!

1 CRM 389, 33960185

Kanageswari D/O Ravi

33960185

Critique Essay

CRM 389- Psychology and Law

!2 CRM 389, 33960185
The legal processes that deal with criminal justice should not judge an individual based on

the criminal act committed but instead have a great depth on the social issue attributing to the crime.

There have been recent research in social sciences that shows that it can and should influence laws,

being an essential element of understanding the criminal justice system. The social exclusion in the

legal processes should be criticised as it dispossess the distinctive opportunity in the capabilities of

life and the social mainstream and also extends outside economic poverty. The increase in the

juvenile delinquency occurs due to social inequality, poverty, poor parenting, parents being

imprisoned, racial and spatial phenomenon. A need of survival and the society’s pressure to fit in

impels most young people to engage in the criminal acts. The spatial and the racial circumstances

used by the legal authorities might be a result that young children under the age of eighteen be

brought into juvenile by associating them with their race which is a real sense and some do not fit.

The imprisonment of one parent which deprives the family of their basic needs urges the child to

engage in criminal offences in order to meet their demands. The legal processes should understand

the social issues resulting in juvenile delinquency rather than having a general outlook.

Juvenile awareness programs, such as Scared Straight, remain in use even though there have

been findings that these programs provoke an individual rather than preventing delinquency. In such

programs, the juveniles or youth who ar at risk of delinquency are to participate in an organised

visit to a prison facility (Petrosino et al., 2013) and aims to deter youth from future delinquency acts

by exposing them to realistic depictions of life in prison and presentations held by inmates. The

intended underlying mechanism of juvenile awareness programs is based on deterrence theory

which is based on the theoretical notion that allows offenders to learn from the negative experiences

such as punishments which imposes fear and thus will deter from further offensive behaviour. This

theory shows both the certainty and severity of punishment which perceives to be important

concepts in preventing and dissuading juvenile and youths from getting involved in a crime

(Paternoster, 2010).
!3 CRM 389, 33960185
Subsequently this theory indicates the rationale of juvenile awareness programs is that

experiences and realistic depictions of life in prison scare at-risk youths and juvenile offenders,

deterring them from future involvement in crime. Although there were positive results on such

programs they were not accepted in multiple experimental studies (Greater Egypt Regional

Planning and Development Commission, 1979; Lewis, 1983; Yarborough, 1979) as they concluded

that the program produced an unfavourable result due to the delinquency rates were significantly

higher among program participants than among nonparticipants (Finckenauer, 1982; Michigan

Department of Corrections, 1967). Programs like Scared straight, failed to dissuade its participants

from committing delinquent acts in the future but instead did the opposite. Juveniles who

participated in this program came out worse than juveniles who did not participate. A meta-analysis

of preventative or treatment interventions for juvenile delinquency, exhibited that 64% were

positive in direction (Lipsey, 1992). The Scared Straight program however, did not discourage or

scare the juveniles but instead seemed to have encourage more offending even though deterrence is

a major goal of the criminal justice system. A reason why the program might not have worked might

be because the juveniles or youth who participated in this program, might not have taken the

warnings seriously as the ones who were running the programs were not justice officials but adult

prisoners who are off their serving times and the juveniles who participated in the program might

have realised that there is a big difference between a warning delivered by inmates who do not have

the authority to arrest, prosecute and punish and the actual delivery of a sanction or punishment by

the criminal or juvenile justice system.

Labelling an individual as a criminal, after being sent to prison, denouncing and excluding

them from regular roles in life, makes the individual become neutral with their identity as a criminal

(White et al., 2012). Such stigmatisation allows the offender to not only live their lives according to

that label but also make them feel rejected by the general public although the individual is no longer

in jail. This act may cause that offender to relapse back to their criminal behaviour for survival.
!4 CRM 389, 33960185
When the offender is left out by the general public, they face several challenges in leading a normal

life such as, getting a proper education, finding a home or a family or getting a job which are

essential for successful re-assimilation (Travis & Waul, 2003; Ward & Gannon, 2006). The labelling

theory therefore explains how branding an individual increases more delinquent act instead of

decreasing it (Bernard et al., 2010, p. 229). It also causes the juvenile to become what they are

associated with as their offence labels them to be that and not what they can be as an individual.

They might start to look at themselves as what they have been labelled as and start to take on that

identity therefore diminishing individual personality or self-image. Bullying might also be in cards

for the juveniles when they return back to school or even being left out in activities at or outside of

school. At the same time, the labeling theory suggests that juvenile offenders can avoid social

consequences of negative labelling as the youth court diverts offenders away from contact with the

juvenile justice system (Butts et al. 2002). Since a jury of their peers instead of a figure of authority

are whom judge the offender, they are less likely to embody a deviant or a criminal label.

Controlling the branding and internalization of criminal and negative labelling, this hypothetical

aspect suggests that juvenile offenders can avoid association with deviant networks, criminal

reputation, and any future criminal activity (Becker 1963; Bernburg et al. 2006).

When it comes to juvenile offenders, punishment is not effective as punishment’s only

purpose is to only serve justice to an act which is wrong in a society whereas rehabilitation focuses

on the juvenile delinquent to reintegrate with their family and community. As shown in some

studies, punishment does not make a significant contribution to the reduction of recidivism but

some form have actually increased it. As for rehabilitation, prevention is the first step towards

curbing juvenile delinquency as it includes preventing delinquent behaviour by taking action in

terms of individual and environmental adjustments. Gendreau and colleagues (1996) conducted a

meta-analysis of evaluations of programs that used techniques which were called “punishing

smarter” which included home internment, increased surveillance, restitution, electronic

!5 CRM 389, 33960185
monitoring, shock incarceration, and boot camps and most of them showed a slight increase in

recidivism. Restitution which was the best option in punishment according to the study, had only a

slight reduction in recidivism of 6% as compared to treatment programs that reduced recidivism by

25% on average. Gendreau (1996) added that when inappropriately applied, punishment is could

have several negative consequences such as producing unwanted emotional reactions, aggression,

or withdrawal and sometimes an increase in the behaviour that is being punished for. Punishments

only produce the context for service delivery whereas the intervention within the setting has the

actual power to produce change in offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Bonta, 1996; Gendreau,

Cullen, & Bonta, 1996). Notably, neither the certainty nor the severity of punishment decreases

recidivism among most juveniles (Schneider, 1990; Schneider & Ervin, 1990) and as showed in her

evaluation of a national restitution program, Schneider (1990) found that youth who believed they

were more likely to be caught, committed more delinquent acts rather than fewer, subsequent

offenses.

The importance of rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system is recognised to some extend

in most of the countries but a number of these legislative plan to reintegrate juveniles into the

community without making rehabilitation the sole aim of detention while the other jurisdictions

introduce rehabilitation in terms of punishment (Lambert, 1996). Governments around the world are

attempting to bring more focus on the rehabilitative operation to their detention centres as a way to

curb the increasing crimes of juvenile delinquency. These programs currently provide education,

employment, recreation, independent living skills, drug and alcohol counselling, pastoral care and

anger management and some centres also provide specialist programs and services, such as sex

offender counselling, relapse prevention and victim empathy courses.

In conclusion, quick and harsh punishments do not give an effective result with regards to

the juvenile offenders as much as rehabilitation and interventions as punishments can instigate an
!6 CRM 389, 33960185
individual to keep doing the act without knowing the consequences and or the seriousness of the

crime for the individual and the society while rehabilitation educates the juvenile into what can be

done after they have committed crime and how to upgrade themselves.

References
!7 CRM 389, 33960185
Amin, S., & Ahmad, N. (2018). Ethnic diversity, social exclusion and economic determinants of

crimes: a case study of Pakistan. Social Indicators Research, 140(1), 267-286.

Becker, H. (1991). 1963Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. United States: Free.

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., &

Bethel, E. C. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance

Education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/

10.3102/0034654309333844

Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness,

and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime

and Delinquency, 43(1), 67-88.

Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing

correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18–32). Sage

Publications, Inc.

Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among

mentally disordered offenders: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 123(2), 123.

Chicago

Bosworth, M., Parmar, A., & Vázquez, Y. (Eds.). (2018). Race, criminal justice, and migration

control: Enforcing the boundaries of belonging. Oxford University Press.

Butts, J. A., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2002). The Impact of Teen Court on Young Offenders.

Research Report.

Finckenauer, J. O. (1982). Scared straight! And the panacea phenomenon. Prentice Hall.

Gendreau, P. (1996). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal

Justice and behavior, 23(1), 144-161.

Greater Egypt Regional Planning and Development Commission . (1979). Menard Correctional

Center: Juvenile tours impact study. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/62932NCJRS.pdf

!8 CRM 389, 33960185
Lambert, B., & Mason, B. (1996). Justice, Welfare or a New Direction: An Examination of the

Juvenile Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (QLD). Queensland U. Tech. LJ, 12, 99.

Lewis, R. V. (1983). Scared Straight—California style: Evaluation of the San Quentin SQUIRES

program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10(2), 209–226.

Lipsey, Mark. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability

of effects.

Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence. The Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 765–824.

Michigan Department of Corrections . (1967). A six month follow-up of juvenile delinquents

visiting the Ionia reformatory.

Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., Hollis-Peel, M. E., Lavenberg, J. G. (2013). “Scared Straight”

and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquents. Cochrane Database of

Systematic Reviews, 4, CD002796. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002796.pub2

Schneider, A. L., & Ervin, L. (1990). Specific deterrence, rational choice, and decision heuristics:

Applications in juvenile justice. Social Science Quarterly, 71(3), 585.

Travis, Jeremy & Waul, Michelle. (2004). Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration

and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities.

van der Put, C. E., Boekhout van Solinge, N. F., Stams, G. J., Hoeve, M., & Assink, M. (2021).

Effects of Awareness Programs on Juvenile Delinquency: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 65(1), 68–91. https://

doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20909239

Ward, T., & Gannon, T. A. (2006). Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive

good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(1), 77–94.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.06.001
!9 CRM 389, 33960185
Yarborough, J. C. (1979). Evaluation of JOLT as a deterrence program. Michigan Department of

Corrections.

Finckenauer JO. Scared Straight and the Panacea Phenomenon.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall, 1982.