a juvenile’s experience in the juvenile justice system?
Introduction
On any ordinary day, an estimated 81,000 children (263 out of every 100,000 youths ages 10 through the state’s upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction in the overall population) are contained in a juvenile justice residential placement (Children’s Defense Fund, 2012). To add, about 7,560 children are contained in adult jails and 2,778 in adult prisons (Children’s Defense Fund, 2012). This is a risky very condition.
As reported in the 2007 National Prison Rape Elimination Act Commission, juveniles are at the highest risk of being sexually abused while being in prison. Meanwhile, children placed in adult facilities are at an even higher risk of being sexually abused as compared to the children placed in juvenile facilities. In the context of these grave situations, the Commission proposed that juveniles be kept in distinct facilities apart from the adults (Children’s Defense Fund, 2012). This turned the tide as it was popular to transfer more children to the adult system during the 1980s and 1990s. Additional and recent research has proven that it is risky to move juveniles to the adult system (Children’s Defense Fund, 2012).
In the whole American justice system, the process of sending juveniles to a mix of large public "kiddie" prisons and smaller (but greatly numerous) privately owned ones, caters to over 1.6 million juvenile cases annually (Stier, 2009). Detentions have increased 44% from 1985 to 2002, excluding the number of juvenile offenders who overall bypass the juvenile system. Annually, some 200,000 youths are tried, sentenced or incarcerated as adults for first time minor offenses (Stier, 2009). According to the Campaign for Youth Justice, these juveniles are 34% more likely to get entangled with the law by committing new offenses (Stier, 2009).
In these instances, two strong forces divide the U.S. juvenile justice system. At one point, there is the emphasis on the role of the state in punishing violators of law. On the other hand, there is the state role as an authoritative force to cause reformation in the wayward youth who commit crimes. Charish, Davis, & Damphousse (2004) believes that the more general and interlinked goals of the juvenile justice must be focused on ensuring public safety. It has to protect society from any extra harm caused by juvenile offenders. They also believe that the state should be rehabilitated in order to change their criminal behavior and become productive citizens of the country.
Apart from this great challenge are the inherent problems associated with the racial/ethnic disparities, gender and other socio-economic elements which marred the juvenile justice system since time immemorial. To cite, studies on how people perceive criminals have found different common traits seen in the “conventional” criminal. These include the following - low physical attractiveness, low socio economic status (SES), being male, and African American (Stevenson, 2009). Specifically, the youth of color are one-third of American adolescents. They compose two-thirds of youth in juvenile facilities (Charish, Davis, & Damphousse, 2004).
This study explores these important factors involved in the plight of the juvenile delinquents. The recent researches on these matters and the various professional and legal recommendations on their special issues in the rehabilitation and correction of minors are also presented. Various approaches and how they jibe or contradict with one another will also be discussed in the paper.
Important Research, Findings and Recommendations Related to this Area of the JJS
There are varied results from the research on racial disparities in juvenile justice system. Engen, Steen, & Bridges (2002) posit that the reasons for minority overrepresentation in juvenile justice are not distinctive. Their research study systematically evaluates the relationship between principles of disparity in the juvenile justice, standard characteristics of studies and outcomes on the effects of race in the present empirical resources. Their findings showed that various theoretically derived systematic features of studies evidencing the impact of race especially in the earlier stages in the juvenile justice system. They also found out that the impact of race are not contingent on whether or not studies control for differences in the gravity of the offenses. This research offers support for a structural-processual framework on the role of race in juvenile justice. It suggests that grave punitive treatment is more directly related with being Black than with being "non-white.”
This finding is reinforced by the Center on Early Adolescence (2008) which also stressed that “placing troubled youth into ever-more punitive, restrictive, and long-term surroundings contradicts the total development process of the adolescent and steal their golden opportunities to learn new skills and imbibing more positive behaviors. The center also pointed out the incarceration and punitive methods of most states. It showed that this conventional approach interferes with effective diversionary, treatment, and reformation practices. Most states rarely apply evidence-based diversionary practices, promotion of well being, substance use treatment, and rehabilitation practices (Center on Early Adolescence, 2008). This is further strengthened by other research studies on high-risk youth which evidence that a system in which troubled youth are convened increases the tendency for them to imbibe negative behaviors from one another, hence, by putting them in prison, their deviant behaviors are reinforced (Center on Early Adolescence, 2008). Research also showed that threatening and punitive interactions, incarceration, and punishment enhance the aggressive behavior of problematic youth (Center on Early Adolescence, 2008).
Generally, it is believed that the lower the SES, the more likely the juvenile defendant is to be sentenced and obtain a lengthier sentence (Stevenson, 2009). At present, there is no research which has directly explored the impact of socio economic status on the perceptions of juvenile offenders as carried out using a true experimental design (Stevenson, 2009). With no empirical research on this issue, it is proposed that the cases of juveniles with lower SES who receives longer sentences and more convictions than those juvenile delinquents with higher SES counterparts must be further studied.
In a more comprehensive review of literature, Kutateladze, Lynn, & Laing (2012) examined the relationship of race and ethnicity to prosecutorial decision making. Out of the 34 cases being studied, it was clearly shown that the defendants’ and the victims’ race influence prosecutorial decisions. This was evident amidst a host of other legal and extra-legal factors. However, the impact of race and ethnicity on prosecutorial decision making is not very consistent. Studies also indicated that it is not always the Blacks or Latinos and Latinas who get more punitive treatment (Kutateladze, Lynn, & Laing, 2012). While various studies evidenced that minority defendants tend to be prosecuted, held in pre-trial detention, and experience other harsh treatment, researchers also showed proof of prosecutors treating non black defendants more harshly for specific offenses and at specific discretion points (Kutateladze, Lynn, & Laing, 2012).
Figure 1: Studies by Discretion Points
Recent studies showed that several statistical supports argue that youth of color are being entangled with the justice system more often than the Whites. Snyder (2003) found that the disparity for African American as recently as 2001 evidenced the following:
- The racial composition of the juvenile delinquents was 78% White, 17% African American, 4% Asian, and 1% American Indian.
- The arrest incidences for African Americans was greater than thrice those of the American Indians and White juveniles while it is about seven times as that of the Asian juveniles.
- The arrest rate for property crime for African American juveniles was 40% more than the rate for the American Indian youth, twice the rate for White juveniles, and more than thrice the rate for Asian juveniles.
Despite the decline in disparity over twenty years, prevalent racial disparity remains based on arrest rates. In each offense such as personal, property, drug, and public order offenses, criminal officers detained a greater percentage of African American juveniles as compared to the White juveniles. Studies also showed that juvenile courts tend to formally charged African American juveniles than the White juveniles even when they have the same offenses (Poe-Yamagata & Jones, 2000). Courts tend to sentence African American offenders to incarceration when managing adjudicated offenses as compared to the White delinquents. For similar offenses, African American delinquents receive longer sentences as compared to Whites and Latino delinquents. For the latter, the sentences often result to being confined in a mental facility for treatment while the African Americans are confined in the juvenile justice system (National Academy of Sciences, 2000).
According to Burke (2008), scant research exists on the disparity of the juvenile justice system on female and minority youth. He recommended that the interaction of gender and race be further studied. The juvenile justice system also needs to take into account the effect of gender, race, and culture if it intends to protect the interests of the female offenders. To cite, the factors which influence judicial transfer for girls should be further studied.
The MacArthur Network determined if teens differ from young adults by interviewing 1,400 detained individuals aged 11-24 (or the juveniles) or those in jails (if they were adults) and community members (Steinberg, 2008). These representative samples were taken from four different parts of the nation. Researchers evaluated various aspects of the representatives’ abilities associated to their competence to stand trial. It was evidenced that none of the findings were differentiated by gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or vicinity (Steinberg, 2008). Juvenile participants were found out to be incompetent to stand trial.
Steinberg summarized that while adolescents are aged 16, they reach adult levels of intellectual maturity, psycho-social maturity until they become young adults. They do not gather facts altogether and generate mature conclusions as adults. These important findings stress the need to consider if the adolescents’ lack of maturity as compared to adults warrants them being treated uniquely when they undergo criminal prosecution. Steinberg recommended that policymakers should examine if the same factors that make youth ineligible to vote or sit on a jury might also be taken in the same light as when they enter the justice system.
Academic or Political Debate on this aspect of the Juvenile Justice System
The recent study from the University of Virginia School of Law (2013) proposes that the juvenile justice system would promote healthy psychological development in adolescents if it stressed parental (or parental figure) involvement or those who are dedicated to the adolescent's development. This may also include a special peer group that values good behavior and academic success and engaged in activities which enhance to independent decision-making and critical thinking. This negates the system of putting juvenile delinquents in confinements where they will learn negative behaviors or deviant behaviors as they engage with other juvenile delinquents (University of Virginia, 2013). The study also recommends fairness to all juveniles, regardless of their race, background and gender as it helps promote respect for authority (University of Virginia, 2013). The research shows that adolescents have a greater sensitivity to perceived injustice and their bad experiences with criminal officers, lawyers and judges can have traumatic effects. Fair treatment is the ultimate measure by which delinquent children will be reformed and this will revert in the goodness of the whole society (University of Virginia, 2013).
Of recent years, the two most progressive policy reforms accounted are the drive for evidence-based practice and the effort to create systems of care to address the infrastructure of funding and linkages between services and programs (University of Virginia, 2013). The first policy hinges on effective treatments, services, and supports for children and families. These themes have been embraced in the juvenile justice systems, including other social institutions such as education, mental health, and child welfare services policy reforms, among others.
In another important policy reform study commissioned by the National Research Council at the request of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an affiliate of the U.S. Department of Justice, the experts argue that the juvenile justice system must be overhauled to integrate the recent body of knowledge about adolescent development and effective interventions as these would improve outcomes for juvenile offenders and the general society (University of Virginia, 2013).
A primary recommendation is the development of a juvenile-justice system that promotes accountability without criminalization. The institution believes that children should be held accountable. However, the standards of accountability for adults should not be applied to them since these measures only hamper their positive development and growth (University of Virginia, 2013). These experts are composed of director of the University of Virginia's Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, and top experts in neuroscience, criminology, mental health, economics, developmental psychology, etc. (University of Virginia, 2013).
The report points to the vital guiding principles which are strongly recommended to be integrated in the U.S. juvenile justice reform. These include the following:
- The use of restitution and community service as methods of holding offenders accountable to their victims and the whole community;
- Confinement of juveniles sparingly and only if needed to respond to and avoid serious reoffending;
- Avoidance of collateral consequences of being in the juvenile justice system, like the public release of juvenile justice records which could lessen the offender's chances for a successful transition to adult life;
- Totally engaging the juvenile delinquent's family, if possible, and drawing on neighborhood resources to promote pro-social development and law-abiding behavior.
The juvenile justice system strongly depends on jailing and punishing and this abducts youths from their families, peer groups and community. It also deprives them of the opportunity to properly adjust to the challenges of real life (University of Virginia, 2013). However, the system must recognize that adolescents are different from adults and children in three major ways. First, they lack the maturity to control themselves in emotionally charged situations. Second, they have a greater sensitivity to external influences like peer pressure. Third, they have fewer skills to deliver judgments and decisions which require an understanding of how actions lead to consequences which may affect their future (University of Virginia, 2013).
Most policy reform advocates and academics contend that juveniles must be given enough chances to turn their lives around after committing minor offenses. It is good to note that the Department of Justice observed positive changes leading to this prescription as moves to minimize the general number of juvenile offenders into the criminal facilities are being applied by various states and federal agencies. They see it as a way to best achieve reduction in recidivism (Stier, 2009). At the state level, Missouri leads the nation by phasing out its large juvenile-detention facilities in favor of smaller facilities, near the juveniles’ homes. The state also offers more specialized services such as mental-health and drug counseling and education facilities. In the process, Michigan claims to have lessened recidivism rates for juvenile offenders to 10%, a remarkable rate against the national rate of 40% to 50% (Stier, 2009).
Talking Points:
This topic is all about the effects of race, gender/ethnicity or socio economic status on a juvenile’s experience in the juvenile justice system. The framework by which this topic is based on the two general principles in the U.S. juvenile justice system: At one point, there is the emphasis on the role of the state in punishing violators of law. On the other hand, there is the state role as an authoritative force to cause reformation in the wayward youth who commit crimes.
The great challenges in the juvenile justice system are the inherent problems associated with the racial/ethnic disparities, gender and other socio-economic elements which marred the juvenile justice system since time immemorial. Criminals, including juvenile delinquents, are generally considered by the following - low physical attractiveness, low socio economic status (SES), being male, and African American (Stevenson, 2009).
There are varied results from the research on racial disparities in juvenile justice system. Engen, Steen, & Bridges (2002) found out that the impact of race are not contingent on whether or not studies control for differences in the gravity of the offenses. This finding is reinforced by the Center on Early Adolescence (2008) which also stressed that “placing troubled youth into ever-more punitive, restrictive, and long-term surroundings contradicts the total development process of the adolescent and steal their golden opportunities to learn new skills and imbibing more positive behaviors. Kutateladze, Lynn, & Laing (2012) showed that the defendants’ and the victims’ race influence prosecutorial decisions. This was evident amidst a host of other legal and extra-legal factors.
Recent studies showed that several statistical supports argue that youth of color are being entangled with the justice system more often than the Whites. Despite the decline in disparity over twenty years, prevalent racial disparity remains based on arrest rates. Generally, it is believed that the lower the SES, the more likely the juvenile defendant is to be sentenced and obtain a lengthier sentence (Stevenson, 2009). Burke (2008) also pointed out that there is scant research on the disparity of the juvenile justice system on female and minority youth.
However, the impact of race and ethnicity on prosecutorial decision making is not very consistent. Studies also indicated that it is not always the Blacks or Latinos and Latinas who get more punitive treatment (Kutateladze, Lynn, & Laing, 2012). While various studies evidenced that minority defendants tend to be prosecuted, held in pre-trial detention, and experience other harsh treatment, researchers also showed proof of prosecutors treating non black defendants more harshly for specific offenses and at specific discretion points (Kutateladze, Lynn, & Laing, 2012).
A breakthrough research is embodied in Steinberg’s summary finding that while adolescents are aged 16, they reach adult levels of intellectual maturity, psycho-social maturity until they become young adults. They do not gather facts altogether and generate mature conclusions as adults. These important findings stress the need to consider if the adolescents’ lack of maturity as compared to adults warrants them being treated uniquely when they undergo criminal prosecution.
Recommendations include further studying the cases of juveniles with lower SES who receives longer sentences and more convictions than those juvenile delinquents with higher SES counterparts. Another is that the interaction of gender and race be further studied. The juvenile justice system also needs to take into account the effect of gender, race, and culture if it intends to protect the interests of the female offenders. Experts also argue that the juvenile justice system must be overhauled to integrate the recent body of knowledge about adolescent development and effective interventions as these would improve outcomes for juvenile offenders and the general society (University of Virginia, 2013). A primary recommendation is the development of a juvenile-justice system that promotes accountability without criminalization. It is also hoped that a juvenile justice system which considers youths responsible for their actions, while still considering the ways in which their immaturity may substantiate (but not excuse) their accountability must be developed.
References:
Burke, A. (2008). Gender and Justice: An Examination of Policy and Practice Regarding Judicial Waiver. Retrieved on October 8, 2013 from, http://dspace.iup.edu/bitstream/handle/2069/119/Alison%20Burke%20Corrected.pdf?sequence=1.
Center on Early Adolescence. (2008). Building a More Effective Juvenile Justice System. Retrieved on October 8, 2013 from, https://www.earlyadolescence.org/juvenile_justice_system.
Charish, C., Davis, S., & Damphousse, K. (2004). Race/Ethnicity and Gender Effects on Juvenile Justice System Processing. Retrieved on October 8, 2013 from, http://www.oja.state.ok.us/final%20oja%20report%207-8-04.pdf.
Children’s Defense Fund. (2012). Juvenile Justice. Retrieved on October 8, 2013 from, http://www.childrensdefense.org/policy-priorities/juvenile-justice/.
Engen, R. L., Steen, S., & Bridges, G. S. (2002). Racial disparities in the punishment of youth: A theoretical and empirical assessment of the literature. Social Problems, 49(2), 194-220.
Kutateladze, B., Lynn, V., & Liang, E. (2012). Do Race and Ethnicity Matter in a Prosecution? VERA Institute of Justice. Retrieved on October 8, 2013 from, http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/vera/race-and-ethnicity-in-prosecution-first-edition.pdf.
National Academy of Science. (2000). Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Retrieved on October 8, 2013 from, http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309068428.htm.
Poe-Yamagata, E. & Jones, M. (April, 2000). And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Minority Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. Washington D.C.: Building Blocks for Youth.
Snyder, H. (December, 2003). Juvenile Arrests 2001. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Justice Programs, Office of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Stevenson, M. (2009). Socioeconomic Status Affects Perceptions of Juvenile Defendants Tried in Adult Criminal Court. The University of Evansville. Retrieved on October 8, 2013 from, http://faculty.evansville.edu/jl3/psych490/BEST%20SENIOR%20THESES/10%20Sorenson.pdf.
Stier, Ken. (2009). Getting the Juvenile-Justice System to Grow Up. TIME U.S. Edition. Retrieved on October 8, 2013 from, http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887182,00.html.
