PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAILED RESPONSE FOR EACH CLASSMATE DISCUSSION POST 1-4

DISCUSSION POST 1: PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAILED RESPONSE FOR EACH CLASSMATE DISCUSSION POST 1-4

DISCUSSION POST 1:

When it comes to the type of sentencing a youth should receive should depend on several factors. The type of crime is the main focus to stand on. The current controversy over youth reoffending after being incarcerated for longer periods shows no definitive answers. "A youth's future likelihood to re-offend cannot be predicted based on their presenting offense.~ Placing youth in long-term confinement has no effect on their rate of re-arrest." (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.n.d.). This is why it is important to incorporate some type of rehabilitation into the sentence for our youth. I feel like if a youth is sentenced as an adult and is sent to an adult facility, they will find the need to conform and "get hard" to fit in and not get bullied for being young. The longer they are in there, the more likely they will tone their life around new, grown-up techniques for criminal behaviors. I know the studies can not prevent this behavior from happening. It just seems like it is more the case than not.

Longer sentences for youth do not improve public safety. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (n.d.). https://www.cjcj.org/news/blog/longer-sentences-for-youth-do-not-improve-public-safety

DISCUSSION POST 2:

I believe long term incarceration for juveniles is counter-productive. Long term incarceration secludes juveniles from their family and community as well as lessens their school and other areas of positive influence while placing them in a confined area with other violent criminals. Utilizing the social learning theory would encourage the belief that incarceration creates better criminals as they mingle and learn from their peers while incarcerated.

There is also evidence to show that long term incarceration has long term negative effects on the juveniles. "We find that juvenile incarceration reduces the probability of high school completion and increases the probability of incarceration later in life." (Doyle & Aizer, 2013) Alternatives to incarceration create a better environment for the offender and the community. "These alternatives to secure detention and confinement are intended to reduce crowding, cut the costs of operating juvenile detention centers, shield offenders from the stigma of institutionalization, help offenders avoid associating with youth who have more serious delinquent histories, and maintain positive ties between the juvenile and his or her family and community." (Austin et al., 2005)

Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Weitzer, R. (2005). Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of Juvenile Offenders. Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208804.pdf

Doyle, J., & Aizer, A. (2013, July 16). What is the long-term impact of incarcerating juveniles?. CEPR. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/what-long-term-impact-incarcerating-juveniles

DISCUSSION POST 3:

Personally, I think life without parole should be an option for juveniles provided there is strict guidance on when it can be used. The separation between juveniles and adults is minimal at times and the motives and methods for crimes can be very similar. As noted in Miller v. Alabama, in regards to sentencing children are constitutionally different than adults which would allow for LWOP sentencing with strict guidelines. However, Graham v. Florida interpreted societal standards to view LWOP in non-homicidal cases to be cruel and unusual punishment.

I believe that if a system was in place that allowed for LWOP sentences for juveniles who have been convicted of serious offenses such as a psychological evaluation which evaluated their maturity and ability to understand their actions, a review of their criminal history which shows significant likelihood for chronic criminal behavior, and failed previous attempts at rehabilitation. This would allow for a comprehensive view into the mind of the child and provide effective options for the justice system in protecting society.

Graham v. Florida. (n.d.).Oyez. Retrieved February 28, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-7412

Miller v. Alabama. (n.d.).Oyez. Retrieved February 28, 2024, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/10-9646

DISCUSSION POST 4:

Yes, if you do the crime you should do the time. However, when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court they recognized the lack of maturity the youth holds and their lack of being able to understand the consequences of their actions. Something like the death sentence has been found to be unconstitutional due to the level of severity of the punishment. If a child can not possibly understand their actions fully, how can you expect to take the opportunity to change their actions? Making the youth do time for their crime, and take rehabilitation steps would be more productive for the child than something as harsh as a death sentence. "There is no evidence of a pattern of increasingly serious offenses by juveniles who start involved in relatively less serious acts." (The debate). Given that there is no definitive black and white evidence that a child will re-offend means a likelihood that rehabilitation would be successful and a better option. But yes, they should have consequences for their actions.

The debate - office of justice programs. (n.d.). https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/91840NCJRS.pdf