Marketing assignment

Answer

A Proposed Youth Criminal Justice Framework for Reducing Youth Crime

It is approximated that more than 300,000 people across the globe die yearly due to accidents, homicides, or suicides involving small arms (Samuels-Wortley, 2021). Gun violence, until lately, showed a decade long decline in the United States (U.S.). Nonetheless, even during the period of “low” gun violence, several Americans still died by gunfire and many more were affected by non-dangerous gun violence (Ramsay et al., 2021). In 2014, 15,347 gun murders 192,978 gun robberies, and 187,989 gun assaults were reported (Denov & Blanchet-Cohen, 2016). Similar patterns and trends were equally noted in Canada where after the ten year long decline in violence, rates of homicide started increasing with gun homicide flaring high and alternating with knives as the most regularly employed weapon (Bauchner et al., 2017). While Canada has a comparatively lower gun homicide rates than the U.S., there is worry that the present gap may start narrowing. To avert gun violence within Canada from rivaling its neighbours’, the country’s lawmakers should formulate frameworks for curbing gun violence at all costs. Developing and employing effective and efficient programs to minimize violence, therefore, deserves high priority at all government levels of Canada.  National regulations are most valuable in addressing gun accessibility concerns both with regard to access to firearms by individual citizens and limiting the flow of unlawful firearms across the country’s borders (Austin & Lane, 2018). With Federal Minister of Justice/Attorney General (David Lametti) believing that Youth Criminal Justice Act is no more effective, this policy documents borrows heavily from past work carried out in Canada and across the world to justify that “problem solving” framework will significantly help curb gun violence across Canada as supported by criminological research evidence.

Youth Crime and Justice System Involvement

Criminal offending, according to Ramsay et al. (2021), peaks in the teenage years and falls in the early twenties, necessitating that youth unavoidably be the concentration of crime control. Neuroscience studies show that adolescent brain growth and development continue through to mid-20s, bettering areas like impulse control that are associated with criminal offending. Youth engaged in juvenile justice systems usually have challenges transitioning into adulthood, requiring a sense of social competence, self-direction, and autonomy. Nonetheless, juvenile justice system subjects justice-involved youth to negative impacts, affecting their development (Samuels-Wortley, 2021). According to Newman and Head (2014), criminal justice engagement not only forbids youth development but equally interferes with their desistance (the mechanism through which youth involved in criminal activities stop offending) since involvement of the youth in criminal justice system has the effect of labeling of a youth as a “criminal;” interruptions of connections to family, work, school; and surveillance via probation supervision responding to and uncovering misconduct that would otherwise been uncovered (Denov & Blanchet-Cohen, 2016). Exposure of youth to crime equally affects their development as well as opportunities in several ways. Bauchner et al. (2017) link criminal victimization with negative effects like impaired occupational functioning, higher unemployment, and exposes the youth to trauma that undermine their health during youth and adulthood ages. Similarly, high crime levels can hamper neighbourhood economic develop, restricting opportunities for the youth and their relatives residing there (Ramsay et al., 2021).

Recent Trends in Canada’s Gun Violence

There is a growing worry among Canadians regarding guns and gun violence, particularly in the larger metropolitan areas (CMAS). According to the latest report by the Canadian centre for Justice Statistics (Samuels-Wortley, 2021), the country’s overall homicide rate continues to remain comparatively low (1.76 per 100,000 in 2018 or 1.82 per 100,000 in 2017). The data equally highlights a number of trends that may signpost possibly crucial shifts in the homicide patters in Canada.

First, while the data show that there was a decline between the homicide rates in 2017 and 2018, the rate at which firearms are employed to commit the homicides has relatively remained stable over time (Samuels, 2020).  More crucially, there has been a significant shift in the kinds of firearms employed in the commission of the homicidal crimes. Before the mid-1990s, shotguns and rifles were the primary kind of weapon employed in homicides. In 2005, handguns (59%) were employed in about twice the number of homicides relative to shotguns/rifles (30%). The rate of homicide, for instance for the City of Ottawa, was higher in 2019 than usual, with a total number of 16 homicides being reported both in 2019 and 2018. The means of murder ranged from edged weapons, firearms, strangulation, and physical confrontation. Most of the rise in gang homicides was concentrated in Canada’s CMAS, particularly in Quebec and Ontario. While non-gang homicides involved firearms in less than 30% of all incidents, firearms, according to Austin and Lane (2018), were employed in about 70% of all gang homicides.

According to Denov and Blanchet-Cohen (2016), the sources of firearms employed in Canada are categorized into two main groups: domestic sources and international trafficking. Domestic firearm sources are those firearms that are bought domestically which may end up being employed in criminal activities when either the lawful buyer misuses the gun in committing a crime, the firearm is stolen from the lawful owner, or when the lawful owner diverts intentionally the firearm to an unofficial user (Bauchner et al., 2017). Licensing firearm owners, according to Newman and Head (2014), has increased the accountability of personal firearm owners in Canada and across the globe. The second source of firearms is international trafficking. Bushman et al. (2016) reason that firearms are smuggled into Canada from the U.S.  

Despite the enforcement of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, it is evident that the use of firearms has remained relative stable in Canada over the years. Identifying trends and patterns in gun violence as well as comprehending the reasons that gun violence may be rising, particularly among gang involving youth, has, therefore, become an area of priority for Canadian citizens and governments.  To formulate and implement effective violence (especially gun violence) minimization policies, this policy document offers a review of the gun violence prevention studies and researches, concentrating largely upon determinations to minimize gun violence among youth gang members.

Youth Crime, Drugs and Gun Availability

To explain the unacceptably high degrees of gun violence in Canada, the U.S., and the globe at large, issues about drugs, gun availability and gangs must be addressed.

Gangs

Among the most robust findings both from longitudinal and cross-sectional studies of youth show the connection between individual youth delinquency levels and offending and gang membership. Studies in Canada and the U.S. have demonstrated that even after regulating for individual-level traits, gang members are extra delinquent and commit extra crimes relative to non-gang members (Austin & Lane, 2018). Studies in Canada have shown that gang membership increases the likelihood of juvenile and youth being involved in altercation involving guns (Lysova et al., 2019). Newman and Head (2014) add that gang members have high probability of carrying, using, and/or being victimized by a firearm.

Drug Markets

Engagement in drug marketplaces has equally been associated with gun violence. Individuals who purchase and/or sell drugs often experience higher degrees of gun violence relative to non-drug participants. Bushman et al. (2016) make a strong assertion that the onset of crack in cocaine marketplace had a significant responsibility for the proliferation of guns in the U.S.’s urban communities.  Guns became compulsory instruments of trade in illegal drug marketplaces since the dealers in the drug carried valuable drugs and huge sums of cash (Patton et al., 2018). As youth engagement in the drug marketplaces increased, Bushman et al. (2016) assert that carrying firearms soon became a status emblem and carrying firearms quickly diffused to non-drug youth equally (Samuels, 2020). This relationship has been showed in Wales, Scotland, England, and Canada.

Accessibility to Firearms

Important to note is that accessibility to firearms is largely set at the national level, besides the fact that limitations put on private ownership of handguns vary across countries considerably. Nations with the most restrictive regulations of firearm ownership include Germany, Britain, and Canada. The extra restrictive restrictions upon private ownership of guns are aimed at reducing access to guns by offenders (Lysova et al., 2019).

Characteristics of Gun Violence Youth Criminals

Owing to the remarkably high rates of interpersonal violence, particularly gun violence, in the U.S., along with is long past of gang violence, it is unsurprising that much studies have been conducted on interventions and programs in the U.S. experiences from the U.S. have demonstrated that it is impossible to arrest your way out of a challenge, that is, suppression alone does not work. Studies done in Canada have offered important traits of criminal gangs and Canadian using firearms for violence. Longitudinal studies about youth conducted in Canada demonstrate that the youth that join gangs are commonly those having lower parental attachment levels, exhibit aggressive conducts during their childhood life, perform poorly in learning institutions, along with having lower self-control levels (Lysova et al., 2019; Patton et al., 2018). Timsina et al. (2020) established that the majority of gang members in Canada and across the world are from minority groups characterized by high poverty, crime, and joblessness levels. Additionally, Samuels (2020) noted that while issues associated with respect and turf motivate most gang violence, disputes regarding drug marketplaces play a role as well.  Thus, a framework that assumes a multi-agency/disciplinary participation is highly welcomed in addressing the characteristics highlighted above.

Proposed New Youth Criminal Justice Framework for Canada

The Problem-Solving Framework

Following the aforementioned factors and concerns regarding youth gun violence, this paper proposes the problem solving framework. Problem solving framework involves problem identification (scanning), comprehending the problem’s nature through diverse viewpoints and data (analysis), crafting and implementing solutions (response), as well as assessing whether the solutions are effective (assessment). Third-party policing and problem-oriented policing (POP) are commonly employed problem-solving strategies that often result in structured problem-solving process. Studies have demonstrated that POP are successful at minimizing crime, contributing to a minimization of crime to 77% of pre-intervention levels, with evidence reductions of violent criminal acts, accounting for a reduction of violent crimes to 81% (despite not particularly those committed with firearms) (Timsina et al., 2020; Rajan et al., 2019). POP solutions linked to violent crime minimization appears to involve largely innovative approaches aimed at tackling disorders and engaging the hot spots in communities, like a combination of prevention, enforcement, and other city services (Grossman, 2018).

There are several instances when POP has been employed to minimize violent crimes, especially with the regard to firearm use. Consider the Cul-de-Sac Operation, which was implemented in Los Angeles during the 1990. Enforcers of law acknowledged that a significant percentage of gang violence was occurring in a single cluster of neighbourhoods, majorly in the drive-by shootings form (Rajan et al., 2019). It was also established that the gangs largely comprised of youth. To curb the vice, the U.S. government sent officers to the identified regions to patrol and/or arrest gun criminals (Timsina et al., 2020). Grossman (2018) notes that there was a significant decline in violent crimes in the identified areas after Los Angeles Police Department installed traffic barriers in particular locations to bar drive-through traffics. Similarly, after identifying that a number of motels were linked to high rates of violent crimes and drug use, the Chula Vista Police Department noted that poor property management was a possible reason behind the challenge. The department, therefore, engaged owners of property by offering support and information, used code enforcement along with inspection as needed, and developed a permit ordinance that was focused upon safety standards (Byrdsong et al., 2016). Eventually, there was a decline in the rates of drug use and violent criminal acts.

The problem-solving POP approach has equally been employed to interrupt unlawful gun marketplaces (Rajan et al., 2019). In their assessment of recovered firearms, the ATF, researchers, and the Boston Police Department identified that unlawful diversion of firearms from retail shops was a crucial source of handguns employed in criminal acts (Beardslee et al., 2019). Consequently, a strategy that entailed increasing attention and resources to the drug traffickers offering the calibers and makes most regularly recovered from criminal gang members, among other initiatives (Grossman, 2018). The market disruption substantially minimized the number of recovered handguns that recently had been bought.

The problem-solving POP approach is, therefore, promising for youth gun crimes in Canada since it has been demonstrated to significantly role play in minimizing violent crimes and violent criminal acts committed with firearms. One strength of this problem-solving framework is its ability to add new as well as effective crime prevention instruments to traditional law enforcement responses, usually by bringing attention to challenges that can be solved via third parties, like community and other government resources (Byrdsong et al., 2016).

Nonetheless, the framework is criticized for two main reasons. First, critics of the framework reason that the problem-solving POP framework reason that it is open-ended, usually resulting in law enforcement trying several interventions in their response formulations (Ramsay et al., 2021; Samuels-Wortley, 2021). Consequently, it is hard to identify which particular solutions work better compared to others, particularly because systematic data gathering on problem-solving activities often tend to be limited (Beardslee et al., 2019). Secondly, some research have indicated that problem-solving processes are often superficial when employed in the field, reasoning that patrol officers may not carry out thorough analysis of problems identified or may fail to conduct any analysis at all (Byrdsong et al., 2016).

Whereas the problem-solving POP may be having the abovementioned two imitations, this paper provides various ways through which the limitations can be remedied. First, by involving the various problem-solving activities is crucial for engaging in an iterative problem-solving process. Similarly, with regard to superficial analysis associated with the problem-solving framework and response generation, enforcers pursuing POP approaches may depend more upon standard law enforcement responses as opposed to upon those that are designed to generate lasting change (Bauchner et al., 2017). Similarly, the limitations of the framework can be remedied by conducting shooting and performance reviews. According to the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission’s approach to curb firearm crimes, the first step in solving a gun crime entails immediate responses to homicide cases, including increasing patrols and improving homicide services to victims and their family members. This is followed by a review of homicide cases through the employment of a multiagency working group (like probation officers, police, the city attorney, the district attorney, the department of corrections, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, among other agencies). Such reviews concentrate upon describing the homicide incidents through the use of relevant information offered by the working group with the aim of strengthening investigations as well as increasing clearance rates of offenders (Beardslee et al., 2019). The closed cases are reviewed by the multi-agency groups and discussed in community reviews with the goal of identifying community factors involved in shootings and homicides. Such reviews, according to Samuels (2020), lead to interventions to tackle disorderly inns along with other nuisance properties, and bettered supervision of risky criminals (Austin & Lane, 2018). Shooting and homicide reviews, according to Lysova et al. (2019), are recommended instruments for bettering intelligence-gathering, information-sharing, and problem-solving for that matter. This is because reviews assist law enforcers to better comprehend the factors prevailing in shooting and homicide incidents, like youth gang member engagement or location features.

Conclusion

Youth gun crimes are on the rise globally and Canada is no exception. To design an effective firearm violence minimization approaches, there is a need for much to be known regarding the youth crime. To effectively do this, there is a need for:  understanding the Canadian youth gun crimes and why the youth engage in violent gun crimes; understanding accesses to unlawful weapons; adoption of a coordinated strategy to firearm violence; and adoption of the problem-solving strategy to firearm violence. This policy document strongly asserts that problem-solving framework will help minimize youth gun violence for a number of reasons. First, it will ensure that access to ammunition is limited. Through the employment of the problem-solving framework, youth will find it difficult to access and maintain safe hiding places for their firearms by having police officers vigilant enough to identify the storage areas for firearms or those unlawfully possessing firearms. Tighter regulations of ammunition may minimize the lethality of firearms. The framework will also ensure that there is a balance between intervention and suppression. A careful incorporation of increased (yet reasonable and fair) suppression and allocation of intervention resources can significantly aid the reduction of gun crimes.  Collaboration of multi-agency, which is also a component of the problem-solving framework will also ensure that there is a better understanding, improved attention, and better ways of tackling of youth gun violence.