Finland in general operates under a different type of socioeconomic system than what we see in the United States. The basic tenets of the welfare model include “universalism, equality and public responsibility.” Finland aims to avoid any type of structured material inequality by maintaining a high level of income redistribution through taxation and decommoditization of goods (Harrikari, 2008, p. 30). That said, a stronger emphasis on less punitive treatment of juvenile delinquents fits in with the Finnish model of helping rather than punishing. Indeed juveniles who commit crimes receive less harsh treatment than adults, which cannot be said for all types of juvenile offenses in the United States. Finnish youthful offenders receive lighter sentences, and more significantly, unlike the U.S., sentences have not become more severe over the last fifteen years (Harrikari, p. 34). Compared with the early 1990s, the number of offences handled by juvenile courts has decreased, meaning fewer crimes are remanded to court proceedings. A greater sense of child welfare in Finland could be adopted here, which I truly believe would help the quality of the juvenile justice system. The method of looking at child offenders as pure cases of rehabilitation or aid rather than as criminal punishment would shift the focus of the program.
China takes a participatory model of juvenile justice, where the intervention of the courts is rarely used. Citizens and special agencies work to curb juvenile delinquency and only in the most extreme cases will the legal system become involved. In 1991, China adopted new legislation which defines how parents and legal guardians are responsible for the welfare, education and other legal rights of a juvenile. The Juvenile Protection Law of 1991 sets out the standard of criminal juvenile law, which states that education is the primary means of handling delinquency and punishment is the secondary means of handling juveniles who commit crimes (Wong, 2004, p. 54). I think this is an excellent model for the U.S. to incorporate; it puts the onus back on the parents to keep their kids in line and doesn’t resort to bogging down the legal system with petty childhood crime. Fixing or correcting the problem before it is broken, rather than sending away our “hopeless cases” of juvenile offenders, lessens the impact of adult crime and gives young people the chance to turn it around before it gets worse.
Harrikari, T. (2008). Exploring Risk Governance in the Nordic Context: Finnish Juvenile Crime and
Child Welfare. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(1), 29-42.
Wong, D. W. (2004). Juvenile Protection and Delinquency Prevention Policies in China.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 3752-66.