Improvement of public security through positive youth justice

Among the lawyers of youth jurisdiction, there is great concern that the practice of youth jurisdiction could be headed by the return to the “bad old days” of hard punishments and the detention of mass youth. Instead, we should follow the way and have actual evidence that crime is effective: apply the principles of the positive youth justice. This aspiring approach, which has been informed of practice and research for decades, achieves both for the security of the community and for the youth that she is committed.

A top priority of this methodology is to minimize the contact of young people with the legal system. Why? Since research has shown that with practically every bracket of the youth court process, young people who are redirected to less formal or less restrictive options have better results than people with more restrictive conditions. In fact, evidence shows that the contact with the legal system can have a paradoxical impact of increasing the likelihood that a child will commit another crime – which makes all of us less secure. This generally applies to arrests compared to distraction to parish -related sanctions, such as the requirement to meet with a consultant or to provide non -profit services. When young people are detained, the increased risk of relapse becomes even clearer. The restriction should therefore be reserved for the very small number of young people who have committed the most serious and violent crimes.

Another reason for the minimization of the system contact is that the division of a child into a secure setup is extremely expensive – a large part of the money that was spent on detainable children could be invested in answers that achieve better results. A study 2020 showed that states on an average of $ 588 per day-221,620 per year per year in order to keep a young person in a safe limitation, compared to only $ 75 a day, according to a 2014 community-based service Study the youth justice system in Florida. According to reports, some California counties pay more than half a million dollars in one year to keep just a young person in adolescence.

It is also worth mentioning that participation in the police and courts and especially with safe facilities for the children themselves can be very harmful. For example, studies show that the detention, the most extreme form of system contact, not only affects the physical, mental and emotional well -being of a young person, but also to ensure their opportunities to continue their training or later in life.

A positive youth justice system replaces these expensive, harmful and uncertain practices by an approach that builds on the personal assets of the young people, recognizes young people and their supervisors as a partner in the rehabilitation process and offers the necessary services via community -based organizations, which is easily accessible and better geared towards the demography and experience of the young people.

We have always seen this formula in places all over America. In Maryland, for example, the Thrive Academy, which is operated by the State Ministry of Youth Services, is reduced. Similarly, it has proven that Chicago's choice for the C2C program from Chicago, C2C program (C2C) for trauma-informed group therapy and intensive Wellound services for young people who are affected by violence, the arrest of violent crime Reduce greatly and greatly reduce their school visit lawyers.

If the detention is necessary, positive youth justice ensures that this is more of an opportunity for growth than an experience of coercion. One example is the project conversion at the San Mateo College. This asset program, financed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, offers imprisoned young people and adolescents in custody. It also offers WickRound services for previously detained students who take part in the courses on campus and keep them on the right track.

The embrace of positive youth justice can require a shift in thinking for some. It helps to recognize that the strategy is based on decades of experience and shows what undesirable behavior prevent and what is effective for rehabilitation. It is also useful to remember that the old strategies, in particular the detention, are now as ineffective, harmful and expensive. We all want security – for ourselves and for others. We also want all children to flourish. The urgent question of this moment is whether we have the security seriously enough with the proven principles that can help us achieve these goals.

About the author