Tart 1
Lizzie Tart
Jeffrey Peake
Honors English III
1 December 2011
Which is more effective for juvenile delinquents—retribution or rehabilitation?
Dating back many years ago, there has been much controversy regarding the
effectiveness of rehabilitation versus retribution in the juvenile court systems. Retribution has
been more widely used throughout history as a means of punishing juvenile delinquents. The
intent is to scare the individuals into not committing more crimes. While some supporters
believe this is the most effective treatment, there is an even stronger belief that trying to change a
person’s behavior for the better provides greater benefit to everyone. Commonly referred to as
rehabilitation, programs are now being geared towards transformation of behavior, instead of
punishment for bad behavior. The juvenile system today is made up of both programs, with
many viewpoints regarding their effectiveness. However, with more and more programs being
implemented, it has become evident that rehabilitation is more effective in juvenile delinquents
because it focuses on improving future behavior rather than punishing past behavior.
Since early history, common thinking has held that if someone does something bad, they
should be punished for their actions. This same mindset has been applied in the juvenile
delinquent system with the idea that retribution is the appropriate way to deal with young
criminals. By definition, retribution is “receiving a punishment” (“Retribution”). People who
support retribution believe that the individual being punished is bad and will never be any good
to society. With retribution, the thought process is that nothing can be done to keep the person
Tart 2
from committing other, more serious crimes. In the 1960’s when the crime rate sharply
increased, this method of discipline became more extensively used. People started believing that
therapeutic solutions did not work, and the only option was to create more programs based on
disciplinary solutions. According to John Dilulio, a political scientist, many juvenile delinquents
were “super predators” and were “radically impulsive, brutally remorseless youngsters, including
ever more teenage boys who murder, assault, rob, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, join gun-toting
gangs, and create serious disorders” (Piquero). From observations such as this, it was obvious
that nothing good could come from these individuals and punishment was the only alternative.
Although jail time is the most common form of punishment, retribution can be more than just
sentencing a youth to prison. Youth detention centers, probation, and protective supervision are
all methods of “justice” used to address juvenile delinquency in today’s society. In some cases,
when it seemed nothing else would work, retribution has proven to be the only form of effective
punishment. However, in today’s society, it most likely would not be the chosen method except
when dealing with serious felons or repeat offenders (Rawls). Statistics show that about 30% of
young offenders become repeat offenders, but this rate increases once they are imprisoned
(Lamb). The most effective impact of correcting bad behavior in juveniles needs to occur before
they end up in jail. The only real way to take someone corrupt and try to make them virtuous is
to do it before they end up in jail.
Rehabilitation is the opposite of retribution. In this approach, the system finds sources of
treatment that target common factors of delinquency and treat the needs of adolescents in hopes
of transformation. The goal is to reform them into involved members of society. This is a longterm treatment—a customized approach to prevent juveniles from becoming repeat offenders.
The intent is to provide a hopeful future for the children in the rehabilitation process. In today’s
Tart 3
society, rehabilitation is more likely to be used and in turn, there are more options available for
rehab treatment. Some examples include youth development centers, cognitive behavior
programs, and social treatment programs, along with more localized programs like Structured
Day, New Directions, Healthy Choice, and Teen Courts (Rawls). These methods are more
logical approaches in treating juvenile delinquents. Adolescents are the future of society, and
instead of wasting their lives in prison, they need to make something of themselves—the future
depends on it. Michael Rieder, the former executive director of Haven House, says that his
“program serves about 1,400 young people each year, many of whom the juvenile court system
refers. Of those who complete the program, 90% do not commit another crime” (Lamb). In
programs such as Haven House, juveniles get access to therapy, diversion opportunities, and
structured day programs.
The main goal of rehabilitative solutions is to save the at-risk individuals by offering
hope for a better future. Each type of rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system is very
detailed. It is created to fit the needs of an individual, not just the whole. For a young child who
comes from an abusive background, social treatment programs sometimes are the best option.
Students who may have been suspended from school or have gotten in trouble for truancy might
benefit the most from Structured Day programs (Rawls). Teen Courts are designed for minor
crimes and first offenders because they try to provide a change in attitude and demeanor.
Michael Cox, who went through a youth development center commented, “Those programs save
lives. If it wasn’t for those youth development centers, I could have been killed; I could have
gotten involved in more serious crimes” (Mildwurf). All programs are used to help adolescents
recover in a unique way.
Tart 4
A very common approach to rehabilitation in North Carolina is Teen Courts. Also called
youth or peer courts, teen courts offer a different approach where teens that are first time
offenders can experience real-life court and take responsibility for their actions, in both
education and service opportunities (“North”). Out of all juvenile prevention programs in the
country, they are considered one of the “fastest growing”. It gives adolescents a chance to learn
from their mistakes, and it teaches them about the judicial processes (Herman). Teen court
programs are made up of a mock court situation in which other teenagers serve as lawyers, jurors
and court reporters. Each session is facilitated by a sworn judge and a licensed attorney.
Statistics show that there were only 78 teen courts in operation in 1994. In 2002, it was shown
that over 900 programs were in service in the United States (Herman). As all other types of
rehabilitative treatments are specialized, teen courts are no different. Usually, the only people
getting sent there are teens from ages ten to fifteen, and are mostly first-time offenders or teens
who have committed minor misdemeanors. Evidence has shown that the majority of young
people who have made a teen court appearance stay out of trouble in the future (“North”).
Jeffrey Butts found that “in three of four youth courts studies, the six-month recidivism rate for
youth court was lower than that of the comparison group” (Herman). Teen Courts also provide
community involvement—the “good kids” get to experience it, too. It is a hands-on experience
for students in the justice system; they are the ones organizing the whole court process.
Although it is only one method for providing solutions to at-risk youth, it is widely embraced by
local communities and praised for its success in reducing repeat offender occurrences.
Whether one is an advocate of rehabilitation or a critic, there is a general consensus that
some juveniles simply cannot be rehabilitated (Lamb). A poll taken on WRAL’s website in
March 2009 indicates an overwhelming majority of poll participants believe there are indeed
Tart 5
juvenile offenders who can never be rehabilitated (see the diagram below). In those situations,
retribution may be the only answer. But for those members of society, who are involved closely
in the correctional process, they know the impact of these programs and they have seen the
success stories firsthand. Judge Addie Rawls, District Court Judge for Harnett, Johnston and Lee
counties, works with juvenile delinquents on a daily basis. As a juvenile court counselor, she has
experience with both retributive and rehabilitative treatments in youth. She says that today, the
juvenile justice system focuses more on treatment of adolescents and prevention of future crime
and less on punishing those who have committed crimes (Rawls). She is currently facilitating a
teen court program in Johnston County, with community and citizen involvement.
Are there some juvenile offenders who cannot be
rehabilitated?
14%
I don't know.
No, every juvenile delinquent can be rehabilitated
6%
in some way.
79%
Yes, some juveniles will never be rehabilitated.
0
Generated by Lizzie Tart
1000
2000
3000
4000
Number of Votes
5000
6000
The ultimate way to know whether rehabilitation or retribution works better is to look at
the recidivism in both. Recidivism is when someone repeats a crime after completing punishment
Tart 6
for the first crime. Recidivism rates overall are lower for rehabilitation than retribution. The
number of juveniles who commit another crime after getting treatment has decreased from 53%
to 33% (Lamb). This proves that alternative sources of treatment rather than punishment are the
best when it comes to the juvenile justice system.
A constant hurdle in keeping recidivism rates low is the ability to maintain effective
treatment services for juvenile delinquents. With continuous budget cuts, many state-funded
programs are being eliminated. After passing the 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act, North
Carolina became the second state to mandate state funding only for those rehabilitative services
with proven effectiveness (Lipsey). This of course involved the need for an evaluation system to
track the effectiveness of these treatment programs, another cost added to the process.
Keeping juveniles out of the adult court system also poses another challenge. In 2006,
North Carolina experienced one of its highest juvenile crime rates reported at 36.21%. Although
there has been a decline in recent years, the general fluctuation in juvenile crime has at times
backlogged juvenile courts with more than just petty crimes, including cases of murder, rape and
robbery (Lamb).
While there will always be obstacles, rehabilitation has certainly proven itself in modern
society. Programs that focus on group counseling, mentoring and family involvement have a
significant impact on reduction in recidivism (Lipsey). Research into the effectiveness of teen
court programs has also shown promising results (Herman). Keeping first-time offenders of nonviolent out of the juvenile justice system raises accountability for the crimes committed and
reduces recidivism (Herman). Instead of punishing past behavior, it focuses on improving future
behavior. Therefore, it is more effective overall.
Tart 7
Works Cited
Herman, Madelynn M. “Juvenile Justice Trends in 2002 Teen Courts—A Juvenile Justice
Diversion Program”. National Center for State Courts. National Center for State Courts,
22 November 2002. Web. 10 October 2011.
Lamb, Amanda. “NC’s juvenile justice system faces challenges”. WRAL.com. Capitol
Broadcasting Company, 11 March 2009. Web. 2 October 2011.
Lipsey, Mark W. “Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs”. Center for
Juvenile Justice Reform. Georgetown Public Policy Institute, 26 October 2011. Web. 28
October 2011.
Mildwurf, Bruce. “Cuts to NC juvenile justice budget pose ‘public safety issues’”. WRAL.com.
Capitol Broadcasting Company, 23 May 2011. Web. 2 October 2011.
“North Carolina Teen Court Association Publications”. NCTeenCourts.org. NC Teen Court
Association, 2011. Web. 21 October 2011.
Piquero, Alex R. “Never too late: Public optimism about juvenile rehabilitation”. Punishment &
Society. SAGE Publications, 11 October 2011. Web. 28 October 2011.
Rawls, Addie. Personal Interview. 19 September 2011.
“Retribution”. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC, 2011. Web. 10 October 2011.