This author sensitizes the society on the effectiveness of boot camps. This essay concurs with LaVaughn (2010) idea that emphasizes that military discipline is vital for reforming behaviors of delinquent youths. Though the solitary confinement have been associated with high rates of suicide, the author advocates that camp boots act as rehabilitation centers hence control certain crimes among youths. The author is also convinced that there are negative impacts associated with such camps.
Bottcher and Michael expounds on the effectiveness of using boot camps programs through evidences derived from a random experiment conducted in notable institutions. The authors note that boot camps have been used since early 1990s to punish both delinquent youths and juvenile offenders. From the complete outcome of data collected, it is definite that more than 75% of people who are confined in the camps have their behaviors reformed completely hence the programs have been proved to be effective
Doris et al (2001) examine the experiences of juveniles in boot camps and their impacts on the lives of victims. One can analyze that boot camps are effective since they help to instill discipline in young people. Survey reports have shown that confinement of juvenile in boot camps did not cause depression or anxiety. The authors of the article also discuss numerous adjustments and changes that can be implemented in boot camps to make them more effective.
This author concurs with Jeffrey and Daniel (2001) idea that administrators of juvenile justice systems should improve and overcome failure facing boot camps. From a careful analysis of this article, it is apparent that boot camps are ineffective in dealing with juvenile crimes. The reason for this claim is that though the camps have gained a considerable popularity, it is not the best viable alternative since they are punitive and can lead to development of more deviant crimes.
The authors in this article give their personal views on the fact that ensuring juvenile justice has become a challenge. This is because new policies especially in US have been implemented recently and have made the justice system more complex. However, their research has shown that efforts have been made to prevent, foster restorative features and increase rehabilitation in boot camps hence making the juvenile justice system more effective.
The authors in this article address the community on public policies governing the juvenile justice system. They argue that though boot camps are punitive, they are rehabilitative and help to eradicate non-secure behaviors that have resulted to increase of crime among youths. From the article, it is evident that though boot camps are effective, people should take time to identify the root cause of juvenile crimes. Moreover, policy reforms will help to increase the effectiveness of the camps.
The article presents a statistical analysis illustrating the drop in crime rate among juveniles confined in boot camps. The authors acknowledge the study conducted by Bottcher and Michael (2005) arguing that boot camps are the most effective in punishing juvenile offenders since they help to control crime among delinquent youths. However, the article has revealed that mentoring as a major strategy used to reform behavior becomes a challenge especially if the mentees are not ready for it. This diminishes the effectiveness of boot camp programs.
Kupchik (2007) concurs with Susan (1997) that there are diverse experiences faced by juveniles in boot camps. Some of them are quite discouraging and result to anxiety, frustration and anger. However, due to mentoring, education, treatment and counseling in camps there are positive results realized from the youths. In this case, boot camps are effective since they help to fade away the criminal nature, a factor that makes the victims to adopt good morals.
This article entails a discussion of the effectiveness of boot camps in dealing with conduct disorders among juveniles. The author highlights that use of coercive control should be combined with other intervention strategies to deal with uncommon behaviors. Though forced compliance to rules and regulations results to anger, juveniles get an opportunity to reform their behavior. Nevertheless, the author argues that camp boots are more effective when used to meet gender-specific needs for men and not females.
Mark (1997) argues that there has been a public concern on the fact that boot camps use punitive physical activities to discourage delinquent behavior. However, the author’s research has revealed that such exercise have paramount importance in diverting energy used in crimes to other constructive activities, Therefore, juveniles are able to realize their potentials since the atmosphere in the boot camp is very favorable. Survey reports have shown that such camps minimize the crime rates among youths.
Sheldom (1998) presents a comprehensive literature basing his views on the recent publications on boot camps. He highlights his views on the numerous evaluations made on the effects of the camps on juvenile behavior. From the author’s perspective, it is certain that boot camps are the most recent suggested alternatives of reinforcing good behaviors among youths. Nevertheless, the article highlights that changes are inevitable and new strategies should be invented to make the camps more effective.
In this article, Simon and Chung-Ron weigh the costs and benefits of dealing with juvenile crimes in boot camps. In this case, the main address in the policy makers and parents where the article attempts to broaden the focus of using the camps to enhance good morals among youths. However, use of juvenile codes to ensure justice and transfer of victims into numerous camps has some fiscal impacts despite the fact that this present certain juvenile crimes.
The author provides a background of the diverse perceived conditions within the confinements. The discussion targets the administrators who are expected to incorporate all the appropriate elements to make the camps effective. The authors argue that having all the standards met, a favorable environment fosters positive changes and adjustments of juvenile behavior. Therefore, they uphold the fact that boot camps are effective since they make juvenile more active and help them realize their potentials despite the few shortcomings.
This article highlights that boot camps are politically punitive but acceptable in the sense that they instill strict discipline among juveniles with delinquent behavior. Susan (1997) highlights that when dealing with aberrant youths, boot camps are one of the best alternative. This help in dealing with very intricate issues that are perceived as problems associated with youth crime. The author argues that the camps act as correctional institutions and are deemed effective in instilling discipline among youths.
The authors in this article present a research evidence to school administrators illustrating that boot camps are effective in fostering social control in school environment. From the article, it is clear that schools can set up their own boot camps to handle cases related to juvenile crimes. However, to make the camps effective, it is recommended that they should collaborate with justice agencies and other formal agent to control unruly behaviors within the school.
References
Anon. (1998). Are boot camps for delinquent youth effective? Reclaiming Children and Youth, 7(2), 123-123.
Bottcher, J. & Michael, E. (2005). Examining the effectiveness of boot camps: A randomized experiment with a long-term follow up. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(3), 309-332.
Doris, L., David, B., Gaylene, S. & Angela, R. (2001). The impact of boot camps and traditional institutions on juvenile residents: Perceptions, adjustment, and change. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 279-313.
Jeanne, B. (1999). Recovering from the shocking reality of shock incarceration – what correctional administrators can learn from boot camp failures. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(4), 43-43.
Jeffrey, A. & Daniel, P. (2001). Reviving juvenile justice in a get-tough era. Youth and Society, 33(2), 169-198.
Jones-Brown, D. & Hanriques, Z. (1996). Promises and pitfalls of mentoring as a juvenile justice strategy. Social Justice, 23(4), 212-212.
Jenson, J. M., & Howard, M. O. (1998). Youth crime, public policy, and practice in the juvenile justice system: Recent trends and needed reforms. Social Work, 43(4), 324-34.
Kupchik, A. (2007). The correctional experiences of youth in adult and juvenile prisons. Justice Quarterly: JQ, 24(2), 247-270.
LaVaughn, V. (2010). Conduct disorders: Are boot camps effective? Reclaiming Children and Youth, 19(2), 32-36.
Mark, E. (1997). Boot camps, exercise, and delinquency: An analytical critique of the use of physical exercise to facilitate decreases in delinquent behavior. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 13(2), 94-113.
Sheldon, C. (1998). In search of hopeful glimpses: A critique of research strategies in current boot camp evaluations. Crime and Delinquency, 44(2), 314-334.
Simon, M. & Chung-Ron Pi. (2002). Getting tough on juvenile crime: An analysis of costs and benefits. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(4), 363-399.
Styve, G., Doris, L., Gover, A., & Mitchell, O. (2000). Perceived conditions of confinement: A national evaluation of juvenile boot camps and traditional facilities. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 297-308.
Susan, A. (1997). Boot camps for young offenders: A politically acceptable punishment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 13(2), 155-171.
Trulson, C., Triplett, R. & Snell, C. (2001). Social control in a school setting: Evaluating a school-based boot camp. Crime and Delinquency, 47(4), 573-609.