Narco Terrorism

Narco terrorism was a term first used by the President Fernando B.Terry of Peru in the year 1983 when he was addressing his anti-narcotic policemen.  Generally this term is used to refer to the violent and intimidating manner in which the narcotic traffickers influence their policies in their respective government. In a nutshell it is the way the narcotic traffickers force the law enforcers and the society at large to flaunt laws in their favor failure to which misfortunes such as family kidnappings, deaths or death threats are guaranteed. With time the narcotic traffickers have transformed their affairs into a booming profit making business (Dikshita and Shah. 120-25).

There have also been other understandings about Narco terrorism.  For instance oxford dictionary defined Narco terrorism as simply terrorism that deals with illegal drugs.  Other researches have said that the complexity of acquisition and distribution of illicit drugs as a source. As a result there has been an increase in the produce of illegal drugs that has also lead to its abuse, crime, ill health, terrorist financial management and worst of all illegal economy infiltration (Ehrenfeld. 56).

Terrorist Groups and Illegal Drugs
The United Nation in their report of October 2001 indicted that the most dreaded terrorist group the Al Qaeda has an income of 2.4 US dollars from solely the drug businesses.  In Colombia, the FARC guerilla was said to be getting its income from protecting illegal operations of drug barons including protection from taxation.  Narco Terrorism is linked to drug related organized crimes after the world wars.  This is believed to have given birth to Narco-states.  These are states whereby the drug barons use their powers to gain access to political and economic power.  For instance Colombia and Afghanistan are said to be the most notorious Narco-states (Ehrenfeld. 70).

Due to the rapid increase of Narco terrorism across the globe, their has been endless debates in public forums to counter this problem.  There has been an outcry to stop production, distribution, and consumption of the narcotic drugs with no success. Studies indicate that most countries that grow and produce the drugs are developing countries.  Many countries both developed and developing have united to ensure that the terrorist organizations are weakened and destroyed.  Police and various countries have been on the look out to ensure that production is either limited or completely stopped (Davids. 151-154).

Measures to Counter Narco Terrorism
Many drug related terrorists accounts are frozen by respective governments in the effort of undermining any illegal economic operations by the groups which could translate to economic and political empowerment. Non governmental and governmental organization have also taken charge to preach against use of narcotic drugs, particular by street dwellers who are more prone to be enrolled in the drug terrorist gangs.  Free counseling sessions and treatment have been set up to help those who are already hooked in the drugs as these do not help and individual but the drug barons who champion terrorism (Dikshita and Shah. 123).

The policy makers have continued to discourage if not abolishes the use of narcotic drugs as a medical measure. Public campaigns have been held global wide to create awareness of the impact of use of drugs.  Issues of health have been discussed in depth as well as the indirect aid of terrorist activities by usage narcotic drugs. The international anti-drug campaigns have drawn strategies and interventions that have lead to the fall of demand of the drugs.  These are done by police rigorous involvement to cracking down of the drug usersabusers among others.  The policy makers dockets have continued monitor and evaluate the progress of the countermeasures in place (Davids. 165-69).

Statistics
According to reports by the United National International Drug Convention of the year 1988 narcotic drugs are used for medicinal purposes however illegal distribution have enable access to people who do not need them and thus ended up abusing them.  According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime report of 2006, 5 of the world populations of age between 15 years and 64 years of age are using drugs (Ehrenfeld. 154-158).  The most abused drug and also most produced is cannabis.  In year 2003 alone about 40,000.00 metric tones were produced while Morocco delivers 80 of Hashish to Europe. 

Studies indicate that the structure of drug barons have grown from small time operators to cartels.  As a result Narco Terrorism has seen violence being monopolized by the drug barons.  There are four major operators on Narco Terrorism activities.  The criminal organizations, the armed movements, the government and its security and finally the narco-states.  The criminal organizations have been in existence since time memorial.  For instance the French Connection of the years 1950s -1960s assisted in channeling Opiates from France to the United States of America.  Distribution of drugs to the user is a very delicate affair and therefore it requires a powerful organization to ensure safety arrival and discrete from the arm of the law (Ehrenfeld. 175-178). 

The Armed movement therefore plays a very important role in provision of security or fighting the enemy.  The armed movement in most cases masquerades as a religious unit or an oppressed group politically.  For instance the war of Tajikistan of the years 1990s saw warlords get financed from drug money.  The states of many governments and their arms of security have been confirmed to be involved in Narco terrorism to gain political and economic mileage.  For instance in Fidel Castros government is said to have played a major role in transportation of drugs from South and Central America to the USA.  North Korean government have been for years accused of misusing their diplomatic channels by facilitating drug transportation from one point to another and its usage ( HYPERLINK httpwww.nti.org www.nti.org).

Running a successful drug business requires good leadership skills to include planning, and ability to gain control and command of the subjects.  These attributes are a must have for a terrorist leader or a drug baron chief.  The two have displayed participation in crime as it is inevitable.  These groups are also very secretive as any knowledge of the group to the public might enable the enemy to destroy them.  Therefore telephone tapping is in most cases used as a measure to know who to trust within and outside the criminal organization.  The mode of government is authoritative and money laundering is the order of the day so that they evade paying taxes (Davids. 170-175).

However despite their cautious way of life, the police and other intelligent units have managed to filter into the group and sometimes they succeed in arresting them.  The reason why the police arrest such people is because they make their money by participating in crimes such as illegal trafficking of drugs and rivalry killings (Martin. 112).

The United States of America having suffered adversely in the hands of the terrorist that have been funded by drug money has played a major role in fighting Narco Terrorism.  Intelligent reports have constantly been aired on international media to alert people on the danger of Narco Terrorism.    They have also facilitated debates between the producers and consumers of narcotic drugs to allow collective responsibility in ensuring that terrorists do not use them to achieve their selfish ends ( HYPERLINK httpwww.nti.org www.nti.org).

The producers who are normally developing countries however argue that they have to produce these narcotic drugs as it is their only means that empowers them socio-economically and politically.  However, there have been concerns of environmental pollution and corruptions that are associated with production of these drugs.  The producing countries also blame the consumer countries that they are the ones that dictate the supply, since supply is dictated by demands, and that in the effort to uplift their lives, they struggle to meet the demand (Martin. 123-126).

The United States of America being the major anti-narcotic drugs preachers and consumers have continued to blame the producer as opposed to the consumers.  The consumers have been excused that they get drawn to drugs as a result of life problems such as marital and financial difficulties instead (Martin. 144-146). One organization that is engaged in preventing the spread of narcotic drug usage harshly criticized these approach and asked the government and its people to take blame of their own mistakes. Michael Levine a member of this group particularly cautioned the about the security arm and police that get involved in drug trafficking and go unpunished.

Conclusion
A strong arm of law is necessary to counter Narco terrorism in any country.  Treatment of drugs on voluntary basis has not provided any positive result and its a high time governments changed tactics.  Lack of proper co-ordination between the police force and other anti-narcotic drugs groups has yielded bad results.

The Juvenile Justice Program Analysis

Component 1 Topic Selection
Juvenile delinquency is ubiquitous in our society. Youths between the ages of 13-17, who make-up approximately 6 percent of the population, were involved in 17 percent of all arrests and 15 percent of all Violent Crime Index arrests (OJJDP, 2010). Although deterrence-based policies are ever-increasing in the juvenile justice system, many policymakers remain devoted to rehabilitating youths. One such means in doing this is to divert youths away from they system using a variety of programs. Coinciding with the emergence of the labeling movement, diversion programs began appearing throughout the nation to divert youths away from the juvenile justice system (Lilly et al., 2007).

Over the last forty years, various programs, both formal and informal have emerged to keep youths out of the system or minimize any damage caused by it. Adults Relating to Kids (ARK), a family-based program, is one example of a diversion program initiated in U.S. that attempts to minimize the effects of formal interaction with the juvenile justice system but also attempt to reduce subsequent delinquency by participants in the program (Swan et al, 2001). This program would be good example of innovative and progressive program of prevention or rehabilitation for juvenile offenders to examine in this paper.

Component 2 Theoretical Discussion Relevant to the Research Topic
During the 1960s, theorists began to question the traditional approach to criminological theory. Rather than asking why individuals commit deviant andor criminal acts, labeling theorists approached deviance and criminality from the perspective that deviance does not stem from the individual act alone but the reaction to the act by society. Behaviors considered abnormal by conventional society such as juvenile delinquency, homosexuality, and drug addiction lead to some of those participating in these acts to be defined as deviant (Traub and Little, 1994).

As noted by Edwin Schur (1971), the central principle of the labeling implies that deviance and social control constantly involve social definition and interaction processes. Hence, labeling theory explains deviant behavior, both criminal and non-criminal, proposing that individuals develop a deviant identity due to negative social reactions to behaviors deemed unacceptable in mainstream society. Deviant activities that are considered illegal lead social control agencies to process these non-conforming individuals within the criminal or juvenile justice system thus labeling them as outsiders (Einstader and Henry, 2006). In essence, labeling theorys primary focus lies in the interaction between the deviant and social control agents who attempt to sanction the accused (Traub  Little, 1994).

Programs such as Adults Relating to Kids (ARK), which will be discussed in further detail, attempts to reduce the effects of labeling by increasing self-esteem among program participants (Wilkerson, 1995). Although the reduction of the labeling process is an informal goal of the program, meaning that it is implied in the program literature, the theoretical foundation is laden in the labeling. By separating the child and behavior, the program purports that participants will not take on a deviant self-concept allowing them to avoid further contact with the justice system (ChildrensCenter, 2010).

Component 3 Theory and Topic Focused Literature Review
Labeling Theory
Before one can address labeling in detail, we must acknowledge the foundation in which the labeling theory is based. According to Edwin Schur (1971), the basic premise of labeling approach is an emphasis on process. He asserts that deviance is viewed not as a inert entity but rather as a constantly changing outcome of dynamic processes of social interaction. Thus, the labeling perspective is an extension of the social interactionist perspective applied to criminality and deviance. The basic premise of the labeling perspective can be traced to the work of Emile Durkheim (1897) where he maintained that some individuals are criminals since a collective characterization is attached to them (Traub  Little, 1994). The actions of those considered deviant are what determine how an individual is viewed rather than any preexisting condition albeit biological, psychological, or social (Void et al., 2002).

The main premise of the symbolic interactionist perspective centers around the idea of self-concept. According to Rosenberg (1989), self-concept is the sum of a persons thoughts and feelings about his or her sense of self. Stemming from the works of Charles Horton Cooley (1902) and George Herbert Mead (1934), this idea emerged as a means to examine the self as a social process (Einstadter and Henry, 2006). Cooley referred to this social process as the looking-glass self. He held that our self-concept is simply a reflection of others perceptions of us. In reaction to deviant behaviors, this mirror image that is reflected by others establishes our own self-concept. Simply put, we become what we determine others perceive us to be (Einstadter and Henry, 2006).

Like Cooley, Mead maintained that the self was merely a social construct. Mead held that the self is a dichotomous process divided between the I and the Me. We have the ability to construct images of ourselves and lead others to believe that this is reality while keeping the true image of ourselves in the backstage. However, others often respond to the constructed Me affecting the I, thus leading individuals to make objects out of themselves. (Einstadter and Henry, 2006).

This conception of the self is an amalgamation of three components how others actually see one (actual appraisals), how one perceives others as seeing him (reflected appraisals), and how one sees oneself (self-appraisals) (Matsueda, 1992). Hence, each antecedent variable directly influences the subsequent behavior, thus establishing a causal explanation for the continuation of deviance.

Schur (1971) determined that there are two basic arguments to labeling theory in relation to the creation of deviance. First, labeling theorys causal argument stems from the social interactionist perspective that a person will develop a deviant self-concept if others perceive ones behavior to be deviant. This causal argument treats the label as an independent variable (Akers  Sellers, 2009) in which labeling takes place in two ways. First, the label may catch the attention of the labeling audience, causing the audience to watch and continue the labeling of the individual. Second, the label may be internalized by the individual and lead to the acceptance of a deviant self-concept (Williams  McShane, 2004). Since deviance in not inherent in a person, it is the process in which others respond to the behavior, which establishes deviance (Becker, 1963). Many individuals commit deviant acts, but if the behavior goes unnoticed, this secret deviant remains accepted by society (Becker, 1963).

However, if an individual is perceived as deviant, whether the individual be falsely accused or a pure deviant, they become labeled by society (Becker, 1963). Once an individual comes into contact with the criminal justice system, the identity of the juvenile will change significantly. Once the youth has been singled out, others react differently forcing the juvenile to reconsider hisher identity.

Rather than the act, in itself, being considered evil, others transfer this concept to the person, thus defining the individual as evil (Traub  Little, 1994). It is in this process that the labeled person becomes stigmatized as deviant and is now likely to adopt this new self-identity as his own (Becker, 1963). Thus, the individual will become more deviant than if he had not been labeled (Akers  Sellers, 2009).
Becker (1963) maintained that treating the individuals as though they were generally rather than particularly deviant produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. Merton (1968) coined the term, self-fulfilling prophecy as a means to explain how societal reaction leads to criminal activity (Lilly, Cullen  Ball, 2007). Merton (1968) initially defined the self-fulfilling prophecy as a false definition of a situation creating new behaviors in an Individual thus making the originally false definition come true.

Drawing upon the Thomas Theorem, Merton (1968) was able to determine that self-fulfilling prophecies are merely characterizations of a situation that, in turn, become part of the situation affecting the subsequent characterization of the situation and those involved. Simply, a label albeit untrue can become accepted by those who are willing to embrace it (Williams  McShane, 2004). Once an individual has embraced this falsified definition of himself, the person will cause this newly constructed designation to become true. By embracing the self-fulfilling prophecy, societal perceptions of the deviant individual will be substantiated by the behaviors that follow the labeling process.
Consistent with this logic, labeling theorists maintained that most labeled individuals defined as criminal are labeled incorrectly (Lilly et al., 2007). In this statement, the theorists did not mean that the deviants did not violate the law, but rather that an act, in itself, does not define the individual. In doing this, society makes assumptions about the deviant that are not accurate, which leads members of society to react to the labeled individual in a negative manner. In essence, by stereotyping the individual and leaving and reinforcing the belief in himself that he is criminal, the self-fulfilling prophecy will occur guaranteeing that the individual will recidivate.

This causal explanation of labeling, which social control leads to deviance, explains deviant and criminal behavior once an individual has been defined by society as such however, it has been argued that labeling fails to account for the initial deviant act in which the individual was involved. For instance, the first time a juvenile skips school there are rarely any sanctions against the student because the action goes unnoticed. However, once the student becomes identified as truant, a Class C Misdemeanor, the student becomes labeled as deviant by the school, the criminal justice system, and in many instances, the students parents.

Criticisms of labeling theory led criminologists to rethink their views toward crime and the labeling perspective. Although labeling has historically been criticized for its lack of empirical support, contemporary labeling theorists have suggested that it is too early to dismiss societal reaction as irrelevant to crime causation. Palamara, Cullen, and Gersten (1986) found that official intervention increased delinquency in juveniles. As noted by Akers  Sellers (2009), contemporary supporters of labeling have moved away from viewing labeling as deviance-causation and have began to emphasize the need to identify how the labeling process occurs. For instance, Felson (1992) determined that juveniles subjected to stressful life events were likely to cause them to act out. Other supporting research has focused on parental labeling and negative self-image (Bartusch  Matsueda, 1996).

Unlike the original studies on labeling, which based its findings on formal criminal sanctions, much of the supporting data has been based on analyses of informal sanctions. Perhaps, the most salient in the analysis is Matsuedas (1992) analysis of informal labeling by parents and the effect that this process has on youths self-concept. As noted earlier in the labeling overview, Matsueda argues delinquency is significantly affected by the mirrored appraisals of others or simply, how one perceives others as seeing them. Once the juvenile has engaged in delinquent behavior, the deviant youth is more likely to believe that others see himher as a rule violator. This coupling of actual and reflected appraisals leads the juvenile to embrace this conception of themselves as delinquent. Thus, the labeling process has created a delinquent self, which leads to further involvement in delinquent behavior. Unlike many of the past labeling theorists, Matsuedas conclusions have been supported by further research (Bartusch  Matsueda, 1996).

Component 4 Program Focused Literature Review
Adults Relating to Kids Program
The Adults Relating to Kids (ARK) program maintains that ones self-concept is based on a dichotomous relationship between how one feels about and sees oneself as well as the way one believes others perceive himher (Swan et al., 2001). Self-concept can be examined from two distinct perspectives self-esteem and self worth. Research conducted by the Childrens Center for Self-Esteem assessed that self-esteem and self-worth are two very distinct components within the self-concept (Wilkerson, 1995).

Historically, research on self-esteem and self-worth has been considered interchangeable in meaning. In essence, both terms have typically referred to how an individual feels about himherself. According to Wilkerson (1995), feelings of self-worth derive from ones personal achievement and performance. Ones self-worth is based on hisher ability to be proficient, creative, and successful. Simply put, self-worth is an assessment of what one does (Wilkerson, 1995).

In contrast, self-esteem is created through the process of unconditional love in which a child has been shown hisher value among family and friends. Regardless of ones imperfections, a person is accepted and valued by themselves and others on the basis of who the person is rather than what the person does (Swan et al., 2001). Wilkerson (1995) notes that theresearch has found that self-esteem contributes twice as much to a positive self-concept than self-worth (p. 8).

The Childrens Center for Self-Esteem established the Adults Relating to Kids (ARK) program to enhance participants, parent and child, self-concept by implementing the principles of unconditional love. Unconditional love allows individuals to separate negative behavior from the person enabling parents, teachers, and involved adults to love children not for what they do but for who they are. This process requires commitment on the part of parents and caring adults. Unconditional love forms the basis of all meaningful relationships and allows young people to love themselves and others. It means loving children in spite of their misbehavior. This gift of unearned love allows a child to value herself in spite of her imperfections and provides the basis for a childs positive self-concept. Through this program, ARK facilitators and parents work together to prevent misbehaving teens from being labeled by the community at large as deviant (Swan et al., 2001).

During this 10-week period, facilitators work with parents and teens in separate groups in an attempt to allow each individual to have a voice and be heard without criticism. It is in these sessions that participants will be counseled on various topics, which will be covered below, to refocus their attention thus, issues relevant to their needs will be addressed. Prior to the beginning and ending of each session, participants speak aloud the affirmations, promises, covenants, and agreements of the group. The 5-10 minute lesson plans are presented allowing time for discussion over the weekly topics (Swan et al., 2001).

Once the group lesson has been presented and discussed, a group sharing period or a situation circle begins in which the participants express specific problems that are occurring in their lives. Each issue serves as a catalyst for dialogue amongst the participants and the facilitators. No single individual, not even the facilitator, is considered to be an expert in dealing with the problems therefore, the participants are able to obtain feedback on issues in which they are attempting to deal with in their personal lives from others who are currently experiencing or have experienced similar problems. Hence, parents and teens alike can express their feeling without judgment and without having blame placed on themselves (Wilkerson, 1995).

It must be noted that this does not mean that they can place blame on others the situation circle is a problem solving tool not a gripe session. Although the parent and teen programs are structured in the same manner, the subject matter that is dealt with in each group differs quite dramatically. The reason for this is that even though parents and teens may be having problems within the same household and the problems they are facing may be rooted in the same psychological issuesnegative self-concept the world in which parents and teens are enmeshed is distinctly different (Wilkerson, 1995).

ARK For Parents
As noted above, unconditional love promotes total and complete acceptance of the child it does not promote permissive behavior. Hence, instead of punishment that often denigrates the misbehaving child, ARK promotes discipline that allows the child to learn from hisher mistakes (Swan et al., 2001). By separating the childs behavior from the person, parents, teachers, and the community at large are able to show their disapproval without degrading the misbehaving child. This understanding and implementation of unconditional love allows responsible adults to show children that everyone makes mistakes. Thus, even though youth make mistakes, they are instilled with the belief that they have value and are not worthless.

A fundamental principle in the ARK curriculum is its argument that parents must establish boundaries for children. The establishment of boundaries teaches children and teens responsibility by enabling parents to set age-appropriate consequences when established rules are violated. Drawing on the work of Rudolf Dreikurs (1987), ARK maintains that natural and logical consequences for rule-violating must be established because the authoritative methods of punishment and rewards no longer works with the modern family (Wilkerson, 1995). On one hand, punishment is only a temporary solution that often has dire consequences for the entire family while the rewards system only teaches children to think in terms of what is in it for me and not what is in it for the entire family or community.

Wilkerson (1995) defines natural consequences as a product of the natural flow of events that are a result of the childs behavior. For instance, if a teen becomes intoxicated, the likelihood of the youth feeling ill the next morning is simply a natural flow of events. However, adults must realize that it is not always appropriate for nature to take its course in many instances thus, logical consequences must be established. By using logical consequences, adults are able to establish a structured form of discipline that corrects the misbehavior. In the instance of underage drinking, rules regarding the issue must be previously set. One example might be that if caught illegally imbibing alcohol, the youth is no longer permitted to attend social functions without the supervision of an adult. Admittedly, this does not work in every situation however, it is an attempt to get parents to implement discipline while being respectful of the child. Proponents of the program argue that this method also teaches responsibility by allowing those involved to make and learn from their mistakes (ChildrenCentre, 2010).

ARK also holds that when teens are misbehaving, there is often a need that is not being met. According to Wilkerson (1995), the basic needs of a child include the need to be loved and to belong to be independent and free and the need for being to be meaningful and amusing. Hence, if these needs are not being met, youths and children will often seek attention in inappropriate ways, rebel, or initiate power struggles to assert their needs. Dependent on how an adult reacts to these behaviors is a key to which needs are not being met.

Even though these behaviors may often force adults to discipline, the ARK program also cautions parents and other adults to make sure that they allow youths to declare their personhood. Declaring ones personhood is a natural process in which youths will often reject the values of the parents while embracing the value system of their peers. This is often a difficult period and childs behavior become dramatic when the self-esteem worsens (Wilkerson, 1995). The only thing parents and adults can do during this phase is to let the teen know that we love them even though that we disapprove and must often discipline such behaviors.

Not only does the ARK program assist parents in dealing with troublesome youths, it also incorporates lessons on dealing with their own issues. The ARK handbook deals with issues that include changing parenting behaviors and dealing with anger (Wilkerson, 1995). Participants are forced to acknowledge the way their parents reacted to their behaviors. In many cases, the methods of punishment used are not acceptable in modern society. Historically, parents were not expected to deal appropriately with their anger. This emotion, which is neither good nor bad, can be destructive on the family unit when directed at or used improperly against another individual, especially a child. Since parenting behaviors tend to be passed on from generation to generation, it is often difficult to break away from cycles of violence (ChildrenCentre, 2010).

ARK For Teens
The format of ARK for Teens is structured in the same manner as ARK for Parents however, the content and way the lessons are presented differ since the teen program revolves around dealing with not only their parents but life as well. Each lesson relates to establishing a positive self-concept. The first two class sessions focus on Being Yourself. Lesson 1, Whats cool, encourages teens to accept themselves as who they are rather than trying to be what they are not. Society puts a great amount of pressure on teenagers to be popular among ones peers. This need to be accepted often leads teens to break rules when attempting to exert their personhood. This often leads to strife within the household however, this can be averted, at least to some degree, if one simply chooses to be himselfherself (Swan et al., 2001).

However, it is often difficult to be yourself if there are those who harass you because you are who you are. During Week 2, the group covers Bully-Proofing Yourself, in an attempt to teach teens how to deal with bullying. ARK teaches that those who bully lack self-esteem and are looking for a way to feel powerful and in control of their lives. The lesson addresses how to deal with bullies and how to avoid such harassment. In addition, the participants are cautioned on the consequences if they have taken on the role of bully and how to change this behavior (Swan et al., 2001).

The next two lessons, Good Grief and Get a Grip, deals with handling tough emotions. Good Grief, lesson 5 in the workbook, addresses anger. The lesson counsels youths on dealing with anger appropriately. As in the adult class, ARK maintains that anger is neither good nor bad, and admits that in some instances, anger can be used in a positive way. However, youths cautioned about the ramifications of using anger inappropriately. The next lesson, Get a Grip, teaches teens to deal with grief. Although grief is a natural part of life, it is sometimes difficult to overcome. Individuals will go through a grieving process, which will include denial, bargaining, anger, depression, and acceptance. Although this is a natural process, teens are advised to seek out a caring adult during times of grief (ChildrenCentre, 2010).

Section 3, Making Good Decisions, addresses the issues of substance abuse and sex. In tackling the controversial issue of substance abuse, teens are cautioned on the dangers of substance abuse. ARK acknowledges that most youths will experiment with some form of drugs alcohol, cigarettes, or illegal substances. The lesson warns teens of the dangers of early drug use and the risks of becoming addicted. The next lesson, Sex, ETC., issues related to having sex at an early age are addressed. Topics such as peer pressure, abstinence, rape, sexually transmitted diseases, and other health risks are discussed to enable youths to make informed decisions. The lesson also discusses the effect that sex has on self-esteem. As noted by Swan et al. (2001), good sexwith the right person at the right timebuilds self-esteem while bad sexwithout commitment and lovedestroys it. Most importantly, sex is not vilified but presented as a wonderful experience when in a committed relationship such as marriage.
The final sessions of the ARK program involves learning to deal with adults. In Putting Up With Parents, teens are shown that their parents were once troublesome teens, too, but they have either forgotten what it was like to be a teenager or are afraid to address many of the issues facing teens. Since things have changed so much, they establish rules to protect their children what the unknown. In addition, what looks like frustration directed towards you, the teen, may be a result of outside factors such as work (Swan et al., 2001).

To avoid miscommunication and negative feeling toward the youths parents, ARK suggests that participants set down in a weekly meeting to rectify problems occurring both in and outside of the home. The next lesson in Section 4 deals with Rebelling. Although it is a natural part of life for teens to rebel and attempt to declare their personhood, teens must also be aware that there are consequences if they choose to break the rules. In addition, once trust is broken within the home, it is often difficult to get it back. Since trust and freedom go hand in hand, participants are taught in the final lesson, Trust me, to be honest with their parents (ChildrenCentre, 2010).

Component 5 Juvenile Justice Case Law
Juvenile Justice Education and the Law
Over the course of the last forty years legislation preventing crime and delinquency and protecting the educational rights of delinquent juveniles has become increasingly prescriptive. In 1961, the Presidents Commission on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime authorized agencies within the government to establish programs to discover new methods to prevent crime and delinquency (Bartol  Bartol, 1998). With the Presidents Crime Commission report acknowledging the growth in the juvenile crime rate, the movement to establish diversionary programs within the juvenile justice system began. The Commission recommended that more emphasis should be placed on the treatment of juvenile offenders. This stipulation was emphasized in an attempt to protect juvenile offenders from adopting negative or delinquent self-images due to their involvement in the juvenile justice system. Hence, diversion meant keeping delinquent youth from having any contact with the formal criminal justice system (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

The move toward a diversionary system was furthered with the passing of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act (JDPCA) of 1968 and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974. These Congressional statutes appropriated funding to aid state and local agencies in training staff and personnel in dealing with juveniles (Bartol  Bartol, 1998). However, it was the JJDPA of 1974 that had the greatest influence on reforms within the juvenile justice system. Not only did the statute provide additional funds to stale and local agencies to improve delinquency prevention programs, the act also was intended provide alternatives to imprisonment for trivial juvenile offenses.

In 1975, Congress passed the Comprehensive Education Law for Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142). This act was the first comprehensive law providing for equal education opportunities for children with disabilities. The intent of P.L.94-142 was to ensure that children with disabilities received special education services as provided for by law. The scope of the law also included juveniles up to the age of 21 who were incarcerated and often times not receiving adequate or appropriate educational services (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

This law has been amended several times to address inadequacies and was subsequently renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (P.L. 10517) in 1990. IDEA mandated that delinquent and incarcerated juveniles had the right to a free and appropriate public education, including those youth with disabilities, in the least restrictive setting (Robinson  Rapport, 1999). In 1997 additional amendments were added to the law that contained significant revisions to the requirements for providing equal education for students with disabilities. Within IDEA are mandates that require local school systems to demonstrate to the United States Department of Education (USDOE) that policies and procedures are in place that meet the intent of the law and provide for the educational needs of students with disabilities.

There are other related legislative and legal requirements pertaining to the quality of educational services and a delinquent juveniles right to those services. Title II within the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336) (ADA) mandates that delinquent juveniles with disabilities receive specialized services during the course of their confinement (Langelett  Zenz, 2004). The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution has also been utilized to ensure that delinquent youth receive their educational rights. Section 504 of the Rehabilitative Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) also assures delinquent juveniles of their right to a free and appropriate public education (Langelett  Zenz, 2004).

All providers of educational services in the juvenile justice system, be they public or private, are subject to the mandates of No Child Left Behind (P.L. 107-110) (NCLB). The intent of this law has been to require the delivery of the most promising instructional practices when providing education programs for delinquent juveniles with the ultimate goal of increasing their chances for success upon their release from incarceration (Gehring, 2005). Because practices differ so greatly among institutions providing educational programs for delinquent juveniles, there has been a consistent lack of policy directing how services should be offered (Blomberg, et al., 2006). NCLB requires that education programs demonstrate gains across a number of categories and service providers have found themselves struggling with how to meet these provisions with the limited financial resources they have available.
As with the other laws governing educational services for delinquent juveniles, NCLB places a great deal of importance on transition planning and providing for a youths return to public school. No Child Left Behind also requires that all juvenile justice schools be routinely evaluated, including the academic progress within the institution. The requirements of NCLB pertaining to demonstrating student progress also include acquiring high school credits, completing a degree, and planning for a return to school if appropriate (Blomberg, et al., 2006).

U.S. system of educating delinquent juveniles has consistently demonstrated that it does a credible job of meeting the major mandates of NCLB (Blomberg, et al., 2006). There are a number of states however, that have been reporting that they have not been able to determine if delinquent juveniles are meeting the standards pertaining to achieving yearly progress. There are states that have not collected all of the required information while still others have filed for exemptions from the mandates of No Child Left Behind as they pertain to educating delinquent juveniles (Gehring, 2005).

Related Juvenile Justice Case Law
Many juvenile justice programs, indeed the vast majority of them, have for a number of years ignored federal law relating to the educational rights of delinquent juveniles or have done a poor job of providing the required elements. The number of class action lawsuits over the past two decades alone testifies to this point (Chester, et al., 2002). Starting with P.L. 94-142, it has been a federal mandate that delinquent juveniles receive a free and appropriate education and treatment in the least restrictive environment.

The failure to provide such an education and treatment has far reaching implications including legal action as well as the possibility of losing federal funding. Green v. Johnson (1981) was part of a class action suit claiming that the state failed to provide the appropriate educational and treatment services for delinquent youth. The suit alleged that a youth was being denied his protected right to a free and appropriate public education and treatment. The court ruled in favor of the youth holding that being incarcerated did not take away his rights to a free public education as provided for in state and federal law (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

In T.G. v. Board of Education of Piscataway (1983), the court was asked to rule on the rights of a juvenile who claimed he was entitled to counseling services. His contention was rooted in his belief that the counseling services would support and even enhance his educational and treatment program. The courts ruled that the youth was entitled to access counseling services so he could better benefit from his educational and treatment program. The court also ruled that the counseling services must be provided by qualified staff (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

The disproportionate number of juveniles with disabilities in the juvenile justice system within South Carolina was addressed in Alexander v. Boyd (1995). In this case, the court found that the number of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system was inappropriately high. The court ordered the Department of Juvenile Justice to identify and evaluate all youth entitled to special education services (Robinson  Rapport, 1999). Other states were similarly forced to address and reduce its delinquent juvenile population through the Bobby M. consent decree which subsequently led to building larger and more secure facilities for these youth (Chester, et al., 2002).

The issue of what constitutes a free and appropriate public education and treatment for delinquent juveniles has also been the focal point of several legal actions. In Donnell v. Illinois Board of Education, a juvenile successfully claimed his rights to a free public education and treatment were being denied. He argued that restrictions placed on his access to classes violated his rights of due process and equal protection under the law (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

There have been instances where the courts have upheld a decision to incarcerate a youth while somewhat limiting his access to a totally free and appropriate public education and treatment. In Christopher V. T. (1994) a juvenile with an emotional disability cited his right to a free and appropriate public education and treatment in the least restrictive environment in order to avoid serving his commitment. The youth wanted his hearing cancelled since it would adversely impact his access to a free education and treatment. The court denied his claim, citing that the hearing was to determine his level of incarceration while considering his right to an education and treatment in the least restrictive environment and the safety of the juveniles community (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

The Integrative Paper
Introduction
During the 1960s and 1970s, the juvenile justice system was restructured to promote the diversion of juvenile offenders away from the system. The policy was supposed to redirect juveniles involved in minor law violations such as status offenses away from the courts using informal programs within the community (Lanier  Henry, 1998). Over the past two decades, reforms in the juvenile justice system have slowly been eroded and now, there is a movement to return to a more punitive system. In an attempt to ensure that juveniles are held accountable for their actions, no matter how minor the violation, state and federal legislation, alike, have begun to target status and first-time offenders (Fader, Harris, Jones,  Poulin, 2001). Hence, inordinately high numbers of juveniles are increasingly coming into contract with the juvenile justice system.

Youths who would previously have been diverted from the criminal justice system are now being processed through the courts in greater numbers. Many states have passed legislation leading to an increase in juveniles charged with less severe offenses and an increase in minor offenders placed under supervision (Chester et al., 2002). Under the guise of community-based corrections and diversion policies, social control agencies have extended their grasp to encapsulate those who have historically been truly diverted from the system. As noted by labeling theorists, this net widening approach has brought youths into the system that would not have otherwise been engaged in the adjudication process. With the plethora of youths being thrust into the system, the juvenile courts began scrambling to find programs to sentence juveniles.

Theoretical Overview
During the 1960s and 1970s, labeling theory emerged during a time when the nation was facing the revelation that the government was abusing its power (Williams  McShane, 2004). Although labeling theory became popular with academics and practitioners, this trendy practice began to lose its acceptance among criminal justice agencies. From the theories inception, theorists and practitioners alike began to criticize the theory. The earliest critique of labeling objected to the idea that the theory failed to explain why people engage in primary deviance and why some continuously engage in unacceptable behaviors more than others (Lanier  Henry, 1998). Critics of the perspective argue that labeling theorists ignored the actual behavior of the individual and overemphasized the behavior after the labeled individual became the focus of the system. Hence, proponents of labeling failed to notice that the label does not create the behavior but the behavior creates the label (Akers  Sellers, 2009).

Akers (2000) argues that labeling theorists assume that an individuals behavior is not as important as the actual person. Although there have been injustices against individuals, most deviants are labeled as such based upon their own actions. Akers  Sellers (2009) maintains that the labeling process is not arbitrary but is appropriately placed on those individuals who have violated societal rules. Citizens are not arrested unless the police have probable cause to do so, and the courts are not likely to convict an innocent person (Akers  Sellers, 2009).

For instance, individuals are not likely to be labeled sexual predators unless there is sufficient evidence to arrest, prosecute, and convict the individual. Thus, the individual does not have any other option than to be deviant (Einstadter  Henry, 2006). Critics of labeling theory refuse to accept this ideology. Akers  Sellers (2009) add that individuals are labeled on the basis of evident acts they have committed. Deviants, in essence, must be held somewhat responsible for the label that they receive.

Many labeling theorists have begun to look at the labeling perspective in the context of the social structure (Akers  Sellers, 2009). Braithwaite (1989) looks at the stigmatizing labels as an indirect cause of deviant behavior. Consistent with labeling theory, stigmatization is responsible for an increase in criminal behavior however, unlike labeling theorists, Braithwaite draws upon traditional criminological theories to expand and give credence to his reformulation of labeling.

The stigmatizing effect is at the heart of labeling theory however, Braithwaite integrates aspects of subcultural, social control, differential association, and learning to explain the process in which individuals become involved in criminal careers. Braithwaite (1989) argues that there are varying consequences in sanctioning delinquent and criminal behavior. Dependent upon the type of societal reaction experienced, both formal and informal, determines whether criminality will become more or less prevalent (Cullen  Agnew, 1999).

Theory is a systematic attempt to explain a particular phenomenon through observations (Einstadter  Henry, 2006). For instance, labeling theory attempts to explain deviance not from the initial criminal act but the reaction to the act by society. Labeling theory is just one of many theories used to explain why individuals engage in criminal activity. Although theories are prevalent and widely accepted within the academic world, these loose explanations are often dismissed by society, in general, as worthless ideas in regard to practical application. This cynical perception of theory fails to recognize the importance in doing just that, theorizing.

It is often unclear as to whether theory affects policy or vice versa however, it has been observed that criminal justice policies change along with theories (Lilly et al., 2007, p. 7). Akers  Sellers (2009) maintains the every changes in criminal justice system has been based on certain fundamental theory that explains why regulations have been enacted and why the system functions as it does. Polices and program established by criminal justice agencies and their affiliates may not always reflect the true propositions of the theory however, the theoretical basis remains an important piece of the founding principles established to enact change in society.

Diversion
Reformers established the juvenile system to divert juvenile offenders from the criminal court however, during the 1960s, diversion emerged as a means to shift youths away from the juvenile justice system in an attempt to provide rehabilitative services on an informal level (Feld, 1993). It is not coincidental that the juvenile diversion movement emerged during the same era in which the labeling perspectives popularity peaked the diversion movements theoretical foundation is based on the labeling principle that involvement within the criminal justice system may lead to an increase in future delinquency. Within the literature, diversion and diversion programs are often used interchangeably even though diversion refers to a process while a diversion program is an intervening technique used to offer services to youth in an attempt to prevent recidivism. As noted by Bartol and Bartol (1998), juvenile diversion can be defined in numerous ways.

Typically, diversion is defined as an attempt to route cases of delinquency to non-court alternatives rather than formally processing the youth though an adjudicatory hearing by the court (Bartol and Bartol, 1998). Lilly et al. (2007) assert that juvenile diversion might entail taking provincial youth of the juvenile court and placing them under the patronage of various service bureaus, agencies, or special schools. Diversion can also be considered as a substitution of less severe interventions to avoid further penetration within the system (Akers  Sellers, 2009). Diversion attempts can come at any stage during criminal processing. However, the further the juvenile is processed within the juvenile justice system, the less the process is a representation of true diversion (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Unlike true diversion in which those who have committed delinquent offenses never enter the system, most diversion programs are aimed at preventing reoffending among youth. Instead of ignoring the delinquent behavior in an attempt to divert youths from the system, these programs often place juveniles on informal probation requiring them to participate in various programs throughout the community (Akers  Sellers, 2009). These programs range in services from family counseling to mandatory attendance at boot camp. Rather than truly being diverted away from the system, youths are brought before the court where they admit their guilt for the offense in which they have been charged, sign a contract, and are left with no record once the terms of the contract have been met (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Issues Facing Diversion Programs
Diversion programs have been successful in rerouting juveniles involved in minor and status offenses and placing them under appropriate jurisdiction. This effort has decreased the number of juveniles housed in correctional facilities. However, evaluations of these programs have shown little support for their effectiveness (Feld, 2001). Since diversion is based on the labeling tradition, one would suspect that participation in such programs would reduce the stigmatization of labeling however, studies have suggested that the diversion program in itself labels the youth in a negative manner (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Moreover, these programs have failed to alter the behavioral changes predicted by the programs (Akers  Sellers, 2009). Research conducted on juvenile diversion programs has also indicated that there is little difference in the recidivism rates between those who participate in diversion programs and those who are processed through the juvenile justice system (Akers  Sellers, 2009 Bartol  Bartol, 1998). In addition, research has shown that diversion is effective in reducing the number of youths in detention, but the research has failed to show that participants in diversion programs are less likely to reoffend than those who do not participate in the programs (Jensen  Rojek, 1998).

Diversion programs were initially regarded as alternatives to involvement within the criminal justice system however, the programs are becoming widely viewed as simply add-ons to the system (Lilly et al., 2007). These net widening programs have, in essence, expanded the reach of the juvenile justice system. An increasing number of youths are involuntarily being brought under governmental control, which would have historically been released without formal prosecution (Akers  Sellers, 2009).

Lilly et al. (2007) assert that participants in programs are rather individuals with recidivist behavior. Hence, research has indicated that diversion programs have placed more juveniles under the control of the criminal justice system. For instance, Ezell (1989) found youths placed in diversion programs were more likely to be sentenced to probation or a residential treatment facility than a juvenile who had not participated in the program if they did not successfully complete the program (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Rather than decreasing state intervention and juvenile interaction with the criminal justice system, diversion programs have accomplished just the opposite. However, Binder and Geis (1984) argue that diversion often offers services to youths, who would not have otherwise had access. Without these programs, these juveniles might become immersed deeper into the system. Hence, this redirection does not necessarily have negative effects on the juveniles participating in diversion programs (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Assessment of Family-Based Diversion Programs
Historically, the criminal justice system has focused on juveniles who have already become immersed in criminality however, this has not been shown to be effective with ever-burgeoning prison population. The initial labeling by the criminal justice system might induce a negative self-image leading to an acceptance of the criminal label. Therefore, the juvenile will internalize the negative label and participate in secondary deviance. In an attempt to avoid this stigmatization, studies have advocated diverting first-time and early offenders away from the juvenile justice court (Gavazzi et al., 2000).

As noted by Gavazzi et al. (2000), the 20th century has been saturated with programs attempting to divert first time, early, and status offenders away from the juvenile justice system. Throughout the United States, a plethora of diversion programs exist. The problem with these programs is that there is often no consistency in the development and evaluation of these programs. Diversion covers everything from peer courts to family preservation programs to intensive supervision programs to sex offender programs. In addition, many programs are a combination of services, as with the ARK program, made up of early intervention and family-based diversion techniques.

In an attempt to divert youths away from the juvenile justice system, an increasing number of diversion programs have established family-based designs. The inclusion of the family in the treatment of juveniles has been shown to be effective. Research has revealed that the family plays a major role in delinquency (Gavazzi et al., 2000). Family factors such as attachment, communication, supervision, and discipline have been shown to be variables associated with juvenile delinquency (Simons et al., 1996).

Family-based diversion programs not only focus on issues relating to juveniles but to their parents as well. Tolan, Cromwell, and Braswell (1986) conducted an analysis of 34 family-based programs and determined that family therapy had a positive effect on family functioning. In addition, the analysis determined that family-based treatment reduced delinquent behavior in participating youths (Gavazzi et al., 2000). Moreover, studies have shown that family-based treatment programs have a greater rate of recidivism reduction than those of traditional juvenile justice programs (Gordon et al., 1995).

For instance, the goal of the Services to At-Risk (STAR) Youth Program is to decrease and prevent various issues related to runaway, absence, abandonment, family conflict, and other delinquent behaviors. This is achieved through the provision of correct and appropriate treatments to youth and their families (Swan et al., 2001). These services focus on communication, conflict resolution, and parentyouth skills building. Swan et al. (2001) reported more than 80 of all participant groups showed an increase in improvement over a three-month follow-up period (p. 28). In addition, 83 of the program participants were not refereed to juvenile probation within a year after program completion. Those who were referred to juvenile probation were there for a misdemeanor or status offense (Swan et al., 2001, p. 27).

In January of 1992, the Adults Relating to Kids (ARK) program was established in Houston, Texas by Dr. Glen Wilkerson as a parenting program designed to teach parents appropriate skills to use when raising their children. The initial purpose of the program was to end the cycle of violence perpetuated by an individuals inability to adopt parenting skills different from those they learned from their own experiences in childhood (Swan, 2001 Wilkerson, 1995). Over the past years, the ARK program has evolved to meet the needs of the surrounding community. Today, the program has been implemented in churches, schools, jails, and other organizations working to help parents and youths.

The improvement in parental reflected-appraisals might contribute to an improvement in the parentchild relationship. Moreover, the perceived change in parental reflected-appraisals may be a consequence of the significant increase in the parents self-concept. As parents self-concept improves, they might be more willing to listen to their children and confident in their ability to parent in general.

Increases in a parents self-concept might also help them better try to understand the needs of their teens even when those needs are different from their own. It is also likely that increases in parents self-concept will influence the juveniles perceptions of what their parents think about them. Since ARK is a family-based program, it was important to obtain this positive change in parent self-concept and parental reflected-appraisals. This suggests that, in time, juvenile self-concept may increase since they are no longer perceive themselves as being viewed as bad by their parents. As noted by Bartusch  Matsueda (1996), the idea of the self is simply a construct of reflected appraisals.

Reintegration Through ARK
Diversion programs are common throughout the United States however, many of these fail to incorporate family-based counseling into their curriculum. Without this necessary component, programs only treat one aspect of delinquency, the act, and fail to address the underlying issues stemming from problems at home, school, or other areas of ones informal world. ARK allows families to come together and work on the confounding issues that have led them to involvement within the justice system.

The key principle of the ARK program is instilling the belief in unconditional love. ARK maintains that unconditional love allows individuals to separate negative behavior from the person enabling parents, teachers, and involved adults to love children for who they are rather than for what they do (Wilkerson, 1995). It means loving children in spite of their misbehavior. By separating the childs behavior from the person, parents, teachers, and the community at large are able to show their disapproval without degrading the misbehaving child.

Instead of punishment that denigrates the misbehaving child, ARK promotes discipline that allows the child to learn from hisher mistakes and be reintegrated back into the community. Braitwaite (1989) maintains that parents who combine parental control, setting clear standards and enforcing them, with nurture and encouragement are more successful in dealing with unacceptable behavior than those who are simply controlling (authoritarian) or permissive.

This understanding and implementation of unconditional love allows responsible adults to show children that everyone makes mistakes. Even though youth make mistakes, they are instilled with the belief that they have value and are not worthless. By encouraging participating youths that they have value and are not defined by a single deviant act, the program attempts to reverse the stigma of formal contact with the justice system. Thus, ARK endeavors to impede the labeling process.

Even though ARK did not appear to have a direct impact on recidivism, it did have a positive impact on the juveniles and their families. Since many issues facing juveniles stem from actual or perceived problems at home, assignment to a family-based program that attempts to rectify these problems is beneficial.

Discussion and Conclusion
Throughout the past century, the criminal justice system has shifted from individualistic deterrence-based policies to society-based policies and back again. Today, our criminal and juvenile justice system is caught between get tough and social activist policies. These deterrence-based policies have manifested themselves in strategies such as anti-drug legislation and three-strikes-and-youre-out laws (Lilly et al., 2007). In addition, the juvenile justice system has increasingly implemented punitive policies toward youths.

For example, violent offenders are increasingly being transferred to adult court (Feld, 1999) while, minor and status offenders who have historically been diverted from any contact with the system are being placed under formal supervision. Ironically, as criminal and juvenile justice polices bring unprecedented numbers into the system, programs are consistently being established by agencies working with the criminal justice system to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders.

Over the course of recent years the need to provide quality educational services for incarcerated juveniles continues to garner greater attention. Accountability for the quality of educational services for incarcerated juveniles also continues to be a high priority (Hamilton, et. al, 2007). Because of high recidivism rates, and lack of success as students return to school, law makers are demanding results on the behalf of taxpayers. Building collaboration across all entities involved with a youth being released from incarceration is becoming increasingly important, and is in fact mandated through legislation in many instances. Collaboration is a key component to ensuring juveniles can successfully return to society and not commit additional crimes (Quinn  Nelson, 2005).

Recent legal litigation has served notice that providers of juvenile justice programs, including educational services are expected to meet the mandates of federal legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and No Child Left Behind. The laws and standards utilized by the states to evaluate juvenile justice educational programs focus on the delivery of appropriate services for youth with learning disabilities. They also address the need for programs to be using trained and certified staff to deliver instruction in the residential setting (Hamilton, et. al., 2007).

Although policies have been implemented to target minor offenders, programs are continuously being created to divert youth away from the system. The diversion programs are not uncommon within the criminal justice system however, the phenomenon of sentencing youths to these programs after involvement with the court is becoming more prevalent since an inordinate amount of juveniles are being brought before the juvenile court. As a result, the new policies and case law have established an increased need for diversion programs.

Successfully returning delinquent juveniles to mainstream society after trying to meet their educational and social needs during their time of incarceration is a significant challenge. With diversion programs such as ARK showing an alarming degree of ineffectiveness in preventing juvenile crime, the importance of a quality and positive educational experience of delinquent juvenile is paramount to reducing further involvement with law enforcement (Rasmussen, 2004). Despite increased efforts to improve the educational services to delinquent juveniles, the fact remains that they eventually return to their home communities, become involved with negative peers and have not as yet acquired the necessary skills to make appropriate choices under pressure (Evans, Brown  Killian, 2002).

Because of the high rate at which juveniles re-offend, developing effective intervention strategies that are aimed at mitigating the factors that influence negative behavior is critical to ensuring a youths successful return to their home community (Sheperd, Green  Omobien, 2005). Identifying a youths driving issues while he or she is still in their juvenile justice education program is an essential component in planning for their transition. When planning for follow-up or aftercare services, identifying the individual factors placing a youth at risk for further delinquent behavior significantly reduces the chances of recidivism.

Crime Investigation and Analysis

Crime Script
Any crime that takes place firstly occurs in the mind of the involved criminal. What is crucial to a crime are the persons compulsions and motivations for the crime. Crimes are rarely entirely causeless, or committed just for the pleasure of it. There are typically various aspects related to crimes, such as attempts to profit financially, derive thrills, as in rape, or vengeance against an enemy. Hence, understanding the minds of criminals is the prerequisite to any discussion on crimes. I will, therefore, firstly describe the actor at length. I will focus on his personal traits, psychological propensities, and habits. The childhood, background and present straits of the person will shed considerable light on his needs, aspirations, limitations, compulsions, and hence, likely motivations. These will naturally determine the enormity or triviality of the crime that the actor decides to commit, including the degree of aggression and violence he is willing to manifest, along with the risk that he might be inclined to take. In discussing the particular crime that the actor has decided to commit, I shall research the considerable available material on it, to arrive at a practical and probable crime script, which can apparently succeed and escape detection.     

Crime Prevention
I will next consider and write at length on the various ways the authorities might possibly prevent the crime, or try to nip it in the bud once they get inkling to it. This brainstorming within me is necessary because it would hypothetically pit the determination and skills of the criminal against the resolve and resources of the law-enforcing agencies. Since crimes occur in society amidst various existing checks and balances, hurdles, risks and fears, I must adequately refer to them, if my depiction of a crime is to -- and appear to  be realistic. The study of crime cannot be performed in isolation. If crimes are to be prevented, the police have a crucial role to play in it. However, it is sociologists and social psychologists that can analyze what causes the impulse to crime to originate within a person. Such an insightful analysis can hopefully offer insights that may lead to a state of affairs where there is relatively less need, and correspondingly, lesser motivation for crimes. I shall review the ample material on how authorities seek to prevent crimes, with special reference to the crime I script for the actor, to present a cogent discussion of the topic. I would in particular be referring to several of Dr Ronald Clarkes seminal writings on crime prevention. I may add that Clarke is the founding editor of Crime Prevention Studies and is author or co- author of over 220 books, monographs and papers. His recent contributions include Superhighway Robbery Preventing E-commerce Crime (Willan Publishing, 2003), Become a Problem Solving Crime Analyst (U.S. Dept of Justice, 2005) and Outsmarting the Terrorists (Praeger, 2006).

Crime, Criminals and Justice

The Study of Crime
It is interesting to analyze the conflicts between theories that explain deviant behavior.  At the end of the day, law enforcement agencies must concern themselves with the fact that a crime took place, rather than reasons why criminals acted the way they did.  Still, these theories remain essential in the development of public policies to control crime.
   
According to the cultural transmission theory, all kinds of behaviors, including deviant behavior, are learned.  Furthermore, the theory states that young and impressionable learners of deviance may have developed close relationships with their deviant teachers.  With increasing contacts with deviant teachers, young learners of deviance engage in increasingly deviant behaviors (Sociological Theories to Explain Deviance).  Thus, the cultural transmission theory does not rule out the possibility that children of the rich and powerful may engage in deviant behaviors because they may have had deviant teachers.  The conflict theory, on the other hand, entirely rules out this possibility with its assumption that societal norms are established by the rich and powerful, so therefore they cannot possibly go against their own rules.  This assumption of the conflict theory is not true, seeing that the rich and powerful are also known to go against societal norms, which they should have established for and by themselves (Conflict, 2005). 
   
Yet another theory that conflicts with the conflict theory is the social control theory that explains why people may not engage in deviant behaviors.  According to this theory, individuals  both rich and poor  may follow societal norms because of their social bonds or attachments (Sociological Theories to Explain Deviance).  Then again, these theories need not be analyzed once a crime has occurred.  Moreover, as this analysis shows, law enforcement agencies cannot depend on theories of deviance as definite maps to hunt criminals. 

The Organization of Criminal Behavior
So man finds forbidden fruit virtually irresistible.  This is what happened in the United States when alcohol was prohibited from 1920 to 1933 as the noble experiment (Thornton, 1991).  This experiment was conducted as an effort to lower crime rates across the country, reduce corruption, and resolve various social problems.  The government of the United States had also aimed to reduce its spending on prisons through this experiment (Thornton).  However, the results of the noble experiment were disastrous enough for the government to repeal the Prohibition altogether (Thornton).  More importantly, the Prohibition teaches a significant lesson for control of organized crime.  I learned about this lesson through my secondary research on organization of criminal behavior, inspired by this course.
   
In fact, the Prohibition increased all types of crimes throughout the country (Thornton).  Alcohol consumption was increased rather than reduced.  The number of people filling prisons of the United States went up at the same time (Thornton).  Behr (1996) refers to the Prohibition as the beginning of organized crime in America (p. 239).  Kelly, Chin,  Schatzberg (1994) agree that the Prohibition became an opportunity for criminal gangs to make awesome amounts of money through illegal alcohol sales (p. 64).  The prohibition on the sale of alcohol allowed for the product to be sold at higher prices than before, opening up an important new business for criminals.  Entrepreneurs of criminal organizations had to hire countless young people for bootlegging.  Even a single producer of whiskey would face sufficient demand to open up illegal markets for alcohol in many states at the same time (Kelly, Chin,  Schatzberg, p. 64).
   
As absurd as this may sound, the Prohibition, therefore, teaches policymakers to take time off and reflect on the dangers of laws they have created.  After all, this lesson cannot be ignored.  In point of fact, anybody who researches organization of criminal behavior is bound to confront it.

The Criminal Justice System
Schmalleger  Smykla (2008) ask the reader to deeply consider whether the criminal justice system should merely punish, punish and reform, or only reform individuals that have perpetrated crimes.  They further ask of the reader to critically analyze the reason behind prison sentences.  The reader is compelled to dwell on the following question Are prisons meant to reform people or simply dump all those that are considered criminals in one place  Likewise, the authors question the logic behind juvenile corrections, getting the reader to suppose that there is something terribly wrong with the juvenile corrections system as it stands. 
   
In fact, all of these questions call for changes to the traditional criminal justice system.  To be precise, they ask for humanization of the criminal justice system.  This can be achieved by adopting alternatives to the traditional justice system.  After all, each and every individual exhibiting criminal behavior cannot be jailed.  Even children may exhibit behaviors that appear uncivilized, if not criminal for example, an unruly child in school may smash his or her friends head with a football.  Still, a child is a child  at the lower end of the learning curve.  This is the reason why alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system, such as shaming, peacemaking strategies and restorative justice are especially recommended for juvenile delinquents.  As a matter of fact, research has shown that young offenders are most likely to change their problem behaviors through restorative justice techniques rather than court proceedings.  Adults, too, are likely to reverse their problem behavior through the humaneness of restorative justice (Sherman  Strang, 2009).  Of course, the same has not been claimed for serial killers or rapists.  Just as all types of crimes cannot go unpunished, all kinds of criminals should not be prosecuted through the traditional justice system, defined by the terminology of punishment, zero tolerance, criminal personality (Wormer, 2010).

Criminal liability for medical errors

The criminal justice system, as well as the general public, is faced by a major challenge concerning the way it should handle various cases of fatal medical error.  Each and every nation seeks to minimize the rate of death from fatal medical errors however, differences in the justice system guide those endeavors to different trajectories. The issue of fatal medical errors divides society into two major groups those who propose and those who oppose criminalization of medical errors.  This paper evaluates the United States context to determine whether criminal law should be employed to control the careless conduct of medical professionals by highlighting both the views aired by opponents and proponents of prosecution of medical professionals for fatal medical errors.   

Introduction
Criminal legal responsibility for carelessness, according to McDonald (2008), has long been controversial as it increases critical issues concerning criminal principles which get their way into the heart of our awareness of when it is suitable for punishing those whose practice clearly portrays fault instead of an intention to cause injury. There are people who argue that carelessness should not be a base for criminal responsibility due to the fact that criminal sanctions should be enforced on people for the outcome of actions they had determined or effects that they foresaw as a likely outcome of their practice (McDonald, 2008). Others, as (McDonald (2008) illustrates, propose the enforcement of criminal sanctions for practitioners who were careless on the basis that the defendant could have acted as per the set standards of conduct, but did not do that. Proponents of criminalizing negligence argue, on practical basis, that the threat of criminal sanctions contains a potential consequence in that it promotes improved standards of performance (Monico, Kulkarni, Calise and Calabro, 2007). Careless acts by professional health care workers during their practice are part of human race condition. No one is perfect. Each and every person is destined to make mistakes. The just culture organization, according to Monico, Kulkarni, Calise and Calabro (2007), believes that healthcare system usually fail to identify that human beings have various intentions in all they do. Though the intentions of human beings towards a certain outcome may be recognized, people fail to notice the intention of human beings toward the behavior that results in that outcome. These outcomes has long been responded to through a variety of ways, especially by way of provision of damages to the injured person based on the law of tort and the enforcement of sanctions against healthcare experts through professional regulatory mechanisms (Dute, Faure, and Koziol, 2004). However, in the most serious of such situations, the criminal law has for long been a tool through which alleged carelessness in the conduct of a health professional resulting in the death or severe injury of a patient has been addressed. The state utilizes criminal law to hold an individual liable for all actions that are in contradiction of the interest of the general public (Monico, Kulkarni, Calise and Calabro, 2007).

Legal experts argue that there is no single person who should be protected from the criminal law on the basis of hisher professional status (Margaret and Neil, 2007). All in all, there are various situations associated with the provision of healthcare services that make it hard to find criminal legal responsibility for alleged negligence in the process of practice by a healthcare professional. One of the most significant difficulties, appertaining to the use of criminal law against healthcare professionals for negligence in their practice, is that the criminal law is not sufficiently equipped to tackle the difficulties of the specific environments in which healthcare professionals usually operate (Margaret and Neil, 2007). The model of the criminal law is founded on an acceptance of human agency an independent person makes a choice to either act or not to act in a way that breaches the law and must agree to the outcomes of that deed or omission (McDonald, 2008). This assumption envisages an uncomplicated world which recognizes a few relational factors. At the time when criminal law was first made use of, to control healthcare professionals, services were offered to a greater extent in a personal context, as there was no health system to be spoken of (Margaret, and Neil, 2007). The historical foundations of healthcare system are grounded on the sovereignty of professional workers who are either incompetent or competent in their professional practice and this application still echoes the way in which accountability is assigned in this realm (Margaret, and Neil, 2007). On the other hand, in the modern reality, a lot of healthcare professionals are entrenched in the complexity of contemporary healthcare, which is characterized by numerous interacting healthcare providers, treatments, modern technologies, patients suffering from numerous complications, and high pressure environment (Neumayer and Grunsven, 1999).  Though this context is not always approved, studies concerning psychology of error have shown that errors are not always the consequences of individual incompetence, but rather are produced by causes inherent to the intricate system in which a person works.

Criminal liability for medical errors
The topic of health experts facing criminal charges of criminal negligence leading to death, or grave bodily harm of a patient as a result of alleged negligence, or manslaughter in their professional practice was thrown into great relief by the recent exoneration of doctors accused of mishandling Canadas blood system in the in the early 1980s (McDonald, 2008). Stories such as these in addition to international reports portraying a rise in the number of health professionals being charged, and in a number of cases being convicted of critical criminal offenses due to alleged negligence in the process of their practice, have led to an increase in anxiety concerning the clear rise in the incidence of such charges in addition to their suitableness in healthcare context. Numerous researches focused on the frequency, suitableness and nature of criminal charges against health experts, especially physicians, for alleged carelessness in the process of their professional practice has been carried out in the United States, U.K, Japan, New Zealand and other nations ((McDonald, 2008).

There are various situations in which the criminal justice system is faced by the challenge of coming up with a clear and fair ruling.  One of the cases of fatal medical error include for example where a woman dies as a result of catastrophic loss of blood in the process of surgery to remove cancerous liver tumor, the case where a young boy dies as a result of cardiac arrest during surgery for pyloric stenosis. This death may occur, for example, following a surgeons request to inflate the stomach and the anesthesiologist wrongly injects air into a tube entering the patients vein rather than the nasogastric tube (Clarkson and Cunningham, 2008). The other example, as illustrated by Clarkson, and Cunningham (2008), is where babies meet their deaths as result of cardiac arrest due to incorrectly carried out procedures. Failure of the medical staff to respond quickly to serious medical conditions of patients may also result in the death of patients. Anesthetic mismanagement also results in the death of a lot of patients. Presently, cases such as these one, are handled using the contentious as well as catch all offense of gross negligence manslaughter (Clarkson and Cunningham (2008).  Even though, through no ways exceptional as an example of criminal liability, crimes of negligence are rising day by day its place near the peak of serious criminal offenses in addition to the lack of a lesser charge or an inchoate offense, makes it an insufficient scenario, usually hinging on ethical luck as well as prosecutorial performance in terms of the result (Neumayer, and Grunsven, 1999). Though relatively uncommon, prosecutions such as these have risen tremendously over the last 20 years, thus developing extreme concern for the healthcare profession and calling for intellectual investigation (Clarkson, and Cunningham, 2008). Before evaluating the benefits of a particular offense for fatal medical errors it is important to address the question whether such conduct should be taken as criminal in then first place. 

Neumayer and Grunsven (1999) argues that it is highly unlikely that a lot of people would support all such fatal medical errors to fall outside the jurisdiction of criminal law the duty is therefore, to settle on an ethically meaningful as well as fair structure for responsibility.  The issues concerning the suitability of criminal negligence has for long given legal philosophers, who realized it was a tremendously troublesome area, a headache. Hall, according to Clarkson and Cunningham (2008), argues that the imposition of criminal liability losses sight of the concept of culpability which is the concrete groundwork of criminal law. Hall argues that the use of negligence should be extended to other sectors of criminal law the Law Commission approves criminal sanction for liable inadvertence, notwithstanding disposing of the label manslaughter for its preferential formulation of killing through gross carelessness (Clarkson, and Cunningham, 2008). There are those who support Halls opposition to penalizing carelessness. Others argue that the range of conduct as well as responsibility taken in by unintentional manslaughter is such that the label for the crime has become ethically uninformative. Nevertheless, even as there is an apparent case for improvement, there is less clarity in regards to what this should be. One alternative rests with developing a specific homicide offense for the health care context to take the place of gross negligence manslaughter. This can then be taken as a section of the greater re-modeling of homicide in addition to the more important question concerning the magnitude of criminal law required. This is an endless debate, and one which has been, to a great extent, based on the questions concerning the general role played by the criminal law (Neumayer, and Grunsven, 1999).  Ancient concerns of the reduction of guilt have gone on with more recent vital remark in regards to the problem of extensive over-criminalization dissatisfied from ethical culpability. Huask, as illustrated by Clarkson, and Cunningham, 2008), point an accusing finger at legal philosophers, who he says are too quick to consider the reasons for, instead of against, criminalization, and disputes convincingly for a standard of criminal law as well as punishment as last way out.

The most relevant issue currently is whether the offense of gross negligence manslaughter is specific and sensitive enough to act as a sign of different levels of responsibility for offense committed in various contexts (McDonald, 2008). The main question is whether medical cases are different enough to justify labeling in addition to prosecuting as a separate crime. The major challenge facing this issue regards the benefits as well as the demerits of establishing special criminal law for professional healthcare workers. The main anxiety is between the call for fair labeling of crime as well as offenders against the danger of over-specificity and therefore over-criminalization, a very serious danger in the rapidly moving world of criminal justice, law, and policy (Margaret and Neil, 2007). 

There are those who advocate for a re-conceptualization of fatal medical errors at the level of satisfying theory of criminal liability. This is a section of the larger attempt to posit a virtue jurisprudence of criminal responsibility, which means linking the conditions for criminal culpability to specific vices (Margaret and Neil, 2007). Gross negligence manslaughter responsibility for healthcare experts is susceptible too the response in such a way that it leaves a wide gap between irresponsible homicide and no criminal response, and in terms of criminalization is, therefore, all the more all or nothing than the status quo (Clarkson, and Cunningham, 2008). It may also, on the other hand, appear unjust in terms of unwarranted protection for such experts. Nevertheless, healthcare is adequately special as compared to other contexts under consideration. If people then accept that the current stance on this issue is unacceptable there are two choices to make demote and prosecute more, or promote and therefore reduce the focus on irresponsible homicide as the business of criminal law and justice (Monico, Kulkarni, Calise and Calabro, 2007).

Margaret and Neil (2007), states that law regarding medical negligence provides plaintiffs with a legal ground on which they built their lawsuit. In a medical misconduct case, a plaintiff must satisfy four conditions duty, breach, causation and damage in order to emerge victorious (Margaret and Neil, 2007). In a negligence case, on the other hand, the actions of the wrongdoer are compared to what would otherwise be expected of a sensible and careful individual in the same scenario (Margaret and Neil, 2007). In most cases it is this sensible standard of care that is used to determine whether legal accountability attaches (Clarkson and Cunningham, 2008). Cases of medical malpractice are different from those of typical negligence in that, in medical malpractice plaintiffs are required to ascertain positively the applicable standard of medical care through the testimony of other healthcare professionals. Based on that fact, the legal system has allowed physicians to establish their own standard of healthcare in cases dealing with medical negligence. The two major aims brought to medical malpractice by civil legal action, according to Margaret and Neil (2007), are to compensate injured patients as well as to examine the value of healthcare. The extent to which medical malpractice legal action is at attaining either of these two objectives is at the center of criminal persecution of medical personnel (Margaret and Neil, 2007). The extremely low numbers of file claims made by injured patients against medical professionals portrays that legal action for medical malpractice does very little in reimbursing injured patients. There are claims that even those whose claims are successful are not compensated completely for financial loss incurred during the process of litigation (McDonald, 2008).

Prosecutors who do not depend on statute can succeed if a healthcare professional indifference to the risk of injury results in either criminal negligence or carelessness. If it is clearly shown that the negligence of a medical personnel increased to the level of horrible inattention, gross incompetence, or criminal insensitivity to the wellbeing of the patient, criminal negligence could attach. General Law as well as the courts has not been of much help in elucidating the way criminal negligence applies to medical practice (Keyes, and The American Bar Association, Committee on Biotechnology, 2007). 

It appears, as Hurwitz and Sheikh (2009), argues, that the current period is one in which the magnitude of healthcare services is slowly finding roots in all industrialized nations. Physicians who make a mistake once in their healthcare decisions and actions receive no significant feedback to call their attention to the mistake and to do all they can to prevent repeating that mistake (Hurwitz and Sheikh, 2009). Likewise, in numerous situations in which the mistake has been exposed, the absence of effective feedback hinders its causes as well as the strategies for its prevention from being appropriately investigated. Physicians may continue repeating mistakes due to the fact that autopsies are uncommon and admission of errors is feared and, thus, avoided. Various factors have resulted in the dissatisfaction of the public with healthcare (McDonald, 2008). The continual increase in medical errors has stimulated patients to seek legal assistance for obtaining compensation for any medical error that may arise (Dute, Faure, and Koziol, 2004).  Medical administrators prompted by a force to enhance the efficiency of healthcare, usually end up increasing the rate of medical mistakes through cost containment. The two major factors that lead to an increase in the rate of medical errors as well as critical events, as pointed out by Dute, Faure, and Koziol (2004), are the reduction in the monitoring of healthcare in addition to attempts to control its cost. The tremendous rise in medical errors in the late twentieth century culminated in widespread changes in the healthcare practice and eventually in the attitude of the public towards the healthcare profession (Dute, Faure, and Koziol, 2004). The account of maltreatment of patients in addition to cases of criminal negligence as well as intentional criminal conducts by healthcare professionals led to development of an atmosphere of mistrust of healthcare professionals (Hurwitz and Sheikh (2009). This mistrust tremendously affected the efficiency of healthcare, due to the fact that it lowered the efficacy of treatment and may also have resulted in a reduction in the patients compliance to the advice of physicians. 

All in all, if physicians are punished for any medical mistake they make, as it was the case with the hammurabian society, it is possible that the modern society might find itself in a very critical situation without any dependable doctor (Clarkson and Cunningham, 2008).  There are various ways through which the aggression of the public towards physicians and health establishments has portrayed itself. However, it has resulted in an increase in legal action as well as violence against health professionals (McEvoy, 2007). To a certain extent the general public appears to have taken hold of the significance of this controversy in its relation to the increased level of damages claims as well as its deleterious effects on healthcare (Dute, Faure, and Koziol, 2004). There is no evidence that the danger of unprofessional conduct hinders physicians from carelessness. Instead, the fear of legal action is a very strong reason for taking actions to prevent the claims.

There are various reasons given in support of or opposition to persecution of healthcare professionals. There are those who cite a growing recognition to regard medical negligence as a white collar crime with its hybrid general nature (Wolman and Manor, 2004). Others cite the lack of proper supervision of medical professionals by the state and federal organizations. Advocates for criminal prosecution depend on practical and retributive theories of justice to make their stance rational. Utilitarians, according to Wolman and Manor (2004), believe that criminal sanctions are suitable when penalizing negligent practice, due to the fact that prosecution makes sure that healthcare professionals undertake their functions with more caution. Retributive justice, on the other hand, is a theory centered on the perception that punishment is warranted on the base that the offender has developed an imbalance in the social order, that advocate criminal sanctions healthcare conducts.  A medical professionals unintentional risk taking may be taken as a fault in social interaction that warrants punishment through criminal sanctions (Wolman and Manor, 2004).

Critics of criminally punishing negligent healthcare conduct, on the other, hand argue that the criminal justice system should only penalize those who intentionally commit a wrong (Wolman and Manor, 2004). Based on retributive theory, it would not be just to penalize a healthcare expert for unintentional risk taking or when the healthcare professional is not aware that the conduct develops a risk of danger. Medical organizations argue that criminally punishing healthcare professionals for clinical errors would establish a risky model (Wolman and Manor (2004). These organizations make it clear that such a precedent would deter physicians from taking hard cases or even undertaking research in new areas. Others still, argue that such a model would promote the practice of defensive medicine and further aggravate the cost of medical care.  Whereas, the general public with the support of the legal system advocate penalizing medical professionals for fatal medical errors (McEvoy, 2007), healthcare professionals and advocates argue that criminal prosecution of healthcare workers eventually does more harm than good. Critics of criminalization argue that criminal sanctions would finally make professionals to stop reporting errors and discourage enrollment as well as retention of a profession already in dwindling supply. They also argue that this criminalization would bring vital initiatives of safety of patients to a halt (Wolman and Manor, 2004).

Conclusion
The criminal justice system, as well as the general public, is faced by a major challenge concerning the way it should handle various cases of fatal medical error.  The criminal law is a significant regulatory instrument to utilize against medical professionals who grossly move away from safe practice but not when a negligent conducts, however devastating their results, is one to which all human beings, in particular those working in intricate organizations are prone.  The few numbers of cases as well as the very small conviction rate portrays that the justice system administrators clearly see that the criminal law should have minimal use in this sector. International reports portraying a rise in the number of health professionals being charged, and in a number of cases being convicted of critical criminal offenses due to alleged negligence in the process of their practice, have led to an increase in anxiety concerning the clear rise in the incidence of such charges in addition to their suitableness in healthcare context. The increase in the number of prosecution for fatal medical errors over the last 20 years has developed an extreme concern for the healthcare profession and called for intellectual investigation. Critics of criminalization of medical errors accuse legal philosophers, who advocate prosecution, saying that they are too quick to consider the reasons for, instead of against, criminalization, and disputes convincingly for a standard of criminal law as well as punishment as last way out. Critics of prosecution of health professionals for negligent conduct, clearly states that the criminal justice system should only penalize those who intentionally commit a wrong. Medical organizations argue that criminally punishing healthcare professionals for clinical errors would establish a risky model, which would deter physicians from taking hard cases or even undertaking research in new areas.

Criminalization of medical errors in addition to imposition of criminal sanctions would finally make professionals to stop reporting errors and discourage enrollment as well as retention of a profession already in dwindling supply. Proponents of criminalization of medical errors argue that the account of maltreatment of patients in addition to cases of criminal negligence as well as intentional criminal conducts by healthcare professionals lead to development of an atmosphere of mistrust of healthcare professionals. This mistrust tremendously affects the efficiency of healthcare. Proponents of prosecution for fatal medical errors also claim that there is no evidence that the danger of unprofessional conduct hinders physicians from carelessness. They claim that instead, the fear of legal action is a very strong reason for taking actions to prevent the claims.  However, if physicians are punished for any medical mistake they make it is possible that the modern society might find itself in a very critical situation without any dependable doctor.