Showing pages 1 to 3 of 8 pages
1YOUTH JUSTICEStudent NameInstitution Name
2YOUTH JUSTICEIn the modern era, youth delinquency has proved problematic to handle. There are increasingcases of youth offending in Australia and globally. Despite the existence of several policies tosuppress the issue, youth delinquency is on the rise. The increasing rates of youth felony haveprompted policymakers and scholars to research alternative ways of addressing the issue.However, the deferring views on the cause and ways of controlling youth crime by thepolicymakers, scholars, and public have complicated the process of finding appropriatesolutions. Public comments on the proposed changes by the Queensland parliament explicitlyillustrates that the society is far from establishing a coherent strategy to address youthdelinquency. The commentaries posted by the public on the article implicitly posit youthoffending from the classical theory perspective. The comments illustrate that the publicbelieves that juveniles commit criminal acts out of individual choices and rationalconsiderations. This position severally challenges academic literature on youth justice as itpostulates that there is no significant difference between youth and adult offenders.Public views on youth delinquency significantly rely on the existing implicit theories onyouth offending. According to Shoemaker (2010), implicit theories are personal constructionsabout a particular condition or occurrence that exist in the mind of individuals. Theseconstructions differ according to people. AsCunneen, Whites, and Richards (2015) expound,the implicit theories are characteristically equivocal and inconsistent in explaining anoccurrence. Additionally, these personal constructions tend to be descriptive and deductive intheir explanation to a phenomenon. As a result, several theories exist on youth delinquency.Each perspective strives to persuade the public that its position is relevant. In spite of thesediscrepancies, implicit youth delinquency theories are vital in understanding factors thatpropagate youth offending and direct policy formulation.
3In the ‘Courier Mail naming and shaming comments,' the main concepts of youth offendingreflected by the public’s comments conform to the classical and strain delinquency theories.However, the significant percentage of the public founded their comments on the classicalyouth delinquency theory. According to Cunneen, Whites, and Richards (2015), the classicaltheory posits that the young people are rational individuals who have free will and ability tomake choices. The classical theory suggests that a person engages in criminal actsintentionally after calculating the costs and benefits of such actions. In this respect, the theoryrules out the effects of externalities in youth delinquency. As illustrated by the comment ofone member of the public, all criminals should be accountable for their actions regardless oftheir age since they commit crime intentionally.Consequently, a majority of those who commented on the article supported the naming andshaming of the young offenders. Moreover, some even suggested that the delinquent youthsshould be shamed alongside their parents. According to one of the individuals whocommented on the post, naming and shaming the offenders will act as a deterrent measure.However, there are those who argue that naming and shaming the offenders is not a sufficientdisciplinary move. Instead, they insist that corporal punishment should accompany thenaming and shaming. As depicted by the comments of a section of the public, naming andshaming the offenders without severe punishment could further escalate the rate of youthdelinquency. This punitive view summarizes the stand of those who employ the classicalapproach to youth felony. As Marina and King (2009) expound, studies show that those whouse the classical perspective on youth offending are more likely to be punitive than those whoutilize the strain theory.On the other hand, there are those who commented on the post from the strain theoryviewpoint. The strain theory employs the positivists’ school of thought to criminology. In thisview, this section of the public argued that social strains such as poor parenting, economic