Law Homework Help

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mother-armed-14-year-old-killed-bronx-speaks-article-1.1417895

In the past week New York City police officers tragically shot and killed a 14 year-old who was armed with a gun and using it. This week I want you to review his background via the enclosed link and any other credible information. I want you to diagnose the problem with the juvenile. In your estimation did he need treatment or punishment?  What treatment would you recommend? Based on your answers are you more along the lines of the classical school or the positivist school? Explain to other posts why you would agree or disagree with their opinion. What did they notice that you missed? TO BLAME THE POLICE OFFICER WHO NOW HAS TO LIVE WITH THE EVENT WOULD NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND WOULD BE WRONG

First one :

First let me start off by saying that I think some (but definitely not all) of Shaaliver Douse’s behavior is in line with the Differential Association Theory. The theory suggests that criminal activity by juveniles can be learned through the socialization process or through contact with others also committing criminal acts. At fourteen years old he was already a known gang member and clearly involved in criminal activity. I believe his association with the “9 crew gang” probably had an influence on the choices that he made in his young life. Not knowing much about his family situation, I can only assume that he had a less than desirable home situation.

In October of 2012, Shaaliver Douse was charged with a weapons possession violation. In May of the following year, he shot a fifteen-year-old boy and was charged with attempted murder and an additional weapons charge. It was quite clear he had a propensity for violence.

I believe Shaliver Douse should have received treatment after the first weapons violation that occurred in October 2012. I think the rehabilitation model would have benefited him greatly. The model focuses on more social influences and stresses therapy, education, and vocation.

After the shooting incident involving the fifteen-year-old boy, I feel Shaaliver Douse should have been incarcerated. I believe the treatment option he should have received at this time is the just-deserts/justice model. Further, he meets one of the criteria justifying incarceration; he was a danger to others. On a case by case basis, juveniles need to be punished in proportion to the seriousness of the offense they have committed. In this situation the just deserts/justice model applies.

Although I understand a maladaptive environment may contribute to a juvenile’s involvement in criminal behavior, it alone cannot be an excuse for one’s actions. Without question I believe in the classical school theory. I believe Shaaliver Douse chose to commit crimes of his own free will.

In her public statement regarding her son’s death, Shanise Farrar described her son as “a child who slept with her because he was frightened by nightmares of being harmed by the cops”. I would like to ask Mrs. Farrar what she was doing in the early morning hours of August 4th, while her son (“her angel”) was chasing down and firing a handgun at another human being. If he would have been home sleeping with her as she stated, he most likely wouldn’t have been shot. Maybe, just maybe, parental supervision might have made a difference in the boy’s life.

Police officers are not perfect. Officer’s make mistakes, and, yes, there are some who shouldn’t carry the badge. Officers that cross the line should be punished severely. In this instance, what actions were the NYPD officers supposed to take? What were they supposed to do, sit by and watch Shaliver Douse shoot a second person? They are sworn to protect any individual whose life is being threatened by another. As unfortunate as it is, in this situation the officers were clearly justified with shooting and killing the boy.

In today’s society, it is very easy to point the blame at someone else, and law enforcement has been taking the brunt of the blame for quite some time, often without any justification. Unfortunately, very few will take into consideration the mental anguish the shooting will have on the officer and how it will affect his life forever.

Second one:

From what I could research, Shaaliver Douse was a 14-year-old boy who was raised in a single-family home by his mother. His father was not in the picture. He lived in the Bronx where street gangs are prevalent. According to his cousin, Shaaliver was bullied during his middle school years, but never fought back. As far as I can tell, Shaaliver was a product of his environment. He was a kid with little to no self-esteem from being bullied at school, and the only way he knew how to handle it was to join a gang. In his mind, this gave Shaaliver the “family” environment he did not have in his home. It also allowed him to handle his problems of being picked on, except now he was using a gun to do it. I believe that Shaaliver needed treatment for his issues, not punishment. Counseling would have been a good way to help, also after school programs to keep him out of trouble would have also benefited Shaaliver. As far as the classical or positivist school, I believe it is based on the situation. This example is a little bit of both in my opinion. Shaaliver used his free will to join the gang and use a gun to shoot at others. But, as I said previously, I believe he was a product of his environment and seeing gang violence on a daily basis had a huge impact on his life.

Third one:

I think he needed treatment based on interviews with family and friends. It was almost like a Jekyll and Hyde. He was nice to many people, was made fun of some for his small stature, and was likely influenced by the older teens and gang members. That is something hard for a young teen to stay away from. Especially when gangs are actively recruiting young teens with little to no structure or family life to keep them in line. If he was removed from that environment, it is my opinion he would and could become a more productive teenager. At fourteen, he already has some serious violent gun offenses. A long term boot camp or military type of school could benefit, but when gangs surround your life where you live, it’s hard enough for adults to push back on peer pressure, much less a fourteen year old. He obviously did not have a full-time father figure in his life, nor did it say anything about an older sibling to guide him. His mother likely did the best she could, but I question her involvement in her fourteen-year-old son’s life when he is out in the streets at 3:00AM getting into shootings.

My school of thought is along the lines of the classical school of Beccaria’s. While I do agree there are biological issues that tend to give rise to positivist thought for serial criminals, generally I would go classical. It may be the exception to the rule, but many people get out of the environment they grew in and become productive citizens of society. They do not buckle to temptation of their neighborhood and see a future other than drugs, gangs, guns, and money.