JSB372 Youth Justice Assignment
8 Pages2203 Words643 Views
Added on 2019-10-31
JSB372 Youth Justice Assignment
Added on 2019-10-31
ShareRelated Documents
1YOUTH JUSTICEStudent NameInstitution Name
2YOUTH JUSTICE In the modern era, youth delinquency has proved problematic to handle. There are increasing cases 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 the policymakers, scholars, and public have complicated the process of finding appropriate solutions. Public comments on the proposed changes by the Queensland parliament explicitlyillustrates that the society is far from establishing a coherent strategy to address youth delinquency. The commentaries posted by the public on the article implicitly posit youth offending from the classical theory perspective. The comments illustrate that the public believes that juveniles commit criminal acts out of individual choices and rational considerations. This position severally challenges academic literature on youth justice as it postulates that there is no significant difference between youth and adult offenders. Public views on youth delinquency significantly rely on the existing implicit theories on youth offending. According to Shoemaker (2010), implicit theories are personal constructionsabout a particular condition or occurrence that exist in the mind of individuals. These constructions differ according to people. AsCunneen, Whites, and Richards (2015) expound, the implicit theories are characteristically equivocal and inconsistent in explaining an occurrence. 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 these discrepancies, implicit youth delinquency theories are vital in understanding factors that propagate youth offending and direct policy formulation.
3In the ‘Courier Mail naming and shaming comments,' the main concepts of youth offending reflected 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 classical youth delinquency theory. According to Cunneen, Whites, and Richards (2015), the classical theory posits that the young people are rational individuals who have free will and ability to make choices. The classical theory suggests that a person engages in criminal acts intentionally 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 of one member of the public, all criminals should be accountable for their actions regardless of their age since they commit crime intentionally. Consequently, a majority of those who commented on the article supported the naming and shaming of the young offenders. Moreover, some even suggested that the delinquent youths should be shamed alongside their parents. According to one of the individuals who commented 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 the naming and shaming. As depicted by the comments of a section of the public, naming and shaming the offenders without severe punishment could further escalate the rate of youth delinquency. This punitive view summarizes the stand of those who employ the classical approach to youth felony. As Marina and King (2009) expound, studies show that those who use 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 theory viewpoint. 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
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Theories of Juvenile Offendinglg...
|10
|1079
|128
Theories of Juvenile Offendinglg...
|9
|1197
|338
Research Paper on Increasing Youth Crime in Australialg...
|9
|2287
|257