Abstract
The issue of broken families continues to prevail in the US. Alcoholism and lack of parental attention are the major factors that push children into violent crime. This report presents the case of Ronnie who is a victim of crime because of alcoholism and poor parental guidance. In line with the postulations of the social bond theory, the paper finds that home life and upbringing play a major role in determining children’s patterns of behavior.
How Ronnie’s Home Life and Upbringing Contribute to His Patterns of Behavior
By being born into a dysfunctional family, Ronnie was already predisposed to the life of crime, even though he would not have known the situation at the time. Broken families are a leading cause of juvenile delinquency in the United States. As Murray and Farrington (2010) have established, children who come from broken families are more likely to commit a violent crime compared to those raised in normal families. Violence frequently occurs in such families. Even in the absence of violence, other behaviors that could be harmful to the mental development of a child occur on a day-to-day basis. For instance, alcoholism leads parents to neglect their children as they continue wallowing in their drunken lives. Ronnie’s mother was an alcoholic whereas his father was an absentee parent. Thus, it is safe to argue that Ronnie did not have much to look up to in life.
Lack of parental affection drove Ronnie down the path of crime. Even though his uncle loved him, such affection was not enough to compensate for what Ronnie missed in parental love. Siegel and Welsh (2014) introduce the social bond theory, which has been used to explain crime, particularly among young people. According to this theory, the closer children seem to be to their parents, the less likely they will commit crimes. Conversely, children raised in broken families harbor strong feelings of bitterness at what they perceive to be the misfortune of being born to parents who do not want them. This feeling of frustration can drive juveniles into gang life in an attempt to seek acceptance.
What the Juvenile Court’s Goal should have been for Ronnie to Punish, Deter, or Rehabilitate Him: Factors that Contributed to the Judge Sentencing Ronnie to Three Years in a Correctional Facility
A juvenile court should target rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. Arguably, children cannot fully understand the nature of the crime they are about to commit. For this reason, handing Ronnie a punitive (yet unnecessarily corrective) sentence was unwarranted. Instead, Ronnie should have been committed to a juvenile facility that would be supportive and rehabilitative for him. As Greenwood and Turner (2011) argue, placing juvenile offenders in a mainstream facility only hardens them into more determined criminals. Gary Scott, a former juvenile offender, sentenced to an adult prison, believes that detention center is too brutal for youthful lawbreakers (Scott, 2012). Conversely, placing such minor offenders in juvenile facilities with supportive programs can assist them to reform.
The judge considered Ronnie’s past to decide a firm sentence. At first, the judge was compassionate to young Ronnie. As such, he would have handed him a lenient sentence. However, while Ronnie was a minor, his past crimes and gang involvements made the judge reconsider his position. Consequently, Ronnie received a more severe punishment, which involved serving at the correctional facility.
The Available Sentencing Options Available to the Judge if this Case Happened in My Home State
If Ronnie’s prosecution took place in the state of California, not much would have happened differently. California is one of the many states in the United States that allow junior offenders to be tried in adult courts. Here, the legislation, namely, Proposition 21, allows the District Attorney (DA) to single-handedly decide whether a minor offender should be tried as a juvenile or an adult. The practice of committing juvenile offenders to be tried as adults is dubbed “direct filing” in California. Directing filing is available for felonies such as murder and sex crimes. In 2014, 393 juveniles were direct filed and prosecuted in adult courts. Therefore, a judge sitting in a Californian court will rely on the advice of the DA regarding whether to treat a young person as an adult or a minor.
Under ordinary circumstances, it should be the role of the judge to conduct a “fitness hearing” to decide the appropriate court to try the young person. As such, direct filing ignores the responsibility of the judge to decide on the fitness of a young offender be tried as either an adult or a juvenile. The reason why states disavow the fitness hearing is that it takes long (usually months) to conclude. A five-criterion approach is used in determining the fitness hearing: the level of criminal involvement, the possibility that the offender will have reformed by age 21, the minor’s delinquency, the rehabilitation history, and the circumstances and grounds of the offense. If the judges were to evaluate Ronnie’s case under this five-criterion approach, he would likely have been found eligible for being sent to a correctional facility.
Analysis of the Underlying Causes of Gang Involvement Among Juveniles and the Possible Ways that the Juvenile Justice System can Address them
To begin with, most gang members are juveniles. According to Howell (2010), whereas adults are likely to commit crimes alone, juveniles operate in gangs. The average age of gang members is 17 years. Lack of employment and poverty may drive juveniles to engage in crime for economic gains (Sharp & Hancock, 1997). Once they are together, the youths may form gangs to rob homes and groceries to earn a living. In addition, domestic violence may drive juveniles to gang life since they are accustomed to violence from a tender age. Domestic violence may also be accompanied by poor parental supervision. Finally, the issue of substance abuse is believed to be a leading cause of gang involvement.
The Juvenile system is entrusted with correcting juveniles who are caught in crimes. Whereas it is a largely punitive institution, the justice system is believed to be capable of resolving the major causes of gang activity among juveniles. One way its goal can be achieved is through providing educational programs to those young people who are committed to juvenile facilities (Parry, 2004). Such educational programs would solve the problem of unemployment by assisting the young offenders to attain gainful employment. For instance, low education can be alleviated if the community and the juvenile system work together to ensure that more youths attend and remain in school. In addition, vigilance by community members can help to diminish the problem of drugs and gun violence. Thus, community policing is a major way in which gang involvement can be reduced.
Finally, law enforcement together with the community can be undertaken to educate members on the importance of normal families in a child’s life. As such, undesirable habits such as alcoholism should be avoided in the best interest of children. Consequently, fewer children would grow up without parental affection. According to Siegel and Welsh (2014), lack of parental attention may result in self-hate. Besides, it can cause children to embrace violence.
References
Greenwood, P. W., & Turner, S. (2011). Juvenile crime and juvenile justice. Crime and Public Policy, 1(1), 88-129.
Howell, J. C. (2010). Gang prevention: An overview of research and programs. Web.
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Risk factors for conduct disorder and delinquency: Key findings from longitudinal studies. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(10), 633-642.
Parry, D. (2004). Essential readings in juvenile justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Scott, G. (2012). Prison is too violent for young offenders. The New York Times. Web.
Sharp, P., & Hancock, B. (1997). Juvenile delinquency: Historical, theoretical and societal reactions to youth. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2014). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.