Does recidivism decrease in the criminal justice system for juvenile’s offenders?

Jan 19, 2017 | 0 comments

Jan 19, 2017 | Miscellaneous | 0 comments

Does recidivism decrease in the criminal justice system for juvenile’s offenders?

1.1 Background Information
In a criminal justice perspective, the term recidivism can be well-defined as the situation in which a person relapses to criminal activities subsequent to conviction of a previous offense, punishment or sentence, and probably behavior modified (Mears, 2003). Recidivism can be a consequence of a chain of interdependent or intersected factors of failures. Such factors may include and not limited to:

  • Disappointment of a person to live up to the world’s prospects or the social order.
  • Failure of somebody, as a criminal, to escape apprehension and sentence.
  • Failure of a convict in a correctional foundation or organization to take the opportunity of a correctional program.
  • Failure of a correctional institution to deliver programs that reeducate and rehabilitate.
  • Added failures by a criminal in ongoing with a criminal activity once released.

This study is an investigation of the rate of recidivism in juvenile modifications. The study is not an investigation of how much recidivism exists. It is neither the study of the factors contributing to repetition of the offense, nor how recidivism varies by type of criminal and correctional management. To be precise, the study will explore whether re-offense decreases in the criminal justice system for the teenager’s criminals. It will investigate the extent of reduction and prevention of recidivism among juvenile criminals.

Juvenile courts of law within the nation state will be requested to give evidence supporting the reduction of the juvenile offense. For the researcher to measure development in the area of juvenile criminality, a state-wide explanation of juvenile lawbreaker recidivism will be necessary. The study will be informed through a survey of 35 juvenile generals. The obtained findings will guide the starting point analysis of juvenile criminal and case elements connected to recidivism that will be described in the ultimate report of the study. The essence of the identification of these elements will be in the process of corresponding juvenile lawbreakers with evidence-grounded programs planned to decrease the chance of imminent delinquency.

According to Mears (2003), Criminal offences and mental health files will be studied for 150 juveniles of both genders. In order to measure the magnitude of recidivism during their adolescent and immature years, only information regarding teenagers who persisted in juvenile authority up until 18 years of age will be included in the analyses.

1.2 Scope and Importance of the Problem
The measure of recidivism denotes to a technique of systematically analyzing its magnitude or amount within a specified sample population. In the evaluation of programs, the measures include the kinds of information used to find out re-offense levels. Such information types take account of, amongst others, re-offending self-reports, records of arrest, and court accounts of judgment.

The differences amid these methods are significant, because their use will produce massively contrasting outcomes. Phillips (2007) established that when evaluating re-offense as re-arrests, there is a normal. Though, when assessing recidivism as re-imprisonment, they discover merely 13% reoffending rate (Mears, 2003). In overall, we can presume measures are resulting from activities happening later in the case dispensation system to yield inferior re-offense rates.

In this study, the researcher will explore whether re-offense decreases in the criminal justice system for the teenager’s criminals. The research will investigate the extent of reduction and prevention of recidivism among juvenile criminals.

1.4 Research Questions
i. What are the ways in which recidivism can be practical?
ii. What are the ways in which recidivism can be measured?
iii. How re-offense decline in the juvenile’s criminal justice system?

1.5 Research Objectives

            1.5.1 Broad Objective
The chief objective of this investigation is to find out whether recidivism rate decreases in the juvenile criminal justice system.

1.5.2 Specific Objectives

  1. To determine the ways in which recidivism can be practical.
  2. To determine the ways in which recidivism can be measured.
  3. To determine whether re-offense decline in the juvenile’s criminal justice system.

1.6 Significance of the Study
To determine whether recidivism has abridged or not in the justice system for the criminal juveniles, some basic issues need to be addressed. The significance of this research is to provide solution to these issues which appear to be important for any investigation on recidivism. Such issues tend to answer the following significant questions: –

  • What is the definition of recidivism?
  • What are the ways in which these definitions can be practical?
  • In what circumstances is the definition used?
  • How do the features of the method involved determining the way recidivism can be measured?
  • Does re-offense decline in the juvenile’s criminal justice system?



2.1 Introduction
The researcher studied the history of recidivism in the juvenile’s criminal justice system existing in the previous literature that could not be measured in the empirical analysis. A summary of the most reliable conclusions from the previous literature indicates that the rate of recidivism varies in different states and variations are influenced by multiple factors.

Hartwell (2005) asserts that the recidivism is the recurrence of unlawful activities. It explains that no state recidivism rate exists for teen-agers because their justice structures differ across countries. Nevertheless recidivism is a mammoth problem amongst the teenage populace. New York, Virginia and Florida are foremost in recidivism (United States Department of Justice, 2006).

2.2 Background Dissimilarities Influencing Measurement of Recidivism

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (2002), notes juvenile justice system nonappearance in America. In its place, the United States consists of fifty two dissimilar justice systems for the teenagers. Each of the 52 systems differs in manners that can be responsible for a huge amount of alterations in reoffending rates. It can be added to these number several tribal justice systems for the juvenile functioning on the juveniles’ justice system. In case the justice system alterations are not taken into considerations, anybody likening state-level re-offense rates is probable to pull inaccurate deductions.

Different policies among states, for instance jurisdictional era, impact on the features of juvenile justice populaces. An example of New York that treats a sixteen year old as a grown person will have diverse backsliding tolls from Pennsylvania where the influence of the teenage justice system finishes at eighteen years. Information from Pennsylvania would comprise adolescences at sixteen and seventeen whereas data from New York would not. An assessment of New York and Pennsylvania reoffending statistics would be prejudiced except youths of age more than fifteen were excluded from the analysis (Hagan, 2003).

Additional influences likely to source for recidivism rates to differ comprised the variances in the activities of the police, the excellence of rehabilitation services, apprehension and conviction ideals, procedures on relinquishments to the grown-up system, and strategies for distracting and discharging cases. For instance, Petrucci (2002), investigational study of the “Life skills’ in California confirmed the efficiency of a rehab program that shared organized socialization preparation, positive opportunities, individualized management, employment on sinking re-offense and vocational training (Dressler, 2002).

Backsliding rates may also be influenced by environmental aspects inside a jurisdiction. Such aspects take account of population density, economic situations, and access levels to health care and education quality. For instance, economically underprivileged urban regions deficient of societal capital are possible to have greater rates of crime and delinquency (Sacks, 2004).


3.1 Study Area
The study area will be the juvenile courts of law within the nation state.

3.2 Study Design
The study design to be employed in this research will be cross-sectional study design. The design will be fairly necessary for the definition of the problem, attainment of the outcome and analysis of the associative relation. According to Hartwell (2005), the data collection procedures and tools, and the research design intended to be used in this study if appropriately applied can be responsible for effective and hypothetically significant information that can be the basis for juvenile generals to design relevant interventional programs.

3.3 Study Variables
Crime-related, behavioral, demographic and school-related variables will be studied. Moreover, the interactions amid the span of first confinement and number of successive transgressions for property and violent fresher delinquents will be examined.

3.4 Study Population and Sampling Procedure
The technique to be used shall be Simple Random Technique in which the researcher will select 35 juvenile generals or officers who will inform the survey. Probability sampling of simple random technique will be applied to choose the juvenile generals who will participate. Criminal offences and mental health files will be studied for 150 juveniles of both genders.

3.5 Sample Size Determination
Sample size will be drawn purely from juvenile generals/ officers whose assessment of knowledge on the rate of recidivism will be critically required in order to attain the goals and objectives of the study. The researcher will use fisher et al. method of 1998 to determine sample size. The method will be used because the study will have fewer than 10,000 respondents. The following formula will therefore be used in:-
n = Z2pq/d2

When n = desired sampling size > 10,000
Z = Standard normal (95% df) is 1.96
P = Population
q = 1 – p
d = Degree of accuracy at 0.05 for 95% df
p = Proportion of target population projected at 0.30 confidence level
1.962 x 0.06 x 0.379= 35 hence the sample size will be 35.

3.6 Data Collection Procedures
Methods for collecting data will be centered on the general objective and specific objectives (i.e. procedure will be based on research questions). The procedures will take place in pre-empirical stage in which further research on the research questions will be conducted and the generation of hypothesis done. Following will be the empirical stage that will take account of the decision on the research design. The researcher will collect data in the progression of the research through:-

  • Primary data collection e.g. Questionnaires, In-depth interviews, Focus group discussion, Surveys.
  • Secondary data collection will include journals, documents and other records.

The study will use as hitherto specified Qualitative Data Collection instrument. The tool will take into consideration the significance of locating the study within explicit chronological, cultural, societal, and economic frameworks. The tool will further recognize the hypotheses within these frameworks. This investigation will be assessed qualitatively considering subjective instruments such as questionnaires, in-depth interviews, surveys and focus group discussion (FGDs) used to collect significant and up to date information.

3.7 Data Analysis
Previous to examination or analysis of the information collected, all the obtainable data shall be taken through a quality check procedure. Afterwards, the researcher will proceed to manage the data collected using databases. In the databases, the information will be entered for more management and manipulation. The data will be scrutinized using tests of hypothesis and Stata analyzed through multiple regressions.

3.8 Data Presentation
Presentation of data collected will be in the method of tables, text, graphs, percentages and pie-charts.

3.9 Ethical Issues
All information and particulars of the respondents will be treated with discretion. Their consent will be bidden before continuing with the Survey. Preliminary or introductory letter from the pertinent authorities will be acquired if indispensable.

Hartwell, S. W. (2005). The organizational response to persons with mental illness involved with the criminal justice system. Amsterdam: Elsevier/JAI.

Phillips, D. W. (2007). Mental health issues in the criminal justice system. New York: Haworth Press.

Dressler, J. (2002). Encyclopedia of crime & justice. New York: Macmillan Reference USA.

Hagan, F. E. (2003). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hartwell, S. W. (2005). The organizational response to persons with mental illness involved with the criminal justice system. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. (2002). Evaluating the Impact of Alternative Placement Programs for Juveniles in a Southwestern State, 1983-1995: [United States]. Ann Arbor, Mich: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor.

Petrucci, C. J. (July 01, 2002). Apology in the criminal justice setting: evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 4, 337-362

Mears, D. P. (April 01, 2003). Critique of Waiver Research: Critical Next Steps in Assessing the Impacts of Laws for Transferring Juveniles to the Criminal Justice System. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 2.)

Sacks, J. A. Y. (July 01, 2004). Women with co-occurring substance use and mental disorders (COD) in the criminal justice system: a research review. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 4, 449-466.