CRITICAL REVIEW-SUMMARY AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Critical Review-Summary and Critical Analysis
Read also: "Academic Book Review: How to Complete It"
The main purpose of this paper is to provide a critical review and the analysis of the article written by Kelly Richards and Samantha Lyneham for the academic online journal The Conversation. The article Ten-hut! Boot Camps Cant Replace Youth Programs refers to the problem of the correctional boot camps and their effectiveness in reducing the number of the young offenders. The problem lies in the failure of this type of correctional institution to effectively cope with the existing problem and to be able to prevent the young offenders from returning to the criminal life. The loss of effectiveness of the correctional boot camps is still a topic for a discussion as there are supporters of the institution who claim that the boot camps are effective and that the inside policy of these institutions does affect the youth and helps them to return to the normal life as a full-fledged members of the society.
The main purpose of the article is to study the issue of the effectiveness of the correctional boot camps and to research the statistical evidence on the notion, taking into account the positive and negative views on the boot camps productivity. The main reason for the research of this problem is the recent election campaign in Queensland that put the attention of the society to the problem when the opposition leader promised to spend the serious sum of money - 2 million dollars on the research of this issue. The main idea for the creation and the functioning of this specific type of institutions was the growing number of the young offenders and the actual need to reduce the crime commitment among youth. The institutions have been formed using the example of the military faculties and, therefore, the inner policy that exists within the boot camps is extremely harsh and strict. The use of this example can be seen in the system of the inner organization of the institution as the young offenders there are divided into squads and the place they reside in is very similar to the military barrack. This is followed by rigorous military discipline that requires constant physical activity and the harsh discipline that is constantly controlled by the headers of the institution, the everyday routine makes the pressure even stronger and the constant obedience to the supervisors that are usually the representatives of the military forces that can be seen by the military titles they have. All this in complex produces a serious shock on the young offenders to create the right impression in order to make them obedient and to re-enter the society as the well-behaved, disciplined young members that will never ever return to the crime commitment.
In this frame, there are numerous discussions on the notion of whether this policy is effective and functional. The supporters of the idea of boot camps claim that the rigorous routine and harsh discipline of the institution does make the right impression on the young offenders and forms the right behavior and attitude to life. In contrast to that, the critics think that the institution is not effective and the existing inner regime is victimizing, and the harshness of the inside policy makes young offenders even more aggressive and sets them against the society. This criticism is also supported by the evidence. In particular, the criminologists say that the existing order of oppressing the offenders that is practiced by the authoritarian figures is a wrong image that creates the inappropriate feeling of anger and aggressive attitude that closes minds of young people and produces aggressive behavior and disobedience. In addition, numerous analyses have shown that the boot camps do not help to reduce the offending by young people without the support of the serious therapeutic program that aims at fulfilling all needs of the young personality. The evidence also shows zero difference of such institutions from the traditional detention of young offenders. This results in the conclusion that high financial spending on the program gives no real improvement of the situation. Taking all the mentioned above into account, the Campbell Collaboration center has concluded that these institutions are ineffective. The main purpose of ineffectiveness of these institutions is seen in the absence of concrete unified standardized program of how the boot camps have to be organized, what programs should be implemented and what methods should be used when working with the young offenders in order to change their attitude to society and prude the right impression on them concerning the issue of crime commitment.
The main ideas represented in the article were perfectly supported by the reliable and suitable evidence. The evidence was very broad as it has been taken from the different sources and the types of the research that have been represented in them supports the objectiveness of the final conclusion and the fairness of the arguments that were mentioned in the article. These were numerous statistical researches, the scientific conclusions of criminologists in general and the Campbell Collaboration in particular, the statement of Queensland Bill and Washington State Institute of Public Policy.
The evidence is different in the original sources, nature, types and the duration of the proving researches and analyses, the data represents the reliable conclusion that is supported by the series of different official institutions and honorable scientists. All in complex represents the reliable research that is convincing for the reader. The multiple details have been used in the most important parts of the article to give the reliable proofs for the arguments and statements represented in the text that also supports the level of the research and the reliability of the final conclusion.