During the slide titled "The Transition from an Agricultural to a Modern Industrial Society," I found it a little hard to believe that the transition itself would be responsible for the spike in juvenile delinquency during the early 1800's. I feel that the focus should be shifted onto the fact that the world, even today, is becoming a smaller and more accessible breeding ground for this type of behavior due to the industrial and socio-economically influenced climates that these types of societal transitions provide. To me, the dialogue explaining this kind of transition sounds like the narrator is making juvenile crime out to be merely a crime opportunity based upon the monetary and social inequalities of the time and place, when the issue of juvenile crime is a much more complex and fluid problem.
I see your thinking of the focus should have been on the smaller and more accessible breeding ground. But what I think happened was that people before they moved in to the city did commit crime but after they moved it wasn’t all family and friends so there are more opportunity and more targets. Jfl123
The history of juvenile delinquency and justice is frankly something pretty new. Considering that kids for about a hundred and fivity years could have been taken away from they family without any do process in a case. This is more referring to the justice part instead of the delinquency of juveniles. The fact that it showed up more in a large city like New York first doesn’t surpises me. Especially when the narrator talked about the rise it got when industrialization happened in the early 20th century. One of the good things that I thought happened in the beginning of modern juvenile crime was. The juvenile institution that was in New York which focused on helping the children and young adults instead of just putting them in jail. One of the bad things was the Mary Ann Crouse case which showed kids are being put in a place that are there for criminals even though they did not commit any crimes. Jfl123
I agree with what you have to say here, although even the Romans and some other early societies had ways to deal with their children. You are right in saying that the juvenile delinquency system is relatively new in the aspect of due process for youths. I also agree with you when you said that it's good that there is an institution that helps the juveniles instead of just sending them off to jail! BenRoethlisberger123
I find some of the methods unfair. I don't think children that aren't convicted of any crime should have to be put in a place with other kids who have done crimes. I don't see how taking innocent children away would prevent crimes. However, it is good that they stopped letting kids get off scot free. It is also good that it was trying to focus more on reform than punishment. A lot of kids don't realize the crimes they do and how it will play out. There actions are still developing. Kids have to pay for the crimes in someway too. Cowboy123
I find it intriguing that since the 1800's young males have been the leading cause of crimes. I like the idea that in some states 15 year olds can be tried as adults, especially for more severe crimes such as murder or rape. I believe that no matter the age or state of mind someone is in, they should pay for what they have done to the the victim. Whether that crime as small as stealing a piece of candy from a store, all the way to murdering your entire family with a hammer. Crime is crime in my eyes, and although the parents may have done an awful job of raising their children, one should still have the the sense of right versus wrong. BenRoethlisberger123
BenRoethlisberger123, I agree with everything you had to say in this post. If Adults stole a piece of candy, they would get a fine, and I think that a kid should get one, too. They know what they are doing. Also, if an adult murdered his whole family, he would be put in prison for life or get the death penalty. If a Minor does it, they should get life in prison. ~FBI123
Crime is crime yes but you have to take things into consideration before you just go and arrest a person. Say there are two people one guy is 35 and he has been arrested for attempting to sell cocaine and the other person is a 13 year old boy being tried for the same thing. The 35 year old will get sentenced to possibly 3 to 7 years in prison depending on his prior offenses. Now the kid will more than likely get no jail time what so ever based on the fact that his mind is not mature enough to wrap his head around how serious of an act he has committed. It would wrong in my opinion to charge a kid with a crime they only know half about. Sure, I understand that selling cocaine is very wrong but to a 13 year old kid depending on how he was raised will only see one side of things. He will recognize that in some music that selling drugs has been glamorized and that it is not a big deal and that its just a lot of money. As a kid making money is very new and without really getting the real actual information on what the drug can do he will go out and sell it not knowing the actual dangers of what he is doing. While as in society for the 35 year old drugs were not as glamorized as they are today and the 35 year old depending on his mental status should be able to recognize the dangers of selling and possessing cocaine because he is mature enough to comprehend what he is doing. That is why I believe the system now works for kids because its like an eye opening experience for a kid to actually get arrested and tried in court and if they are just placed into a prison they will not be the same kid once they come out whereas if they get a lighter slap on the wrist they might be able to live a complete life and make better decisions. Also even the if a child has amazing parents and amazing life that doesn't always dictate how they are going to act. Parents can only do so much for their child its up to the child to make its own decisions the parents can weigh in their opinions as much as they want but ultimately the child will decide its path and no amount of parenting or love and affection can change that.
I think that it is being underestimated the life intellect and life experience of these minors that you would give fines and life in prison to. Although a child may know that something is in fact wrong the may not know the severity of their actions. Using your example, if a 6 year old child stole a piece of candy from the store knowing that it was wrong, did he/she also know that their parents paying potentially hundreds of dollars in fines could be the outcome? For a typical 6 year old most would say no, so why punish him so harshly? Scooby123
I agree with most everything you said in your post. Kids DO know right from wrong and what more schools need to be teaching is morals. You learn morals from your family but if your mom and dad work all the time, you start making these morals on your own and people are naturally deviant. So if these key issues are treated at a very early age(K-5th grade) there would most likely be a drop in juvenile crime. Bassfishing123
You have all brought up very good points, I can see where you are coming from(Scooby and 36chambers). I do think we need to give kids some kind of grace, but when it comes to a severe crimes(such as murder or rape) I believe their needs to be stricter punishments for juveniles, no matter what their age may be. They need to pay for their actions in these cases, and should be tried as adults for severe crimes! If their parents aren't going to teach them that murdering an innocent peer is wrong, then they will find out the hard way when they pay the price for blatantly ending ones life. Very good points though guys! BenRoethlisberger123
It all should come down to what the juvenile did. But many factors should be put in play in different types of crimes. If it is about stealing, property damage, or fighting. They should get sent to a juvenile court and not adult. Depending on what he stole, broke, or how far he went in a fight can determine if it should be waived to an adult court. Rape, Murder, etc. should immediately be punished as an adult and be sent to prison and a sentence with no holding back on the kid. It’s a parent’s job to show them right from wrong at a young age anyways. That excuse “He is young, he doesn’t know any better” gets thrown out way too much. If the child doesn’t have parents then yes they should be helped out rather than punished to an extent of course depending on the offense. Rugby123
See now I both agree and disagree with that. I feel that, Yes, people should definitely pay for their crime. BUT, I also think that in certain circumstances, mental state plays a very immense part in the decision making process. If someone is mentally ill, they cant effectively make the correct choices in regards to how to handle something. They can be driven by anger or passion or pain, or a mixture of the three, and I think they would be better suited being treated than punished by the court of law.
Ever since the 1800's, young males have been leading the crime rates in the juveniles. I find that very interesting. These days, it is still the males that are leading the crimes with juveniles. I feel like if a kid goes and kills his whole family, that child, whatever his age, needs to be tried as an adult. There are people out there that say, "Oh, they are just kids, they don't know what they are doing". I find that very unbelievable. Kids do know what they are doing, they know that if you pull a trigger at someone, they will get very hurt or die. I believe a crime is a crime, no matter what the age is, or what the crime is. On one of the first slides the narrator says that "they attribute Juvenile Delinquency to Urbanization" I agree with that 100 percent. More Juveniles are committing crimes in urban areas rather than little towns. Yes, that may be because there are more of them in the city, but the kids in the towns could be doing the same thing. I feel like If children are raised in big cities, they are less taken care of, than a kid that is raised in a small town. And since they are less taken care of, they try to take care of things themselves, or they try to find someone or a group that will take care of them. In reality, Juvenile Delinquency is fairly new to most people, so they do not know how to handle it. ~FBI123
I completely agree with all of your statements. I agree that if a child has the capacity and understanding to be able to kill his or her family, then they are obviously intelligent and mature enough to be tried as an adult. On the other hand sometime mistakes happen and a child shoots its brother or sister, because it thinks its a toy. They probably shouldn't be punished as harshly. Also the fact that children in smaller towns were probably better taken care of and had less responsibilities, i.e. not working in a factory. This would support your theory that the children are less taken care of. Silverado123
This video goes to show you that even though something seems extremely bad will go "unnoticed" by the public. Things like this still happen today even though its terrible if there is an authority figure over the matter calling all the shots people will not respond to it due to the fact that others might not stand behind that statement based on how scared they are of the person in power. In sure there was a certain degree of people that knew exactly what was going on yet refused to do anything about it just based on fear alone. People do not like to look power in its face and say that it is wrong which is why a lot of people now a days just do whatever they can to get by and get ahead even if they do not like doing it.Just look at the prison system, for years now and still the prison system is viewed as a scary place where you could end up getting shot, stabbed, raped, or even killed. I do not believe that the conception of prison should be that because it kind of defeats the purpose of the whole thing. Prison and jail are supposed to be used for rehabilitating people that have done wrong in order to make them think twice or to not do the crime he or she has committed again. But it is very hard to be rehabilitated in an area where you are treated as trash and have to be on your guard 24/7. Sure they have prison guards and sure people can get saved by them but I don't believe that a person will be "rehabilitated" if they are potentially in life threatening situations. If anything prison just scares people so will they try and make an attempt to make themselves better because of this? or will they just learn how to be better at the crime they did in order to stay away from prison.
This video was disturbing to me, because of the lack of sympathy and lack of consideration the men and women in power at this time had for the poor and less fortunate. To lock a child in a "reform" institution because they affiliate with the "dangerous" is completely unethical. With never having known about justice for juveniles, what I found particularly unbelievable was the support these dictators had by the government. Although there was a law passed to not detain youth that has committed no crime, there were not many more regulations added to protect those who had. When the juvenile courts were created it allowed for more fair treatment and sentencing among both adults and children. This had both a good and a bad impact on the children of that day and age. The upside would be that there was more than just a slap on the wrist for those who committed more serious offenses.Unfortunately the downside for those children was the governments way of reforming those who haven't but might commit a crime. The government not allowing them rights was, may have been legal at that time, but still wrong. Scooby123
I couldn't agree with you more. I think what stuck me the most was that the parents had no say in wether or not their kid was taken. In addition it didn't matter what environment your child lived in they were had the ability to act as governing parent regardless. I think this process could have been better if the parents were included in the decision making process and if the parents were allowed the option of making changes at home in replacement of the penitentiary. Duck123
This video was a very interesting view of juvenile justice and crime since the industrialization of the United States and other western countries. I felt that I was not surprised by the statement that younger male children were more likely to commit crimes than girls or older adults. The part that was the strangest to me was that children would be tried in adult courts, but barely found guilty. I understand that these juries may have thought it harsh to send children to prison with adults that could pray on them. Thankfully a justice system came around for juveniles. The system would allow them to be punished, like the should be, but in such a way as to allow the children to reform. This would keep more young adults out of prison, but deal them the punish that they deserve for breaking the law. Silverado123
I did not know and have not heard of any of these facts yet, I guess that is because I did not know anything about the juvenile court system. I think this is all disturbing. How can you put a child into a camp until they are the age of 21? Even if they did NOT commit a crime? Just because someone above them thought it was in the 'best interest' for the child? Does not make sense to me. Just shows how you give someone/something power and people always find a way to abuse it. Growing up, I feel like I see more and more examples of this everyday. I could understand if they took immigrants and had them work for so many years so they can be able to live in America, but they went about it all wrong. At least they noticed their mistakes and fixed them. Ibanez123
It doesn't surprise me at all that older people think there is more juvenile crime. Personally my grandparents talk about how people in my generation are so disrespectful and deviant than their own generation. That's because of social media, crimes are more vocalized and heard about more often than not. A person can't turn on the news without hearing something negative or someone committing a crime, which leads people to the idea that crimes are on the rise. Juveniles in the 1830s shouldn't of been confined even for not committing a crime, goes to show how much America has changed the juvenile justice system and if someone was confined in this day in age and didn't commit any crimes, there would be guaranteed lawsuits. The end result for the juvenile system, helps keep kids out of the prisons but at the same time deal with their problems. Sending kids to prison would only better their understanding of crimes and be more likely to commit them in the future when they get out and back into society. Bassfishing123
My grandfather and grandmother talk of all the crime today compared to when they were growing up. They say it wasn't as much killing if any and robbing banks. She stated that rape and stealing were the main crimes for juveniles when she was growing up. MotherOf4123
There are a lot of cons to the government’s method of trying to assist juveniles. They were punishing more than assisting in the long run. They have no right too just believe that since you come from an immigrant family that you are doomed to crime and being a menace to society. Although immigrants had many culture clashes, it takes 2 to tango. The government’s basic message to all of this is that if you struggle financially, that you need to be put in a house of refuge even though you committed no crime. The case of Mary Ann Crouse was a big eye opener. A fathered was waived of his rights to his daughter as they said they are her ruled as her parents to claim his daughter. But thankfully the O’Connell case reform stated that no juvenile should be put in a refuge home if they committed no crime. I understand if the kid performed a felony. But to just assume that just because of someone’s financial situation that they will come out to be felons. Most of the time they would do more punishment than actual help. Rugby123
I found this video to be very in formative and interesting in regards to juvenile history. The video mentioned that the cause for such a large influx of juveniles, coincided with several circumstances. These circumstances were identified as population growth, industrialization, and immigration. It was also stated on the video that young men were more likely to be involved in crime. The population increased the number of people, thus increasing the number of juveniles in general. Which in return increases the probability that delinquent behavior will occur. Industrialization increased the well being of many people, however, it decreased the positive structure that only living on a farm could bring and doing so increasing delinquent behavior. Immigration brought on a whole different set of challenges but the main one being that there was a large influx of different people, which tended to influence delinquent behavior. I also found it disturbing that the state could act on behalf of the parent , governing wether or not it was in the child's best interest to be sent off to a penitentiary until the child is 21. Duck123
The first juvenile institution emerged in 1828 in New York. The narrator makes a comment about how the institution was overpopulated, but I find this out of sorts because children are being sent to Houses of Refuge when they hadn't committed a crime. It was decided that they would be taken from their families and sent to go work as "indentured servants" until they were twenty-one years of age. For example, if that were still going on, who is to say that couldn't happen to some child or children today? Granted things today have done a whole 360 degrees. The O'Connell case led to the end of holding children for not committing a crime. But now, I think that potential juveniles that commit crimes should receive the punishment that they deserve. CSI123
The juvenile system has evolved drastically. From no justice at all to having its own courts. The fact that children could be taking to reform school rather a crime was committed or not. The reasons for the spark in property crime because to the industrial revolution. Growing up I was always told that juveniles "back in the day" didn't commit as much or as serious of crimes. They say some crimes juveniles commit should be waived to adult court. As a child believe that your frontal lobe is not fully developed so there Is no way a child 12 13 14 really understand what severity of the crime they commit. MotherOf4123
I was also amazed at how the juvenile system has become what it is today. So much has changed since the old days where solutions were a lot less "thought out". I also like how you pointed out the fact that some people believe that juveniles should receive waivers from committing crime. It shows one of the arguments in how society should convict juveniles. -Pack123
The first thing that really stuck out to me was at the beginning of the video when they said that juveniles were less severely punished than adults. As an example, if an 8 year old shoots someone they may claim, "he was too young to know what he was doing", but I know for a fact when I was 8 years old I knew better than that. I don't feel that just because you are young you should get a get out of jail free card. Another thing that caught my eye was when they talked about kids coming off in rural or urban areas, which is a big debate now. I believe we just talked about this in one of my classes today. Granted urban kids would be more surrounded by trouble and itd be easier for them to get into it, it is also so much easier for them to get caught, versus growing up in a rural area. lilap123
Its crazy on how far we have come in how society deals with Juvenile Delinquency. It's also interesting to me on how the various methods have changed over time when convicting juveniles of crimes. However, I do disagree with some of the methods that were used. I believe that we need to help and provide services to the convicted juveniles when determining a sentence (unless its for a more serious crime). A well thought out program would do a lot more good, in my opinion, than a jail sentence for several years. I just hope that we can truly have a flawless system in helping juveniles "shape up". -Pack123
During the slide titled "The Transition from an Agricultural to a Modern Industrial Society," I found it a little hard to believe that the transition itself would be responsible for the spike in juvenile delinquency during the early 1800's. I feel that the focus should be shifted onto the fact that the world, even today, is becoming a smaller and more accessible breeding ground for this type of behavior due to the industrial and socio-economically influenced climates that these types of societal transitions provide. To me, the dialogue explaining this kind of transition sounds like the narrator is making juvenile crime out to be merely a crime opportunity based upon the monetary and social inequalities of the time and place, when the issue of juvenile crime is a much more complex and fluid problem.
ReplyDelete-Jedrin123
I see your thinking of the focus should have been on the smaller and more accessible breeding ground. But what I think happened was that people before they moved in to the city did commit crime but after they moved it wasn’t all family and friends so there are more opportunity and more targets.
DeleteJfl123
The history of juvenile delinquency and justice is frankly something pretty new. Considering that kids for about a hundred and fivity years could have been taken away from they family without any do process in a case. This is more referring to the justice part instead of the delinquency of juveniles. The fact that it showed up more in a large city like New York first doesn’t surpises me. Especially when the narrator talked about the rise it got when industrialization happened in the early 20th century. One of the good things that I thought happened in the beginning of modern juvenile crime was. The juvenile institution that was in New York which focused on helping the children and young adults instead of just putting them in jail. One of the bad things was the Mary Ann Crouse case which showed kids are being put in a place that are there for criminals even though they did not commit any crimes.
ReplyDeleteJfl123
I agree with what you have to say here, although even the Romans and some other early societies had ways to deal with their children. You are right in saying that the juvenile delinquency system is relatively new in the aspect of due process for youths. I also agree with you when you said that it's good that there is an institution that helps the juveniles instead of just sending them off to jail! BenRoethlisberger123
DeleteI find some of the methods unfair. I don't think children that aren't convicted of any crime should have to be put in a place with other kids who have done crimes. I don't see how taking innocent children away would prevent crimes. However, it is good that they stopped letting kids get off scot free. It is also good that it was trying to focus more on reform than punishment. A lot of kids don't realize the crimes they do and how it will play out. There actions are still developing. Kids have to pay for the crimes in someway too. Cowboy123
ReplyDeleteI find it intriguing that since the 1800's young males have been the leading cause of crimes. I like the idea that in some states 15 year olds can be tried as adults, especially for more severe crimes such as murder or rape. I believe that no matter the age or state of mind someone is in, they should pay for what they have done to the the victim. Whether that crime as small as stealing a piece of candy from a store, all the way to murdering your entire family with a hammer. Crime is crime in my eyes, and although the parents may have done an awful job of raising their children, one should still have the the sense of right versus wrong. BenRoethlisberger123
ReplyDeleteBenRoethlisberger123, I agree with everything you had to say in this post. If Adults stole a piece of candy, they would get a fine, and I think that a kid should get one, too. They know what they are doing. Also, if an adult murdered his whole family, he would be put in prison for life or get the death penalty. If a Minor does it, they should get life in prison.
Delete~FBI123
Crime is crime yes but you have to take things into consideration before you just go and arrest a person. Say there are two people one guy is 35 and he has been arrested for attempting to sell cocaine and the other person is a 13 year old boy being tried for the same thing. The 35 year old will get sentenced to possibly 3 to 7 years in prison depending on his prior offenses. Now the kid will more than likely get no jail time what so ever based on the fact that his mind is not mature enough to wrap his head around how serious of an act he has committed. It would wrong in my opinion to charge a kid with a crime they only know half about. Sure, I understand that selling cocaine is very wrong but to a 13 year old kid depending on how he was raised will only see one side of things. He will recognize that in some music that selling drugs has been glamorized and that it is not a big deal and that its just a lot of money. As a kid making money is very new and without really getting the real actual information on what the drug can do he will go out and sell it not knowing the actual dangers of what he is doing. While as in society for the 35 year old drugs were not as glamorized as they are today and the 35 year old depending on his mental status should be able to recognize the dangers of selling and possessing cocaine because he is mature enough to comprehend what he is doing. That is why I believe the system now works for kids because its like an eye opening experience for a kid to actually get arrested and tried in court and if they are just placed into a prison they will not be the same kid once they come out whereas if they get a lighter slap on the wrist they might be able to live a complete life and make better decisions. Also even the if a child has amazing parents and amazing life that doesn't always dictate how they are going to act. Parents can only do so much for their child its up to the child to make its own decisions the parents can weigh in their opinions as much as they want but ultimately the child will decide its path and no amount of parenting or love and affection can change that.
Delete36chambers123
I think that it is being underestimated the life intellect and life experience of these minors that you would give fines and life in prison to. Although a child may know that something is in fact wrong the may not know the severity of their actions. Using your example, if a 6 year old child stole a piece of candy from the store knowing that it was wrong, did he/she also know that their parents paying potentially hundreds of dollars in fines could be the outcome? For a typical 6 year old most would say no, so why punish him so harshly?
DeleteScooby123
I agree with most everything you said in your post. Kids DO know right from wrong and what more schools need to be teaching is morals. You learn morals from your family but if your mom and dad work all the time, you start making these morals on your own and people are naturally deviant. So if these key issues are treated at a very early age(K-5th grade) there would most likely be a drop in juvenile crime.
DeleteBassfishing123
You have all brought up very good points, I can see where you are coming from(Scooby and 36chambers). I do think we need to give kids some kind of grace, but when it comes to a severe crimes(such as murder or rape) I believe their needs to be stricter punishments for juveniles, no matter what their age may be. They need to pay for their actions in these cases, and should be tried as adults for severe crimes! If their parents aren't going to teach them that murdering an innocent peer is wrong, then they will find out the hard way when they pay the price for blatantly ending ones life. Very good points though guys! BenRoethlisberger123
DeleteIt all should come down to what the juvenile did. But many factors should be put in play in different types of crimes. If it is about stealing, property damage, or fighting. They should get sent to a juvenile court and not adult. Depending on what he stole, broke, or how far he went in a fight can determine if it should be waived to an adult court. Rape, Murder, etc. should immediately be punished as an adult and be sent to prison and a sentence with no holding back on the kid. It’s a parent’s job to show them right from wrong at a young age anyways. That excuse “He is young, he doesn’t know any better” gets thrown out way too much. If the child doesn’t have parents then yes they should be helped out rather than punished to an extent of course depending on the offense.
DeleteRugby123
See now I both agree and disagree with that. I feel that, Yes, people should definitely pay for their crime. BUT, I also think that in certain circumstances, mental state plays a very immense part in the decision making process. If someone is mentally ill, they cant effectively make the correct choices in regards to how to handle something. They can be driven by anger or passion or pain, or a mixture of the three, and I think they would be better suited being treated than punished by the court of law.
Delete-90sMusic123
Ever since the 1800's, young males have been leading the crime rates in the juveniles. I find that very interesting. These days, it is still the males that are leading the crimes with juveniles. I feel like if a kid goes and kills his whole family, that child, whatever his age, needs to be tried as an adult. There are people out there that say, "Oh, they are just kids, they don't know what they are doing". I find that very unbelievable. Kids do know what they are doing, they know that if you pull a trigger at someone, they will get very hurt or die. I believe a crime is a crime, no matter what the age is, or what the crime is. On one of the first slides the narrator says that "they attribute Juvenile Delinquency to Urbanization" I agree with that 100 percent. More Juveniles are committing crimes in urban areas rather than little towns. Yes, that may be because there are more of them in the city, but the kids in the towns could be doing the same thing. I feel like If children are raised in big cities, they are less taken care of, than a kid that is raised in a small town. And since they are less taken care of, they try to take care of things themselves, or they try to find someone or a group that will take care of them. In reality, Juvenile Delinquency is fairly new to most people, so they do not know how to handle it.
ReplyDelete~FBI123
I completely agree with all of your statements. I agree that if a child has the capacity and understanding to be able to kill his or her family, then they are obviously intelligent and mature enough to be tried as an adult. On the other hand sometime mistakes happen and a child shoots its brother or sister, because it thinks its a toy. They probably shouldn't be punished as harshly. Also the fact that children in smaller towns were probably better taken care of and had less responsibilities, i.e. not working in a factory. This would support your theory that the children are less taken care of.
DeleteSilverado123
This video goes to show you that even though something seems extremely bad will go "unnoticed" by the public. Things like this still happen today even though its terrible if there is an authority figure over the matter calling all the shots people will not respond to it due to the fact that others might not stand behind that statement based on how scared they are of the person in power. In sure there was a certain degree of people that knew exactly what was going on yet refused to do anything about it just based on fear alone. People do not like to look power in its face and say that it is wrong which is why a lot of people now a days just do whatever they can to get by and get ahead even if they do not like doing it.Just look at the prison system, for years now and still the prison system is viewed as a scary place where you could end up getting shot, stabbed, raped, or even killed. I do not believe that the conception of prison should be that because it kind of defeats the purpose of the whole thing. Prison and jail are supposed to be used for rehabilitating people that have done wrong in order to make them think twice or to not do the crime he or she has committed again. But it is very hard to be rehabilitated in an area where you are treated as trash and have to be on your guard 24/7. Sure they have prison guards and sure people can get saved by them but I don't believe that a person will be "rehabilitated" if they are potentially in life threatening situations. If anything prison just scares people so will they try and make an attempt to make themselves better because of this? or will they just learn how to be better at the crime they did in order to stay away from prison.
ReplyDelete36chambers123
This video was disturbing to me, because of the lack of sympathy and lack of consideration the men and women in power at this time had for the poor and less fortunate. To lock a child in a "reform" institution because they affiliate with the "dangerous" is completely unethical. With never having known about justice for juveniles, what I found particularly unbelievable was the support these dictators had by the government. Although there was a law passed to not detain youth that has committed no crime, there were not many more regulations added to protect those who had. When the juvenile courts were created it allowed for more fair treatment and sentencing among both adults and children. This had both a good and a bad impact on the children of that day and age. The upside would be that there was more than just a slap on the wrist for those who committed more serious offenses.Unfortunately the downside for those children was the governments way of reforming those who haven't but might commit a crime. The government not allowing them rights was, may have been legal at that time, but still wrong.
ReplyDeleteScooby123
I couldn't agree with you more. I think what stuck me the most was that the parents had no say in wether or not their kid was taken. In addition it didn't matter what environment your child lived in they were had the ability to act as governing parent regardless. I think this process could have been better if the parents were included in the decision making process and if the parents were allowed the option of making changes at home in replacement of the penitentiary. Duck123
DeleteThis video was a very interesting view of juvenile justice and crime since the industrialization of the United States and other western countries. I felt that I was not surprised by the statement that younger male children were more likely to commit crimes than girls or older adults. The part that was the strangest to me was that children would be tried in adult courts, but barely found guilty. I understand that these juries may have thought it harsh to send children to prison with adults that could pray on them. Thankfully a justice system came around for juveniles. The system would allow them to be punished, like the should be, but in such a way as to allow the children to reform. This would keep more young adults out of prison, but deal them the punish that they deserve for breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteSilverado123
I did not know and have not heard of any of these facts yet, I guess that is because I did not know anything about the juvenile court system. I think this is all disturbing. How can you put a child into a camp until they are the age of 21? Even if they did NOT commit a crime? Just because someone above them thought it was in the 'best interest' for the child? Does not make sense to me. Just shows how you give someone/something power and people always find a way to abuse it. Growing up, I feel like I see more and more examples of this everyday. I could understand if they took immigrants and had them work for so many years so they can be able to live in America, but they went about it all wrong. At least they noticed their mistakes and fixed them.
ReplyDeleteIbanez123
It doesn't surprise me at all that older people think there is more juvenile crime. Personally my grandparents talk about how people in my generation are so disrespectful and deviant than their own generation. That's because of social media, crimes are more vocalized and heard about more often than not. A person can't turn on the news without hearing something negative or someone committing a crime, which leads people to the idea that crimes are on the rise. Juveniles in the 1830s shouldn't of been confined even for not committing a crime, goes to show how much America has changed the juvenile justice system and if someone was confined in this day in age and didn't commit any crimes, there would be guaranteed lawsuits. The end result for the juvenile system, helps keep kids out of the prisons but at the same time deal with their problems. Sending kids to prison would only better their understanding of crimes and be more likely to commit them in the future when they get out and back into society.
ReplyDeleteBassfishing123
My grandfather and grandmother talk of all the crime today compared to when they were growing up. They say it wasn't as much killing if any and robbing banks. She stated that rape and stealing were the main crimes for juveniles when she was growing up. MotherOf4123
DeleteThere are a lot of cons to the government’s method of trying to assist juveniles. They were punishing more than assisting in the long run. They have no right too just believe that since you come from an immigrant family that you are doomed to crime and being a menace to society. Although immigrants had many culture clashes, it takes 2 to tango. The government’s basic message to all of this is that if you struggle financially, that you need to be put in a house of refuge even though you committed no crime. The case of Mary Ann Crouse was a big eye opener. A fathered was waived of his rights to his daughter as they said they are her ruled as her parents to claim his daughter. But thankfully the O’Connell case reform stated that no juvenile should be put in a refuge home if they committed no crime. I understand if the kid performed a felony. But to just assume that just because of someone’s financial situation that they will come out to be felons. Most of the time they would do more punishment than actual help.
ReplyDeleteRugby123
I found this video to be very in formative and interesting in regards to juvenile history. The video mentioned that the cause for such a large influx of juveniles, coincided with several circumstances. These circumstances were identified as population growth, industrialization, and immigration. It was also stated on the video that young men were more likely to be involved in crime. The population increased the number of people, thus increasing the number of juveniles in general. Which in return increases the probability that delinquent behavior will occur. Industrialization increased the well being of many people, however, it decreased the positive structure that only living on a farm could bring and doing so increasing delinquent behavior. Immigration brought on a whole different set of challenges but the main one being that there was a large influx of different people, which tended to influence delinquent behavior. I also found it disturbing that the state could act on behalf of the parent , governing wether or not it was in the child's best interest to be sent off to a penitentiary until the child is 21. Duck123
ReplyDeleteThe first juvenile institution emerged in 1828 in New York. The narrator makes a comment about how the institution was overpopulated, but I find this out of sorts because children are being sent to Houses of Refuge when they hadn't committed a crime. It was decided that they would be taken from their families and sent to go work as "indentured servants" until they were twenty-one years of age. For example, if that were still going on, who is to say that couldn't happen to some child or children today? Granted things today have done a whole 360 degrees. The O'Connell case led to the end of holding children for not committing a crime. But now, I think that potential juveniles that commit crimes should receive the punishment that they deserve. CSI123
ReplyDeleteThe juvenile system has evolved drastically. From no justice at all to having its own courts. The fact that children could be taking to reform school rather a crime was committed or not. The reasons for the spark in property crime because to the industrial revolution. Growing up I was always told that juveniles "back in the day" didn't commit as much or as serious of crimes. They say some crimes juveniles commit should be waived to adult court. As a child believe that your frontal lobe is not fully developed so there Is no way a child 12 13 14 really understand what severity of the crime they commit. MotherOf4123
ReplyDeleteI was also amazed at how the juvenile system has become what it is today. So much has changed since the old days where solutions were a lot less "thought out". I also like how you pointed out the fact that some people believe that juveniles should receive waivers from committing crime. It shows one of the arguments in how society should convict juveniles. -Pack123
DeleteThe first thing that really stuck out to me was at the beginning of the video when they said that juveniles were less severely punished than adults. As an example, if an 8 year old shoots someone they may claim, "he was too young to know what he was doing", but I know for a fact when I was 8 years old I knew better than that. I don't feel that just because you are young you should get a get out of jail free card. Another thing that caught my eye was when they talked about kids coming off in rural or urban areas, which is a big debate now. I believe we just talked about this in one of my classes today. Granted urban kids would be more surrounded by trouble and itd be easier for them to get into it, it is also so much easier for them to get caught, versus growing up in a rural area.
ReplyDeletelilap123
Its crazy on how far we have come in how society deals with Juvenile Delinquency. It's also interesting to me on how the various methods have changed over time when convicting juveniles of crimes. However, I do disagree with some of the methods that were used. I believe that we need to help and provide services to the convicted juveniles when determining a sentence (unless its for a more serious crime). A well thought out program would do a lot more good, in my opinion, than a jail sentence for several years. I just hope that we can truly have a flawless system in helping juveniles "shape up". -Pack123
ReplyDelete