other forced sexual act. (Listwan, 2013). Numerous people believe that society should throw away the key on these juvenile sex offenders. â€Å"Sex offenders are often placed on the lowest rung of the criminal hierarchy— meaning that most people feel that sex offenders are the worst of the worst. † (Listwan, 2013, Sec 9. 4).In some cases, if a child does not receive the proper counseling needed, they can grow up committing the same acts of violence which were bestowed on them. For instance, â€Å"violence becomes a learned problem-solving technique transmitted from one generation to the next in a phenomenon known as the cycle of violence. † (Collica & Furst, 2012, Sec 7. 1). If a youth does end up committing this act of violence, they are first adjudicated by the court system and will receive their sentencing. A judge will either send them to a treatment facility or else may send them to a detention center depending on the age of the juvenile.All judges seem to believe that family structure and prior record are almost equally important factors in determining offenders' likelihood of rehabilitation. (D'Angelo, 2010). There are many treatment facilities which deal specifically with juvenile sex offenders. Psychologists are becoming more optimistic in the treatment of sex offenders. â€Å"First, they believe that the most effective interventions, or treatment methods, are those that follow the principles of risk, need, and responsivity (RNR). † (Bartol & Bartol, 2011, Pg 403).Other treatment which appears to be successful is cognitive behavioral therapy which shapes the behavior as well as thinking pattern in offenders. This therapy teaches juveniles on their thinking pattern on some situation and how that can influence their actions in some situations. â€Å"Cognitive behavior therapy argues that maladaptive sexual behaviors are learned according to the same rules as normal sexual behavior, by means of classical and/or instrumental conditioning, modeling, reinforcement, generalization, and punishment. † (Bartol & Bartol, 2011, Pg 404).A great deal of studies suggests that cognitive behavior therapy appears to be the best treatment in reducing recidivism amongst juvenile delinquents whether this include sexual offences or any other type of offences. Juveniles who complete a cognitive-behavioral program are less likely to commit sexual or any re-offenses than are juveniles who do not receive treatment, receive an alternative treatment, or do not complete treatment. (Przybylski, 2008, Pg 53). Multisystemic therapy (MST) is also a successful treatment approach for serious juvenile offenders.This therapy option addresses the cognitive and systemic factors such as family, peers, as well as school which are associated with risk factors. The juvenile, counselor as well as the family work together. In a study conducted, â€Å"The data showed that MST participants had significantly lower recidivism rates at follow-up than did those participants who received individual therapy (50% vs. 81%, respectively). Recidivism, depending on the study, refers to re-arrest, reconviction, or incarceration after an initial juvenile arrest, conviction, or incarceration. (Bartol & Bartol, 2011, Pg 168). In North Carolina, there is a succes sful intervention program called Sexual Abuse Intervention Services. This program is located at Barium Spring. This program offers, This program offers, psychosexual evaluation (Sex Offense Specific Evaluation), in-home family therapy, weekly sex offense specific group therapy, individual therapy, individualized safety plans in the home, school and community, case management—coordinating and monitoring services, ongoing consultation with juvenile court counselors to monitor client’s reatment progress and status in the home/community, family reunification when appropriate, step-down services for clients who are transitioning back into the community from residential placement. (Foster, 2013). This program believes in treating juvenile sex offenders to reduce recidivism. The program appears to be successful for the fact that many juvenile sex offender clients at a local group home attended this program and none of them have reoffended. Unfortunately, there is no data avai lable.Juvenile Crime Statistics Different states have different statistics on juvenile offenders. In 2009, 1,906,600 juveniles were arrested for various types of crimes in the United States. During that year, there were 722,000 youths in Arizona, 1,096,000 in Michigan, and 971,900 youths in North Carolina. (Puzzanchera, Adams, & Kang, 2012). In that same year, Arizona had 52,062 juveniles arrested for various crimes; Michigan had 36,643 juvenile arrested and North Carolina had 48,634 for various crimes.Statistics indicate that in Arizona, 1,366 juveniles were arrested for violent crimes including rape, robbery and aggravated assault and 11,181 were arrested for property crimes including burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson as well as many others. In Michigan there were 2,136 juveniles arrested for violent crimes and 10,993 were arrested for property crimes. North Carolina statistics show that 2,483 juveniles were arrested for violent crimes and 12,766 were arrested for prop erty crime. (Puzzanchera, Adams, & Kang, 2012).The arrest rate in juveniles has steadily decreased from the 1990’s through present time in Arizona, Michigan and North Carolina. Society would agree that this decrease in crime is beneficial to every person in the community. Arizona, Michigan and North Carolina juvenile arrests consist of every race including White, Black, Indian, Asian, Hispanic, as well as many others. Not one particular race committed any acts of violence, but instead all races. For instance, in Arizona, 10,259 White juveniles committed violent crimes and 34,070 committed property crimes. ,465 Black juveniles committed violent crimes and 3,191 committed property crimes including drug charges. 5,016 Hispanic juveniles committed violent crimes and 15,388 committed property crimes. (Halliday, 2011). In Michigan, violent crime data indicates that nine Black juveniles committed murders and one White committed murder. 476 black juveniles were arrested for aggravate d assault, 418 arrests for White juveniles, and 12 arrests of Hispanic juveniles. (Elam, Siemon & Fitzpatrick, 2012).As for robbery in Michigan, 384 were Black juveniles, whereas 39 were White and six were Hispanic juveniles. Property crimes such as larceny show that 3,131 arrests were White juveniles, 2,241 arrests were Black juveniles and 151 were Hispanic juveniles. (Elam, Siemon & Fitzpatrick, 2012). For burglary crimes, there were 630 arrests of White juveniles, 651 arrests of Black juveniles and 29 arrests of Hispanic juveniles. In North Carolina, the statistics are different than Arizona as well as Michigan. The state of North Carolina analyzes their data according to class felonies.For instance, in 2009 the juvenile arrest rate for Black juveniles with a class A-E felony which includes, murder, rape, sexual assault, manslaughter, drug crimes, sexual battery, robbery as well as others was 485 juveniles. (NCDJJ, 2010). There were 226 White juveniles convicted of a class A-E fe lony and 28 Hispanic. In the class F-I felony which includes property crimes, the data indicated 4,816 Black juveniles were arrested, 2,837 White juveniles were arrested as well as 1,670 Hispanics were arrested. (NCDJJ, 2010).Males along with females both account for crimes committed on adult as well as juvenile levels. Numerous people believe that males make up arrest statistics, but females contribute to these arrests. For instance, in the state of Arizona, 16,943 females were arrested in 2009. 34,659 juvenile males were arrested that same year. The female juveniles accounted for 4,611 violent crimes and 12,332 property crimes. 7,804 arrests were made for violent crimes amongst males and 26, 855 for property crimes. (Halliday, 2011).In Michigan, juvenile females accounted for 6,484 arrests in 2009. Male arrest rates were much higher at 14,814. (Elam, Siemon & Fitzpatrick, 2012). â€Å"The number of arrests statewide decreased for both male and female juveniles between 2005 and 20 09, with violent crimes by females decreasing more slightly than violent crimes by males. † (Elam, Siemon & Fitzpatrick, 2012, Pg 43). In 2009, there were 2,734 juvenile females arrested for larceny theft as well as 2,894 juvenile males arrested for larceny theft.Unfortunately, there was no data available for juvenile gender arrests except that all arrests made were 75% male juveniles. (NCDJJ, 2010). Different states have different age ranges on who commits an act of violence. Unfortunately, not all states have data on the age ranges for youths such as Arizona. In Michigan, for instance, 86 percent of arrests for sex offences were between the ages of 13 through 16. (Elam, Siemon & Fitzpatrick, 2012). In 2009, juveniles between the age of seven through 10, 276 were arrested which represented 1. percent of total arrests that year. (Elam, Siemon & Fitzpatrick, 2012). In North Carolina, 3. 11 undisciplined rates per 1,000 between the ages of six to 17 were arrested. The delinquent Rate per 1,000 between the ages of six to 15 was 29. 14 in 2009. (NCDJJ, 2010). State Treatment Every state has different treatment options for juveniles. Most states offer teen courts for juvenile delinquents. For instance, in Arizona, â€Å"Teen Court hears the matter and determines an appropriate, constructive consequence, using established guidelines. (Starky, 2012). These constructive consequences range from community service hours, restitution, a letter of apology, counseling, tutoring, research papers, educational classes, skill-building classes, as well as a few others. Arizona also offers early intervention programs such as Court Unified Truancy Suppression Program, Families in Need of Services, Drug Diversion Program, as well as School Safety Program. The state of Michigan also tries early intervention as well as treatment programs for their juvenile delinquents.For instance, Michigan currently has three rehabilitation facilities which focus on therapy as well as special ized treatment programs. Unfortunately, Michigan cut their budget on treatment facilities from 2000 which had approximately 10 facilities. This state offers early intervention programs one in particular called Juvenile Accountability Block Grants JABG program. This programs mission is to â€Å"Reduce juvenile offending through accountability-based programs focused on juvenile offenders and the juvenile justice system. † (DHS, 2013).North Carolina also prefers treatment instead of punishment. â€Å"The Division offers services for youth by establishing and maintaining a seamless comprehensive juvenile justice system that promotes juvenile delinquency prevention, intervention and treatment. † (NCDPS, 2012). North Carolina juvenile justice system focuses to strengthen families, promote delinquency prevention, support core social institutions, intervene immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs and identify and control the small group of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders in the local communities. NCDPS, 2012). North Carolina offers many facilities for juveniles around the state and a great deal of these facilities includes crime specific treatment. When juveniles are adjudicated and once they are released they may continue on the same path and commit other crimes. Often times, juveniles will continue with this circle and end up back in juvenile detention centers or on probation. The Arizona Department of Juvenile corrections had a 12 month recidivism rate of 34. 1percent for juveniles released during 2008.The number dropped from 2006 which indicated there was a 48 percent recidivism rate. (ADJC, 2010). In Michigan, the recidivism rate measured by a felony conviction was 22 percent at two years after release during 2004. The number dropped from the previous year at 24 percent. â€Å"Recidivism rates were higher for minority youths than for white youths. † (MDHS, 2013). In 2004 in North Carolina, the recidivism r ate for juvenile delinquents was 26. 7 percent. (Beck, Calhoun, Hevener & Katzenelson, 2007). Arizona appears to have the highest recidivism rate in all three states. TheoriesThere is no exact evidence which addresses juvenile delinquency but a mixture of biological, psychological and sociological. The biological theory explains that physical attributes as well as heredity may lead a juvenile to commit crimes. â€Å"Biological explanations of behavior focus on biological properties of an individual, including the individual's genetic background, structural damage in the brain, or the role of various chemicals in the nervous system. † (Wilson, 2012, Sec 1. 5). Heredity also plays a major role in behavior and criminal actions are believed to have run down in the family. Hereditary explanations of causation hold that criminality in some families is hereditary, and that deviance is genetically encoded in those born into the family group. † (Martin, 2005, Pg 76). Research be lieves that hormones may have an impact on people committing crimes such as higher testosterone. â€Å"Studies find that men with high levels of testosterone are more likely to be aggressive. More importantly, studies find that hormones can impact the brain, making individuals less sensitive to stimuli, so they in turn seek out more thrilling situations to stimulate their brain. (Listwan, 2013, Sec 3. 4). Another indicator could include the environment the juvenile resides. Environment can play a crucial role such a brain development, depression, anxiety, aggression as well as hyperactivity. Numerous people believe that the environment plays a significant role on behavior which can be stemmed from parents raising their children. â€Å"Criminals and delinquents are stimulated (reinforced) by their environment to continue acting out defiantly until they are punished in some manner. † (Martin, 2005, Pg 81).With this being said, when a juvenile is rewarded for their deviance, an d receive no punishment or treatment for breaking the law, they will continue to do so until they are adjudicated. Psychological theory which is also the personality theory suggests that there is a relationship between crime and personality. â€Å"Juvenile delinquents and adult criminals are, according to psychoanalytic theory, persons without sufficiently developed egos and superegos. If the moralistic superego is weak, a person can easily act out on his or her primal urges without remorse (an unchecked id), and mislabel deviance as acceptable behavior. (Martin, 2005, Pg 80). Another theory under the psychological theory is the conditioning theory. This portion explains that a person’s future behavior is conditioned by his or her past experiences. The interrelationships between individuals, socioeconomic groups, social processes, and societal structures are known as the sociological theory. It is believes that a lower living class has a higher crime rate. â€Å"The UCR sho ws that there is a class crime relationship, meaning crime rates are higher among those who are lower in class areas. (Listwan, 2013, Sec 3. 5). For instance, in many lower class areas, parents work to support their family, thus in return youths do not have any supervision. The youths in light of the freedom, tend to get into trouble. For instance, in Gladwin County in Michigan indicates this is the one of Michigan’s counties with the highest number of juvenile poverty rate which is over 29 percent. This county also has the state’s highest juvenile arrest rate. With this being said, socioeconomic considerations have an impact on the influences in juvenile delinquency.Treatment There are many treatment options for juveniles which have become readily available. The best type of treatment option would be early intervention. Youths should start young in learning to control their behavior as well as take responsibility for their actions. Numerous people will look at juvenil e delinquents and give up on their treatment. They may think that he or she is past the point of rehabilitation. A beneficial program that parents should incorporate in their daily lives is called the Incredible Years Series (IYS) Program.This program not only works for children who display behavioral or conduct disorders, but also for other children. This program is geared towards children between the ages of two through ten. â€Å"The Incredible Years Parents, Teachers, and Children Training Series, is designed to prevent, reduce, and treat conduct problems among children ages 2 to 10 and to increase their social competence. † (Wilson, 2000, Pg 1). Some goals to reduce conduct problems in children include decreasing negative behaviors and noncompliance with parents at home, decreasing peer aggression and disruptive behaviors in the classroom.Other goals include promoting social, emotional, and academic competence in children such as increasing children’s social skill s, increasing children’s understanding of feelings, increasing children’s conflict management skills and decrease negative attributions, as well as increasing academic engagement, school readiness, and cooperation with teachers. â€Å"A substantial body of research has clearly shown that young children with early-onset behavioral problems are at significantly greater risk of having severe antisocial difficulties, academic underachievement, school dropout, violence, and drug abuse in adolescence and adulthood. (Webster-Stratton & Herman, 2010). With this program, all children can have a crime free future. Conclusion In conclusion, treatment options are the ideal way to deal with juvenile delinquency. There are many attributes which take place in dealing with punishment or treatment for juvenile offenders. Most research suggests that treatment is the best options and helps reduce recidivism rate. For juvenile sex offenders, specific treatment helps reduce the likelihood of recidivism especially with cognitive behavior therapy.There are also numerous programs such as the one in North Carolina which deals directly with juvenile sex offenders. The program has a good turn around rate with the local group home facility. Every state has different data, and while comparing this data opens a person’s eyes as to the crime rate in their community. When people observe this data it gives them an incentive to get out in the community and help these juvenile delinquents. Even though Arizona has the least amount of juvenile arrests, this state has the highest recidivism rate amongst Arizona, Michigan as well as North Carolina.When trying to pin point on why a juvenile acts out, biological, psychological and sociological theories all play a major role. The reasoning can be from heredity, personality, environment as well as socioeconomic considerations. There are many early intervention programs readily available for youths as well as juvenile delinquents w hich have already committed a crime. Parent should begin to take an initiative in their children life at an early age to stop the deviant behavior in the future. After all, these children are our future. References: Alexander, M. A. (1999).Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: Journal OfResearch And Treatment, 11(2), 101-116. doi:10. 1007/BF02658841. Retrieved fromEBSCOhost Database. Bartol, C. R. , & Bartol, A. M. (2011). Criminal behavior: A pscychological approach (9th ed. ). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN: 9780558591373 Beck, M. , Calhoun, K. , Hevener, G. , & Katzenelson, S. (2007). Juvenile recidivism study. DOI: www. nccourts. org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Documents Collica, K. & Furst, G. (2012). Crime & society. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.Retrieved from Ashford Constellation. D'Angelo, J. M. (2002). Juvenile court judges' perceptions of what factors affect juvenileoffenders' likelihood of rehabilitation. Juvenile & Famil y Court Journal, 53(3), 43-55. Retrieved from ProQuest Database. Day, A. , Howells, K. , & Rickwood, D. (2004). Current trends in the rehabilitation of juvenileoffenders. Woden, Woden: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from ProQuestDatabase. Elam, P. , Siemon, C. , & Fitzpatrick, D. (2012). Michigan’s Statewide Juvenile Arrest AnalysisReport. Retrieved from Public http://michigancommitteeonjuvenilejustice. om/sitefiles/files/Documents/2012JuvenileArrestAnalysisReportVol1. pdf Foster, J. (2013). Barium springs, giving hope to children and families. Retrieved fromhttp://www. bariumsprings. org/page. cfm? id=32 Halliday, R. (2011). Arizona department of public safety. Retrieved fromhttp://www. azdps. gov/About/Reports/docs/Crime_In_Arizona_Report_2009. pdf Listwan, S. J. (2013). Introduction to juvenile justice. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint, Education,Inc. Martin, G. (2005). Juvenile justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. DOI:www. sagepub. com/books/Book226433 MDHS. (2013).Juvenile accountability block grants (jabg). Retrieved fromhttp://www. michigan. gov/dhs/0,4562,7-124-5453_34044_34052-15632–,00. html NCDJJ. (2010). 2009 annual report north carolina department of juvenile justice. Retrievedfrom website:http://www. juvjus. state. nc. us/resources/pdf_documents/annual_report_2009. pdf Pullman, L. , & Seto, M. C. (2012). Assessment and treatment of adolescent sexual offenders:Implications of recent research on generalist versus specialist explanations. Child Abuse& Neglect, 36(3), 203-209. doi:10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2011. 11. 003. Retrieved fromEBSCOhost Database. Puzzanchera, C. nd Adams, B. (2012). Juvenile Arrests 2009. Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://www. ojjdp. gov Starky, C. (2012). Teen courts: Juvenile probation. Retrieved fromhttp://www. superiorcourt. maricopa. gov/JuvenileProbation/Probation/teenCourt. asp Wilson, J. F. (2012). Introduction to biological psychology. San Diego, C A: BridgepointEducation, Inc. Webster-Stratton, C. , & Herman, K. C. (2010). Disseminating Incredible Years Series earlyintervention programs: Integrating and sustaining services between school and home. Psychology In The Schools, 47(1), 36-54.