The Juvenile Boot Camps For Offenders Criminology Essay

The Juvenile Boot Camps For Offenders Criminology EssayThe United States used to be a nation focused on rehabilitating news that deviated from the social norms (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). This attitude was dramatically altered in the 1960s when public opinion of the medical mannequin deteriorated and the punishment model started to gain affirm (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). This shift in motifls has resulted in an increased popularity of conjure ring down programs (Gover, MacKenzie, Armstrong, 2000). There has been a great deal of debate as to whether quiver gangs are more or slight booming than traditional detainment facilities at reducing recidivism rates among news (DeMuro, 2008). Despite the lack of empirical evidence that late chill camps are more successful, they continue to gain popularity within the teenage justice system (DeMuro, 2008).Boot camps are less cost effective, and no more successful at reducing recidivism rates among juveniles, than tradit ional treatment facilities.The first guardianship camps used as choice punishments in the United States were created in Georgia and okey in 1983 (Tyler, Darville, Stalnaer, 2001). The first charge camp program oriented toward juveniles was created in Orleans Parish, Louisiana in 1985 (Tyler et al., 2001). Between 1985 and 1995, the number of juvenile boot camps had locomote to more than 75, spanning across 13 states (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). Furthermore, Ardovini-Brooker Walker (2000) expected that half of all juvenile jurisdictions in the United States would have boot camp programs in billet by the year 2000.There were many factors that gave rise to the popularity of juvenile boot camps. Ardovini-Brooker and Walker (2000) state six objectives of juvenile boot camps. The first objective of the boot camps was to alleviate the overcrowding facilities that were already in place (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). The second objective was to lower the cost of juvenile treatm ent by placing the juveniles in a program that took less time to complete (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). The third objective was to increase the perceived accountability of the juvenile justice system because many thought that it was too lenient with juvenile wrongdoers (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). The fourth objective was to increase the rehabilitation of the juvenile offenders by placing them in a more structured environment (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). The fifth objective was to compress juvenile recidivism rates through shock incarceration (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). The sixth and final objective of juvenile boot camp programs was to give back to the community by requiring the juveniles in the program to perform duties such as liter pick-up (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000).Both adult and juvenile boot camps were designed for first time or less crimson offenders and are considered to be as a type of shock incarceration (DeMuro, 2008). Experts believe that th e radical change in behavior that offenders will experience in a boot camp should be enough to s carry on or shock them straight (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). Boot camps achieve this radical change by incorporating basic elements of war machine philosophy (Gover et al., 2000).Juvenile boot camps are supposed to provide intense physical activity and a healthy atmosphere that result in a favorable background for therapy and education (Styve, MacKenzie, Gover, Mitchell, 2000). These boot camps can vary in length of time but are generally between 90 and 120 days (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). The programs incorporate elements of military boot camps such as uniforms, marching, calisthenics, and running various types of drills (Styve et al., 2000). These elements are supposed to combine to make the boot camp a life changing event for the juvenile offender (Tyler et al., 2001).There are many experts who are opposed to using juvenile boot camp programs as a means of punishment or r ehabilitation. These experts point to the fact that there is no empirical evidence that boot camp programs actually reduce recidivism rates and that boot camp programs are not cost effective (DeMuro, 2008 Tyler et al., 2001). Styve et al (2000) stated that boot camps may not provide the necessary care and attention to individuals that is required for rehabilitation to take place. These same experts believe that the system would be better off using the traditional facilities and supervised probation programs already in place (Tyler et al., 2001).The first problem with juvenile boot camp programs that many experts cite is that there is still relatively little empirical data to support the claim that they reduce recidivism rates (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention OJJDP stated that the use of juvenile boot camps has had no effect on the rates of juvenile recidivism (Tyler et al., 2001). Experts in the juvenile justice field believ e that this may be a result of the lack of uniformity among the many boot camp programs (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000). Some examples of this lack of uniformity would include the duration of the boot camp (90-120 days), which of the six objectives the camp is focused on, the type of offender that is sentenced to the boot camp, and whether or not there is an intensive after care program that is used in conjunction with the boot camp itself (Ardovini-Brooker Walker, 2000 Tyler et al., 2001).A second criticism of juvenile boot camp programs is that they are not cost effective. According to OJJDP, juvenile boot camps cost nearly 10 times more than juvenile probation programs per offender (Tyler et al., 2001). In Texas in 1998, the cost per day of a juvenile in a boot camp was $88.62 (Tyler et al., 2001). At the same time, the cost for a juvenile in a traditional treatment facility was $85.90 per day, and the cost of probation per day was $8.44 (Tyler et al., 2001). Taking into accoun t that juvenile boot camps help fewer offenders at a time, Tyler et al (2001) calculated the average cost of a boot camp program per juvenile per year to be $33,480. Further, they calculated the average cost of a traditional detainment facility to be $31,354 per juvenile per year. This, they stated, demonstrates that juvenile boot camps are not a cost effective alternative to using traditional facilities or probation.A third criticism of juvenile boot camps is that not all juveniles are suited mentally enough to handle the environment of a military style boot camp (Gover et al., 2000). There are many juveniles that cannot adjust to the sudden change in culture that is associated with boot camps (Gover et al., 2000). Gover et al (2000) claim that the rocky conditions at boot camps do not provide a stable environment that is healthy for therapy, which is a contradiction of one of the goals of juvenile boot camps. When selecting juveniles for boot camp programs, it is important to cho ose older youths who are less given up to experience anxiety, as those who are younger or are more prone to experience anxiety are less likely to be responsive to any treatment they may receive in a boot camp (Gover et al., 2000).Over the past few decades, juvenile boot camps have increased in popularity (Ardovini-Brooker, Walker, 2000). This trend has continued despite any lack of evidence that supports the idea that juvenile boot camps reduce recidivism rates (Ardovini-Brooker, Walker, 2000). It has also been shown that boot camp programs are not a cost effective alternative to traditional treatment, peculiarly when compared to supervised probation (Tyler et al., 2001). These facts have led many experts to believe that juvenile boot camp programs, as a whole, are not a successful alternative to traditional treatment facilities.