Assignment 2: Four Philosophies Of Juvenile Correction
Assignment 2 Four Philosophies Of Juvenile Correctioncorrectional Phi
Correctional philosophies are rationales that juvenile justice officials use to justify why a particular mode of punishment should be used over another. Thus, correctional philosophies generally dictate what sort of sanction is used. The four primary correctional philosophies and their respective sanctions are summarized below. A correctional philosophy centered on the treatment model generally holds that sanctions for delinquency should address its core causes, like education or home life, as the treatment model emphasizes focusing on the rehabilitation of the offender. The fair and balanced restorative justice model seeks to evenly distribute the resources (programs and services designed to address the core issues of delinquency) of the justice system to ensure that all juveniles who enter it are given equal opportunities. Sanctions of this model are based on restorative justice and thus include the victim, the offender, and the community in repairing any harm done by the offense. On the other end of the spectrum, a correctional philosophy focused on the justice model dictates that delinquent youth be punished as long as the punishment is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense—this model is primarily concerned with punishing those who violate the law. Similarly, the crime control model is concerned with protecting the life and property of the innocent. Thus, this model favors sanctions that are swift, severe, and useful in demonstrating the consequences of breaking the law.
Paper For Above instruction
Among the four correctional philosophies—treatment, restorative justice, justice, and crime control—I favor the restorative justice model. This approach emphasizes repairing the harm caused by juvenile delinquency through inclusive community and victim involvement, aiming to restore relationships and promote accountability. I believe this philosophy effectively addresses the root causes of delinquency while promoting healing for victims and offenders. Contemporary research supports this view, indicating that restorative justice programs can reduce recidivism and foster positive social reintegration (Braithwaite, 2002). Furthermore, by involving victims and community members, restorative justice enhances transparency and trust within the juvenile justice system, fostering a more just and empathetic approach to juvenile rehabilitation. This contrasts with purely punitive strategies that may overlook underlying issues and fail to promote genuine behavioral change.
In my state, the juvenile justice system most frequently follows the justice model, which emphasizes proportionate punishment based on the severity of offenses. While this approach aims to uphold the legal order, I question its effectiveness in fostering long-term positive outcomes. Evidence suggests that strict punitive measures often lead to higher recidivism rates among juveniles, as they may feel alienated from societal reintegration efforts (Casella, 2017). Moreover, a heavily punishment-oriented system risks stigmatizing youth, impeding their chances of successful rehabilitation. A news article from The New York Times highlights concerns about the overuse of detention and punitive measures in juvenile justice, emphasizing the need for reform towards models that prioritize rehabilitation and restorative practices (The New York Times, 2020). Therefore, while the justice model is prevalent, integrating restorative principles could better serve juvenile offenders and the community in the long run.
References
- Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford University Press.
- Casella, A. (2017). Juvenile Recidivism and the Impact of Punitive Versus Rehabilitative Approaches. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 6(2), 45-62.
- The New York Times. (2020). Rethinking Juvenile Justice: Moving Away from Punitive Detention. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/juvenile-justice-reform.html