quiz 38 Qs

Jude55

AdultificationofJuvenilesandSchoolPolicy.pptx

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >quiz 38 Qs

Getting Tough, the Adultification of Juvenile Justice and School Policy

The Central Park 5

The case that changed everything.

What should be done with juveniles?

Should the judge act as the parent? Does the criminal justice system help produce better adults?

What is the relationship between school issues and criminal justice issues?

How did what happened at Columbine change how juveniles are treated today? Is it different than when juveniles were called superpredators?

School Policy

Chapter Overview:

The Emergence of Zero Tolerance Policies

Zero Tolerance Polices Fail to Meet Key Criteria of Deterrence Theory

The Future of Zero Tolerance Policies

The Emergence of Zero Tolerance Policies

5 Key Steps to Policy Formation:

Identification of the Problem

Formulation of Solutions/Policy

Legitimization of the Policy

Implementation of the Policy

Evaluation of the Outcome

Identification of the Problem

School Violence – highly publicized school shootings

Key Stakeholders?

Narrow problems/causes

Broad problems/causes

Severity of the Problem

Official data sources

Federal Bureau of Investigation: Uniform Crime Reports

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Juvenile Offenders and Victims

Media Accounts – Media responsible?

Severity of the Problem

Trends in Juvenile Homicide

Severity of the Problem

Violent crime that results in injury to the victim is most likely in the afterschool hours on school days for juvenile offenders

Severity of the Problem

In a pattern similar to that for adults, juveniles are most likely to commit a crime with a firearm between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. — although there is also a minor peak in the afterschool hours

Severity of the Problem Both male and female students experienced far fewer crimes of violence and theft in school in 2001 than in 1992

Formulation of Solutions/Policy

“Public discussion and development of proposals designed to resolve the problem”

Early Policies

1989 California, Kentucky, New York

Gun Free Schools Act 1990

Repeal Gun Free Schools Act?

Gun Free School Act

Under the auspices of the GFSZA, public school mass shootings have been plentiful. The act was passed in 1990 and signed by President George H. W. Bush.

In its wake a horrified nation has witnessed Columbine (April 20, 1999), Santana High School (March 5, 2001), Rocori High School (September 24, 2003), Red Lake Senior High School (March 21, 2005), Platte Canyon High School (September 27, 2006), Sandy Hook (December 14, 2012), Sparks Middle School (March 21, 2013), Arapahoe High School (December 13, 2013), and many others.

In fact, ABC News reports that 141 students were “killed in a mass murder or attempted mass murder at a school since Columbine” alone.

Armed staff, safer school?

Repeal Gun Free School Act?

Numerous aspects of the federal act commend its repeal.

From Jan. 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, only 25 defendants were charged in a state or the District of Columbia with violating it.

Only four were not also charged with another federal crime carrying a greater maximum sentence, such as possession of a firearm by a felon.

It’s unsurprising a 2013 U.S. Sentencing Commission primer on major firearms statutes doesn’t reference this act.

Gun Free School Act

The act can create burdensome detours and have severe consequences for those who are inadvertently unsuccessful in navigating around prohibited areas, generating unintentional violations and frivolous, sporadic prosecutions.

What was the reason fro the Gun Free School Act of 1994? What did it do? Why don’t we need it anymore?

The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994:

1. Requires schools to expel for at least one year students who are caught carrying a gun;

2. Mandates that public schools which receive federal funding adhere to the gun-free policy, or risk losing their funding;

3. Requires schools to report campus gun incidents to their state education agencies, including the number of incidents on campuses each year and which type of guns are used;

4. Gives schools discretion to modify the expulsion policy on a case-by-case basis should extenuating circumstances exist;

5. Strengthens existing local and state laws punishing students who bring guns to school. The Los Angeles Unified School District, for example, already has an expulsion policy,

but it does not specify a minimum length of time.

Source: Feinstein, D. (n.d.) The Gun Free Schools Act of 1994

This bill amends the federal criminal code to repeal provisions that prohibit the possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone.

Legitimization of the Policy

“Selecting a proposal, building political support for it, and enacting it as law (or school rule)”

Easy to find political support

Rising crime rates

Due process revolution

Key stakeholders:

Politicians

Media

Source: Dye, T.R. (1995). Understanding public policy (8th edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Implementation of the Policy

“Organizing bureaucracies and arranging for funding through charging for services or levying taxes.”

Bureaucracy already in place

Gun Free Schools passed 1994

By 1997 90% of public schools have zero tolerance policy

Source: Dye, T.R. (1995). Understanding public policy (8th edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zero Tolerance

Could zero tolerance be dismissed through another focus?

The proposed Safe Students Act is backed by the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the National Association for Gun Rights.

This bill amends the federal criminal code to repeal provisions that prohibit the possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone.

Evaluation of the Outcome

“Studying the program, reporting outputs and impacts (both intentional and unintentional) and suggesting changes and adjustments.”

Supporters of Zero Tolerance

Consistent/unbiased

Centered on student behavior and accountability

Clearly conveys group expectations of behavior

Removing disruptive students will improve learning environment

Source: Dye, T.R. (1995). Understanding public policy (8th edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Evaluation of the Outcome

Opponents of Zero Tolerance

Fail to show reduction in violence

Net widening

Psychological damage due to intrusive security

ZT policies intentionally push low achieving students out (school to prison pipeline)

Policies are enforced inconsistently and punishment is excessive

Zero Tolerance Policies Fail to Meet Key Criteria of Deterrence Theory

Deterrence Doctrine:

“The omission of an act as a response to the perceived risk and fear of punishment for contrary behavior”– why people do not commit crime

General deterrence targets general population

Specific deterrence targets offending individual

Perception of increased certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment will influence individual to refrain from an activity

Source: Gibbs, J. (1975). Crime, punishment, and deterrence. New York, NY: Elsevier Publishing Company.

Deterrence and Pulling Levers

Six assumptions of pulling levers strategy:

1) A majority of criminal events are completed by a small number of

chronic offenders

2) Gangs and groups of juveniles are responsible for large numbers of offenses that are committed

3) There is a positive relationship between individuals who use drugs and their involvement in criminal activity

4) There is a positive relationship between individuals who perpetrate domestic violence and their involvement in other criminal activity

5) Offenders and victims frequently know, or at least know of, each

other; many victims undergo repeat victimization

6) Crime is concentrated in specific hot spots within cities as well as

within communities and neighborhoods

Source: Kennedy, D.M. (1997). Pulling levers: Chronic offenders, high-crime settings and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso University

Law Review, 31, 449-484.

Deterrence and Pulling Levers

Eight characteristics of successful policy:

Threat is communicated

Policy must be clear and simple

Threat must be credible

Should be shared moral ground

Policy must have targeted goal and enforcement plan

Policy should utilize both general and specific deterrence

Policy should focus on a target audience that is vulnerable to official intervention

The agency must maintain pressure on the target until goal is reached