Mental health has become a significant issue in the modern world. Thus, different approaches have been introduced to help people improve their psychological health. Outdoor therapy is one of the strategies used to treat cerebral disorders. Consequently, one can analyze outdoor education to determine how it can help improve individuals’ health with psychological conditions.
Philosophical Differences Between Eco-psychology and Approaches in Outdoor Therapy
Nature-guided therapy is one of the outdoor approaches, which is primarily based on conventional office consultation. However, individuals are encouraged to reflect on their involvement in nature (McLeod, 2013). Thus, the difference between eco-psychology and nature-guided therapy is that the former involves the ideology that tries to treat people psychologically (McLeod, 2013). On the extreme, nature-guided therapy focuses on helping individuals learn how the environment can improve their mental health. Wilderness therapy is another approach in outdoor therapy that emphasizes the use of the physical and psychological challenges. In contrast, eco-psychology does not give any specific priority to a particular psychological process over others.
How Outdoor Education could be used to Improve the Mental health of Young People
Many young people have poor mental health due to different aspects, such as bullying and abuse. Thus, outdoor education is one of the approaches that can improve young people’s mental health. In this case, the method is essential since it encourages individuals to focus on personal growth and change (Berman & Davis-Berman, 2005). Young people can learn the ways that can help them change behaviors and improve mental health. Outdoor education can also improve young people’s health since it involves helping people become stronger, feel better, and develop their uniqueness.
How Outdoor Education could be used to Benefit the Adult Population
Outdoor education can also be essential for the adult population. Based on the information provided, one can learn that reduced stress is one of the benefits of outdoor education. Furthermore, the adult population can learn how the environment can improve their mental health. Improved imagination and memory is another benefit of outdoor education. In this case, the adult population can focus on the beauty of nature. Outdoor education encourages teamwork. Therefore, individuals can also interact and learn from one another. For instance, one can learn about ways of improving mental health from the team members. Besides, teamwork leads to increased motivation. Thus, outdoor education can also benefit the adult population in different ways.
Mental health is a significant issue that should be addressed by all means. Many people have lost their lives due to psychological issues. Consequently, health providers should focus on different approaches that can be used to limit mental disorders. For instance, outdoor therapy is an integral approach that limits the development of psychological disorders. Outdoor education is another fundamental approach that can be used to prevent mental illnesses among young people. In essence, different methods have been designed to address issues involving mental health.
Berman, D. S., & Davis-Berman, J. (2005). Positive psychology and outdoor education. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(1), 17-24.
McLeod, J. (2013). An introduction to counselling. McGraw-Hill Education.
Criminal Justice System In America
Criminal Justice System and Police
The article under consideration is called New York Times Linked to a Violent Robbery Ring and is dedicated to the case study of the crime committed by the police officer, Emmanuel Tavarez (Sulzberger, 2010, n. p). In particular, the officer was accused of conspiracy to distribute drugs and to commit robbery by using firearms. In the District Court of the United States, the defendant pleaded not guilty. The detainment of the police officer was justified as the court returned the accused guilty of the numerous robbery raid conducted under his control. He also shielded the participants of the robbery rings. Therefore, Tavarez was also recognized as the person that “poses a danger to the community” (Sulzberger, 2010, n. p.).
The article is solid proof of the gap within the criminal justice system, specifically in the sphere of criminal justice personnel. Judging upon Tavarez being a member of the Police Department, the government pays insufficient attention to the education of future police officers. Tavarez ignored his obligation before the Court and failed to enforce the law. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the specific reasons why Tavarez brought himself to this serious crime and exposed the community to danger.
The problem in the sphere of police officer education is evident. According to the statistics, 18 % of departments in the United States require the officer to have at least a college, and approximately 9 % have officers with a two-year degree (Siegel, 2009, 270). The rest of the departments prefer the graduates with criminal justice majors only due to their advanced knowledge of criminal justice and policing (Siegel, 2009, 271). Those deplorable facts show that education is of secondary importance for the Police Department of the United States. Pertaining to the article, the negligence was also revealed by a managerial staff of the Police Department who after Tavarez’s first indictment did not dismiss him from the post.
The facts from the article can be caused by the inappropriate treatment of problems connected with cultural diversity in the United States. In particular, the criminal justice system officials should bear in mind that American society is rather diversifying due to the growth of the Hispanic population. Therefore, there is an urgent necessity to acknowledge cultural disparities and restrictions in order to secure people effectively (Glenn, 2003, p. 98). This rise of awareness, thus, includes the comprehension of cultural issues connected to race, gender, age, and religion. As it can view the knowledge of criminal justice is not enough to ensure society with peace and security, which is exemplified by the article at issue.
Courts in Juridical System
The Court System in the United States has a plethora of shortcomings that negatively influenced the welfare of society. In particular, the article under analysis called Foes of death Penalty See Step forward with High Court’s Ruling discloses the disputable question about the necessity to abolish the death penalty (Anonym, 2002). In the article, the author expresses his negative attitude to capital punishment, especially toward the execution of mentally ill people. However, he also reveals a vigorous dispute concerning the effectiveness of punishment at the national level. Despite the fact, that the majority of the population expresses their consent towards this decision, the Criminal Justice Foundation that certain categories of criminals cannot be deprived of this type of punishment.
While reading the whole article, one can notice that the author’s main idea lied in criticizing the courts for their irrelevant activities which are not fully guided by the principles of justice, security, and democracy. Instead, they are more concerned with political goals that do not presuppose the expression of tolerance to all opinions. At this point, it is possible to talk about the problems in terms of the democracy of the Courts in American and public confidence towards them. In particular, the case depicted in the article provides further discussions on the social situation and public attitude to the lower courts of the United States about their fairness and objectivity. Benesh (2006) states that “it is rather debatable whether the U.S. Supreme Court is attentive to public opinion…since it arguably has little incentive to concern itself with the will of the people”( p. 697). The core factors affecting the confidence of the public in the courts are reduced to the level of crimes, people’s experience in participating in the court cases. The studies have proved that only well-educated people have the highest degree of confidence in juridical establishments.
The consideration of the problems in the local schools depicted in the given article also provokes the question about the court manipulation of the social order within specific layers of the American communities. Their hostility and reluctance to accept the democratic stream are predetermined by their fear to lose authority among the population. The extreme concern of the court by the state involvement in these above-mentioned issues can be appraised as the infringement of freedom of speech. However, their intentions are that sincere. Therefore, the main problem in criminal justice is the abuse of their powers and obligations.
Corrections to Criminal Justice System
The article in question called The Legacy of Juvenile Corrections is dedicated to an in-depth analysis of the juvenile corrections in terms of methods applied to and directed at improving the treatment of the troubling use. In particular, it refers to the history of juvenile corrections, and the specific programs launched. However, history shows that program implementation is insufficient for improving the criminal situation (Krisberg, 1995, p. 122). On whole, the article expresses radical views on tackling juvenile delinquency. Another problem is that most incarceration facilities for troubled youth impose racial diversity factors. About this, the author expresses his concern towards the future of juvenile corrections thus proposing to consider the alternative models of reducing juvenile delinquency.
Corrections programs in the United States are mostly designed for easing the transition of the offenders from the community to prisons and institutions of confinement and vice versa. The problem is that those rehabilitation programs are not always effective since the criminal justice system pays little attention to the matter of security, job training, employment, and counseling. In this respect, the article called Juvenile Corrections in Indiana shows that punishments and fines are not an effective solution to reducing juvenile violence (Cohn and Hinke, 2000, p. 2000). The elimination of violence among the children should imply the policy focusing on the community and home. More importantly, the accent should be made on the process of childhood development but on the result, which is deplorable in most cases. To solve the problem, the author proposes to launch and support the so-called mentoring programs, including family preservation programs, and abuse prevention measures.
Viewing upon the problems revealed in the considered article, it is necessary to consider the community-oriented corrections programs. It means that the legal institutions should pay attention to the environment where children spend their time. Cohn and Hinke (2000) state that changing the communities and schools can only contribute to worsening children’s attitude to the outside world. In addition to this, long-termed transportations can deprive a child of a normal academic study thus lessening his/her involvement in it.
Apart from juvenile corrections, the article discloses an overall picture of corrections programs and their orientation. Both the troubled youth and the adult accused should be committed to the radical process of individualized treatment including educational issues and rehabilitation within the community members. Therefore, the community itself should re-evaluate its attitude to offenders thus giving him chance for improvement.
Community Interaction with Some Part of Criminal Justice
In the newspaper article titled Community Policing: Exploring the Philosophy, the author discloses the concept of community policing that is aimed at enforcing the population to be legally responsible for their actions. The programs implemented is also directed at solving the social problems about the environment a particular community is located. The article also shows that the community policing implementation can influence different aspects of the criminal juridical system (Allender, 2004, p 19).
While analyzing the main idea of the article, the main goal of the contemporary legal systems lies in strengthening the support from the public and raising the legal awareness of the community. Therefore, this interaction between the community and the criminal justice system can improve the situation and decrease the crime rate. More importantly, the strict control on the part of the legal system can also increase the social competency in the questions of justice and criminology.
The implementation of the above strategies can also serve as a preventive measure of the crimes within the community. In this respect, criminal justice is defined as an effective trigger for the non-legal agencies and institutions to be imposed by the responsibility to observe the law. This activity can also lead to the rise of criminal awareness that, in its turn, can contribute to the creation of viable solutions.
Policing can also develop the conditions in communities and neighborhoods that will permit other institutions, like church, family, community, commerce, and government, to cope with urgent problems of society (Duffee and Maguire, 2007, p. 145). Judging upon this purpose community policing serves to encourage a successful community interaction aimed at “problems solving utilizing citizen input, multi-agency efforts to reduce crime” (Anderson et al., 2007, p. 38). Addressing article one again, the author’s definition of the community policy covers both the requirements of the juridical systems and those of the community itself. Finally, the community interaction with criminal justice helps to increase the social satisfaction with the police, which, in its turn is more concerned with social problems due to the implemented programs.
It should be also stressed that the concepts revealed in the article conform to the contemporary tendency of community-based management of criminal cases. In this respect, the author also agrees with the idea that the effectiveness of the criminal justice system is impossible without consideration of social problems within the community and that of an individual approach to each criminal case.
Allender, D. M. (2004). Community Policing: Exploring the Philosophy. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 73, 18+.
Anderson, J. F., Dyson, L., and Langsam, A. (2007). Criminal Justice and Criminology: Terms, Concepts and Cases. US: University Press of America.
Behesh, S. C. (2006).Understanding Public Confidence in American Courts. Journal of Politics. 68(3), pp. 697-707.
Cohn, E., and Hinke, W. G. (2000). Juvenile Corrections in Indiana. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 567, pp. 198-208.
Duffee, D., and Maguire, E. R. (2007). Criminal justice theory: explaining the nature and behavior of criminal justice. NJ: Routledge.
Foes of Death Penalty See Step Forward with High Court’s Ruling. (2002). The Washington Times, p. A04
Glenn, R. W. (2003). Training the 21th century police officer: redefining police professionalism for the Los Angeles Police Department. US: Rand Corporation.
Krisberg, B. (1995). The Legacy of Juvenile Corrections. Corrections Today, 57, 122+.
Siegel, LJ. (2009). Introduction to Criminal Justice. US: Cengage Learning.
Sulzberger, A. G. (2010). New York Officer Linked to a Violent Robbery Link. The New York Times. Web.
Criminal Justice System: Juvenile Correction
Within the realms of American laws, the criminal justice system comprises of the law creators (legislative), courts (adjudication), and correctional facilities such as probation, parole, prisons, and jails. American criminal justice system comprises of the jurisdictional, normative, functional, and institutional components. These components work simultaneously in defining the goals of procedural laws and decisions to be taken by the court of law. Factually, these activities take place at different points. This paper analyses the aspect of corrections as part of the criminal justice system. Specifically, the paper concentrates on juvenile correction in the US in terms of the criminal justice acts, execution, effectiveness, and current challenges.
Overview of Juvenile Correction
Juvenile delinquency is one of the public safety concerns that involve individuals referred to as juvenile delinquents, who have not attained the age of the majority. Juvenile delinquency entails the involvement of such individuals in illegal conduct and activities considered criminal that warrants an arrest. The issue of juvenile delinquency has posed a threat to the safety of the public, especially about the measures and programs that have been put in place in a bid to reform and rehabilitate these individuals (Winterdyk, 2002).
Though juvenile crimes are committed by both males and females, most of the individuals involved in juvenile delinquency are male offenders. The difference in gender involvement in delinquent behavior does not only manifest in terms of proportion but also in terms of crimes committed and the type of institution the youthful offender is placed in (Inciardi, 2009). Similarly, the male and females involved in less serious offenses, such as simple assault, are more likely to be held in a private facility as opposed to public facilities for more serious crimes such as robbery and aggravated assault. Additionally, disparities in peak ages of the juveniles are also evident across the genders, with that of female juveniles ranging from 15 to 16 years while that of male juveniles ranging from 16 to 17 years (OJJDP, 2004).
The effectiveness of these programs and the entire juvenile justice system has been questioned. This has emanated from the tendency of the justice system and various juvenile correctional institutions to release the arrested offenders who then end up re-offending, usually committing more serious crimes than they had previously. The increased concerns on the effectiveness of these systems are attributable to the seriousness of the crimes that these juvenile delinquents commit (Winterdyk, 2002). This may range from homicide, tape, physical assault to violent crimes. Therefore, the rationale of the paper is to examine the juvenile correction act and its execution within the correction facilities available for young offenders.
Juvenile Correction Acts and Execution
In the United States, a juvenile delinquent is an individual yet to attain the age of the majority and whose acts have been determined by a court of law as constituting juvenile delinquency. Nevertheless, the determination process of the individual as a juvenile delinquent differs from state to state. The government has put in place measures to ensure that minor offenders are not confined in the same holding facilities as adult offenders. Similarly, it has enacted several acts, such as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act, to provide uniform guidelines across states about the treatment and prosecution of minor offenders (Mutchnick, 2009).
The act provides that minors involved in status offenses such as alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking should not be detained or institutionalized. This poses a potential risk to society as the police are prevented from taking a reactive action, which may constitute reunification of such individuals with their parents. There is an increased likelihood for these minors to graduate into the consumption of other hard drugs further predisposing them to engage in illegal tendencies and other juvenile activities (OJJDP, 2004). To prevent the hardening of juvenile delinquents, the juvenile justice act further stipulates that youthful offenders cannot be incarcerated in the same facilities as adults. However, these provisions demand the establishment of expensive juvenile facilities. This makes it hard for the law enforcement authorities to effectively counter juvenile delinquency as holding facilities for minor offenders are inadequate. As result, the arrested offenders may be freed to the society further compromising the safety and security of the public (Winterdyk, 2002).
In the United States, juvenile delinquency issues are handled by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). This office is responsible for the creation of policies guidelines that offer direction to the juvenile justice system. Additionally, OJJDP is also charged with the role of informing the public on matters about juvenile justice besides scheduling training sessions and programs in juvenile delinquency in the country. Further, this government agency undertakes the role of allocating funds to various state authorities for use in support of diverse juvenile programs across the United States (Inciardi, 2009).
In recognition of the challenge minor offending poses to the country, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention targets various categories of youthful offenders including violent, serious, and chronic juvenile delinquents as well as those who have been affected by the behavior of these juveniles. It, therefore, seeks to ensure the implementation of effective juvenile programs by offering professional assistance to both local communities and states engaged in juvenile rehabilitation endeavors (OJJDP, 2004).
Though parole and probation are community correction strategies functioning on the concept of community supervision, they are different in many aspects. Despite these differences, they were initiated to mitigate the magnitude and severity of the punishment process. Parole was introduced in America in the mid 19th century. Under this arrangement, credit marks are awarded for behavior change and release from detaining heavily relies on the cumulative score per juvenile diligence. After probation, the suspected offender is passed through the criminal justice system, and if found guilty, may be sentenced to a jail term (Mutchnick, 2009). Since these detention camps have parole officers, the delinquents are registered in parole programs and the best behaved released before full jail term. Generally, these processes are designed to promote positive behavior change initiated by the suspect delinquent.
The formalization of juvenile offenders in the United States has blurred the line between incarceration and rehabilitation further making the system very effective. This is because most of the arrested and prosecuted young offenders are treated as young criminals deserving to serve time in correctional facilities. As such, lesser rehabilitative measures are taken while the individual is under detention after which they are released back into society (Inciardi, 2009). This increases the possibility that the individual will re-offend as they were not accorded proper guidance to avert their criminal tendencies. This has led to an escalation in juvenile crimes involving excessive violence ranging from homicide to rape incidences. Similarly, America has over the years experienced a series of school shootings involving youthful perpetrators usually below the age of the majority. This has contributed to the rise in cases of homicide involving both first and repeat offenders. This trend is an indication of the entrenchment of criminal behavior among the young Americans raising questions on the effectiveness of the juvenile justice and rehabilitation programs that have been put in place (McDermid, 2006).
Embracing violence by young individuals as their way of life has instigated fear among the general public who live in constant danger of falling victims to the juveniles. The increased threat to the safety and security of the public constitutes a necessity to effect significant changes in the juvenile justice system in mitigation to the situation. This may entail the institution of juvenile programs that focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment to reform both the institutionalized and deinstitutionalized offenders. This would serve to reduce fear among the public as a result of the reduced possibility of re-offending by the released juveniles (Schmalleger, 2010).
Juvenile correction facilities are managed through the OJJDP agency by implementing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act. This act has been instrumental in facilitating correction activities within juvenile facilities across the US. The act defines the strategies that are applied in detaining, rehabilitating, and integrating minor offenders to ensure that cases of repeat offenses are minimized. However, despite the efforts by the government to address delinquency through its various mechanisms, juvenile delinquency incidences in society continue to escalate. This trend has been blamed on the inadequacies of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act that hampers the ability of the justice system to address the issue of delinquency in society.
Inciardi, J. (2009). Criminal justice (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
McDermid, G. (2006). Shadow line deviance, and crime in the US. New York, NY: McGraw Hill
Mutchnick, R. (2009). Criminal Justice Interactive: Companion text. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
OJJDP. (2004). About OJJDP. Web.
Schmalleger, F. (2010). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21st century. New York, NY: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Winterdyk, J. (2002). Juvenile justice systems: international perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.