Answer

Alternatives to Juvenile Incarceration

A recent study illustrates that nearly two (2) million juveniles are processed through juvenile courts across the United States each year. Depending on the nature of the crime, juveniles may face detention or incarceration if they are convicted. Given the fact that many courts are reluctant to incarcerate criminal offenders, judges often consider alternatives to incarceration. The driving force behind these alternatives is to save taxpayer money, yet still demand offender accountability and impose sanctions for criminal behavior. This paper examines alternatives to incarceration, the historical and economic reasons informing them, and the societal and individual benefits of imposing sanctions or punishments that do not involve removing the offender from his/her community.

Historical and Economic Reasons for Alternatives to Incarceration

A wide body of literature on juvenile correction shows how incarceration negatively impacts young people in terms of education, physical and mental well-being, and employment. In the past few decades, there has been growing recognition that juvenile incarceration is not only expensive and overused but also ineffective in as far as reducing recidivism is concerned.       This recognition has prompted the justice system to invest in smaller placements and an array of community-based alternatives to incarceration, as opposed to large juvenile prisons. Research has shown that of all incarcerated juveniles, a third develop depression, a mental disorder whose onset is at the beginning of incarceration (Forrest et al., 2000; Kashani et al., 1980). It has also been established that many incarcerated juveniles, due to factors such as the conditions of confinement, are highly likely to suffer poor mental health, a development that may push them to self-harm and suicide (Mace et al., 1997).  In consideration of the profound effect on physical and mental well-being as well as education, economists present that youth detaining young people negatively impacts (more precisely reduces) their future employment prospects and earnings. Formerly detained juveniles are highly likely to become less stable members of the workforce, hence increased chances of leaving the workforce. Additionally, a significant percentage of incarcerated youth have been found to develop learning disabilities and face challenges resuming learning upon leaving confinement. The fact that youth who have been detained are more likely to continue with their delinquent behaviors, and the fact that recidivism is more likely as a result of the incarceration experience, further compromises public safety (Benda & Tollet, 1999). In sum, these reasons have prompted exploration and adoption of alternative to incarceration, some of which are presented below.

Alternatives to Incarceration

Multisystemic Therapy (MST)

MST “is an intensive family and community-based treatment for adolescents presenting serious antisocial behavior and their families” (Henggeler, 2012: p. 181). Therapists involved in MST address risk factors at differences levels namely community, school, peer, individual, and family.  This alternative is widely used across the United States and it has been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism and delinquency (Pilnik & Mistrett, 2019).

Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

Based on a systems approach, FFT “is a manualized family-based intervention program for youth with behavioral problems and their families” (Weisman & Montgomery, 2018: p.1). An effective alternative to incarceration, it is often implemented for youth “at risk of, or presenting with, behavioral problems such as delinquency, violence, substance abuse, sexual penetration, and truancy” (Weisman & Montgomery, 2018: p.1). As many as 45 states in the US successfully use FFT as an alternative to incarceration (Pilnik & Mistrett, 2019).

Therapeutic, Less Restrictive Residential Placements

Rationale for use of therapeutic, less restrictive non-secure residential placements is arises from evidence-based models that have shown that these facilities yield better outcomes as opposed to placing youth offenders in large secure institutional settings/correctional facilities (Pilnik & Mistrett, 2019).

Benefits of Punishment Without Taking Offenders Out of Their Communities

The societal benefit of punishment that does not involve taking the offender out of his/her community directly relates to reduced rates of recidivism.  According to the Development Services Group (2014: p. 1-2), “juveniles who are kept in the community recidivate less often than previously detained youths”, with evidence showing that a majority of those previously incarcerated being rearrested in a few years. Here, the benefit can be conceptualized in terms of public safety as would be achieved with reduced delinquency and recidivism since a community setting provides appropriate and better rehabilitation services as opposed to taking away offenders and confining them (Ryon et al., 2013).  Regarding individual benefits, punishing without necessarily taking offenders out of their community serves them better in terms of physical and mental health, which often deteriorates when they are taken away.  The emotional disturbance that comes with separation from family and community can be quite detrimental. A family/community setting can offer better rehabilitation than confinement, which tends to breed violence and neglect.