Since criminals are thought to be more likely to commit crimes than those never convicted of a criminal act, it follows that some benefits will be derived from incarcerating convicted criminals. Incapacitation has the greatest potential as a method of crime control if it is a few hardened criminals who commit most crimes. If they can be identified, convicted, and incarcerated for long periods, a significant reduction in crime would be realized. Most advocates of punitive reform have this perspective on the criminal population. Blame for the majority of crimes committed is placed on a relatively few compulsive, predatory individuals thought to commit hundreds if not thousands of crimes each year (Newburn 54). The final goal behind the punitive reform movement is the reestablishment of retribution. Of all penal goals, retribution is the most moralistic. It contains an element of revenge because the victim deserves to be repaid with pain for the harm suffered. Justice is achieved when the punishment given the offender is equivalent to the harm accruing from the criminal act.

             Consequently, a social balance or equity is reestablished and maintained within society. But the rules are to some extent thrown out the window when it comes to juvenile offenders.

             These individuals are categorized differently and there is a separate legal system for them.

             By the federal standards, any juvenile under the age of 18 who committed a crime is a juvenile delinquent. This is a decision we have taken as a society. We believe that there are serious and important differences between adults and juveniles, and that a one-size fits all approach is not desirable and will not make the situation better. Juveniles are more malleable and easy to influence. It is largely believed that the criminal actions of juveniles might be influenced by such external forces as parental neglect, inappropriate living conditions or relations inside the family.