Juvenile Offenders and Re-offending Rates Literature review

Juvenile Offenders and Re-offending Rates - Literature review ExampleThere have been globose trends in treatment of insubstantial offenders. Until the 1970s, juvenile offenders were punished for their crimes, but it was recognized that their age was to be considered. The 1980s then witnessed a rise in punishment approach to juvenile offenders.4 Since 2000, risk factors have been utilise to determine which communities have a higher probability of producing juvenile offenders.5 These communities are then encouraged through and through primordial policymaking to eliminate these factors.6 However, recent approach implies elimination of crime stations and strict punishment of the affiliated crimes.7 It does not apply rehabilitation or concern with re offending rates. Such system, inspired by the American system of policing, punishing and shaming juvenile offenders has been applied in the UK ever since the 1990s.8 Globalization has been blamed for much(prenominal) a development. Ac cording to the critics, globalization has promoted neo liberalism and individual responsibility, which results in blaming the juvenile offender.9 As a result, juvenile incarceration rates are high in the UK relative to other countries. ... Scotland in Europe.12 One tenability is lower age of criminal responsibility, which leads to more juveniles being prosecuted and awarded custodial sentence.13 There is a disconnection amidst the central government and local agents. In the UK, non custodial sentence is preferred and promoted by the policymakers.14 Social interrogatory Reports (SER), which are written by social workers and stand at disposal to judges and sheriffs, promote the visit policy. However, the judges mostly misinterpret the recommendations, or decide to disregard them.15 The government on one eliminate aims to punish the crimes, but on the other hand prevent them. As a result, such achievement might also be misinterpreted by some judges. Local communities also affec t the implementation of central governments decisions. In South West of the UK, one in ten sentences is custodial sentence, whereas in West Midlands one in five community sentences are custodial sentences.16 Such an approach by judges and communities changes the impact of governmental policies and decisions.17 As a result, England and Wales experienced decreasing rates of juvenile re offending, even though these decreases are slight. According to the Ministry of Justice report from 2010, Between April 2009 and March 2010, there were well-nigh 110,000 juvenile offenders. 18 Less than 38,000 of them were re offenders. Thus, the re offending rate was 33.3 per cent, and the average number of re offences for these individuals was 2.79. 19 There was a 0.4 percentage point decrease in re offending rate of juveniles since 2000, though risk assessment of the juvenile offenders indicates high probability of re offending.20 In Australia, a kooky system, re offending rates are visibly lower for non custodial