Introduction
Diversion programs are put in place as an alternative to incarceration for juvenile offenders. The idea behind diversion programs is that sentencing a child to incarceration for their crimes is only harming the child and that programs designed to deflect bad behavior are a better option for young people that become mixed up in criminal activities. Diversion programs are intended to be used on young people that did not commit serious offenses. The design is supposed to focus on attempting to find punishments that are not going to be serious if the crime that was committed was not serious. This is because juveniles that are incarcerated for small criminal activity are thought to cause the criminal system to be too full of young people and the system believes that small crimes that do not cause a lot of harm would be handled well if it was not always in the criminal justice system. Research studies that focus on criminology or the study of criminals have shown that the juvenile justice system is not always the proper response for young offenders who did not commit a crime that caused significant harm to others. Theoretical researcher throughout history has concluded that there is some evidence which suggests that social terms are responsible for children that turn out to be thought of as bad apples. Society coins the terms that identify certain behaviors as acceptable and others as unacceptable which in the end can make a child that is otherwise a good kid turn out to be someone who is socially unacceptable and “deviant” (Advocacy, 2016). Diversion programs are set up to handle children in a more old fashioned way by punishing them, however; the punishment is not handled in courts which can be stigmatizing. Some studies indicate that diversion programs are successful and actually show an improvement in youth. Other studies, however present the opposite evidence making it difficult to determine if juvenile diversion programs are a success or a failure for young people that are involved with the system (Advocacy, 2016).
Types of Diversion Programs for Juveniles
While diversion programs are intended to find a better way of punishing young offenders they also have many other benefits to the traditional court process. In general programs that are designed to redirect young people from a life of crime can be a tremendous relief to the juvenile justice system as well as the young person. The programs help because they cost less than proceeding with a punishment in the court system does. It also makes more space so that juvenile facilities are not overcrowded with people that could be helped in a seemingly more effective manner than incarcerating them. Allowing some children who fit the parameters of diversion programs to be punished in this new way gives the court system a wider array of assets because there officers and courthouses are not overflowing with offenders who can be helped in a different way. Most diversion programs are directed toward young people that are considered to be a minimal hazard or persons who are just being charged for the first time in their lifetime. The types of diversion programs that are currently being used can be divided into two different categories. There is what is known as the warning program which is the program that is considered to be the easiest and cause minimal intrusion for the juvenile because they are just warned about their action and told not to be in trouble again. The other type of program which is a little bit more intrusive is known as the formal diversion which includes tasks that are generated for the young person as a punishment for their actions. Some of the actions include that the juvenile admit their part in the crime that they were caught doing and taking part in some type of program which is intended to intervene with the life that they are currently involved in which has gotten them into trouble in the first place. If the young person who is submitted into the program is able to finish the program and show success, then they will likely see no further consequences legally so long as they stay out of trouble in the future (Justice, 2016).
Success of Diversion Programs
Diversion programs have been in practice since the 1970’s and were used for diverting juveniles before placing them in the system as well as once they were released in hopes of deterring the young persons from a life of criminal activity. One type of diversion program that is often used is referred to as pre-charge diversion. This type of diversion program is in place to try to make a positive change for juveniles by warning them and seeing if this will be enough to stop a child from continuing to commit crimes without giving them a criminal record. The other type of diversion is put into place after a young person is released. One research study was conducted in an attempt to figure out if either of these programs are helpful and make a positive difference. The research has shown that both types of diversion programs have shown a positive effect on young people because both of the programs limit the amount of time that a child is around the juvenile justice system. The reason that researchers attribute to the success of diversion programs is that additional research exposes the fact that the longer children are incarcerated and processed in the justice system, the more likely they are to reoffend. When comparing children that are diverted and children that are put into juvenile detention centers, evidence supports diversion tactics because children that are diverted show smaller rates of recidivism. The diversion tactic that was used did not have an influence on its success. Both diversion tactics were more successful when it came to reducing the chances of a child reoffending than if no diversion tactic were used at all. The only thing that is left to figure out regarding diversion tactics is if they would be even more helpful if the children were exposed to more intense diversion or if in some cases a simple warning is enough. Researchers found evidence that did show some diversion tactics were even more successful if children were punished for the crime they committed by offering community service and other non-judicial punishments (Wilson & Hoge, 2012).
Why Juvenile Incarceration is Harmful
With the amount of juveniles that are incarcerated in the United States compared to other countries, it is likely that this type of punishment is not something that can be considered a solution to the problem. A solution would be something that would reduce the amount of juveniles that we see involved with criminal activity and in the United States as of 2010 there were at least 70,000 children incarcerated a day. The reasons that are being attributed to the idea of incarceration for juveniles being a bad idea are that it causes them to be more involved with a criminal lifestyle and it usually means the child will be a high school dropout. Someone looking in from the outside may suggest that it is not the incarceration that is a problem and rather the fact that children are committing more crimes than they used to. With this in mind researchers set out to determine if it was in fact the incarceration for criminal acts that was causing more children to become involved in a permanent life of crime. The research was able to point out those children who faced certain judges for the same crimes as other kids committed were more likely to be incarcerated. When comparing these kids with kids who committed similar crimes but were not given a juvenile sentence the researchers determined that the children who were incarcerated were more likely to reoffend than those who had a judge that was not as strict. The researchers did not stop at this point even though they were armed with evidence that suggested that juvenile detention was creating future criminals. The next step on the agenda was to find out why this type of punishment was something that would lead to recidivism. Researchers discovered that children who were incarcerated were less likely to finish schooling because of the stigma of having a record that would make it difficult for them to find gainful employment. They also discovered that putting children behind bars for crimes that were not very serious led to the young people being exposed to more hardened criminals (Plumer, 2016).
Psychological Effects of Detention
Juveniles that become involved in criminal activity need to be redirected so that they do not continue to commit crimes or start committing more serious criminal acts. The problem currently is that the solution for committing crimes is to punish children by throwing them in jail. This is something that psychologists believe will only cause a more serious issue because the time that the juvenile spends locked away is mentally detrimental to the child’s health. The children that are being held in jail for crimes are an overwhelming amount of first time offenders or children who committed what is considered a petty crime. As of 2006 the amount of juveniles who were incarcerated for these petty crimes outweighed the number of juveniles that was incarcerated for more serious offenses. One issue with the current system is that judges who sentence these young offenders are setting unreasonable bail, which means a low risk offender is likely to stay incarcerated rather than just face a court date for what they were involved in. Judges are allowed to make a child face incarceration unless bail is met but the rules state that bail should only be set if the crime was something that can be considered harmful or dangerous and if the child might not show up to court. However many judges are putting children in jail and setting a bail amount when the child is not someone that meets either of these factors. The mental impact of being incarcerated can cause serious health issues and even depression. Some research suggests that up to one third of the youth that is incarcerated suffer from some mental health issues. This suggests that the stigma of incarceration would only be further traumatizing to a child with mental issues plaguing them currently. The harmful effects of incarceration for young people are demonstrated as the depression that is a result of this punishment can lead to serious risk factors including the teenager thinking about and attempting to take their own life. Another issue with detention as a solution is that children who accept a deal are often let out on specific terms known as probation. When it is difficult to follow these rules the child ends up back in the system as a repeat offender (Tan, 2016).
The Labeling Theory
The negative effects that appear to be linked to being incarcerated have many researchers suggesting that one theory is solid and should not be ignored. The labeling theory is an idea that when a child is subject to the trauma of incarceration this creates a domino effect in the child’s life. The theory states that the trauma of incarceration causes an actual change in the way that a child thinks and leads to increased recidivism. The reason that researchers believe this is happening is that when a child is incarcerated the actual idea of the child being a troublemaker is something that affects them not only while they are incarcerated but also when they are released. Family and friends that the child had before he or she committed the deviant act are more likely than not to treat the child differently because of there now criminal status. As a direct result of this young people who are facing this obstacle will usually turn to other young people who are involved in criminal activities for the support and bonds that they no longer have in their home environment. Once the only choice is to hang around the children that are also involved in crime, the outcome is likely that a child will become more involved with the criminal enterprise and start committing more serious crimes than they were initially punished for. This theory applies to any young person under the age of 19 because psychologists say that at this time in the young person’s life they are still determining who they will become. If the young person is looked at by everyone around him or her like they are a criminal then it is most likely that they juvenile will start to identify with themselves as a criminal and commit more serious acts than they were first involved in. Studies have been able to prove that young people who are not labeled as a felon are less likely to reoffend than those who have a criminal record suggesting that this is something that does in fact lead to a person’s ability to reform when they are released(Ascani, 2016).
Psychologist finds Diversion is more successful than Incarceration
Now that researchers and psychologists have determined that incarceration leads juveniles toward a life of crime rather than away from it, a diversion has been created to ensure that children who are deviant are held accountable in a way that is less traumatic. There are currently at least a million children who become involved in the juvenile justice system every year and out of these 160,000 of the children are punished in ways that researchers believe support further deviance. Juvenile incarceration and group homes are among the problems with the system that lead young people to further acts of deviant behavior. In an attempt to change the course of the current system diversion programs have been put into place as an alternative to incarceration, especially in cases involving children who committed petty crimes. Not all diversion programs are helpful and this is something that researchers are learning to look out for. Some of the programs that are in place to divert bad behavior cause harm to the children just as incarceration have been proven to do. Now that researchers are aware of the problem they are creating new and improved diversion programs based on the diversion programs that have been helpful to juveniles. These new programs hold the child accountable for their crime while offering them help in all of the areas of life that can cause them to reoffend. This includes issues that are happening at home, school and elsewhere (DeAngeles, 2016). At one point the juvenile justice system seemed to be overflowing with what experts were saying was just bad children. The thought was that the groups of children were something that could not be helped because they were simply a new form of evil and public opinion was that they should be punished because there was no hope of changing the evil that was inside of them. Although, the popular opinion was that young people were just beginning to be more evil and something that would only get worse with time, researchers were able to put a stop to this with evidence that suggested the opposite. Researchers found that although there was a rise in the number of young people who were being arrested, many of these young people were not committing the evil acts that people thought they were. Most of the crimes were what would be considered petty or insignificant. Even with this information the justice system seemed to think they were facing a force of kids that were on drugs and did not have a mind to be good people in the future so punishments were swift, lengthy and harsh. The law did not stay so harsh because the system promised to find a way to help the children instead of hurt them and in the end, lawmakers and enforcers were faced with the reality that the children might be getting worse because of the severity of punishments for small nonviolent crimes (Lippy, Hollowell, Chapman & Carver, 2016).
Conclusion
Young people who committed petty crimes in the past were dealt with at home by their parents and punishments were handed out through the community. The issue did not mean that the child was bad it only meant that their behavior was. This meant that a child who was non-violent and perhaps broke a window would probably be in trouble but not to the severity that they are in trouble today. A police officer would likely bring the child home and the parents would make the child earn the money to pay for the neighbor’s replacement window. Now children who commit acts like these are likely to end up in jail and the sentence that they receive is something that will follow them the rest of their lives. Having something like this on your record means some employers might not hire you and a child can start to feel like a social outcast. This stigma is only hurting children and the answer to the problem is diversion programs which have proven to be more effective and costly than incarceration for petty crimes.
References
Advocacy, D. (2016). Diversion Programs: An Overview. Ncjrs.gov. Retrieved 8 March 2016, from https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9909-3/div.html
Ascani, N. (2016). Labeling Theory and the Effects of Sanctioning on Delinquent Peer Association: A New Approach to Sentencing Juveniles. unh.edu. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/student-journals/P12_Ascani.pdf
DeAngeles, T. (2016). Better options for troubled teens. http://www.apa.org. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/12/troubled-teens.aspx
Justice, N. (2016). Juvenile Diversion Programs. Crimesolutions.gov. Retrieved 8 March 2016, from https://www.crimesolutions.gov/PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=37
Lippy, M., Hollowell, J., Chapman, G., & Carver, D. (2016). 1 Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs (1st ed., pp. 1-9). georgetown: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. Retrieved from http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ImprovingEffectiveness_December2010.pdf
Plumer, B. (2016). Throwing children in prison turns out to be a really bad idea. Washington Post. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/15/throwing-children-in-prison-turns-out-to-be-a-really-bad-idea/
Tan, G. (2016). Massachusetts Bar Association : Juvenile detention: Harmful effects and strategies for change. Massbar.org. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://www.massbar.org/publications/section-review/2008/v10-n1/juvenile-detention-harmful-effects-and-strategies-for-change
Wilson, H., & Hoge, R. (2012). The Effect of Youth Diversion Programs on Recidivism: A Meta-Analytic Review. Criminal Justice And Behavior, 40(5), 497-518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854812451089
