CRM J 2
What Americans Think
Question:
“What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”
Chapter 17: Juvenile Justice: 17-1 Youth Crime in the United States Book Title: The American System of Criminal Justice © 2019 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning
17-1 Youth Crime in the United States In Chicago, a 14-year-old boy is arrested for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl and streaming it online; he has also been charged with manufacturing and disseminating child pornography. In New Hampshire, a teenager is charged with the murder of a man, and attempted murder of a woman. In Texas, a juvenile is arrested for setting 11 vehicles on fire; he was charged with arson, but will likely be the target of civil suits by victims who will claim damages from his destruction of their cars and the property inside. Such dramatic criminal acts make headlines. Are these only isolated incidents, or is the United States facing a major increase in youth crime?
The juvenile crime incidents just described are unusual. In a nation with 74 million people younger than age 18, about 709,333 arrests of juveniles occur each year, only 39,000 of which (about 5.5 percent) are for violent crimes (FBI, 2016a: Table 41). After rising from 1988 through 1994, the number of index crimes (those considered “serious” by the FBI) committed by juveniles dropped to an all-time low in 2014 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Probation [OJJDP], 2015). Public opinion reflects the reality of declining crime rates in the United States, with Americans less concerned about crime than in many past years. As shown in “What Americans Think,” the public is most concerned about issues related to the economy and government.
Youth crimes range from UCR Index Crimes (such as murder, rape, robbery, assault) to less serious crimes like liquor-law violations, gambling, and disorderly conduct (see Figure 17.1). Consistent with the trends just discussed, and although about 1.5 million delinquency cases were handled in the juvenile court in 2009, the decline in caseloads since the mid-1990s is the largest since 1960. Most juvenile crimes are committed by young men, but young women make up an increasing percentage of juveniles appearing in court. In the 1980s, young men were arrested 8 times more than young women for violent crimes; but by 2012 the arrest rate for young men was only 4 times more than for young women
Source: Gallup, “Most Important Problem,” In Depth: Topics A to Z, March 2017 ( www.gallup.com).
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to many small percentages.
(Puzzanchera, 2014). This trend has occurred primarily because the number of arrests for boys has decreased at a faster rate than the number of arrests for girls (Puzzanchera, 2014).
Figure 17.1
Percentage of Arrests of People Younger than 18 Years Old (Rounded)
Juveniles are arrested for a wide range of offenses. For some offenses such as arson, vandalism, disorderly conduct, and burglary, juveniles account for a larger percentage of arrests than the percentage of juveniles in the general population would suggest.
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2016), Table 41.
Criminologists have tried to explain the “epidemic” of violent youth crime that erupted in the mid-1980s, which reached its peak in 1993. Among the explanations, two are heard frequently. One explanation uses a “cohort” approach, arguing that during the 1980s the increase in violence was due to an increase in the prevalence of exceptionally violent individuals—so-called “super predators.” Critics of this approach say that the birth cohort that peaked during the early 1990s was not at all exceptional with respect to involvement in
violence in their younger years (P. J. Cook and Laub, 2002: 2). In addition, there was little evidence that “super predators” even existed, and much of the attention given to this explanation was blamed on media hype (Haberman, 2014).
A second explanation focuses on environmental factors during the epidemic period that influenced the rise in violent youth crime. Scholars holding this position point to the impact of the drug trade, especially crack cocaine and the related increase in the number of youths carrying and using guns. Alfred Blumstein (2002) suggests that as more juveniles, particularly inner-city minority males, were recruited into the drug trade, they armed themselves with guns and used those firearms in battles over market turf.
Other factors may have also played a role—violent crime by youth was most prevalent in neighborhoods with deteriorating social and economic conditions. These changes led to increases in family instability and reductions in shared social expectations about behavior, with particular impacts in many minority neighborhoods (K. J. Strom and MacDonald, 2007). Violent juvenile delinquency is also affected by exposure to violence in their communities, but can be mitigated by fostering a sense of optimism and high expectations in youth at risk for delinquency—feelings of hopelessness and low expectations can be one of the things that leads to delinquency in these neighborhoods (P. Chen, Voisin, and Jacobson, 2016).
Certainly, drug use by juveniles has had a significant impact on the juvenile justice system. From 1985 to 1997, the number of drug offense cases processed by juvenile courts increased from approximately 77,000 cases per year to almost 200,000 cases per year— where rates stayed constant until decreasing substantially between 2001 and 2013 which saw 141,000 cases referred (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2015). In addition, drug use cases skyrocketed for white male juveniles between 1984 and 2004, increasing 341 percent (compared to a 32 percent increase for black juveniles). Increased numbers of drug offenders have resulted in a higher number of caseloads being handled by juvenile courts since 1985 (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015). Read Inside Today’s Controversies to consider how a resurgence of problems with opioid abuse have challenged both criminal justice and public health officials.
Gangs can draw youths into serious criminal activities. What kinds of programs might lure young people away from the attractions of the image of toughness, solidarity, respect, and power that youths may believe to be offered by gang membership?
AP Images/Bob Andres
Youth gangs are another factor influencing violent youth crime. Gangs such as the Black P. Stone Nation, CRIPS (Common Revolution in Progress), and Bloods first came to police attention in the 1970s. The National Youth Gang Survey estimates that in 2012 there were more than 30,000 gangs with 850,000 members in the United States, and that highly populated areas accounted for the largest number of gang-related homicides (National Gang Center, 2014). Gangs are a primary source of fear and peril in many neighborhoods. Especially where gang members are armed, the presence of the gang can destabilize neighborhood life. Youth gangs are not restricted to large cities, and juveniles in urban, suburban, and rural areas have similar reasons for joining gangs (Watkins and Taylor, 2016). Fear of being a crime victim can lead youths to seek protection through gang membership without realizing that gang members are actually more likely than other juveniles to be targets of violence and property crimes (Melde, Esbensen, and Taylor, 2009). Because the 1990s heightened awareness about youth crime and violence, there have been continuing efforts to develop programs to address those problems specifically.
Although juvenile delinquency, neglect, and dependency have been concerns since the nation’s early decades, a separate system to deal with these problems did not evolve until the early twentieth century. The contemporary juvenile justice system has gone through a major shift of emphasis as well. The remainder of the chapter explores the history of juvenile justice, the process it follows today, and some of the problems associated with it.
Checkpoint
1. What might explain the “epidemic” of violent crime committed by juveniles that peaked in the 1990s?
Stop and Analyze: There appears to be a strong link between drug use and delinquency rates. What might you recommend to lawmakers to help reduce juvenile drug use so that delinquency rates can be decreased?
Inside Today’s Controversies
Teens and the Opioid Crisis
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there was an increase of more than 200 percent in overdose deaths from opioid abuse from 2002 to 2015. Over the same time period, there was a 600 percent increase in overdose deaths from heroin, a single specific illegal opioid drug. These frightening statistics have generated increased attention that news media, justice system officials, public health workers, parents, and politicians are giving to this problem. As this problem has tragically impacted middle-class families in affluent suburbs and small towns, politicians have reacted in ways that never happened when public perceptions of drug problems assumed that these issues primarily affected poor people in inner- cities. When the crack cocaine crisis of the 1990s made headlines, politicians responded by increasing prison sentences for possession and sale of the drug, with significant impacts on African American young people in central cities. By contrast, the opioid crisis has led to calls for increased funding for treatment programs as well as “amnesty” policies in which police issue statements promising not to make arrests in order to encourage people to call for help when there is a drug overdose. The contrasting treatments of the two drug problems arguably reflect the political power of the affected groups. Government practices and policies are moving in the direction of treating opioid users as “victims,” in contrast to the prior treatment of crack cocaine addicts as dangerous “criminals.”
One study of opioid abuse by teens found that many drug users’ problems began with a legitimate prescription from a doctor for a painkiller to help treat a sports injury or other medical problem. For a percentage of teens with such prescriptions, as well as for adults, they looked for ways to obtain opioid painkillers when their medical treatment was completed. Many teens who develop a drug addiction problem with opioids switch from prescription drugs to heroin because the illegal drug is cheaper and easier to obtain. As indicated by the statistics about overdose deaths, these drugs are the source of significant, tragic problems.
The opioid crisis presents both criminal justice and public health issues. For example, in March 2017, a 15-year-old in Utah was sentenced to probation, community service, a fine, and random drug testing after he sold a synthetic opioid to two 13-year-old junior high school students who both died of overdoses after using the drug. Police officials bear a responsibility for enforcing drug laws and trying to prevent dangerous drugs from being sold. On the other hand, they are also first responders called to the scene of drug overdoses and many now are knowledgeable about anti-overdose drugs, such as Naloxone, which are administered with the hope of preventing overdose deaths.
A component of the public health problem for teens concerns the relative lack of treatment as compared to adult opioid abusers. One study found 26 percent of adult heroin addicts received prescription medications from doctors to help them fight their addictions, but only 2 percent of juvenile heroin addicts received such medications. Some of the differences in treatment related to health insurance coverages as applied to juveniles and the adult-oriented focus of many treatment centers.
Critical Thinking and Analysis
Consider both the criminal justice and public health aspects of opioid abuse by teens. Should the government focus on one of these components more than the other? Knowing there are limited resources available for any government initiatives, choices must always be made about priorities. Write a memo explaining the four most important policies and practices that the government should emphasize in addressing this problem with limited funds.
Sources: H. Benson, “For Teenagers, Adult Sized Opioid Treatment Doesn’t Fit,” National Public Radio,
January 15, 2016 ( www.npr.org); R. Boyd, “Park City Teen Sentenced for His Role in Classmates’ Fatal
Overdoses on ‘Pink’,” Fox-13 News, March 31, 2017 ( http://foxnow.com); “Few Teens Receive Effective
Treatment for Opioid Addiction,” Fox News, March 13, 2017 ( www.foxnews.com); B. Gholipour, “Teen
Opioid Addiction Often Begins at the Doctor’s Office,” CBS News, March 20, 2017 ( www.cbsnews.com);
National Institute on Drug Abuse, Overdose Death Rates, January 2017 ( www.drugabuse.gov).
Check-It
1. Most juvenile crime is committed by young males, and females constitute a declining percentage of juveniles appearing in court.
a. True
b. False
17-2 The Development of Juvenile Justice The system and philosophy of juvenile justice that began in the United States during the social reform period of the late nineteenth century was based on the idea that the state should act as a parent in advancing the interest of the child. This view remained unchallenged until the 1960s, when the Supreme Court ushered in the juvenile rights period. With the rise in juvenile crime in the 1980s, the juvenile justice system shifted again, to one focusing on the problem of controlling youth crime. Today, people are again reexamining the philosophy and processes of the juvenile justice system.
The idea that children should be treated differently from adults originated in the common law and in the chancery courts of England. The common law had long prescribed that children younger than seven years of age were incapable of felonious intent and were therefore not criminally responsible. Children aged 7 to 14 could be held accountable only if it could be shown that they understood the consequences of their actions.
The English chancery courts, established during the Middle Ages, heard only civil cases, mainly those concerning property. However, under the doctrine of parens patriae (The state as parent; the state as guardian and protector of all citizens (such as juveniles) who cannot protect themselves.) , which held the king to be the father of the realm, the chancery courts exercised protective jurisdiction over all children, particularly those involved in questions of dependency, neglect, and property. At this time the criminal courts, not a separate juvenile court, dealt with juvenile offenders. In legitimizing the actions of the state on behalf of the child, however, the concept of parens patriae laid the groundwork for the development of juvenile justice.
Table 17.1 outlines the shifts in how the United States has dealt with the problems of youth. These shifts fall into six periods of American juvenile justice history. Each was characterized by changes in juvenile justice that reflected the social, intellectual, and political currents of the time. During the past 200 years, population shifts from rural to urban areas, immigration, developments in the social sciences, political reform movements, and the continuing problem of youth crime have all influenced how Americans have treated juveniles.
Table 17.1
Juvenile Justice Developments in the United States
Period Major Developments Causes And Influences Juvenile Justice System
Period Major Developments Causes And Influences Juvenile Justice System
Puritan 1646– 1824
Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law (1646)
A. Puritan view of child as evil
B. Economically marginal agrarian society
Law provides:
A. Symbolic standard of maturity
B. Support for family as economic unit
Refuge 1824– 1899
Institutionalization of deviants; House of Refuge in New York established (1825) for delinquent and dependent children
A. Enlightenment
B. Immigration and industrialization
Child seen as helpless, in need of state intervention
Juvenile Court 1899– 1960
Establishment of separate legal system for juveniles; Illinois Juvenile Court Act (1899)
A. Reformism and rehabilitative ideology
B. Increased immigration, urbanization,
Juvenile court institutionalized legal responsibility of child
Juvenile Rights 1960– 1980
Increased “legalization” of juvenile law; Gault decision (1967); Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (1974) calls for deinstitutionalization of status offenders
A. Criticism of juvenile justice system on humane grounds
B. Civil rights movement by minority groups
Movement to define and protect rights as well as to provide services to children
Period Major Developments Causes And Influences Juvenile Justice System
Crime Control 1980–2005
Concern for victims, punishment for serious offenders, transfer to adult court of serious offenders, protection of children from physical and sexual abuse
A. More- conservative public attitudes and policies
B. Focus on serious crimes by repeat offenders
System more formal, restrictive, punitive; increased percentage of police referrals to court; incarcerated youths stay longer periods
“Kids Are Different” 2005–present
Elimination of death penalty for juveniles, focus on rehabilitation, states increasing age of transfer to adult court
A. Roper v. Simmons (2005)
B. Scientific evidence on youth’s biological, emotional, and psychological development
Recognition that juveniles are less culpable than adults
Sources: Portions adapted from Barry Krisberg, Ira M. Schwartz, Paul Litsky, and James Austin, “The
Watershed of Juvenile Justice Reform,” Crime and Delinquency 32 (January 1985): 5–38; U.S.
Department of Justice, A Preliminary National Assessment of the Status Offender and the Juvenile
Justice System (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), 29.
17-2a The Puritan Period (1646–1824)
English legal rules and procedures were maintained in the American colonies and continued into the early years of American independence in the nineteenth century. The earliest attempt by a colony to deal with problem children was the passage of the Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law in 1646. With this law, the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony imposed the view that the child was evil, and they emphasized the need for the family to discipline and raise youths. Those who would not obey their parents were dealt with by the law.
Checkpoint
2. Until what age were children exempt from criminal responsibility under common law?
3. What was the jurisdiction of the English chancery court?
4. What is meant by the doctrine of parens patriae?
Stop and Analyze: In what sense can a court or the government act as a “parent” to a child? Parents provide not only discipline, but also love and care to their children. Can a court (or judge) really take on this role?
17-2b The Refuge Period (1824–1899)
As the population of American cities began to grow during the early 1800s, the problem of youth crime and neglect became a concern for reformers. Just as the Quakers of Philadelphia had been instrumental during the same period in reforming correctional practices, other groups supported changes toward the education and protection of youths. These reformers focused their efforts primarily on the urban immigrant poor, seeking to have parents declared “unfit” if their children roamed the streets and were apparently “out of control.” Not all such children were engaged in criminal acts, but the reformers believed that children would end up in prison if their parents did not discipline them and train them to abide by the rules of society. The state would use its power to prevent delinquency. The solution was to create “houses of refuge” where these children could learn good work and study habits, live in a disciplined and healthy environment, and develop “character.”
The first of these institutions was the New York House of Refuge, which opened in 1825. This half-prison, half-school housed destitute and orphaned children as well as those convicted of crime (Friedman, 1993: 164). Similar facilities followed in Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Children were placed in these homes by court order, usually because of neglect or vagrancy. They often stayed until they were old enough to be legally regarded as adults. The houses were run according to a strict program of work, study, and discipline.
Some states created “reform schools” to provide the discipline and education needed by wayward youth in a “homelike” atmosphere, usually in rural areas. The first, the Lyman School for Boys, opened in Westborough, Massachusetts, in 1848. A similar Massachusetts reform school for girls opened in 1855 for “the instruction … and reformation, of exposed, helpless, evil disposed and vicious girls” (Friedman, 1993: 164). Institutional programs began in New York in 1849, Ohio in 1850, and Maine, Rhode Island, and Michigan in 1906.
During the nineteenth century, reformers were alarmed by the living conditions of inner-city youths. Reformers in Chicago ushered in the juvenile justice system. Would it have been better to permit youthful offenders to receive the same punishments as adult offenders? Would that approach actually better fulfill the nation’s goal of “equal justice under law”?
Topham/The Image Works
Despite these reforms, children could still be arrested, detained, tried, and imprisoned. Even in states that had institutions for juveniles, the criminal justice process for children was the same as that for adults.
17-2c The Juvenile Court Period (1899–1960)
With most states providing services to neglected youth by the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of juvenile criminality became the focus of attention. Progressive reformers pushed for the state to provide individualized care and treatment to deviants of all kinds— adult criminals, the mentally ill, juvenile delinquents. They urged adoption of probation, treatment, indeterminate sentences, and parole for adult offenders and succeeded in establishing similar programs for juveniles.
Referred to as the “child savers,” these upper-middle-class reformers sought to use the power of the state to “save” children from a life of crime (Platt, 1977). They shared a concern about the role of environmental factors on behavior and a belief that benevolent state action could solve social problems. They also believed the claim of the new social scientists that they could treat the problems underlying deviance.
Reformers wanted a separate juvenile court system that could address the problems of individual youths by using flexible procedures that, as one reformer said, “banish entirely all thought of crime and punishment” (Rothman, 1980: 213). They put their idea into action with the creation of the juvenile court.
Passage of the Juvenile Court Act by Illinois in 1899 established the first comprehensive system of juvenile justice. The act placed under one jurisdiction cases of dependency, neglect, and delinquency (“incorrigibles and children threatened by immoral associations as well as criminal lawbreakers”) for children younger than 16. The act had four major elements:
1. A separate court for delinquent, dependent, and neglected children.
2. Special legal procedures that were less adversarial than those in the adult system.
3. Keeping child offenders separate from adult offenders in all portions of the justice system.
4. Programs of probation to assist the courts in deciding what the best interest of the state and the child entails.
Activists such as Jane Addams, Lucy Flower, and Julia Lathrop, of the settlement house movement; Henry Thurston, a social work educator; and the National Congress of Mothers successfully promoted the juvenile court concept. By 1904, ten states had implemented procedures similar to those of Illinois. By 1917, all but three states provided for a juvenile court.
The philosophy of the juvenile court derived from the idea that the state should deal with a child who broke the law much as a wise parent would deal with a wayward child. The doctrine of parens patriae again helped legitimize the system. Procedures would be informal and private, records would be confidential, children would be detained apart from adults, and probation and social workers would be appointed. Even the vocabulary and physical setting of the juvenile system were changed to emphasize diagnosis and treatment instead of findings of guilt. The term criminal behavior was replaced by delinquent behavior when referring to the acts of children. The terminology reflected the underlying belief that these children could be “cured” and returned to society as law-abiding citizens.
Because procedures were not to be adversarial, lawyers were unnecessary. The main professionals attached to the system were psychologists and social workers, who could determine the juvenile’s underlying behavioral problem. These reforms, however, took place in a system in which children lacked the due process rights held by adults.
Although the creation of the juvenile court was a positive development for juveniles in general, some contemporary researchers criticize the tendency for these reformers to hold different standards for girls and boys. For example, girls found guilty of the status offense of “promiscuity” were frequently incarcerated until adulthood (age 18) for their own protection. Boys were rarely charged with this type of offense.
17-2d The Juvenile Rights Period (1960–1980)
Until the early 1960s, few questioned the sweeping powers of juvenile justice officials. When the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the rights of adult defendants, however, lawyers and scholars began to criticize the extensive discretion given to juvenile justice officials. In a series of decisions (Figure 17.2), the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the rights of juveniles.
Figure 17.2
Major Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Rights of Juveniles
Since the mid-1960s, the Supreme Court has gradually expanded the rights of juveniles but has continued to recognize that the logic of the separate system for juvenile offenders justifies differences from some adult rights.
Sources: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999 National Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999), 90–91; Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct.
2011 (2010); Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
Note: For discussion of death penalty cases, see Chapter 12.
In the first of these cases, Kent v. United States (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles had the right to counsel at a hearing at which a juvenile judge may waive jurisdiction and pass the case to the adult court.
In re Gault (1967) (Juveniles have the right to counsel, to confront and examine accusers, and to have adequate notice of charges when confinement is a possible punishment.) extended due process rights to juveniles. Fifteen-year-old Gerald Gault had been sentenced to six years in a state training school for making a prank phone call. Had he been an adult, the maximum punishment for making such a call would have been a fine of $5 to $50 or imprisonment for two months at most. Gault was convicted and sentenced in an informal proceeding without being represented by counsel. The justices held that a child in a delinquency hearing must be given certain procedural rights, including notice of the charges, right to counsel, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination. Writing for the majority, Justice Abe Fortas emphasized that due process rights and procedures have a place in juvenile justice: “Under our Constitution the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.”
The precedent-setting Gault decision was followed by a series of cases further defining the rights of juveniles. In the case of In re Winship (1970) (The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings.) , the Court held that proof must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not on “a preponderance of the evidence” before a juvenile may be classified as a delinquent for committing an act that would be a crime if it had been committed by an adult. The Court was not willing to give juveniles every due process right, however: It held in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) (Juveniles do not have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.) that “trial by jury in the juvenile court’s adjudicative stage is not a constitutional requirement.” But in Breed v. Jones (1975) (Juveniles cannot be found delinquent in juvenile court and then transferred to adult court without a hearing on the transfer; to do so violates the protection against double jeopardy.) , the Court extended the protection against double jeopardy to juveniles by requiring that, before a case is adjudicated in juvenile court, a hearing must be held to determine if it should be transferred to the adult court.
Another area of change concerned status offense (Any act committed by a juvenile that is considered unacceptable for a child, such as truancy or running away from home, but that would not be a crime if it were committed by an adult.) —acts that are not illegal if committed by an adult; these include skipping school, running away from home, or living a “wayward, idle or dissolute life” (Feld, 1993: 203). In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which included provisions for taking status offenders out of correctional institutions. Since then, people have worked on diverting such children out of the system, reducing the possibility of incarceration, and rewriting status offense laws.
As juvenile crime rates continued to rise during the 1970s, the public began calling for tougher approaches in dealing with delinquents. In the 1980s, at the same time that stricter sanctions were imposed on adult offenders, juvenile justice policies shifted to crime control.
17-2e The Crime Control Period (1980–2005)
The public demands to “crack down on crime” began in 1980. Legislators responded in part by changing the juvenile system. Greater attention began to be focused on repeat offenders, with policy makers calling for harsher punishment for juveniles who commit crimes.
In Schall v. Martin (1984) (Juveniles can be held in preventive detention if there is concern that they may commit additional crimes while awaiting court action.) , the Supreme Court significantly departed from the trend toward increased juvenile rights. The Court confirmed that the general notion of parens patriae was a primary basis for the juvenile court, equal in importance to the Court’s desire to protect the community from crime. Thus, juveniles may be held in preventive detention before trial if they are deemed a “risk” to the community.
The Schall decision reflects the ambivalence permeating the juvenile justice system. On one side are the liberal reformers, who call for increased procedural and substantive legal protections for juveniles accused of crime. On the other side are conservatives devoted to crime control policies and alarmed by the rise in juvenile crime.
Crime control policies brought many more juveniles to be tried in adult courts. As noted by Alex Kotlowitz, “the crackdown on children has gone well beyond those accused of violent crimes” (1994: 40). Data from the National Juvenile Court Data Archive show that delinquency cases waived to the adult criminal courts increased dramatically from 1987 to 1994, but have since decreased 61 percent since 1994, mostly as a result of lower rates of delinquency. In addition, analysis has indicated that black youth are more likely to be waived than white youth for similar offenses, and boys are more likely to be waived to adult court than girls—trends that have persisted since the “crime control” period (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2014).
17-2f The “Kids Are Different” Period (2005–Present)
Some observers believe that a new period in juvenile justice may be developing. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the case discussed in Chapter 12, the United States Supreme Court ruled that executions were unconstitutional for crimes committed by those younger than 18 years of age. Similarly, in Graham v. Florida (2010) (Juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole (LWOP) for non-homicide crimes.) , the Court decided that sentences of life imprisonment without possibility of parole (LWOP) for juvenile offenders were unconstitutional in non-homicide cases. Two years later, in Miller v. Alabama (2012) (Juvenile homicide offenders cannot be sentenced to mandatory life without possibility of parole (LWOP) imprisonment.) the Court also deemed mandatory sentences of life without possibility of parole unconstitutional for juvenile homicide offenders. A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices ruled that these harsh punishments for juveniles, when mandated by the state legislature without leaving any discretion for the judge or jury, were out of step with the contemporary values of society and therefore they violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
These important rulings arguably signaled a new era of juvenile justice. In Roper, Graham, and Miller, the Court focused on the issue of culpability, and decided that juveniles were less culpable than adults due to a number of different factors related to physical and emotional development involving the growth and maturation process of the human brain (MacArthur Foundation, 2007b). In another case in 2011, the Supreme Court relied on developmental factors in redefining the law concerning Miranda warnings. Additional research into the development of juveniles indicates that intellectual maturity occurs at age 16, but other factors (such as avoiding impulsiveness) are not fully developed until early adulthood (ages 24–26). In addition, studies indicate that the large majority of juvenile offenders grow out of antisocial behavior as they become adults, and most juvenile delinquency is limited to adolescence (Steinberg, Cauffman, and Monahan, 2015). Scientific research has spurred a growing recognition of the brain development differences between teens and adults. These findings provide a basis for new programs and proposed laws designed to reemphasize treating juveniles differently than adults for purposes of rehabilitation and punishment. This is not to say that juveniles accused of crimes cannot be held responsible for their actions. Researchers studying this issue argue that juvenile brain development does not imply that juvenile offenders should avoid punishment, but that the punishment should be more lenient than an adult convicted of the same crime. Read the Criminal Justice and the Risk of Misinformation feature to consider its potential impacts for young people who have not yet fully developed their capabilities for critical thinking and reasoning.
Criminal Justice and the Risk of Misinformation
The Worst-Case Scenario for Reacting to Misinformation
In the preceding chapters, we have seen examples of the risks posed by erroneous information. Many of these examples concerned harms that stemmed from inaccurate record keeping and erroneous communications within criminal justice agencies. Other examples concerned members of the public and their exposure to misinformation. As you think about those issues, consider whether risks may be increased for young people who have not fully developed their capabilities for critical thinking and reasoning. Do young people need extra awareness of risks in order to avoid making mistakes that cause harm to themselves and others?
If we look at the role of misinformation in criminal victimization, it is obvious that anyone can fall prey to fraudulent communications from those who hope to steal money or commit other crimes. For example, when people donate money to a phony charity website that claims to support cancer research or services for veterans, the messages that lure unwary donors can attract victims of all ages. In these cases, we are especially concerned about the elderly who may have limited financial resources as well as, perhaps, a reduction in thinking capacity. However, we need to be aware that teens can easily be victims, too. As one example, it is common to find stories on the Internet about teens who were fooled into buying fake drugs that they thought would help turn them into better athletes or bodybuilders. Hopefully, by growing up with technology and social media, today’s teens will become better informed than their elders are now about how to recognize fraudulent website and online “phishing” efforts that seek to facilitate identity theft.
As described in prior chapters, the blossoming of “fake news” has presented society with new problems and poses ever-increasing challenges to young people who rely on the Internet and social media for their information about current events. One particular example in 2016 highlighted the most severe kind of risk that can flow from misinformation: acts of violence perpetrated from reliance on misinformation.
In March 2017, Edgar Welch, a 28-year-old man, entered a guilty plea to both federal and District of Columbia charges related to his actions in firing a military- style assault rifle inside a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor. He had driven from North Carolina to the nation’s capital in December 2016 with several firearms because he believed he needed to take action to save children that, according to fake Internet reports, were being held prisoner by a sex-trafficking ring. The reports falsely claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairperson were involved in the abuse of children. As people fled the restaurant in panic when Welch entered with his guns, he fired at the lock on a door containing computer equipment because he was looking for the location where children were reportedly being held as prisoners. On the same day that Welch entered his guilty plea, conservative radio-show host and website operator, Alex Jones, issued an apology for his role in contributing to people’s belief in the false information about the pizza restaurant’s role in the fictional child-sex-trafficking enterprise. Welch was
expected to receive up to two years in prison for the federal charges of illegally transporting firearms across state lines. He could receive an additional five years in prison for the District of Columbia charge of assault with a deadly weapon, as he had pointed the weapon at a restaurant employee.
Welch could very easily have killed many people based on his erroneous belief in the false information that was spread through the Internet and social media. He was in his late twenties, but one can easily imagine younger people, including teens with access to weapons, acting with a misguided belief that they were engaging in heroic actions when, in fact, their actions were based on misinformation about alleged criminals and ongoing crimes. The Welch case highlights the need for everyone, including young people, to take care in checking the accuracy of information, especially if they are planning to take action based on that information.
Examine the Issue
How would you respond if one of your friends came to you and said the following? “C’mon, we need to do something. I have been reading on the Internet that a human-trafficking ring is holding women prisoner in the apartment complex across town and the police won’t do anything about it.” Write a memo describing exactly what you would say and do, including the steps that you would take to investigate whether the Internet information was accurate.
Sources: M. Elmer, “Lawsuit: Fake Cancer Charities Scam $187 Million from Donors,” Des Moines
Register, May 19, 2015 ( www.desmoinesregister.com); S. Hsu, “Comet Pizza Gunman Pleads Guilty to
Federal and Local Charges,” Washington Post, March 24, 2017 ( www.washingtonpost.com); R. Maaddi,
“Teens Often Fooled by Fake HGH Online,” Poughkeepsie Journal, July 25, 2014 (
www.poughkeepsiejournal.com).
Current program trends aimed at helping juvenile offenders are rooted in the principles of rehabilitation and the prevention of delinquency. Such programs are not yet widespread nor fully developed. For example, there are few low-cost substance abuse programs for juveniles outside of correctional institutions—therefore, a poor juvenile must be incarcerated to receive such assistance without significant personal financial expense. Reducing drug use before it accelerates delinquency would seem to be the key to keeping juveniles crime free, and thus there is increasing interest in developing more programs that are accessible to youths in the community. Research is also focusing on the relationship between parents and children, and how parenting programs may help to keep kids out of the juvenile courts (MacArthur Foundation, 2007a).
Judicial waiver (Procedure by which the juvenile court waives its jurisdiction and transfers a juvenile case to the adult criminal court.) is used to waive or relinquish juvenile court jurisdiction and move juveniles into adult court for prosecution and punishment when youths commit serious crimes. The use of waiver declined dramatically from 1996 to 2010, reaching the lowest number of cases waived since 1988. This decrease in waiver mirrors the
reduction in violent juvenile crime during that period (Puzzanchera and Addie, 2014). Recent changes in a few states indicate that judicial waiver is becoming less popular. Several states are considering the abolition of juvenile waiver by increasing their minimum age for adult trial to 18. A proposed law in Congress, called the REDEEM Act [Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act], recommends the expungement of records for juvenile offenses committed before the age of 15, and provides incentives for states to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18 (Booker, 2015). A recent analysis indicates that 73 percent of Americans support rehabilitation strategies for juvenile offenders over those focused on arrest and punishment. In addition, 50 percent of Americans would be willing to pay for efforts designed to divert juveniles from delinquency, compared to the 16 percent who state they would be willing to pay for punishment strategies for delinquent youth (T. Baker et al., 2016).
The current movement for more-lenient treatment of juveniles is still in its infancy. It is unknown how states will react to changes reflected in Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama, and there is still considerable support for the “get tough” stance toward older juveniles. The Supreme Court has allowed California’s “three strikes” law, for example, to count juvenile convictions as “strikes,” thereby mandating long sentences for repeat offenders (Nguyen v. California, 2009). Opponents point out that this violates the spirit of the parens patriae philosophy (Juvenile Law Center, 2008). In many places, the juvenile court, where the use of discretion and the desire to rehabilitate were previously uppermost goals, employs a system of rules and procedures similar to those in adult courts. Read more about programs focused on preventing violent crimes by juveniles in the Close Up feature. Efforts at crime prevention seek to keep juveniles from entering the justice system and thereby avoid expenditures on rehabilitation and punishment.
Close Up
Youth Violence Reduction Programs
Several cities have initiated programs to reduce and prevent juvenile violence. In New Orleans, the Group Violence Reduction Strategy (GVRS) uses data analysis to identify the most high-frequency offenders in the city, then target those individuals for selective attention from the justice system. Their attempts also include identifying violent criminal gangs and divert resources to those areas. Interactions with the targeted youth involve diversion to appropriate social services, with notification that future delinquent behavior will result in prosecution. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has rated this program “effective” based on a 2015 study that demonstrated a significant reduction in homicide rates.
“Movimento Ascendencia” (in English, “Upward Movement”) located in Pueblo, Colorado, is a program designed to provide a pathway for young females (primarily Mexican American) out of violence and gang behavior. Girls are provided with tools to resolve conflicts, improve self-esteem, and increase cultural awareness. The program has been demonstrated to reduce rates of theft among the study
population, but the OJJDP rates this program as “promising” given that other aspects of youth behavior have not been similarly affected.
Debate the Issue
New Orleans’ Group Violence Reduction Strategy is designed to prevent youth from engaging in violent activities related to gang membership; however, some argue that funds spent on programs such as these are better spent on the “back end” of the system—strengthening the police response to crime and the juvenile court response. Others argue that using funds on the “front end” will save significant costs, because successful prevention programs will reduce associated expenditures for the police, juvenile courts, and corrections down the road. What is the most effective use of public funds with regard to delinquency?
Source: Adapted from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention “Model Programs
Guide” ( www.ojjdp.gov/mpg).
In spite of the increasingly tough policies directed at juvenile offenders in the late twentieth century, changes that occurred during the juvenile rights period continue to affect the system profoundly. Lawyers are now routinely present at court hearings and other stages of the process, adding a note of formality that was not present 30 years ago. Status offenders seldom end up in secure punitive environments, such as training schools. The juvenile justice system now looks more like the adult justice system than it did, but it remains less formal. Its stated intention is also less harsh: to keep juveniles in the community whenever possible.
Checkpoint
5. What was the function of a “house of refuge”?
6. What were the major elements of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899?
7. What was the main point of the In re Gault decision?
8. How did the decline in juvenile crime in the 1990s affect juvenile justice policy?
9. What reasons has the Supreme Court given for disallowing the use of the death penalty and other harsh sentences for juveniles?
Stop and Analyze: The Supreme Court was deeply divided over the issue of whether sentences of death for murder and life without parole for non-homicide offenses are out of step with the values of contemporary society. Do you think
society’s contemporary values would reject those sentences for juveniles? If you were a lawyer, what evidence could you present to a court that reflects society’s current values concerning the punishment of juveniles today?
Check-It
2. The period of juvenile justice development is associated with the idea that juveniles are helpless and in need of supervision.
a. Puritan
b. refuge
c. juvenile court
d. juvenile rights
3. During the period of juvenile justice development, the juvenile court system became more formal, restrictive, and punitive.
a. juvenile court
b. juvenile rights
c. crime control
d. “kids are different”
4. In , the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty cannot be imposed on offenders who commit a murder when they are younger than 18.
a. Roper v. Simmons
b. Graham v. Florida
c. Miller v. Alabama
d. Schall v. Martin
© 2020 Cengage Learning Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may by reproduced or used in any form or by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, or in any other manner - without the written permission of the copyright holder.
(1)
(2)
17-3 The Juvenile Justice System Juvenile justice operates through a variety of procedures in different states; even different counties within the same states vary in their processes. Because the offenses committed by juveniles are mostly violations of state laws, there is little federal involvement in the juvenile justice system. Despite internal differences, the juvenile justice system is characterized by two key factors:
the age of clients and
the categories of cases under juvenile court jurisdiction.
17-3a Age of Clients
Age normally determines whether a person is processed through the juvenile or the adult justice system. The upper age limit for original juvenile court jurisdiction varies from 16 to 18. In 43 states and the District of Columbia, it is the 18th birthday; in 5 states, the 17th; and in the remaining 2 states, the 16th birthday (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2017). Given increasing awareness that psychological development continues throughout the teenage years, there have been calls to increase the age of majority so that more cases can be heard in juvenile courts. In 2012, Connecticut raised the age of majority to 18 years old for all offenses except the most serious. Analysis of crime rates in that state have indicated that there was not an appreciable increase in juvenile crime after that change was made (Loeffler and Chalfin, 2017).
Juvenile courts are not the only place where delinquency cases can be heard. In 45 states, judges have the discretion to transfer juveniles to adult courts through a waiver hearing. Figure 17.3 shows the age at which juveniles can be transferred to adult court.
Figure 17.3
The Youngest Age at which Juveniles May Be Transferred to Adult Criminal Court by Waiver of Juvenile Jurisdiction
The waiver provisions of states vary greatly, and no clear regional or other factor explains the differences.
A map of the United States shows the youngest age at which juveniles may be transferred to adult criminal court by waiver of juvenile jurisdiction. The waiver provision of states varies greatly, and no clear regional or other factor explains the differences. States with the minimum age juveniles can be transferred are as follows. No minimum age. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, West Virginia, District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, Maine. 10 years old. Iowa, Vermont. 12 years old. Montana, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri. 13 years old. Illinois, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, New York, New Hampshire. 14 years old. California, Nevada, Utah, North Dakota Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida. 15 years old. New Mexico.
Source: State Juvenile Justice Profiles, online at Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics (2015) ( www.jjgps.org).
17-3b Categories of Cases under Juvenile Court Jurisdiction
Four types of cases fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system: delinquency, status offenses, neglect, and dependency. Mixing together young criminals with children who suffer from their parents’ inadequacies dates from the earliest years of juvenile justice.
Delinquent (A child who has committed an act that if carried out by an adult would be a criminal act.) children have committed acts that if carried out by an adult would be criminal— for example, auto theft, robbery, or assault. Juvenile courts handle about 1 million delinquency cases each year, 72 percent involving male delinquents, and 35 percent involving African Americans. Among the criminal charges brought before the juvenile court, 26 percent are for crimes against persons, 35 percent for property offenses, 13 percent for drug law violations, and 26 percent for public order offenses (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015). Table 17.2 shows the distribution of delinquency cases that are referred to juvenile court.
Table 17.2
Distribution of Delinquency Cases Referred to Juvenile Court
Juvenile courts in the United States handled about 975,000 criminal cases in 2014. This was a decline of 42 percent from the number handled in 2005.
Percentage of Total Cases Referred, 2013
27% Crimes against persons
Percentages
Homicide Less than 1
Forcible rape 1
Robbery 2
Other personal offenses
2
Aggravated assault 3
Percentage of Total Cases Referred, 2013
Simple assault 18
Other violent sex offenses
1
34% Property crimes
Burglary 6
Larceny/theft 17
Motor vehicle theft 1
Arson Less than 1
Vandalism 5
Trespassing 3
Stolen property offenses
1
Other property offenses
1
13% Drug violations
26% Public order offenses
Weapons offenses 2
Obstruction of justice
13
Disorderly conduct 7
Percentage of Total Cases Referred, 2013
Liquor law violations
Less than 1
Nonviolent sex offenses
1
Other public order offenses
2
Source: Sarah Hockenberry and Charles Puzzanchera, Juvenile Court Statistics, 2014 (Pittsburgh, PA:
National Center for Juvenile Justice, April 2017).
Recall that status offenses are acts that are illegal only if they are committed by juveniles. Status offenders have not violated a penal code; instead they are charged with being ungovernable or incorrigible: as runaways, truants, or PINS (Acronym for “person(s) in need of supervision,” a term that designates juveniles who are either status offenders or thought to be on the verge of trouble.) (persons in need of supervision). Status offenders make up about 10 percent of the juvenile court caseload. Although female offenders account for only 28 percent of delinquency cases, they make up 42 percent of the status offense cases (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015).
Some states do not distinguish between delinquent offenders and status offenders; they label both as juvenile delinquents. Those judged to be ungovernable and those judged to be robbers may be sent to the same correctional institution. Beginning in the early 1960s, many state legislatures attempted to distinguish status offenders and to exempt them from a criminal record. In states that have decriminalized status offenses, juveniles who participate in these activities may now be classified as dependent children and placed in the care of child-protective agencies.
Juvenile justice also deals with problems of neglect and dependency—situations in which children are viewed as being hurt through no fault of their own because their parents have failed to provide a proper environment for them. People see the state’s role as acting as a parent to a child whose own parents are unable or unwilling to provide proper care. Illinois, for example, defines a neglected child (A child who is receiving inadequate care because of some action or inaction of his or her parents.) as one who is receiving inadequate care because of some action or inaction of his or her parents. This may include not being sent to school, not receiving medical care, being abandoned, living in an injurious environment, or not receiving some other care necessary for the child’s well-being. A dependent child (A child who has no parent or guardian or whose parents cannot give proper care.) either has no parent or guardian or is receiving inadequate care because of the physical or mental
disability of the parent. The law governing neglected and dependent children is broad and includes situations in which the child is viewed as a victim of adult behavior.
Nationally, about 75 percent of the cases referred to the juvenile courts are delinquency cases, 20 percent of which are status offenses. Twenty percent are dependency and neglect cases, and about 5 percent involve special proceedings, such as adoption. The system, then, deals with both criminal and noncriminal cases. Often juveniles who have done nothing wrong are categorized, either officially or in the public mind, as delinquents. In some states little effort is made in detention facilities or in social service agencies to separate the classes of juveniles prior to their judicial hearings.
Checkpoint
10. What are the jurisdictional criteria for the juvenile court?
Stop and Analyze: Why do most state laws use 18 as the age of majority? Is there something special that occurs at age 18 that indicates a shift from “juvenile” to “adult”? Would you use a specific age, or design some other basis for deciding whether to try an older teen as a juvenile or adult? Why?
Apply-It
5. Fourteen-year-old Jeffrey appears in juvenile court for a status offense. As such, he will most likely be designated a .
a. delinquent
b. dependent child
c. neglected child
d. person in need of supervision
6. Thirteen-year-old Donald is accused in juvenile court of committing arson and several other acts that, if carried out by an adult, would be criminal. As such, he will most likely be designated as a .
a. delinquent
b. dependent child
c. neglected child
d. person in need of supervision
17-4 The Juvenile Justice Process Underlying the juvenile justice system is the philosophy that police, judges, and correctional officials should focus primarily on the interests of the child. Prevention of delinquency is the system’s justification for intervening in the lives of juveniles who are involved in either status or criminal offenses.
In theory at least, juvenile proceedings are to be conducted in a non-adversarial environment. The juvenile court is to be a place where the judge, social workers, clinicians, and probation officers work together to diagnose the child’s situation and select a treatment program to attack that problem.
Juvenile justice is a bureaucracy based on an ideology of social work. It is staffed primarily by people who think of themselves as members of the helping professions. Not even the recent emphasis on crime control and punishment has removed the treatment philosophy from most juvenile justice arenas. However, political pressures and limits on resources may stymie the implementation of this philosophy by focusing on the punishment of offenders rather than the prevention of delinquency, even though the public is more willing to pay for prevention programs and rehabilitation than incarceration (T. Baker et al., 2016).
Like the adult system, juvenile justice functions within a context of exchange relationships between officials of various government and private agencies that influence decisions. The juvenile court must deal not only with children and their parents, but also with patrol officers, probation officers, welfare officials, social workers, psychologists, and the heads of treatment institutions—all of whom have their own goals, perceptions of delinquency, and concepts of treatment.
Figure 17.4 outlines the sequence of steps that are taken from the point of police investigation through to correctional disposition, which have not changed drastically in many years. As you examine this figure, compare the procedures with those of the criminal justice system for adults. Note the various options available to decision makers and the extensive discretion that they may exercise.
Figure 17.4
The Juvenile Justice System
Decision makers have more options for the disposition of juvenile offenders, compared with options in the criminal justice system for adults.
Source: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1976).
17-4a Police Interface
Many police departments, especially those in cities, have special juvenile units. The juvenile officer is often selected and trained to relate to youths, knows much about relevant legal issues, and is sensitive to the special needs of young offenders. This officer also serves as an important link between the police and other community institutions, such as schools and other organizations serving young people. Some communities hire school resource officers (SROs), who provide counseling and a security presence in school buildings. There is debate about whether SROs actually reduce crime in schools, and some research indicates that the opposite is actually true. Schools with police officers report more crime than those without. Researchers suggest that the presence of police officers may actually criminalize behaviors that were previously considered to be social, academic, or psychological problems (Na and Gottfredson, 2013).
Most complaints against juveniles are brought by the police, although an injured party, school officials, and even the parents can initiate them as well. The police must make three major decisions with regard to the processing of juveniles:
1. Whether to take the child into custody
2. Whether to request that the child be detained following apprehension
3. Whether to refer the child to court
The police exercise enormous discretion in these decisions. They do extensive screening and make informal assessments in the street and at the station house. In communities and neighborhoods where the police have developed close relationships with the residents or where policy dictates, the police may deal with violations by giving warnings to the juveniles and notifying their parents. Figure 17.5 shows the disposition of juveniles taken into police custody.
Figure 17.5
Disposition of Juveniles Taken into Police Custody
The police have discretion in the disposition of juvenile arrest cases. What factors can influence how a case is disposed?
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports 2015 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2016), Table 68.
Initial decisions about what to do with a suspected offender are influenced by such factors as the predominant attitude of the community; the officer’s attitude toward the juvenile, the juvenile’s family, the offense, and the court; and the officer’s conception of his or her own role. The disposition of juvenile cases at the arrest stage also relies on the seriousness of the offense, the minor’s prior record, and his or her demeanor. To summarize, several key factors influence how the police dispose of a case of juvenile delinquency:
1. The seriousness of the offense
2. The willingness of the parents to cooperate and to discipline the child
3. The child’s behavioral history as reflected in school and police records
4. The extent to which the child and the parents insist on a formal court hearing
5. The local political and social norms concerning dispositions in such cases
6. The officer’s beliefs and attitudes
In dealing with juveniles, police often confront issues concerning the Miranda warnings and the Mapp unreasonable search and seizure rulings. Although the language of these decisions is not explicit, most jurisdictions now provide the Miranda protections. But questions remain as to the ability of juveniles to waive these rights. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in Fare v. Michael C. (1979) (By examining the totality of circumstances, trial court judges must evaluate the voluntariness of juveniles’ waiving their rights to an attorney and to protections against self-incrimination.) that a child may waive his or her rights to an attorney and to protections against self-incrimination. But the Court said that juvenile court judges must evaluate the totality of circumstances under which the minor made these decisions, to ensure that they were voluntary. The Court later specified that police must take the offender’s age into account when deciding whether a minor is officially in the custody of the police, stating that “children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave” (J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 2011).
(1)
(2)
On the issue of unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, the Court has not been as forthcoming. State courts interpreted Gault to extend these provisions, but in 1985 the Supreme Court ruled in New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985) (School officials may search a student if they have a reasonable suspicion that the search will produce evidence that a school rule or a criminal law has been violated.) that school officials can search students and their lockers. The justices recognized that children do have Fourth Amendment rights, yet a search could be viewed as reasonable if
it is based on a suspicion of lawbreaking and
it is required to maintain order, safety, and discipline in the school.
Faced with problems of drug use and students carrying weapons in the public schools, administrators have taken steps to enforce rules so as to increase security. This has led to conflicts concerning the right to privacy versus school safety. In 1995, the Supreme Court said certain students, such as athletes, could be subject to random drug testing. The case, Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) (To ensure a safe learning environment, school officials may require random drug testing of students involved in extracurricular school sports teams.) , concerned a seventh grader’s parents who refused to sign a urinalysis consent form. As a result their son, James Acton, was kept off of the football team. The court ruled that the testing was constitutional in the interest of ensuring a safe learning environment even though the student had not exhibited suspicious behavior. The Supreme Court later expanded school officials’ authority to impose drug testing by permitting schools to require students to submit to random drug testing in order to participate in non-sports extracurricular activities, such as band and choir (Board of Education v. Earls, 2002). The Supreme Court has not approved mandatory drug testing of all students in a public school. It has simply permitted schools to develop and apply testing policies to students as a condition of participation in extracurricular activities. In addition, the Court has also recognized limits on school officials’ authority to conduct searches. In Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009), the Court ruled that public school officials cannot conduct a strip search of a student to look for drugs. In this case, the search was based on inaccurate information reported to school authorities by another student.
Although young people commit many serious crimes, the juvenile function of police work is concerned largely with order maintenance. In most incidents of this sort, the law is ambiguous, and blame cannot easily be assigned. Many offenses committed by juveniles that involve physical or monetary damage are minor infractions: breaking windows, hanging around the business district, disturbing the peace, public sexual behavior, and shoplifting. Here the function of the investigating officer is not so much to solve crimes as to handle the often legally uncertain complaints involving juveniles. The officer seeks both to satisfy the complainant and to keep the youth from future trouble. Given this emphasis on settling cases within the community—instead of strictly enforcing the law—the police power to arrest is a weapon that can be used to deter juveniles from criminal activity and to encourage them to conform to the law.
17-4b Intake Screening at the Court
The juvenile court processing of delinquency cases begins with a referral in the form of a petition, not with an arrest warrant as in the adult system. When a petition is filed, an intake hearing is held, over which a hearing officer presides. During this stage, the officer determines whether the alleged facts are sufficient for the juvenile court to take jurisdiction or whether some other action would be in the child’s best interest.
Nationally, 45 percent of all referrals are disposed of at this stage, without formal processing by a judge. Diversion (The process of screening children out of the juvenile justice system without a decision by the court.) is the process of screening children out of the system without a decision by the court, thereby limiting their involvement in the formal juvenile justice system. In approximately 40 percent of these cases, the charges are dismissed; another 23 percent are diverted to an informal probation, and the remaining 37 percent are placed in a mental health facility, other treatment facility, or are assigned to serve some agreed-on alternative sanction in the community (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015).
17-4c Pretrial Procedures
When a decision is made to refer the case to the court (54 percent of cases), the court holds an initial hearing. Here, the juveniles are informed of their rights and told that if a plea is given it must be voluntary.
If the juvenile is to be detained pending trial, most states require a detention hearing (A hearing by the juvenile court to determine if a juvenile is to be detained or released prior to adjudication.) , which determines if the youth is to be released to a parent or guardian or to be held in a detention facility until adjudication. Some children are detained to keep them from committing other crimes while awaiting trial. Others are held to protect them from the possibility of harm from gang members or parents. Still others are held because if released they will likely not appear in court as required. Nationally, about 21 percent of all delinquency cases involve detention between referral to the juvenile court and disposition of the case (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015).
The conditions in many detention facilities are poor; abuse is often reported. In some rural areas, juveniles continue to be detained in adult jails even though the federal government has pressed states to hold youths in separate facilities. In 2003, the city of Baltimore, Maryland, unveiled a new juvenile-detention facility, meant to expedite juvenile cases and centralize services to delinquent youth. The new facility was later termed a “monstrosity,” with poor lines of sight (meaning officers cannot easily observe and supervise the juvenile detainees), overcrowding, and increasing rates of violence within its walls (Bykowicz, 2008). A 2010 evaluation determined that the high rates of violence in the facility had begun to decrease (Dedel, 2010), with greater reductions in violence from 2010 to 2012 (Moroney, 2014). Baltimore currently holds juveniles charged as adults in the same facility as adult offenders, which has been a source of controversy as well. In 2013, officials determined that this facility was controlled by gang members, and that guards had been sneaking in contraband (Toobin, 2014). The U.S. Department of Justice has faulted the center for mistreatment of juvenile detainees, several of whom were kept in solitary confinement for up to 143 days (Fenton, 2015). When experts recommended that a separate jail be constructed for juveniles being tried as adults, the state of Maryland decided to build a facility for juvenile offenders as part of the Baltimore City Detention Center reconstruction (Duncan, 2013). Yet, the governor ultimately simply closed the aging center without completing construction on any new facility.
Based on the belief that detaining youth accelerates their delinquent behaviors, some jurisdictions have attempted to stem the tide of rising numbers of juveniles in detention. In San Francisco, California, the Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (DDAP) attempts to keep high-risk youth out of detention by identifying the specific needs of each youth, particularly if those needs are focused on substance abuse, educational difficulties, or gang
involvement. DDAP staff use an intensive case-management strategy, and meet with the youth three times per day in the first week, gradually reducing these meetings to three times per week. Staff attempt to provide mentorship and create support systems for at-risk youth (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2017).
Civic Engagement
Your Role in the System
Imagine that you were a juror in the case of 11-year-old Nathaniel Abraham who shot and killed a man—someone that he did not know—who was walking into a convenience store. Apparently, he had come into possession of a gun and was simply interested in trying it out. Make a list of arguments favoring and opposing convicting him as an adult defendant. How do you think you would vote during the jury’s deliberations? Then read about studies showing that teens’ brains are not fully developed. How, if at all, should a jury use such information?
1.
What Americans Think
Question:
“Which statement do you agree with more?
Putting youth under the age of 18, who are charged with or convicted of crimes, in adult jails and prisons
17-4d Transfer (Waiver) to Adult Court
In 1997, an 11-year-old boy named Nathaniel Abraham shot and killed a man outside a convenience store in Pontiac, Michigan. At the time, Michigan law specified no minimum age for transfer of a juvenile to adult court. Nathaniel’s case was waived to adult court and he stood trial for the homicide. The jury, however, refused to convict him of the crime of homicide in the first degree, which would have necessitated incarceration in an adult prison. Instead, they found him guilty of second-degree homicide, allowing the judge to use his discretion to place Nathaniel in a juvenile facility. Nathaniel’s case attracted national attention, because it highlighted the difficulty of deciding what to do with children and teens who commit offenses as serious as those committed by the most violent adult offenders. As you read “Civic Engagement: Your Role in the System,” consider how you might react if you were a juror in regular criminal court considering the case of a youthful defendant.
One of the first decisions to be made after a juvenile is referred is whether a case should be transferred to the criminal (adult) justice system. In 45 states, juvenile court judges may waive their jurisdiction. This means that after considering the seriousness of the charge, the age of the juvenile, and the prospects of rehabilitation, the judge can transfer the case to adult court. In 29 states, certain violent crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery are excluded by law from the jurisdiction of
2.
makes them MORE likely to commit future crimes than if they were placed in a youth facility.
Putting youth under the age of 18, who are charged with or convicted of crimes, in adult jails and prisons makes them LESS likely to commit future crimes than if they were placed in a youth facility
Source: GBA Strategies, “Campaign for Youth Justice: Youth Justice System Survey,” October 11, 2011 ( www.gbastrategies.com).
the juvenile courts. In 1970, only 3 states allowed prosecutors the authority to decide whether to file in adult or juvenile court. Today, 15 states give prosecutors the authority to do so (Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy, Practice and Statistics [JJGPS], 2017). Critics question whether prosecutors will “make better informed and more appropriate ‘criminal adulthood’ decisions than would judges in an adversarial waiver hearing” (Feld, 2004: 599). See “What Americans Think” for a look at public attitudes about transferring juveniles to the adult court.
A “tougher” approach to juvenile crime took hold in the 1970s, which led to an increase in the number of cases transferred to adult court. Several states expanded their ability to transfer juveniles by excluding certain crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction, or lowering their minimum age for transfer to adult court. Several states specify no minimum age for certain offenses (note the number of states in Figure 17.3 that can waive a juvenile regardless of his or her age).
Although the laws regarding waiver have not changed much in recent years, there is evidence that it is being used less frequently and for more-serious offenses. Waived cases represent less than 1 percent (about 4,000) of delinquency cases, and the likelihood of waiver varies by offense, offender age, and offender race. In all, violent offenders make up the majority of those transferred to adult court (50 percent), followed by property offenders (31 percent), drug offenders (12 percent), and public order offenders (7 percent) (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015). In addition, African American youths are more likely to be waived than are white youths, although this is partially due to differences in offending patterns and the gap between African American and white youth is growing smaller (Puzzanchera and Addie, 2014). A study of 40 large urban counties found that nearly two- thirds of juvenile felony defendants in adult court were charged with violent crime, compared with one-quarter of adult defendants (Rainville and Smith, 2003).
One result of the decreased use of waiver is that fewer juveniles are being sent to adult state prisons. In 1995, almost 6,500 juvenile offenders were sent to adult prison; by 2009, that number had dropped to just under 3,000—a decrease of 57 percent (Sickmund and Puzzanchera, 2014). Supporters of waiving juveniles to adult court argue that serious crime deserves serious punishment. Critics of the policies claim that waiver subverts the intent of the juvenile justice system, and exposes juvenile offenders to harsh conditions in adult prisons—where they are vulnerable to physical and sexual victimization (DeJong and Merrill, 2000). Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons is also costly for states (Lahey, 2016).
Juveniles waived to adult court may be more likely to recidivate compared to those incarcerated in facilities designed for juveniles. Read about efforts to study this issue in “Evidence-Based Practice and Policy.”
Evidence-Based Practice and Policy
Juvenile Waiver to Adult Court
The movement to utilize waiver to adult court in the 1990s was based on a “get tough” policy on crime, rather than on evidence from criminal justice research. Attempts to determine whether waiving juveniles to adult court is effective have resulted in mixed findings. While some studies indicate that the use of waiver increases reoffending among those individuals, others find no effect of waiver policies on future criminality. Experts point out, however, that there are two different aspects of “effective” that must be studied: If waiving juveniles to adult court has a deterrent effect, is it a general deterrent or a specific deterrent?
Chapter 12 reviews these two forms of deterrence, in which a punishment has either a general effect (on the society as a whole) or a specific effect (on the offender against which it is levied). In theory, if juvenile offenders are aware of the potential harsh punishment that awaits them in adult court, they may refrain from engaging in delinquency altogether. Studies of this type of deterrence have indicated that waiver does not provide a general deterrent effect, perhaps due to the fact that juveniles may be less “future oriented” than adults, or that juveniles must be aware of the possibility that waiver to adult court exists for their behavior to be modified.
Evaluations focused on specific deterrence, however, examine the offending behavior of juveniles who have been waived compared with juveniles who have not. Most studies find that transferring juveniles to adult court does not have a specific deterrent effect and may even increase the likelihood of recidivism. In fact, the use of waiver may be too much of a “one size fits all” attempt to reduce juvenile crime, when the majority of research on the issue suggests that successful programs depend on individual needs assessment—assuming that a broad policy will work for every juvenile offender is faulty. It may be that the use of waiver to adult court skips over important intermediate sanctions that can provide assistance and support to at- risk youth, and that the juvenile court is the most appropriate place for these cases to be tried. States that provide options called “blended sentencing” allow both juvenile and adult sanctions to be used, and these are worthy of additional study.
Implementing New Practices
In light of the foregoing research evidence, what practices would you recommend for using, modifying, or not using the waiver process for juveniles? Write a memo describing your analysis and conclusions about the best practice and policy.
Sources: D. L. Myers,. “Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court: Ongoing Search for Scientific Support,”
Criminology and Public Policy, 15(3): 927–38 (2017); R. E. Redding, “One Size Does Not Fit All: The
Deterrent Effect of Transferring Juveniles to Criminal Court,” Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3): 939–48
(2017); S. N. Zane, B. C. Walsh, and D. P. Mears, “Juvenile Transfer and the Specific Deterrence
Hypothesis,” Criminology and Public Policy, 15(3): 901–25 (2017).
17-4e Adjudication
Juvenile courts deal with around 975,000 delinquency cases each year (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2017. Adjudication is the trial stage of the juvenile justice process. If the child has not admitted to the charges and the case has not been transferred to the adult court, an adjudication hearing is held to determine the facts in the case and, if appropriate, label the juvenile as “delinquent.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Gault and other due process rulings mandated changes that have altered the philosophy and actions of the juvenile court. Contemporary juvenile proceedings are more formal than those of the past, although still more informal than adult courts. The parents and child must receive copies of petitions with specific charges; counsel may be present, and free counsel can be appointed if the juvenile cannot pay; witnesses can be cross-examined; and a transcript of the proceedings must be kept.
As with other Supreme Court decisions, local practice may differ sharply from the procedures spelled out in the high court’s rulings. Juveniles and their parents often waive their rights in response to suggestions from the judge or probation officer. The lower social status of the offender’s parents, the intimidating atmosphere of the court, and judicial hints that the outcome will be more favorable if a lawyer is not present are reasons the procedures outlined in Gault might not be followed. The litany of “getting treatment,” “doing what’s right for the child,” and “working out a just solution” may sound enticing, especially to people who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of formal legal procedures. In practice, then, juveniles still lack many of the protections given to adult offenders. Some of the differences between the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems are listed in Table 17.3.
Table 17.3
The Adult and Juvenile Criminal Justice Systems
Compare the basic elements of the adult and juvenile systems. To what extent does a juvenile have the same rights as an adult? Are the different decision-making processes necessary because a juvenile is involved?
Adult System Juvenile System
Adult System Juvenile System
Philosophical assumptions
Decisions made as result of adversarial system in context of due process rights
Decisions made as result of inquiry into needs of juvenile within context of some due process elements
Jurisdiction Violations of criminal law Violations of criminal law, status offenses, neglect, dependency
Primary sanctioning goals
Retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation
Retribution, rehabilitation
Official discretion Widespread Widespread
Entrance Official action of arrest, summons, or citation
Official action, plus referral by school, parents, other
Role of prosecuting and defense attorneys
Required and formalized Sometimes required; less structured; poor role definition
Adjudication Procedural rules of evidence in public jury trial
Less formal structure to rules of evidence and conduct of trial; no right to public trial or jury in most states
Treatment programs
Run primarily by public agencies Broad use of private and public agencies
Terminology Arrest Referral
Preliminary hearing Intake
Prosecution Adjudication
Sentencing Disposition
Parole Aftercare
Adult System Juvenile System
APPLICATION OF BILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS
Fourth: Unreasonable searches and seizures
Applicable Applicable
Fifth: Double jeopardy
Applicable Applicable (re: waiver to adult court)
Self-incrimination Applicable (Miranda warnings) Applicable
Sixth: Right to counsel
Applicable Applicable
Public trial Applicable Applicable in less than half of states
Trial by jury Applicable Applicable in less than half of states
Fourteenth: Right to treatment
Not applicable Applicable
During the final decades of the twentieth century, the police and courts followed crime control policies in reacting to juvenile crime. Many legislators favor severe sentences for juveniles who commit serious crimes. Can the threat of a long prison sentence deter juveniles from committing crimes?
AP Images/Sue Ogrocki
The increased concern about crime has given prosecuting attorneys a more prominent part in the system. In keeping with the traditional child-saver philosophy, prosecuting attorneys rarely appeared in juvenile court prior to the Gault decision. Now that a defense attorney is present, the state often uses legal counsel as well. In many jurisdictions, prosecutors are assigned to deal specifically with juvenile cases. Their functions are to advise the intake officer, administer diversion programs, negotiate pleas, and act as an advocate during judicial proceedings.
Juvenile proceedings and court records have traditionally remained closed to the public to protect the child’s privacy and potential for rehabilitation. Thus, judges in the adult courts usually do not have access to juvenile records. This means that people who have already served time on juvenile probation or in juvenile institutions may be erroneously perceived as first-time offenders when they are processed for crimes as adults. Some people argue that adult courts should have access to juvenile records and that juvenile offenders should be treated more severely than adults to deter them from future illegal activity. Most research indicates, however, that harsh punishments only increase future crime.
The concept of restorative justice is applied to juveniles in some settings. Teen courts, for example, deal with less serious offenses, often before formal charges have been brought. Teens are judged by their peers, and typically the sentences include restitution, letters of apology, and community service. Is this an effective way to deal with youthful offenders?
The Washington Post/Getty Images
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
17-4f Disposition
If the court makes a finding of delinquency, the judge will schedule a dispositional hearing to decide what action should be taken. Typically, before passing sentence the judge receives a predispositional report prepared by a probation officer. Similar to a presentence report, it serves to assist the judge in deciding on a disposition that is in the best interests of the child and is consistent with the treatment plan developed by the probation officer.
The court finds most juveniles to be delinquent at trial, because the intake and pretrial processes normally filter out cases in which a law violation cannot be proved. Besides dismissal, four other choices are available:
probation,
intermediate sanctions,
custodial care, and
community treatment.
Juvenile court advocates have traditionally believed that rehabilitation is the only goal of the sanction imposed on young people. For most of the twentieth century, judges sentenced juveniles to indeterminate sentences so that correctional administrators could decide when release was appropriate. As in the adult criminal justice system, indeterminate sentences and unbridled discretion in juvenile justice have faced attack during the last three decades. Several states have tightened the sentencing discretion of judges, especially with regard to serious offenses. Washington State, for example, has adopted a determinate sentencing law for juveniles. In other states, a youth can be transferred more readily than before to the adult court for adjudication and sentencing. Jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia, Colorado, Florida, and Virginia have passed laws requiring mandatory sentences for certain offenses committed by juveniles.
17-4g Corrections
Many aspects of juvenile corrections resemble those of adult corrections. Both systems, for example, mix rehabilitative and retributive sanctions. However, juvenile corrections differs in many respects from the adult system. Some of the differences flow from the parens patriae concept and the youthful, seemingly innocent people with whom the system deals. At times, the differences show up in formal operational policies, such as contracting for residential treatment. At other times, the differences appear only in the style and culture of an operation, as they do in juvenile probation.
One predominant aim of juvenile corrections is to avoid unnecessary incarceration. When children are removed from their homes, they are inevitably damaged emotionally, even when the home life is harsh and abusive, because they are forced to abandon the only environment they know. Further, placing children in institutions has labeling effects; the children may perceive themselves as bad because they have received punitive treatment, and children who see themselves as “bad” may behave that way. Finally, treatment is believed to be more effective when the child is living in a normal, supportive home environment. For these reasons, noninstitutional forms of corrections are seen as highly desirable in juvenile justice and have proliferated in recent years.
Probation
In 64 percent of adjudicated cases, the juvenile delinquent is placed on probation and released to the custody of a parent or guardian (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015). Often the judge orders that the delinquent undergo some form of education or counseling. The delinquent can also be required to pay a fine or make restitution while on probation.
Juvenile probation operates in much the same way that adult probation does, and sometimes the same agency carries it out. In two respects, however, juvenile probation can differ markedly from adult probation. First, juvenile probation officers have smaller caseloads. Second, the juvenile probation officer is often infused with the sense that the offender is worthwhile and can change and that the job is valuable and enjoyable. Such attitudes make for greater creativity than adult probation officers usually exhibit. For example, a young offender can be paired with a “big brother” or “big sister” from the community.
Intermediate Sanctions
Although probation and commitment to an institution are the system’s two main dispositional options, intermediate sanctions served in the community account for 12 percent of adjudicated juvenile cases (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015). Judges have wide discretion to warn, to fine, to arrange for restitution, to order community service, to refer a
What Americans Think
Question:
Respondents’ views on the best punishment for juveniles adjudicated guilty of “homicide” and “assisted homicide.”
Homicide: Which of the following punishments should an adolescent convicted of committing a homicide receive?
The feature, What Americans Think, asks respondents’ views on the best punishment for juveniles adjudicated guilty of homicide and assisted homicide. For homicide, respondents were asked which of the following punishments should an adolescent convicted of committing a homicide receive? Answers and percentages are as follows. Incarceration, released after 21 years of age, 13.2%. Juvenile prison with the possibility of parole, 66.5%. Adult prison or no parole, 20.3%.
Assisted Homicide: Which of the following punishments should an adolescent convicted of assisting a homicide receive?
For assisted homicide, which of the following punishments should an adolescent convicted of assisting in a homicide receive? Answers and percentages are as follows. Incarceration, released after 21 years of age, 28.7%. Juvenile prison with possibility of parole, 58.4%. Adult prison or no parole, 12.9%.
Source: Terrence T. Allen, Ellen Trzcinski, and Sheryl Pimlott Kubiak, “Public Attitudes toward Juveniles Who Commit Crimes: The Relationship between Assessments of Adolescent Development and Attitudes toward Severity of Punishment,” Crime & Delinquency 58 (2012): 88.
juvenile for treatment at either a public or a private community agency, or to withhold judgment.
Judges sometimes suspend judgment—that is, continue a case without a finding—when they wish to put a youth under supervision but are reluctant to apply the label “delinquent.” The judge holds off on giving a definitive judgment but can give one, should a youth misbehave while under the informal supervision of a probation officer or parents.
Custodial Care
Of those juveniles declared delinquent, 24 percent are placed in public or private facilities. The placement rate of juveniles over time has decreased from about 1 in 3 adjudicated juveniles in 1985, to about 1 in 4 juveniles in 2013 (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2015). The national incarceration rate is 173 per 100,000 for juveniles aged 10 to 18 —this includes juveniles held both prior to trial and as a sentence of incarceration. Like the adult incarceration rate, these rates vary widely among the states, with the highest rate in the District of Columbia (560) and the lowest in Vermont (46). In 2013, African American youth were more likely to be detained and eventually incarcerated than white youth —overall, the placement rate for African American youth was 166 per 100,000 juveniles, as compared to 29 per 100,000 for white youth (Hockenberry, 2016). See “What Americans Think” for a picture of public attitudes toward prisons for juveniles.
Detention inside a juvenile facility can be an intimidating experience for many youths. They may be threatened, bullied, or assaulted by older or larger teens. The physical condition of the facilities and the limited nature of programs may contribute to the difficult experience of living there. Are taxpayers willing to pay for the personnel and facilities necessary to provide a good environment for implementing effective treatment programs for juvenile offenders?
Detention inside a juvenile facility can be an intimidating experience for many youths. They may be threatened, bullied, or assaulted by older or larger teens. The physical condition of the facilities and the limited nature of programs may contribute to the difficult experience of living there. Are taxpayers willing to pay for the personnel and facilities necessary to provide a good environment for implementing effective treatment programs for juvenile offenders?
AP Images/The Columbus Dispatch/Tom Dodge
Policy makers are concerned that a larger percentage of African American juveniles are incarcerated compared to white juveniles. For example, a 2003 study estimated that about 33 percent of black males born in 2001 would spend time incarcerated eventually, compared to 6 percent of white males (Bonczar, 2003). Another study (Figure 17.6) found that the disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles stems from discretionary decisions at early stages of the process. Thus, if more African American juveniles are detained than others, more of them will likely be adjudicated in juvenile court, and more placed in residential facilities. Some research suggests that juvenile court actors have biased perceptions of minority juveniles, and thus these youth receive more-severe treatment at all levels of the juvenile justice system (Leiber and Mack, 2003). Others have indicated the importance of examining both race and gender when analyzing court outcomes, as girls are generally treated more leniently than boys in the justice system (Guevara, Herz, and Spohn, 2006). Research indicates that reducing the inequalities in confinement for African American youth can be successful when focusing on data collection, encouraging collaboration between criminal justice agencies, focusing on what is best for the youth and the community, and creating alternatives to incarceration (Spinney et al., 2014).
Figure 17.6
Representation of African American Juveniles in the Juvenile Justice System Compared with Their Proportion of the Population
A bar graph shows the representation of African American juveniles in the juvenile justice system compared with their proportion of the population. Categories with percentages are as follows. U S population aged 10 to 17, 16%. Violent juvenile offenders reported by victims, 28%. All juvenile arrests, 25%. Juvenile arrests for violent crime index offenses, 41%. Delinquency cases in juvenile court, 29%. Delinquency cases involving detention, 35%. Petitioned delinquency cases, 33%. Adjudicated delinquency cases, 31%. Delinquency cases resulting in residential placement, 36%. Juveniles in residential placement, 39%. Cases judicially waived to criminal court, 42%.
Source: Melissa Sickmund, “Juveniles in Corrections,” in National Report Series Bulletin (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, June 2004), 12.
Institutions for juvenile offenders are classified as either nonsecure or secure. Nonsecure placements (foster homes, group homes, camps, ranches, or schools) include a significant number of non-offenders—youths referred for abuse, neglect, or emotional disturbance. Secure facilities, such as reform schools and training schools, deal with juveniles who have committed serious violations of the law and have significant personal problems. Most secure juvenile facilities are small, designed to hold 40 or fewer residents. However, many states have at least one facility holding 200 or more hard-core delinquents who are allowed limited freedom.
Because the residents are younger and somewhat more volatile than adults, behavioral control is often an everyday issue, and fights and aggression are common. Poor management practices can lead to difficult situations. Severe punishments, such as the use of solitary confinement for juveniles, have recently come under fire.
Boot camps for juvenile offenders saw a growth spurt in the early 1990s, with an increased focus by politicians to “get tough on crime.” By 1997, more than 27,000 teenagers were passing through 54 camps in 34 states annually. However, as with boot camps for adults, the results have not been promising. Most studies have indicated that boot camps do not reduce future criminal behavior, with the exception of facilities with a strong aftercare program (MacKenzie and Farrington, 2015). Additionally, reports of mistreatment of inmates
at juvenile boot camps prompted the U.S. House of Representatives to develop standards of care for such inmates (J. Abrams, 2008). States are rethinking their policies, with many closing their programs.
The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP), conducted in 2003, showed that 43 percent of juveniles were incarcerated for violent offenses, 44 percent were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of their arrest, and 45 percent were living with only one parent when they were taken into custody. Also, 85 percent of the residents were male, the percentages of African Americans (32 percent) and Hispanics (24 percent) were greater than the percentages of those groups in the general population, and the majority (57 percent) had been suspended from school in the same year of their entry into the juvenile justice system (Sedlak and Bruce, 2016). Figure 17.7 shows the living arrangements of juveniles in secure correctional facilities at the time they were taken into custody.
Figure 17.7
Family Background of Youth in Custody, at Time of Arrest
Most youths in custody lived with only one parent at the time of their referral to juvenile court.
A pie chart shows the family background of youth in custody at the time of arrest. Most youths in custody lived with only one parent at the time of their referral to juvenile court. Percentages are as follows. 2 parents, 30%. 1 parent, 45%. No parent, 25%.Source: Andrea J. Sedlak and Carol Bruce, Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Youth’s Characteristics and Backgrounds (Table 8). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2016).
Contemporary budget crises have led to major funding cuts for state juvenile justice agencies around the United States. For example, Pima County, Arizona, is considering substantial budget cuts after the state passed costs for services down to the counties; diversion programs for juvenile offenders are on the list of programs slated to be cut (McNamara, 2015). In 2015, the state of Illinois cut funding for methamphetamine addiction programs in the Franklin County Juvenile Detention Center (Long, 2015). In Utah, the Wasatch Youth Center, which houses up to 46 juvenile sex offenders, faces closure due to state budget cuts (Boyd, 2015). It is unclear how these cuts will impact the rate of juvenile delinquency in these areas, but the lack of treatment options for juveniles does not bode well for their ability to avoid criminal behavior as adults.
Institutional Programs
Because of the emphasis on rehabilitation that has dominated juvenile justice for much of the past 50 years, a wide variety of treatment programs have been used. Counseling, education, vocational training, and an assortment of psychotherapy methods have been
Civic Engagement
Your Role in the System
Imagine that you have been asked to serve as a mentor to a youth who has been released from a juvenile-detention facility. Make a list of the things that you would say and do to attempt to be a positive influence for a delinquent youth. Write a brief statement describing what you think you might be able accomplish. Then read about the Volunteers in Youth Justice program in Shreveport, Louisiana.
incorporated into the juvenile correctional programs of most states. Unfortunately, research has raised many questions about the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs in juvenile corrections. For example, incarceration in a juvenile training institution primarily seems to prepare many offenders for entry into adult corrections. John Irwin’s (1970) concept of the state-raised youth is a useful way of looking at children who come in contact with institutional life at an early age, lack family relationships and structure, become accustomed to living in a correctional facility, and cannot function in other environments. Current recommendations focus on the importance of prevention and keeping first-time juvenile offenders out of placement institutions and in their homes, with family (Ryan, Abrams, and Huang, 2014).
Aftercare
The juvenile equivalent of parole is known as aftercare (Juvenile justice equivalent of parole, in which a delinquent is released from a custodial sentence and supervised in the community.) . Upon release, the offender is placed under the supervision of a juvenile parole officer who assists with educational, counseling, and treatment services. Well-implemented and individualized aftercare programs have lowered recidivism rates for juvenile offenders (C. James et al., 2013). Some scholars identify lack of aftercare as a primary reason why boot camps failed. As with the adult system, juveniles may be returned to custodial care should they violate the conditions of their parole. As you read “Civic Engagement: Your Role in the System,” consider how people in the community may be able to contribute to the success of aftercare.
Community Treatment
In the past decade, treatment in community-based facilities has become much more common. Today, many private, nonprofit agencies contract with states to provide services for troubled youths. Community-based options include foster homes, in which juvenile offenders live with families, usually for a short period, and group homes, often privately run facilities for groups of 12 to 20 juvenile offenders. Each group home has several staff personnel who work as counselors or houseparents during 8- or 24-hour shifts. Group home placements provide individual and group counseling, allow juveniles to attend local schools, and offer a more structured life than most of the residents have received in their own homes. However, critics suggest that group homes often are mismanaged and may do little more than “warehouse” youths.
Reforms developed to increase the use of community treatment can also have unintended effects elsewhere in the system. For example, a 2012 report on the Texas juvenile corrections system found that as more offenders were diverted to community programs, the secure institutional settings were left with higher concentrations of the most difficult offenders. In the wake of these changes, youth-on-youth assaults increased from 17 assaults per 100 detained youths in 2007 to 54 assaults per 100 youths in 2011. The institutions also experienced a similar rise in assaults against staff by youths (Grissom, 2012). Criminal justice planners think very carefully about the impacts of new policies, yet it can be very difficult to anticipate what issues may arise. Read “A Question of Ethics” at the end of the chapter to consider how less-lethal weapons are used in juvenile facilities to manage behavior.
Many courts develop community programs in an effort to avoid confining youthful offenders in juvenile institutions. Here a juvenile offender meets with his attorney for monitoring, guidance, and support. What are the potential advantages and benefits of emphasizing community-based programs?
Many courts develop community programs in an effort to avoid confining youthful offenders in juvenile institutions. Here a juvenile offender meets with his attorney for monitoring, guidance, and support. What are the potential advantages and benefits of emphasizing community-based programs?
Matt Detrich/Newscom/Tribune News Service/WOOSTER/OH/USA
Checkpoint
11. What three discretionary decisions do the police make with regard to processing juveniles?
12. What are the costs and benefits of trying juveniles in adult court?
13. What is the purpose of diversion?
14. What are five sentencing dispositions available to the judge?
Stop and Analyze: Juvenile records are sealed and generally cannot be used against adult offenders. Why would such a policy exist? Would it make more sense to allow juvenile records to be used routinely in adult criminal proceedings? State your view and give two reasons to support your position.
Check-It
7. The juvenile justice system process of corresponds to the adult system process of arrest.
a. disposition
b. adjudication
c. referral
d. placement
8. The most common outcome of juvenile court proceedings is .
a. the dismissal of all charges
b. probation and release to the community in the custody of a parent/guardian
c. placement in a treatment facility or therapeutic foster home
d. incarceration in a juvenile correctional facility
9. The juvenile equivalent of parole is .
a. adjudication
b. placement
c. aftercare
d. disposition
17-5 Problems and Perspectives Much of the criticism of juvenile justice has emphasized the disparity between the treatment ideal and the institutionalized practices of an ongoing bureaucratic system. Commentators have focused on how the language of social reformers has disguised the day-to-day operations that lack the elements of due process and in which custodial incarceration is all too frequent. Other criticisms claim that the juvenile justice system does not control juvenile crime.
The juvenile court, in both theory and practice, is a remarkably complex institution that must perform a wide variety of functions. The juvenile justice system must play such a range of roles that goals and values will inevitably collide.
In many states, the same judges, probation officers, and social workers are asked to deal with both neglected children and young criminals. Although departments of social services usually deal primarily with cases of neglect, the distinction between the criminal and the neglected child is often not maintained.
In addition to recognizing that the juvenile system has organizational problems, society must acknowledge that little is known about the causes of delinquency and its prevention or treatment. Over the years, people have advanced various social and behavioral theories to explain delinquency. One generation looked to slum conditions as the cause of juvenile crime, and another pointed to the affluence of the suburbs. Psychologists sometimes point to masculine insecurity in a matriarchal family structure, and some sociologists note the peer-group pressures of the gang. This array of theories has led to an assortment of proposed—and often contradictory—treatments. In such confusion, those interested in the problems of youth may despair. What is clear is that we need additional research on the causes of delinquency and the treatment of juvenile offenders, and recognition that a combination of treatments is likely key to reducing juvenile delinquency.
Youth gangs pose unique problems to those making decisions in the juvenile justice system. Gangs are responsible for a significant amount of delinquency in communities, and these gangs also thrive in correctional institutions (particularly adult institutions). How does the presence and behavior of youth gangs affect juvenile justice policy? Recent research has indicated gang members are more likely than non–gang members to carry guns, thereby also increasing the likelihood of severe or lethal violence among these groups. Gang members are also more likely to receive longer sentences, given that gang membership and weapon ownership can increase the severity of punishment for juveniles (Melde, Esbensen, and Taylor, 2009).
In recent years, juveniles have been engaging in delinquent behavior online. The phenomenon of “cyberbullying” involves the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices by youth to mistreat and harm their peers. Approximately 33 percent of adolescents have been bullied online, while approximately 12 percent of youth admit to cyberbullying others (Cyberbullying Research Center, 2016). Although additional inquiry is necessary, cyberbullying has been correlated with traditional bullying and various forms of school violence (Hinduja and Patchin, 2007). Read the Technology and Criminal Justice feature to gain insight about the interaction between delinquency and technology.
Technology and Criminal Justice
Cyberbullying and “Sexting”
In recent years there have been more and more incidents of juveniles using technology to engage in harmful acts. In addition to cyberbullying, teens are increasingly “sexting,” in which they engage in sexually explicit conversations and share explicit images via text messaging and cell phones. This behavior falls under the criminal law in most states, due to the illegality of child pornography. In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, hundreds of teens were found sexting. Rather than charging them with a crime, police have warned the teens and reminded them that this might constitute child pornography—even if done by juveniles. More than a dozen middle school students in Las Vegas have been identified as using SnapChat to send inappropriate images to others, as have students in a high school in suburban Chicago. Experts warn that sexting is on the rise, especially among middle school students; and unfortunately, legislation on this issue is not being created fast enough to keep up with technology.
There is considerable confusion among school administrators about how to handle sexting when they find it. A middle school in Massachusetts discovered that one of its 14-year-old students had sent nude pictures of herself to a few classmates, who had circulated the pictures to others. Rather than contact the police, the school confiscated as many phones as possible to search for evidence. In some communities, the police and prosecutor may prefer to see school officials confiscate phones, delete images, and impose suspensions and other school discipline rather than use the scarce resources of the criminal justice system to pursue this form of teen misbehavior. The varying attitudes of police and prosecutors, as well as the limits of their budgets, may lead to different outcomes for youths who are caught sexting, depending on the community in which they live. The fates of individual juveniles, especially if they are entered into the justice system instead of merely experiencing school discipline, may also depend on the extent to which victims’ parents complain and insist on action by criminal justice officials. Rapid changes in technology and behavior have made it difficult for the criminal justice system to keep up with the range of consequences resulting from this phenomenon.
Debate the Issue
What Americans Think
Question:
When asked to select the punishment that youths should receive if found guilty of killing another person (under a variety of circumstances), respondents answered:
Should juveniles who send sexually explicit pictures of themselves via cell phone be charged with a crime? Should other students who then forward these pictures to others be charged with the crime of child pornography? Consider the purposes of laws against child pornography—are they designed to prosecute these types of behaviors? List two arguments that express your position on this issue.
Sources: J. Agar, “Hundreds of Teens Sexting in Upper Peninsula Warned, Not Charged.” Mlive, April 4,
2017 ( www.mlive.com); J. Keilman, “Lake Zurich Police Investigate Alleged High School Sexting,”
Chicago Tribune, March 21, 2017 ( www.chicagotribune.com); S. Zepelin, “Las Vegas Middle School
Students Cited for Texting Ring,” 13 Action News, April 3, 2017 ( www.ktnv.com).
What trends may foretell the future of juvenile justice? The conservative crime control policies that hit the adult criminal justice system—with their emphasis on deterrence, retribution, and getting tough—have also influenced juvenile justice in the past 20 years. One can point to growing levels of overcrowding in juvenile institutions, increased litigation challenging the abuse of children in training schools and detention centers, and higher rates of minority youth incarceration. All of these problems have emerged during a period of declining youth populations and fewer arrests of juveniles. With a renewed focus on juvenile crime under the philosophy that “kids are different,” the juvenile justice system may be embarking on a less severe path to dealing with juvenile offenders.
On the other hand, future developments and events might ultimately lead to a continuation of the crime control orientation in many states. We must wait to see if we are truly moving into a new era that recognizes and focuses on the vast developmental differences between juveniles and adults. For example, the Supreme Court’s ban on the execution of offenders for crimes committed prior to the age of 18 is not necessarily permanent. Roper v. Simmons was decided on a 5-to-4 vote of the Supreme Court’s justices. Thus a change in the Court’s composition may lead to the reinstatement of the death penalty for juveniles in some states if a newly appointed future justice replaces a supporter of the Roper majority and votes to reverse the decision when the issue arises in a new case.
Such a change may seem primarily symbolic, because only a small number of offenders who committed crimes as juveniles were actually executed in the decades prior to Roper. Between 1973 and 2000, there were 17 juvenile offenders executed, mostly in the state of Texas. All but one of these offenders were age 17 at the time of their offense (Sickmund, 2004). In addition, there does not appear to be strong public opinion supporting the death penalty for juvenile offenders (Applegate and
Source: Brandon K. Applegate and Robin King Davis, “Public Views on Sentencing Juvenile Murderers: The Impact of Offender, Offense, and Perceived Maturity,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4 (2006): 55–74.
Davis, 2006) (see “What Americans Think” regarding attitudes toward punishment).
Yet, even if a reversal of the Roper decision does not lead to many executions of youthful murderers, a new Supreme Court decision would weaken the “kids are different” message that the Court announced in Roper. As a result, a future increase in youth crime or highly publicized gang violence could lead policy makers to turn back toward crime control priorities or otherwise slow the current trend toward reemphasizing treatment and rehabilitation for youthful offenders. In recent decades, the United States has not shown a consistent, firm commitment to the original rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system. Thus it remains to be seen which priorities will shape the system’s approach to punishing youthful offenders in the future.
A Question of Ethics
In 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice ended a six-year study of the juvenile probation camps in Los Angeles County, California. The investigation of these probation camps began in 2006, after reports of abuses by guards against juveniles. The accusations included complaints of excessive use of force (including overuse of pepper spray) and misconduct by officers such as drinking on the job. Officers argue that the responsible use of less-lethal weapons, such as pepper spray, can be useful for controlling rowdy populations found in juvenile facilities.
Critical Thinking and Analysis
What ethical considerations arise when staff members of a juvenile corrections facility choose to use pepper spray rather than to physically restrain a violent or out- of-control teenager? Are there risks that staff will use such weapons too quickly without attempting to understand the nature and source of the problem? Does the use of such weapons communicate to the juvenile offenders that it is legitimate to use weapons and violence to solve conflicts? Might such weapons be used inconsistently or in discriminatory ways when deciding which juveniles to spray rather than restrain? Describe the policies and training that you would develop for instructing staff members on when to use pepper spray—if at all—and when to use physical restraint.
Sources: M. Barba, “SF Juvenile Hall Counselors Call for Safety Reforms, Mace, San Francisco
Examiner, March 18, 2015 ( sfexaminer.com); A. Sewell, “Federal Monitoring of L.A. County Juvenile
Probation Camps Ending,” Los Angeles Times, April 3, 2015 ( www.latimes.com).
Check-It
10. Juvenile gang members are more likely than non-gang members to carry a gun and to receive longer sentences when they appear in juvenile court.
a. True
b. False
LO1
LO2
LO3
LO4
17-6 Chapter Review
17-6a Summary
Describe the extent of youth crime in the United States
Crimes committed by juveniles have increased since 1980, even though crimes of violence in general have decreased.
Discuss how the juvenile justice system developed and the assumptions on which it was based
The history of juvenile justice comprises six periods: Puritan, Refuge, Juvenile Court, Juvenile Rights, Crime Control, and “Kids Are Different.”
Creation of the juvenile court in 1899 established a separate juvenile justice system.
The In re Gault decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 brought due process to the juvenile justice system.
Analyze what determines the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system
The juvenile system handles cases based on the ages of youths who are affected by status offenses, delinquency, dependency, and neglect.
Describe how the juvenile justice system operates
Decisions by police officers and juvenile intake officers dispose of a large portion of the many cases that are never referred to the court.
In juvenile court, most cases are settled through a plea agreement.
After conviction or plea, a disposition hearing is held. Before passing sentence, the judge reviews the offense and the juvenile’s social history.
Possible dispositions of a juvenile case include suspended judgment, probation, community treatment, or institutional care.
Juvenile court jurisdiction may be waived so that youths can be tried in the adult criminal justice system, but this appears to be decreasing in
LO5
recent years.
Options for juvenile corrections include probation, intermediate sanctions, custodial care, institutional programs, aftercare, and community treatment.
Analyze some of the problems facing the American system of juvenile justice
Juvenile justice faces issues of racial disparities in punishment; criminal activity by gangs; and new behavioral problems, such as cyberbullying, which involve computers and mobile devices.
It remains to be seen whether the current move toward increased rehabilitation will continue or whether crime control policies will be a primary priority.
- CH 17-1
- CH 17-2
- CH 17-2a
- CH 17-2b
- CH 17-2c
- CH 17-2d
- CH 17-2e
- CH 17-2f
- CH 17-3
- CH 17-3a
- CH 17-3b
- CH 17-4
- CH 17-4a
- CH 17-4b
- CH 17-4c
- CH 17-4d
- CH 17-4e
- CH 17-4f
- CH 17-4g
- CH 17-5
- CH 17-6