Considering Justice

There is a question I keep coming back to over and over again. That is simply, what do we do when someone breaks the law? Closely related to this question is why do we react in these ways? Much of my research focuses on the use of formal social control in handling apprehended juveniles. What I have realized is there are inconsistencies in our views towards justice and the appropriate way in which to handle juveniles (especially those that are defined as chronic offenders - 4 or more prior arrests).

Our thinking in this area has evolved over time but our current juvenile and criminal justice systems still retain the fundamental ideas as presented by Beccaria over 200 years ago. When an individual breaks the law as determined by society our response is to "punish" the individual for their transgression. However, we have forgotten elements from the Beccaria's other maxim that justice should be swift, severe, certain, and proportionate. Our system definately covers the severe criteria and to some degree that element of certainty. Yet, our system is no longer swift and in many cases lacks proportionality of the response. The principle of proportionality entails a punishment that is commiserate with the offense. Recent sentencing innovations such as the three strikes law (e.g. eligibility with a property offense in California for adult offenders) or indeterminate and determinate sentencing practices (that transfer juveniles to the adult correctional system) is not necessarily congruent.

Unfortunately, what appears to be only now taking hold are some of the other philosophies of justice such as rehabilitation. The landmark case of Roper v. Simmons (2005) removed the United States from the company of only 5 other countries that put their juveniles to death through the use of the death penalty. However, we still have a long way to go in terms of viewing rehabilitation as a means of holding offenders accountable for their action. In the case of juveniles, research has found that a very small proportion of offenders (about 6%) commit a large proportion of the offenses (about 52%).

Should our system reserve the most severe punishments for these offenders? Or, should our juvenile justice system view all offenders as capable of rehabilitation regardless of the number of prior arrests or commitments?