Recriminalizing Crime One concept that I saw pop up while reading was the idea of ​​best interests and parens patriae. In the reading it was discussed how, when making decisions regarding the punishment of minors, it was often thought that biological parents were not fit to make a decision or educate their child seeking reform. Mennel stated: “Cannot natural parents, when inadequate for the educational task, or unworthy of it, be replaced by the parens patriae, or common guardian of the community?” (Singer 32). As defined by the dictionary, parens patriae is “the government, or any other authority, considered the legal protector of citizens incapable of protecting themselves.” When parents are unable to reform their children and prevent them from committing crimes, the government deems itself competent to decide what is in the best interests of the child. In the case of Mary Ann Crouse, her father was denied the right to release her from being placed in the Home of Refuge. This demonstrates how the government was often seen deciding what was in a child's best interests. There were also many complaints about juvenile courts and their “denial of basic constitutional rights to minors [by] subjecting them to treatment that was not necessarily in their best interests” (39). There was a common theme that the government did not have the best interests of minors in mind or claimed to know better than the parents of minors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The concepts of best interests and parens patriae were two interesting ideas that seem to go hand in hand. The government, often seen as the community's common guardian, was thought to be able to serve and reprimand juvenile offenders when the offenders' parents were unable to bring about reforms for their children. Furthermore, the government often failed to recognize a child's best interest, instead recognizing its own best interest in being able to concisely lock up offenders without a second thought. Reformatories like the House of Refuge were replicated “not because of a proven ability to correct delinquents, but because they became organizationally convenient institutions for dealing with delinquents” (Singer 32). This shows how the government had its own best interests in mind when it created more and more reformers. There was no evidence that these reformers did anything to help juveniles, but they were helpful and convenient in getting delinquents off the streets and into places of punishment. This is not surprising considering the government's propensity to arrest criminals instead of treating them. When it comes to recriminalizing crime, the concepts of best interest and parens patriae are very relevant. Who decides what is in a child's best interests? Are they parents or guardians? Or is it the government? In the case of juvenile delinquents, it is very often believed that it is the parens patriae who have the task of finding what is best for each minor. Parents often have no say in what happens to their children once they become juvenile delinquents. In most cases this is left to the law. There is also the question of whether or not recriminalizing delinquency is in the best interests of each juvenile delinquent. This is a difficult question and best thought of on a case-by-case basis. Does the offender benefit from being placed in the criminal justice system or is it just a convenient way for the government to deal with offenders? There are many questions that come to mind after thinking about whether recriminalizing crime is the decision.