Mandatory Boot Camp Orders Violent Offender-Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Mandatory Boot Camp Orders Violent Offender? Answer: Introducation The introduction of mandatory boot camp orders for all violent offenders by the NSW Department of Justice will be ineffective in decreasing the rate of juvenile detention as a result of reoffending. NSW Department of Justice should be well conversant with the possible effects of such modifications for youth in NSW. It is worth noting that the predominant objective behind the mandatory boot camp act is to ensure that youth detention is moderated and as a result, offering an alternative ruling for the courts. Minimizing the number of youth in custody is a commendable goal, given the fact that detention has constantly been revealed to foster backsliding for youths. Another of the goals of the boot camp program stated in the act is to inhibit young criminals from repeating offensive acts. However, it is worth noting that such a program for juveniles have yielded little or no effects particularly in reducing backsliding among such young offenders as witnessed in other regions such as Queensland and hence will not be considered for the young people in NSW. Hutchinson has established that correctional boot camps have no substantial effect when it comes to reducing the probability of recidivism (Hutchinson Richards, 2013, P. 232). For instance, a study conducted among teenagers enrolled in different boot camps that employed an aggressive approach in an attempt to curb criminal behavior concluded that the approach used was not an effective means of decreasing post boot-camp delinquency. Correspondingly, several other studies conducted in the capital city of United States revealed similar results (Jolliffe, Farrington, Howard, 2013, P. 520) One cannot deny the fact that boot camps appear to be viable options when it comes to dealing with undisciplined youth as an alternative to incarceration. Nonetheless, Muncie establishes that legislative amendments such as enactment of mandatory boot camps mainly do not offer a second chance for juvenile criminals since they fail to accommodate a therapeutic approach that puts more emphasis on relations, education, in addition to mental and behavioral transformation. Muncie, therefore, affirms that such programs take into accounting a punishing approach that is vastly dubious when it comes to making young people more orderly or prevent them from recidivism (Muncie, 2006, P. 785) Hutchinson pinpoints that the failure of boot camps to provide youth with a path free from crime is mainly due to the militaristic strategy used in the program. Evidence by Meade steadily reveals that the scared straight tactic can foster offending and hence it is counterproductive (Hutchinson, Richards, 2013, P. 232). Over and above the nonexistence of proof showing that boot camps are indeed effective, the discrimination of indigenous youth raises the alarm in this program. For instance, among the most demanding social concerns in Australia, indigenous teenagers are enormously represented in custody. Data on juveniles in criminality have constantly exposed large inconsistencies as far as the proportions of Native and non-Indigenous minority involved in the Australian juvenile system jurisdiction is concerned. Even though some rules contain higher rates of over-representation as compared to others, the institution of this program will influence unduly on Indigenous minority besides intensifying current levels of imprisonment. Hutchinson also affirms that the effectiveness of boot camps have been challenged by various youth organizations and data presented affirms that they are indeed ineffectual. A number of youth organizations which advocate for the rights of youth, such as The Youth Affairs Netw ork of Queensland, has pinpointed fears about the efficacy of the program. The organization has suggested that there exists no proof to show that they are functioning in reinstating youth (Hutchinson, 2014, P. 10). Therefore, a similar impact would be felt if mandatory boot camps for youth are enacted by the NSW government. This is also due to the fact that Indigenous youth necessitate programs that require exceptional features so as to increase the prospect of success. Nonetheless, the NSW government offer few safeguards surrounding concerns of accord or cultural proficiency in relation to the boot camp programs. Hutchinson research data shows that boot camps did not restrain rates of backsliding even though the outcomes varied subject to the motivation of the camp as well as the activities carried out. The results similarly indicated that they were not predominantly cost-effective. (Hutchinson Richards, 2013, P. 233). The legislation is also said to exercise discriminatory practices, especially during application. For instance, only those children who live in Townsville and have committed in excess of three motor vehicle offenses can attend a sentenced youth boot camp (Benda, Toombs, Peacock, 2006, P. 28). Benda has debated that this compulsory tactic overlooks that there are diverse facts and conditions of every case, and that not every lawbreaker is fit for boot camps. Moreover, mandatory sentencing can occur which unfairly targets certain groups, like Indigenous people. Evidence-Based Alternative As an alternative for boot camps, therapeutic programs that encompass therapy, instilling survival skills, as well as the effect of the natural environment generate more insightful, lasting changes in belligerent adolescents. One of these behavior options is what is known as the wilderness therapy program. This program has the capacity to aid persons in overcoming emotive, behavioral, and mental issues. Wilderness therapy programs are tremendously effective in offering support for disturbed teens as opposed to mandatory boot camps (Fondacaro et al., 2014, P. 697) According to Fondacaro what facilitates the efficiency of wilderness therapy programs is as a result of the personalized, therapeutic methods of assisting each teenage overcome his or her own individual issues. As a matter of fact, the strategy and theoretical basis of this program are remedially based, with expectations made clear and succinct so as to better define target outcomes in addition to assess the efficacy of the intervention. References: Benda, B.B., Toombs, N.J. and Peacock, M., 2006. Distinguishing graduates from dropouts and dismissals: Who fails boot camp? Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1), pp.27-38. Fondacaro, M.R., Koppel, S., O'Toole, M.J. and Crain, J., 2014. The Rebirth of Rehabilitation in Juvenile and Criminal Justice: New Wine in New Bottles. Ohio NUL Rev., 41, p.697. Hutchinson, T, Richards, K 2013. Scared straight. Boot camps for Queensland, Alternative Law Journal, vol. management. 4, pp. 229-233. Hutchinson, T 2014. A slap on the wrist. The conservative agenda in Queensland, Australia Youth Justice, vol. 1, no. 14, pp. 1-14. Click Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D.P. and Howard, P., 2013. How long did it last? A 10-year reconviction follow-up study of high-intensity training for young offenders. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(4), pp.515-531. Meade, B. and Steiner, B., 2010. The total effects of boot camps that house juveniles: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), pp.841-853. Muncie, J 2006. Governing young people: Coherence and contradiction in contemporary youth justice, Critical Social Policy, vol. 26, operations, pp. 770-793. Wilson, D.B., MacKenzie, D.L. and Mitchell, F.N., 2005. Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1(6), pp.1-45.