Discussion Board 3a: Concerns About The Intake Lecture In Cl

Discussion Board 3a Concerns The Intake Lecture In Class Why Do We

Discussion Board 3a concerns the "Intake" Lecture in class. Why do we need that much information just to put someone in jail? What particular information are we looking for? How does this information effect where an Inmate is placed in the facility and why? Discussion Board 3B is in regards to the incarceration of Juvenile Offenders. What crimes should a Juvenile go to jail for? Do we do a good job in dealing with Juvenile Offenders? Do you think there is a good alternative to Juvenile incarceration?

Paper For Above instruction

The process of inmate intake is a crucial component of the criminal justice system, serving multiple vital functions that ensure safety, security, and appropriate placement within correctional facilities. When an individual is brought into a correctional institution, detailed information is gathered during the intake process for several reasons: risk assessment, classification, and rehabilitation planning. The particular information sought includes personal identification details, criminal history, current offense, mental health status, substance abuse history, and behavior during intake. Collecting this data helps to evaluate the level of threat the inmate might pose to staff and other inmates, facilitates appropriate housing assignment, and determines needs for medical or psychological intervention.

The influence of intake information on inmate placement is significant. Facilities are typically divided into different security levels, such as minimum, medium, and maximum security, based on the risk posed by the inmate. For example, an individual with a history of violent crimes or behavioral issues may be placed in a maximum-security unit to prevent harm, while non-violent offenders may be assigned to lower-security areas. Additionally, classification considers factors like program needs, behavioral history, and potential risk to staff, guiding decisions that favor safety and effective management. Proper placement can reduce incidents within the facility and support rehabilitation efforts by ensuring inmates are placed in environments suited to their needs and risk levels.

Regarding juvenile offenders, the debate about appropriate crimes for juvenile detention centers revolves around balancing accountability and rehabilitation. Juveniles are typically sent to jail or juvenile detention for serious crimes such as violent offenses, armed robbery, or drug trafficking. However, many argue that incarceration should be reserved for only the most severe crimes, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. The juvenile justice system has made efforts to distinguish between different levels of seriousness in juvenile misconduct, often favoring community-based programs, probation, or counseling for less severe cases.

In terms of effectiveness, the juvenile justice system has faced criticism for its handling of juvenile offenders. Critics argue that detention centers often do not address the root causes of delinquency and that incarceration can sometimes exacerbate negative behaviors or lead to a criminal career. Furthermore, the stigma associated with juvenile detention can hinder reintegration into society. Therefore, many experts advocate for alternatives to incarceration such as community service, restorative justice, educational programs, mentorship initiatives, and family interventions. These approaches aim to hold juvenile offenders accountable while fostering personal development and reducing recidivism.

Overall, the emphasis should be on preventive measures and rehabilitation techniques tailored to juvenile offenders' unique circumstances. While incarceration may be necessary for certain egregious cases, expanding community-based programs and alternative sentencing options can better serve both the youth and society by promoting positive development and reducing the likelihood of reoffending.

References

• Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Juvenile Detention: The Impact of Imprisonment. Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 310-328.
• Piquero, A. R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2019). Crime and Justice in the Past, Present, and Future. Annual Review of Sociology, 45, 441-462.
• Schiraldi, V., & Zetik, A. R. (2007). The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America. New York University Press.
• Feld, B. C., & Schaefer, N. (2017). Critical Perspectives on Restorative Justice. Routledge.
• Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effects of juvenile justice: Manifestations, determinants, and prevention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8), 971-983.
• Ferguson, E. (2013). The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing, and the Law. Routledge.
• Pontell, H. N., & Shinar, R. (2019). Corrections: Policy, Analysis, and Practices. Routledge.
• Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of juvenile detention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(4), 365-396.
• Bazemore, G., & Skeem, J. (2004). Juvenile justice reform and restorative youth justice: Capacity, change, and challenge. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(1), 67-86.
• Hollin, C. R. (2014). Crime, Criminals and Criminal Justice. Sage Publications.