Recent studies have shown that there has been a growth in juvenile delinquency since the 1970s. It is believed that by the year 2010, juvenile crime will double. Congress is moving to implement harsher penalties for underage criminals, but more effective law enforcement and stiffer penalties cannot effectively combat crime.
             Not everyone agrees with the idea that law enforcement and stiffer penalties cannot effectively combat crime. Some people say that tough law enforcement policies have reduced crime. John J. DiIulio Jr. who is a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University argues, "that tough law enforcement policies have reduced crime rates in many American cities...such efforts are a necessary response to the threat posed by a growing population of teenage males" (157). Other individuals plead that more effective law enforcement will contribute to juveniles being under stricter control and prevent crime. With harsher penalties, a juvenile delinquent would take a longer time contemplating if he or she should commit a crime or not. Finally, others say that a higher presence of policemen on the streets would cause more arrests and at the same time keep fewer criminals on the streets. Criminals would not have many opportunities to commit crimes if more policemen were on the field taking care of those who do commit crime.
             On the other hand, tough law enforcement policies are not the correct way to reduce juvenile crimes. Having a strong family foundation and having more prevention programs can deter most of the problems associated with juvenile crime. Although some people say that tough law enforcement policies have reduced crime, it is evident that this law enforcement fails to address more serious problems. One of the problems that it fails to address is the problem of poverty. Poverty is one of the causes of juvenile crime. A juvenile who is poor has a higher tendency to commit a crime, due to th...