Juvenile Rehabilitation Research Paper

INTRODUCTION
In the United States, juveniles are incarcerated or otherwise held in custody at an extraordinaryrate.1 InSeptemberof2002,theUnitedStateshoused104,413juvenilesinavariety of facilities including training schools, treatment centers, jails, and prisons.2 This number, when viewed per capita, reveals the rate of juvenile custody in the United States—336 juveniles are incarceratedforevery100,000.3 Thisnumbertowersovereveryothercountrystudied,withSouth Africa the next closest country at 69 juveniles per 100,000.4 Predictably, many more juveniles come into contact with the criminal justice system but do not ultimately experience custody.5
Many juveniles, especially those accused of more serious crimes, find themselves in adult court, rather

Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation seeks to reform the offender so that he or she becomes less likely to commit future crimes, or “recidivate.” Once a prevailing theory of punishment, rehabilitation has fallen from grace and now serves as an afterthought in many sentencing systems.37 Despite its relative disfavor, rehabilitation has proven successful in a number or “well-managed, well-targeted programs.”38 Indeed, many offense-specific courts (such as drug courts) use rehabilitation as the principal goal of punishment.
D. Retribution
Retributionrestsontheideathat“crimeinherentlymeritspunishment.”39 Thiscornerstone concept is often articulated as the criminal receiving his or her “just deserts.”40 The famous legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart regarded retribution as a form of “authoritative expression,” that is to say, it is society’s condemnation of the wickedness of the criminal act itself.41 It is important to note that retribution is unique with respect to the other purposes of punishment because it finds justification in punishment itself, societal benefits notwithstanding.42 Practically

36 Id. 37 Supra note 21, at 5. 38 Supra note 21, at 16. 39 Michele Cotton, Back with A Vengeance: The Resilience of Retribution As an Articulated Purpose of Criminal Punishment, 37 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1313, 1316 n.4 (2000)
(“However, retribution is, at least in theory, quite distinct from retaliation and vengeance. Robert Nozick distinguishes retribution by noting that it is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal, involves no pleasure at suffering, and employs procedural standards.”). 40