Punitive policies, justice, juvenile delinquency, rehabilitation, reintegration, crime, justice system, restorative justice, school experiences, student
This research paper analyzes the punitive approach, which is prevalent in the juvenile justice systems around the world, pointing out its impact on the offenders and on society at large. The works of Case and Bateman (2020) and Edwards (2017) stress the point that the implementation of the toughest measures, which relies on longer sentences and imprisonments, struggle with breaking the circle of criminality and poverty that gives back these two evils in the long run, which are against the idea of rehabilitation and social reintegration. On the other hand, restorative justice models, proposed by Pej?ovski and Polgraef (2023) as well as Wilson et al. (2018), that promote healing, accountability, and community involvement tend to yield better results in addressing recidivism and building stronger social bonds. Nevertheless, the review presents vulnerabilities of the existing research regarding technological discrimination, demographic decimation, and modality limitation, therefore encouraging more representative, multicultural, and comprehensive research.
[...] What is referred to as CMC actually includes various types of communication, such as email, instant messaging, social media, and virtual reality scenarios. Realizing the posited changes and interfacing applications in the life collaborative gadgets in aspects such as psychology, sociology, communication, and human-machine interaction is vital. One of the most attention-gaining parts of research on CMC is its role in social connections. Gradually, as more online interactions are established, one needs to look into several areas, such as how CMC affects relationship forming, maintaining, and ending. [...]
[...] Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. [...]
[...] (2023). Restorative vs Punitive Approach. Eight Fundamental Principles of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention. In Human Rights Protection and Ius Puniendi: Perspectives from Central East Europe and Latin American Countries (pp. 65-80). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Wilson, D. B., Olaghere, A., & Kimbrell, C. S. (2018). Effectiveness of restorative justice principles in juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. [...]
[...] (2023) is built upon the principles from Central East Europe and Latin America, but it may not reflect the dynamics of juvenile justice systems from other regions. In addition, different demographic groups were omitted in these studies. Minor others, like the young from minority backgrounds, LGBTQ+ communities, or those with disabilities, might not be adequately represented. This constraint can compromise the diversity and specificities of these groups, therefore leading to policies and actions unfit for all. Elements like race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and sex play a crucial role in shaping young people's experiences and outcomes in the juvenile justice system. [...]
[...] Case and Bateman propose a reexamination of the policies below, which could be effective and have strong principles that fully care about the interests of the youthful offenders. Furthermore, Sallée (2017) provides an alternative view in the context of a rehabilitative model in a punitive framework, focusing on the French juvenile justice system. Here, she talks about how the concept of responsibility is expanded, i.e., where delinquents are made increasingly responsible for their actions within the structure of a disciplinary utopia. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
