Sentencing: Psychology of juvenile Rehabilitation 159upon completion of die rehabilitative program as compared to juvenile offenders
in Florida who did not participate in the program. This initiative is one of many in
which rehabilitation demonstrates effectiveness in altering the criminal lifestyle of
juveni 1 e offenders.
In a similar fashion, policy makers in some states realize that community-based
programs for juvenile offenders are more effective than facilities and institutions
designed to incarcerate them (Melton et al., 1997). This is perhaps due to the fact
that: juvenile detention facilities frequently do not offer services aimed at rehabilitat-
ing the offender. Moreover, from a fiscal perspective, community-based programs
are much more cost effective for juvenile offenders (Weaver, 1992). Furthermore,
Straus (1994) presents a theoretical basis for diverting youths away from incarceration
in the justice system. Straus reports that many individuals who advocate diversion
programs believe that they will reduce the stigmatization associated with incarcera-
tion. Therefore, according to Straus, juvenile offenders can be better helped within
their respective communities while being spared the detrimental effects of being
labeled a delinquent.
There are numerous community programs which currently exist designed to
provide juvenile offenders with an alternative to incarceration in a juvenile institu-
tion. These programs are often structured to address problems within the families
of juvenile offenders as well as psychological issues affecting the youths. Straus ac-
knowledges that there are a variety of programs available to meet the different needs
of juveniles. Some of these programs include the following: peer support groups,
work training programs, church-based programs, drop-in treatment centers, youth
shelters, and inpatient treatment facilities. This list highlights the numerous oppor-
tunities for rehabilitative services that are available for youthful offenders. Thus, the
dilemma concerning the most appropriate sentence to impose upon a particular
juvenile remains at the discretion of the court judge. It is highly likely that the
controversy surrounding rehabilitation versus retribution of youthful offenders will
continue to spark debate among the legislature, the media, and individuals in the
fields of mental health and criminal justice.
Forensic Psychology and Policy ImplicationsThe issues involved in the sentencing of juvenile offenders raises numerous impli-
cations for the field of forensic psychology. With the gravity of offenses committed
by young persons, such as Kipland Kinkel, the public is intent on "solving" the
problem of juvenile crime. Forensic psychologists are needed on both sides of the
sentencing debate. On the one hand, those who promote rehabilitation of juvenile
offenders must be able to account for the recidivism rate among those who do
receive such services. Perhaps the rehabilitative services that are currently available
do not meet the comprehensive guidelines suggested by Straus (1994) in targeting
social and structural changes in the families as well as in the juveniles. Without