##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##
Downloads
Main Article Content
Abstract
T
he study aimed to evaluate the factors influencing children involved in legal conflicts in the SOCCSKSARGEN region. The local government of SOCCSKSARGEN is adopting various strategies to address the problem of Children in Conflict with the Law (CICLs) in South Cotabato, Cotabato Province, Sultan Kudarat, Sarangani, and General Santos City. One of the procedures entails establishing the Bahay Pag-asa, a rehabilitation center for children in conflict with the law (CICLs) and at-risk youth. The study participants were of juveniles involved in criminal activities residing at St. Marcelline in General Santos City. These children were placed in the institution to redirect their focus and provide them with a safe haven while their case is being decided. This study employed a quantitative-descriptive design. This study employed the survey approach to gather information about the demographic profile and factors influencing youth involved in criminal activities, such as family relationships, peer influence, and external environmental factors.
The conclusions drawn are based on the collected data. 1. Children in Conflict with the Law were of various ages, ranging from 9 to 21 years old, at the time of committing the crime. 2. The majority of these children were influenced by their family dynamics, which led them to engage in criminal activities. 3. The objective is to facilitate the reintegration of children in conflict with the law into society after their case is resolved. The aforementioned programs and services encompassed residential care services, including caring, healing, life skills intervention program, and teaching, as well as a juvenile justice program, technical skills program, and independent living program.
This study examines the impact of several influences in the community on youngsters involved in criminal activities. Additionally, it might be inferred that the societal standards in their previous place of residence had ingrained a certain psychological impact on them, causing their sense of wrongdoing to be hindered.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Age boundaries of the juvenile justice system. Model Programs Guide. Literature re-view. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Of-fice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquen-cy Prevention. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/age-boundaries-of-the-juvenile-justice-system
Battjes, K., & Kaplan, L. Z. (2023). Zero Toler-ance vs Restorative Justice in the United States. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1414
Casey, B.J., Simmons, C., Somerville, L.H., and Baskin–Sommers, A. 2022. Making the sentencing case: Psychological and neu-roscientific evidence for expanding the age of youthful offenders. Annual Review of Criminology 5:321–343.
Casey, B.J., Taylor–Thompson, K., Rubien–Thomas, E., Robbins, M., and Baskin–Sommers, A. 2020. Healthy development as a human right: Insights from develop-mental neuroscience for youth justice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 16:203–222.
Cauffman, E., Fine, A., Mahler, A., and Sim-mons, C. 2018. How developmental sci-ence influences juvenile justice reform. U.C. Irvine Law Review 8(2):21–40.
Cavanaugh, C. 2022. Healthy adolescent devel-opment and the juvenile justice system: Challenges and solutions. Child Develop-ment Perspectives 16(3):141–147.
Cohen, A.O., Bonnie, R.J., Taylor–Thompson, K., and Casey, B.J. 2016. When does a ju-venile become an adult? Implication for law and policy. Temple Law Review 88(4):769–788.
Cherry, Kendra. (2022). How Social Learning Works. Verywell mind. DotdashMedia, Inc. https://www.verywellmind.com/social-learning-theory-2795074#a-few-applications-for-social-learning-theory.
Dempsey, A. 2021. Transfer law and today’s youth: Rehabilitating or creating lifetime criminals? A comparative analysis of ju-venile transfer law in Kentucky, Florida, and New York. University of Louisville Law Review 59:519–548.
De Ramos, CJ E., Regalado, Ma. A. C. D., & Ten-orio, N.C. (2015). An Assessment on the Factors that Influence the Commission of Crimes among Selected male Children in Conflict with the Law. LPU Laguna Jour-nal of Arts and Science Psychological Re-search Vol. 2 No. 2.
Development Services Group, Inc. 2015. Status offenders. Model Programs Guide. Litera-ture review. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and De-linquency Prevention.
https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/status_offenders.pdf
Dudovsky, John. (n.d.) Puposive Sampling. The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: A Step by Step Ap-proach. Business Research Methodology. https://research-methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-collection/purposive-sampling/.
Farrington, D. P., & Jonkman, H. (2021). Delin-quency and Substance Use in Europe. Un-derstanding Risk and Protective Factors (F. G. Roth (Ed.)). Springer Nature Swit-zerland AG 2021. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58442-9.
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2007). Saving Children From a Life of Crime. Early Risk Factors and Effective Interventions. In Oxford University Press, Inc. Oxford Uni-versity Press.
Fisher N (2013) Factors Leading to Bad Juve-nile Behavior.
Fitriani, W., & Hastuti, D. (2016). Pengaruh Kelekatan Remaja dengan Ibu, Ayah dan Teman Sebaya terhadap Kenakalan Remaja di Lembaga Pembinaan Khusus Anak (LPKA) Kelas II Bandung. Jurnal Ilmu Keluarga Dan Konsumen, 9(3), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.24156/jikk.2016.9.3.20.
Krohn, M. D., Lane, J., Smit, P. R., Bijleveld, C. C. J. ., Filho, P. R. D., Lopez, G., Bystrova, E., Tcherni, M., Kakar, S., Cooper, A., Dong, B., Gardner, K., & Kaduce, L. L. (2015). The Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice. In M. D. Krohn & J. Lane (Eds.) The Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118513217.
Loomis, A. M. (2020). Pathways from family violence exposure to disruptive behavior and suspension in elementary school. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody & Child Development, 17(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2020.1734516
Luna, E., ed. 2017. Reforming Criminal Justice: Introduction and Criminalization (Vol. 1). Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University.
Mennis J (2011) Contagion and repeat oوٴend-ing among urban juvenile delinquents.
National Research Council. 2013. Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Ap-proach, edited by R.J. Bonnie, R.L. John-son, B.M. Chemers, and J.A. Schuck. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nickerson, C. (2023). Merton’s Strain Theory of Deviance and Anomie in Sociology. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/mertons-strain-theory-devi-ance.html#:~:text=Merton's%20Strain%20Theory%20posits%20that,they%20pursue%20success%20through%20crime.
Purpura, P.P. (2013). Routine Activity Theory. Foundations of Security and Loss Preven-tion. 6th Edition. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/routine-activity-theo-ry#:~:text=Routine%20activity%20theory%2C%20from%20Cohen,of%20both%20offender%20and%20victim.
Renn, K.A. & Arnold, KD. (2023). Reconceptu-alizing Research on College. Student Peer Culture. The Journal of Higher Education, 74 (3), 261-293. https://www.scu.edu/oml/about-us/theoretical-frame-work/#:~:text=Bronfenbrenner's%20ecologi-cal%20systems%20theory%20is,every%20facet%20of%20your%20life.
Robinson, K., and Kurlychek, N. 2019. Differ-ences in justice, differences in outcomes: A DID approach to studying outcomes in juvenile and adult court processing. Jus-tice Evaluation Journal 2(1):35-49.
Setiawan, H. H., Wardianti, A., Yusuf, I., & Azi-kin, A. (2020). Anak Sebagai Pelaku Terorisme Dalam Perspektif Ekologi So-sial. Sosio Informa, 6(3), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.33007/inf.v6i3.2400.
(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2014. Courts With Both Delinquency and Status Of-fense Jurisdiction, 2013. Washington, DC: Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Jus-tice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04123.asp?qaDate=2013.
(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2021a. Delin-quency Lower Age, 2019. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?qaDate=2019.
(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2021b. Delin-quency Upper Age, 2019. Wash-ington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?qaDate=2019&text=no&maplink=link2
(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2021c. Extend-ed Age of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, 2019. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/statistical-briefing-book/structure_process/faqs/qa04106
(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2021d. Juris-dictional Boundaries. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP.https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04101.asp?qaDate=2019.
(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2021e. Status Lower Age, 2019. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?qaDate=2019&text=no&maplink=link3
(SBB) Statistical Briefing Book. 2021f. Status Upper Age, 2019. Washington, DC: DOJ, OJP, OJJDP. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?qaDate=2019&text=no&maplink=link4