Introduction
The consequences of crimes committed by children are faced by every society in the world and everyone to some extent feels the impact. Understanding why children commit crimes is paramount since the proper distribution of such information can serve as the foundation of creating a crime-free society. Some of the reasons why children commit crimes include being neglected by parents, racial discrimination, being in a state of poverty, access to weapons, and access to drugs (Beyer, 2003). Thus, a proper understanding of why children commit crimes is vital since it helps the juvenile justice system to know the kind of program that should be put in place to induce cognitive behavior. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of two juvenile articles and to compare and contrast their philosophical differences.
Summary of the Article ‘Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability: Overview’
This article reflects the “parens patriae” doctrine that takes into account the differences that exist between the children and the adults in terms of accountability as well as room for rehabilitation. It operates on the basis that the children can be successfully rehabilitated, hence increasing the safety of society. Moreover, it operates flexibly since it tries to find a balance between the juvenile court and the needs of the state. Therefore, when a child commits a crime, the police have the responsibility of arresting him/her. This is then followed by intake, diversion, detention, waiver, adjudication, disposition and finally, aftercare (Beyer, 2003).
The purpose of the “parens patriae” doctrine is to divert young offenders from facing punishment by providing them with an opportunity for a rehabilitation program (Beyer, 2003). It also handles the children who are neglected by their parents and provides them with the appropriate intervention program. When implemented appropriately, this program plays a critical role since it reduces the prison admissions, and it therefore helps to reduce the costs associated with crimes.
Summary of the Article ‘Changes to OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Program’
This article reflects the mandates of “get tough movement” that has enacted policies, which facilitate prosecution of young offenders in the juvenile courts. This is because when a child commits a serious crime such as murder, this program considers such a child as an adult; hence, he/she is liable to punishment (Andrews & Marble, 2003). Depending on age, attitude of the offender, and evidence produced in the court, the juvenile court judges have the overall responsibility of determining where the child will serve. Discipline can be imposed by subjecting the children to severe environment or by providing the offenders with an opportunity to meet with the adult prisoners in order to frighten them.
Philosophical Differences of “Parens Patriae” Doctrine and the Mandates of the “Get Tough Movement”
The philosophy of the “Parens Patriae” doctrine implies that children can develop cognitive behavior by letting them know the consequences of the actions they take. Connecting consequences with actions lets the children choose their actions correctly; as this portrays to them that, they are accountable for their actions. It also shows the children that every step of growth goes along with an increased responsibility for actions (Beyer, 2003).
This compares with the philosophy of the mandate of the “get tough movement” as it attempts to develop children’s cognitive behavior by helping them to identify their distorted thinking or distorted deeds by creating awareness of the consequences of these behaviors. The child offender is detained in order to find out what is wrong with his/her circumstance that aggravates suffering (Andrews & Marble, 2003).
The “Parens Patriae” doctrine borrows heavily from the philosophy of lifespan development. This philosophy states that a rehabilitation program can prevent the children from committing crimes since it attempts to transform cognitively the distorted cognitive behavior of the child involved in criminal acts. The program plays a critical role in the life of the offender when the offender attempts to justify his/her criminal acts.
In light of this weakness, this doctrine attempts to assist the offenders in defining the problems that make them to commit crimes. The program thereafter generates new alternative for these children and implement viable solutions for them (Beyer, 2003). The philosophy of the “parens patriae” doctrine is thus based on the fact that behavioral development is guided by objective past rather than subjective goals.
This contrasts with the philosophy used in the mandates of the “get tough movement”. The philosophy used by the “get tough movement” derives from the fact that proper childcare is based on guiding the child on its journey to adulthood by increasing its level of self-understanding and self-awareness through using the commands laid down by the justice system (Andrews & Marble, 2003). The mandates of “get tough movement” avoid acting like experts in the child’s life as they do not dispense proper advice to them on how they should regulate their past thoughts and deeds. The philosophy of the mandates of the “get tough movement” is thus based on the fact that behavioral development is guided by subjective goals rather than objective past.
Conclusion
Although the main aim of the “Parens Patriae” doctrine and the mandates of the “get tough movement” is to induce cognitive behavior to the neglected children and the young offenders, the intervention and the strategy applied differ from one another depending on the philosophical view. Effectiveness in inducing cognitive behavior thus calls for a judicial system that has good skills in designing the theoretical methods, which suit the needs of the children. The judicial system should seek to establish a child-centered philosophy that creates a good child environment and develops an alliance with the children in order for the children to realize their personal growth as well as their role in the society. This will go a long way in improving the quality of life for the child offender, the neglected child as well as the entire community.
References
Andrews, C., & Marble, L. (2003). Changes to OJJDP’s Juvenile Accountability Program. Web.
Beyer, M. (2003). Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability: Overview. Web.