week 6.2 criminal

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch1… 1/50

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch1… 2/50

13

Juvenile Justice

Chapter Outline

Introduction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec1#ch13lev1sec1)

Amount of Juvenile Crime (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec2#ch13lev1sec2)

Theories of Juvenile Delinquency (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec3#ch13lev1sec3)

Evolution of the Juvenile Justice System (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec4#ch13lev1sec4)

Juvenile Justice System Today (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec5#ch13lev1sec5)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch1… 3/50

Politics and Juvenile Justice (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec6#ch13lev1sec6)

Liberal and Conservative Approaches to Juvenile Justice Policy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec6#ch13lev2sec1)

The Supreme Court and the Rights of Juveniles (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec6#ch13lev2sec2)

Congress and Juvenile Justice (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec6#ch13lev2sec3)

Interest Groups and Juvenile Justice (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec6#ch13lev2sec4)

Bureaucracies and Juvenile Justice (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec6#ch13lev2sec5)

Role in Policy Process (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec7#ch13lev1sec7)

Problem Identi�ication (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec7#ch13lev2sec6)

Agenda Setting (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec7#ch13lev2sec7)

Policy Formulation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec7#ch13lev2sec8)

Program Implementation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec7#ch13lev2sec9)

Program Evaluation and Reassessment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec7#ch13lev2sec10)

Juvenile Justice Issues (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec8#ch13lev1sec8)

Preventive Detention (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec8#ch13lev2sec11)

Juveniles and the Death Penalty (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec8#ch13lev2sec12)

Racism in the System (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec8#ch13lev2sec13)

Serious, Violent Juvenile Offenders (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec8#ch13lev2sec14)

Gangs (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec8#ch13lev2sec15)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch1… 4/50

Transfer to Adult Court (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec8#ch13lev2sec16)

Conclusion (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13lev1sec9)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch1… 5/50

13.1 INTRODUCTION Over the past 50 years, a juvenile justice system has evolved to help deal with juveniles who have been either accused of committing criminal acts or declared delinquent by the court system. Nationally, the juvenile justice system consists of thousands of public and private agencies that deal with thousands of youth, with a total budget amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. This gives the juvenile justice system an important role in the policy process.

There are juvenile justice systems on both the federal and the state level. At the federal level, there are limited cases where a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent. An act of juvenile delinquency is a violation of federal law committed by a person younger than eighteen. However, federal law requires that prosecutors go forward with a case only if they can certify that there is a substantial federal interest and that the state does not have jurisdiction (or refuses jurisdiction), that the state does not have adequate programs or services for that juvenile, or that the offense is a violent felony, a drug-traf�icking or importation offense, or a �irearms offense. The federal government does not have a formal, separate system for juveniles per se; rather, a juvenile who is arrested is adjudicated by a U.S. district court judge or magistrate in a closed hearing without a jury. If the juvenile is adjudicated, a hearing concerning the disposition of the juvenile is then held. The judge or magistrate can order restitution, probation, or commitment to a correctional facility. A juvenile may also be tried as an adult if the offense charged is a violent crime, involves drug traf�icking or importation or the use of a �irearm, or is a repeat offense.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn1)

In 1995, there were charges �iled against 240 juveniles for alleged acts of juvenile delinquency in the federal system. About a third of the cases involved a violent offense (32%), and a lesser proportion involved a drug offense (15%). The average length of commitment was 34 months. The majority of juveniles charged with federal offenses were placed on probation.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn2)

Each state has also developed its own system for dealing with youthful offenders, including a juvenile code and a special court structure to deal with children who are in trouble. Since the system in each state has evolved separately, there is some variation between states but at the same time many similarities between them.

Whether it is the federal, state, or local level, the juvenile justice system is concerned with juveniles who violate the law. A juvenile delinquent is a minor child who violates the penal code. The age that de�ines a minor child varies from state to state and ranges from 15 to 17. A youth can be found guilty of violating the criminal code similar to an adult but can also be convicted of a status offense, which is an action for which only juveniles can be held accountable. In other words, there are acts that are illegal only for juveniles. These include behaviors such as truancy; smoking; drinking; swearing; running away; disobeying the orders of parents, teachers, or other adults; and violating curfew.

The juvenile justice system was created to protect and guide juveniles who might be in trouble with the law. The system is geared to protecting the juvenile rather than punishing him or her. Because of this purpose, there are some differences between the adult and juvenile courts. For one, there are some different terms and procedures in the two courts. A youth is not referred to as a “criminal” but rather as a “delinquent child.” A youth is not “arrested” per se but rather is “taken into custody.” A youth is not taken to jail or placed into a prison but instead is placed in a “detention facility,” “treatment center,” or “training

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch1… 6/50

school.” There is no trial in the juvenile court but rather an “adjudicatory hearing.” Finally, a juvenile is not “convicted” of an offense but rather “adjudicated.”

In addition to a separate court structure for juvenile offenders, most police agencies also have a juvenile component, and there are about 3,000 juvenile correctional facilities across the country. But other institutions are also involved in helping juvenile offenders, including mental health systems, schools, and networks of private social service programs.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch1… 7/50

13.2 AMOUNT OF JUVENILE CRIME There is a perception that juvenile crime continues to increase across the country, although the pattern of juvenile crime is dif�icult to determine. Not all juveniles who commit crimes are actually arrested and formally brought into the criminal justice system as either juveniles or adults. Many juveniles who commit offenses are never caught, and some who are caught are given a warning and released or diverted from the system in some other fashion.

One way to measure the number of juvenile offenses is through the number of arrests. The Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the federal agency that tracks juvenile crime, reported that 2,111,200 juveniles were arrested for criminal acts in 2008. Of these, 96,000 were for violent crimes.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn3) The statistics show that the number of juveniles arrested for criminal offenses has decreased steadily between 1997 and 2008, as shown in Table 13.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec2#ch13table01) . Males commit more homicides than females. In 2006, males committed 1165 homicides and females committed 88. Most homicides are committed with a �irearm. In 2006, 902 homicides involved a gun, whereas 353 did not.4 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn4)

TABLE 13.1 Estimated Juvenile Arrests, 1997–2008

1997 1999 2000 2001 2008

Violent crime 123,45010 103,880 98,860 96,520 96,0000

Property crimes 701,500 541,500 518,800 491,400 439,600

Nonindex offenses 2,013,350 1,823,420 1,751,740 1,685,580 1,575,500

Total 2,838,300 2,468,800 2,369,400 2,273,500 2,111,200

Source: H. Snyder, C. Puzzanchera, and W. Kang, “Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics 1994–2001” (2003), available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezaucr/ucr_display.asp?Select_State=0&Select (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezaucr/ucr_display.asp?Select_State=0&Select) ; OJJDP “Juvenile Arrests 2008” (December 2009) Of�ice of Justice Programs, Department of Justice; available online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov) .

TABLE 13.2 Juvenile court cases

Year

1960 405,000

1965 554,000

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch1… 8/50

Year

1970 836,000

1975 1,051,000

1980 1,092,000

1985 1,161,500

1990 1,345,800

1995 1,345,800

1998 1,798,000

1999 1,179,000

2000 1,701,800

2001 1,687,200

2002 1,675,500

2003 1,673,700

2004 1,688,300

2005 1,697,900

Source: Statistical Brie�ing Book, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/qa06204 (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/qa06204) .

There is concern that there is a disproportionately high number of minority juveniles in the system. In 2007, 47 percent of the youth arrested for violent crimes were white, 51 percent involved black youth, and 1 percent was Asian. The racial composition of the general population in the country is 78 percent white, 17 percent black, and 5 percent Asian. This trend has been labeled “disproportionate minority contact” or DMC. Further, from 1985 to 2005, the number of delinquency cases for black youth increased 97 percent, but only 24 percent for white youth.5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn5)

Another way to examine the amount of juvenile crime is to look at how many juveniles appear in court. Table 13.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec2#ch13table02) shows that from 1960 to 2005, the number of juveniles committing offenses serious enough to appear in front of a court has increased steadily. Table 13.3

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch1… 9/50

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec2#ch13table03) indicates that most offenses are public order offenses, followed by property offenses, personal offenses and then drug law violations. Females comprise between 20 and 30 percent of the cases. The majority of defendants were white.

TABLE 13.3 Juvenile Court Cases, by Offense, 2005

Number of Cases Female (%) White (%)

Total Delinquency 1,697,900 27 64

Person Offenses 429,500 30 57

Property Offenses 598,600 27 67

Drug Law Violations 195,300 20 74

Public Order Offenses 474,400 28 63

Source: Statistical Brie�ing Book, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/qa06204 (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/qa06204) .

There have been fewer juveniles placed in residential facilities in recent years. In 1997, there were 105,055 juveniles held in youth facilities, which increased to 107,856 in 1999. After that, the juvenile residential population dropped to 104,413 in 2001, 96,655 in 2003 and then to 92,854 in 2006.6 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn6) That year, 15 percent of the juveniles in residential facilities were females. Forty percent of the juveniles were black, 35 percent were white, 20 percent Hispanic, 2 percent American Indian and 1 percent Asian. Most of the juveniles were sentenced for personal crimes (34%), followed by property crimes (25%), technical violations (16%), public order offenses (11%), drug offenses (9%), and status offenses (5%).7 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn7)

TABLE 13.4 Population of Juvenile Residential Placement

1997 1999

Delinquency 98,913 104,237

Status 6,877 4,694

Source: Melissa Sickmund, “Juveniles in Corrections” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Of�ice of Justice Programs, 2004); p. 3.

Juvenile residential placement facilities vary in their degree of security. It is more common for facilities to have fences, walls, and surveillance equipment. In 1999, it was reported that seven out of ten

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 10/50

juveniles were con�ined by at least one locked door or gate. Seventy-two percent were held in a locked facility, whereas 28 percent were held in a staff-secure facility.8 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn8) Those juveniles held for status offenses were more likely to be con�ined in staff-secure facilities than in locked ones.9 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn9) See Table 13.14.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 11/50

13.3 THEORIES OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY There are many theories to explain why juveniles commit crime and how the system can prevent further harm by juveniles. Some of these are in Box 13.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec4#ch13sb01) . The theories range from personal choice to physical characteristics of offenders, such as an extra Y chromosome that makes some juveniles more prone to violence. Another theory is based on the premise that those juveniles with a particular body type are more likely to commit criminal offenses. Other theories center more around the structure of society and its focus on criminal behavior. For example, class con�lict sometimes is acknowledged as the source of crime, as are differences in opportunities available to members of different classes. Although the focuses of the theories are different, each one attempts to determine the underlying reason for the criminal behavior. If we understand why criminal acts are committed by juveniles, our criminal justice system will be better equipped to deal with that offender and prevent further crime.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 12/50

13.4 EVOLUTION OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM The juvenile justice system has not always been an integral part of the criminal justice system in America but rather has evolved over time. In colonial America, there was no separate criminal justice system for juveniles who committed criminal offenses. At that time, it was illegal for children to show rebelliousness or disobedience, play ball in public streets, or sled on the Sabbath. Children between seven and fourteen who committed one of these crimes were considered to be responsible for the act, and they were punished appropriately. Children over the age of 14 were believed capable of both the act and the intent to carry it out, which made them eligible for more severe punishment. When misconduct occurred, the juvenile’s family was primarily responsible for punishing the child.10 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn10) But when more severe punishment was needed, the colonists used whipping or some other form of corporal punishment. If the crime was serious enough, the colonists punished children by imprisonment.

BOX 13.1 Theories of Juvenile Delinquency

School Description Theorist

Classical Individuals have free will and reasoning and make rational choices based on pleasure and pain; crime can be prevented through increased punishment.

Beccaria: On Crimes and Punishment (1764) Bentham: An Introduction to the Principles and Morals of Legislation (1789)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 13/50

School Description Theorist

Biological and biosocial

Behavior is caused by an internal mechanism or physical property that predisposes one to criminality; criminal behavior based on biological makeup of individual; crime can be prevented through treatment of offender.

Sheldon (1944): Body types (somatype) can determine criminal behavior; mesomorphs (muscular and large) are more likely to commit crimes than endomorphs (short, fat, and round) or ectomorphs (bony, thin, and skinny).

Lombroso; Ferrero (1867; 1911): Criminals are atavistic or less developed than noncriminals; likely to have protruding jaws, long arms, high foreheads, unusual number of �ingers, bad teeth, abnormal nasal features, and deep, close-set eyes.

Murray (1976): Learning disabilities cause criminal behavior; a disorder or de�iciency of speech, hearing, reading, writing, or arithmetic may affect behavior.

Jacobs, Brunton, and Melville (1965): Males with an extra Y chromosome (XYY males) are more likely to commit crimes.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 14/50

School Description Theorist

Psychological Differences in intelligence, personality, or other factors cause delinquency; these might include early life experiences, incomplete socialization, or poor development of personality.

Freud: A person’s personality is made up of the id, the ego (the social identity that is exhibited through behavior, and the superego (a result of the early moral training, providing the rationale for refraining from various types of behavior); crime is caused where there is a con�lict between the id and the superego.

Fink (1938): Delinquents are de�icient in basic moral sentiments that are inherited from parents.

Goddard (1912): Criminal behavior is the result of weak intelligence by studying the Lakkikak family, where one line came from a “respectable girl” and resulted in governors, senators, doctors, and other good people; the other line came from a barmaid and produced prostitutes, alcoholics, and criminals.

Social disorganization and anomie

Social and economic inequalities cause people to commit crimes.

Durkheim (1933), Anomie theory: This describes the inability of individuals to recognize the necessity of different jobs and payoffs and the inability to control the egoistic urges within themselves.

Burgess (1967) and Shaw, and McCay (1942, 1969): These theorists debated if delinquency is more a product of economic conditions and local-based traditions and values than ethnic culture.

Merton (1957), Strain theory: This describes a lack of agreement between goals and means to achieve those goals.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 15/50

School Description Theorist

Class based Delinquency is concentrated in lower class, and a high number of lower-class youth do poorly in school; poor school performance is related to delinquency and attributed to a con�lict between the dominant middle-class values of the school system and values of the lower class; lower-class male delinquency is committed largely in a gang context as a means of developing more positive self- concepts.

Cohen (1955): Lower-class boys feel ill equipped to compete in middle- class society; middle-class orientation is set up so that lower- class youths cannot succeed, yet these youths are expected to follow the goals of the middle class; often, boys of lower classes may join together in groups that provide alternative means of gaining status.

Cloward and Ohlin (1960): Differential opportunity; Illegitimate opportunities are available when legitimate opportunities are blocked; when youth �ind that educational opportunities and good-paying jobs are not available to them, they will pursue delinquent activities instead.

Shaw and McKay (1942): Delinquency rates are highest in and around the central business district and highest in the lowest economic areas and in areas of foreign-born and African-American heads of households.

Miller (1958): The lower class operates under a distinct set of cultural values or focal concerns; these are trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fate, and autonomy; adherence to these provides status and acceptance in lower classes but con�lict with middle-class values; deviant behavior is the byproduct of following the subcultural focus concerns.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 16/50

School Description Theorist

Interpersonal and situational theories

Personal interactions cause people to learn about and accept criminal behavior as normal.

Sutherland (1939), Differential association: Criminal behavior is learned and more easily learned in some areas; it is learned in the same fashion as conforming behavior from the people with whom an individual comes into contact; a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of de�initions favorable to violation of law.

Matza (1964), Drift: People drift between different modes of behavior; a person who is deviant at one point in time may be a model citizen at another time.

Control People must be controlled if criminal tendencies are to be repressed.

Empey (1982) and Hirschi (1969): People need to create a bond to society that is set in childhood; a weak bond allows for deviance; the bonds include attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.

Reckless (1967), Containment: An individual controls his or her own behavior; outer containment deals with the in�luences of the family, peers, and environment in molding behavior; inner containment deals with individual strengths such as a good self-concept and internalized moral codes.

Labeling People are labeled as criminal Lemert (1951), Becker (1973), and theory and learn to ful�ill the label. Wolfgang (1972): An individual uses his or her deviant behavior as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the problems created by the societal reaction to him or her; actions of an individual correspond to a label.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 17/50

School Description Theorist

Radical Criminal behavior is the result of repressive efforts of ruling class to control the subject class.

Turk (1969), Quinney (1970), and Chambliss (1974): The competition for wealth is the key to con�lict; the economically powerful use the law to maintain their dominance; the law is made by the powerful, and it is in their interests to keep the powerful in power.

Sources: G. S. Becker, “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” Journal of Political Economy 76 (1968): 169–217; D. J. Shoemaker, Theories of Delinquency (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

Throughout the colonial period to the nineteenth century, it was thought that misbehavior by juveniles was caused by poverty and lower-class environments.11 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn11) Public of�icials used the same methods to deal with criminal youth as they used to handle poor people, who were also viewed as a threat to society. One way to deal with the poor was to provide training that would help them become productive members of society. To accomplish this, the juveniles should be removed from the bad in�luences and substandard training of the parents.12 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn12)

This era was termed the “era of institutionalization,” during which many juveniles were removed from their families and homes and sent to institutions where they could be “trained.” Many juveniles faced broad de�initions of criminal behavior, and many were sent away for acts for which they would not have been punished had they been adults (status offenses). For example, in Massachusetts, of�icials could commit to prison “rogues, vagabonds, common beggars, and other idle, disorderly and lewd persons.”13 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn13) Juveniles were housed with adults in often inhumane settings without heat and adequate food and clothing.

The Philadelphia Society for Assisting Distressed Prisoners, organized in 1776 by several prominent Quakers, investigated these jail conditions. They criticized the failure of jails to segregate men from women, juveniles from adults, and felons from misdemeanants.14 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn14) Eventually, a new approach to punishing juveniles was created. The houses of refuge, created by the Reformers, were intended to remove the juvenile from the environment that was causing crime (i.e., the city) and replace it with institutional, rehabilitative care where the child could be reformed and saved rather than punished. They tried to make the houses of refuge warm, supportive places resembling a home or school rather than a prison.15 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn15) The institutions were seen as less cruel than earlier systems of control and more capable of turning the deviant into a productive member of society.16 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn16) The �irst House

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 18/50

of Refuge was established in New York City in 1825. Boston and Philadelphia created their own houses of refuge that were racially segregated.

The houses of refuge enforced silence among the inmates. The juveniles wore uniforms and marched to and from different activities. There was also the use of swift punishment that included corporal punishment.17 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn17) Since the rationale and setup of the houses of refuge re�lected concern for the poor and the need for training, work programs became the centerpiece of the program of rehabilitation. Often the juveniles were contracted out to employers as apprentices. Unfortunately, the children were often bribed, beaten, and subjected to incarceration if the monetary interests of the administrators were at stake.18 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn18) Those boys who failed to make their quota were whipped. They were paid very little, denied adequate clothing, and physically abused.19 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn19)

Over time, the houses of refuge were replaced with reform schools, which were state institutions intended for the long-term incarceration of their more serious offenders. Massachusetts established the �irst State Reform School for Boys in 1847. For the most part, the reform schools resembled the houses of refuge. There was a strict regimen of work, education, and religious instruction that was intended to rehabilitate the juvenile offenders.20 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn20) By 1880, almost every state, excluding those in the South, had a government-supported boys’ reformatory and a separate girls’ institution. Many states had created “cottage” reformatories that were intended to mirror a family and home setting. Here, surrogate parents would oversee the training and education of a small number of kids. Discipline was mixed with care. Often these reformatories were located in the country to separate the youth from the city.21 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn21)

In the late nineteenth century, people saw a need to reform the system for juvenile offenders. The separate juvenile justice system expanded gradually, culminating in the �irst separate court for juveniles, established on July 1, 1899, in Cook County, Illinois, in the Juvenile Court Act (1899 Ill. Laws 132 et seq.). This statute created a “children’s court” with jurisdiction not only over delinquent children under sixteen who committed criminal offenses but also over a variety of other situations, such as homeless or abandoned children, children dependent on the public for support, or neglected children who were without proper parental care. The act was unique because it was based on a rehabilitative approach rather than punishment. It was hoped that keeping kids out of adult court and jails where they were corrupted by hardened criminals could prevent troubled youths from becoming more involved with crime.

The juvenile court was based on a system of informal procedures that were intended to make it less intimidating for the juvenile. Formal courtroom procedures found in the adult court, such as lawyers, strict rules of evidence, and testimony under oath, were discouraged. Courtroom procedures were informal and had no adversary procedures that might prevent the court’s ability to determine the best treatment for the child. The judge assumed more of a paternal attitude toward the juvenile and attempted to determine what the child needed to keep him or her away from crime.

Between 1920 and 1960, the juvenile court became an accepted and inherent part of the criminal justice system. In the 1950s, an increase in juvenile crime and more youth entering the juvenile system caused concern among public of�icials and citizens.22

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 19/50

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn22) They responded with developing more training and counseling programs and psychotherapeutic interventions.23 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn23)

The rights of juvenile offenders were expanded during the 1960s to include due process considerations, such as the right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination.24 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn24) But changes in the nature of crimes committed by youth, including increases in violent crime, involvement in crack cocaine and other drugs, and gang activity (combined with a conservative political climate during the mid- 1980s), saw a return to policies of punishment and criminalization for juveniles. This resulted in a gradual reduction in treatment-oriented policies and services between 1985 and 1990.25 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn25)

Since 1990, many states have passed legislation that has changed the way in which delinquent youths are processed in the system. Recent policies toward juvenile justice stress the punishment and control of young offenders. Some states have passed laws to lower the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults, enacted stricter punishments for drug- and gang-related offenses, and introduced stringent treatments, such as boot camps, for all juvenile offenders. Community-based programs have been eliminated in many jurisdictions, and institutions combining different types of juvenile offenders have been reintroduced.26 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn26)

As with correctional policy for adults, there have been cycles of treatment/rehabilitation versus punishment in the juvenile system. As seen with adult offenders, there is no consensus as to the best way to deter, treat, or punish juvenile criminal offenders. For years, scholars and practitioners have debated if crime could be reduced by either punishing or treating offenders.27 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn27) Allen points out that the rehabilitative ideal, particularly for juveniles, actually led to an increased severity of penal measures. He explains that judges were authorized to intervene punitively in juvenile cases that would be ignored if committed by an adult. Further, the use of indeterminate sentences allowed for lengthened periods of imprisonment. In the long run, the rehabilitative ideal led to more incapacitation than treatment.28 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn28)

Bernard shows that these cycles, one consisting of largely punitive policies, followed by a predominantly rehabilitative phase, have been repeated three times since 1820. He calls this the “Cycle of Juvenile Punishment.”29 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn29) He presents the argument that many juveniles who were �irst brought through the juvenile system and then go on to commit additional crimes may not have committed additional crimes if they had been punished severely for the earlier offenses. He argues that the leniency of the juvenile court simply encourages juveniles to laugh at the system and to believe that they will not be punished no matter what additional crime they commit. Thus, they feel free to commit serious crimes more frequently and with greater impunity.30 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn30) In response, of�icials begin to “toughen up” the punishments for juvenile offenders, and the lenient responses become less accepted. Despite the tough policies, juvenile crime rates remain high. This, then, generates efforts to provide even harsher punishments. However, when the punishments become more severe, they are not applied to the juvenile. Some minor offenders may even be released without any punishment. The juvenile crime continues to be high, so of�icials conclude that harsh punishment may be increasing crime, causing

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 20/50

the offender to be angry and bitter toward society. Taking this into account, of�icials again make changes to the juvenile system.31 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn31)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 21/50

13.5 JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM TODAY Today, our legal system still recognizes that many young people are incapable of making mature adult judgments and that responsibility for their acts should be limited. Some children may know that an act is illegal, but they may be incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their behavior and the harm it may cause. There are elements of both conservative and liberal approaches to juvenile crime in today’s system. There has recently been a “toughening up” of juvenile correctional policy in many states. For example, many states have passed laws that allow the transfer of a juvenile to an adult court where juveniles are removed from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court so they can be tried and punished as adult offenders. Nonetheless, there are also many aspects of rehabilitation in the juvenile system, especially involving status offenders, where they are placed in educational or treatment programs instead of in a residential facility.

There has also been a focus on preventing juvenile crime before the juvenile becomes a serious offender. Many experts are questioning the effect of early childhood experiences on juvenile behavior. Research in this area seems to show that early events in children’s lives may be the precursors of criminal behavior, including the relationship between a child and his or her parents. Some risk factors of delinquent behavior include early use of alcohol and drugs, ties to antisocial friends, early expressions of aggression, poor parent–child relations, and even low intelligence.32 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn32)

Although the jurisdiction of juvenile courts now varies from state to state, judges are generally given broad jurisdiction over problems involving children and their families. These problems include establishment of paternity, child abuse and neglect, foster care, termination of parental rights, adoption, truancy, runaway youth, children in need of services, youth with mental illness and other disabilities, crimes committed by family members and partners against one another, civil orders of protection for family members and youth, and crimes committed by and against youth.

When a juvenile comes into the system, there are many decisions that are made by many different actors that affect the outcome of the case. These actors include probation of�icers, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges. The following discussion provides a quick overview of the juvenile system and the actors’ roles.

Most children initially come into contact with a police of�icer. At that time, the police can simply warn the child, call the parents, or make a referral to a social service agency. If the offense is serious enough, the police can arrest the juvenile. If a youth is taken into custody, he or she is referred to the juvenile court.

If the police decide to �ile a petition (similar to bringing charges in an adult case) and take the child into custody, the child may be brought to the station house lockup and then to a county detention program or intake program prior to a court appearance. The primary issue is whether the child should remain in the community or be placed in detention or in a shelter home. This decision is made by the relevant court personnel in a detention hearing.

The Model Juvenile Delinquency Act, which serves as a guideline for state codes, stipulates that the detention hearing be held within 36 hours. The of�icials can release a child to his or her parents, or they can choose to put the child in secure detention, which is often the equivalent of jail. This involves putting the juvenile in a locked facility with other youths who are awaiting further court action or transfer to a state correctional facility. Normally, the detention hearing results in a decision either to remand the child

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 22/50

to a shelter or to release the child. At this point, the child has a right to counsel and other procedural safeguards.

In some cases, a youth may be detained pending a trial if there is a danger to him- or herself or others. Authorities can also choose to put the youth in a nonsecure detention facility, which is usually for those youth who are involved in less serious crimes and do not pose much of a threat to society. These usually entail small group homes where they can go to regular school during the day.

There must also be an intake decision. This is when a court of�icial, either a probation of�icer or a prosecutor (or both), decides whether to �ile a court petition of delinquency, status offense, neglect, abuse, or dependency in a case. The of�icer can choose not to �ile a petition but instead try to resolve the matter without resorting to a formal petition against the child. This might be called an informal adjustment and occurs frequently.

If the crime is serious, the juvenile court prosecutor may initiate a petition against the child. This begins the trial process, called adjudication, which is the trial state of the juvenile court process. The adjudication hearing is held to determine the facts of the case. If the child denies the allegation of delinquency, an adjudicatory hearing is scheduled. Here a judge determines whether there is enough evidence to establish the petition and decides what to do if there is enough evidence. The court hears evidence on the allegations in the delinquency petition. This is a trial on the merits of the case, and the rules of evidence are similar to the criminal proceedings in adult cases. Every child is given procedural rights similar to criminal proceedings for adults: right to representation by counsel, right to confront witnesses, and so on.

The adjudication process typically begins with some sort of initial hearing. At this hearing, juvenile court rules of procedure normally require that the child be informed of his or her right to a trial and that the plea or admission be voluntary. This step is similar to the plea, trial, and sentencing decisions in adult court.

The decision to transfer the juvenile (a waiver) to the adult court may be necessary in cases where the offense was serious. This decision creates an adult criminal record rather than a con�idential juvenile record.

The disposition decision is next. If the adjudication or trial �inds the child to be delinquent or in need of supervision, the court initiates a social study of the child’s background. This is called a predisposition report. On completion of the report, an appropriate disposition leading to a correctional and rehabilitation program is provided. The judge decides what should be done to treat the child. Judges are given much leeway in such decisions, and some of the options are listed in Box 13.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec5#ch13sb02) .

BOX 13.2 Punishment Options for Juvenile Delinquents

Aftercare or Parole

Similar to that for adults; provides transitional supervision between a stay of incarceration and freedom in the community; offender must abide by certain conditions or face reincarceration.

Juvenile Probation

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 23/50

The primary form of community treatment for juveniles; a juvenile is placed within the community under the supervision of an of�icer of the court (a juvenile probation of�icer). For the probationary period, the juvenile is subject to rules and conditions that must be followed; if those are violated, probation can be revoked and the juvenile sent to prison or other custodial option.

Intensive Probation Supervision

The probation of�icer has smaller caseloads than with typical probation; allows the of�icer to provide almost daily contact with the offenders and monitor their actions.

Wilderness Probation

Offenders take part in an outdoor camp and must perform tasks to increase their discipline and self-esteem.

Diversion

The offender is diverted from the prison; represents the view that the juvenile system is too punitive and ineffective.

Community Corrections

The offender is given treatment in the community, which often permits him or her to stay in the home and maintain family relationships.

Restitution

Reimbursing the victims of an offense or donating to a charity; may either be an independent option or a condition of probation.

Community Service Restitution

The juvenile must assist a community organization.

Residential Programs

Provide a juvenile with a “home away from home”; the juveniles move into and live in this setting, either a group home or foster home that is staffed by counselors who provide counseling, education, or job training; the juveniles can attend school or participate in school and community activities; these homes hold twelve to �ifteen youth.

Nonresidential Community Treatment

In these programs, the youth remain at home with their families yet receive necessary counseling, education, employment, diagnostic, and casework services for the youth and other family members.

Institutionalization

Usually reserved for more serious or repeat juvenile offenders; typical institutional settings involve treatment programs, counseling, vocational, and/or education training; usually followed

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 24/50

by an aftercare program such as parole.

Intermediate Custodial Facilities

A residential facility that allows the offender to have more freedom in the community.

Juvenile Jails

House only juveniles and are completely separate from those for adults.

Reformatories or Training Schools

Long-term custodial institutions; the offenders are deprived of some or all of their liberty; have an emphasis on punishment but also elements of rehabilitation, such as education and counseling; the goal is to effect a signi�icant change in the values, attitudes, and behavior of the offender.

Probation Camp

An alternative to an institution for some juveniles where they follow a strict physical regimen for usually six months to a year; the offenders receive some resocialization treatment (psychological counseling) or educational and vocational training; the juvenile must show progress, or a judge may resentence the offender to a reformatory institution for long-term treatment.

Boot Camp

An army-like setting that was popular in the 1990s; a tough method for treating juvenile offenders that emphasized physical conditioning and military-style discipline; after an evaluation by the OJJDP that showed no reduction in recidivism, the popularity of boot camps declined.

Source: Lewis Yablonsky, Juvenile Delinquency into the 21st Century (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 2000), pp. 426–30.

Although con�identiality has been the standard for the juvenile court, many states have passed statutes to permit for more openness. In 2004, fourteen states have opened delinquency hearings to the public except on special order of the court. In other words, the statutes state that all hearings must be open to the public except in certain cases when it is in the best interest of the child. In 21 other states, statutes have opened delinquency hearings for some types of cases, depending on the age of the juvenile or type of case. In most states, court records are being made available to a wider variety of individuals and agencies. Further, most states have school noti�ication laws under which schools are noti�ied when students are involved with police or courts for committing delinquent acts.33 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn33)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 25/50

13.6 POLITICS AND JUVENILE JUSTICE Although most people would like to think that the juvenile justice system operates only in the best interests of the children who come into it, it is the case that political factors have a great in�luence on the daily operations of the system. As with the adult system, politics affects what goes on in the juvenile justice system and in turn affects how the juveniles are treated and/or punished. The political actors include the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Congress, interest groups, and bureaucracies.

Liberal and Conservative Approaches to Juvenile Justice Policy As noted in previous chapters, there are different views concerning the approaches that should be taken to prevent or punish juvenile crime. The conservative approach tends to support longer, harsher punishments for those juveniles who commit criminal acts, whereas the liberal approach supports more treatment, rehabilitation, and education of criminal violators to prevent any future criminal acts.

The prominent underlying ideology toward juvenile justice policy has changed intermittently over the past 30 years, the emphasis shifting from rehabilitation to punishment. During the 1970s and 1980s, the focus leaned toward an individual treatment model that encouraged placing juvenile offenders in nonsecure, community-based programs. However, since the early 1990s, this approach has been replaced by policies that support strict sanctions and incarceration.34 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn34)

Since the 1970s, the main focus of the juvenile justice system has been toward “getting tough.” During this time, there has been a national concern about serious, violent crimes committed by juvenile offenders. Many states have passed legislation that has made the punishments for juveniles more tough.35 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn35) This includes longer sentences (mandatory minimums) and easier (and more frequent) transfer of juveniles to adult criminal court.

The Supreme Court and the Rights of Juveniles Early in the nineteenth century, juveniles were tried along with adults in criminal courts. Under common law, children under age seven were presumed immune, that is, lacking the moral responsibility to be criminally responsible (the infancy defense). Children between ages seven and fourteen were presumed not to be criminally responsible, and prosecutors had to prove that an individual juvenile was culpable. Youth ages fourteen and older were deemed responsible for their criminal acts as adults.

Since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has made many decisions to de�ine the rights of juveniles accused of crimes. Initial changes came in the case of Kent v. United States (1966). Kent, who was sixteen, was arrested and charged with housebreaking, robbery, and rape. Because he was a juvenile, he was sent �irst to a juvenile court. After an investigation, the juvenile court waived jurisdiction, and Kent was sent to an adult court. He had no hearing and no assistance of counsel, and there was no statement of the reasons for the judge’s decision to transfer the matter to the adult court. Additionally, the judge did not allow Kent’s attorney to review any of the �iles, nor did he conduct a hearing on the matter. The waiver decision was made by the judge acting alone. Kent’s counsel �iled a motion for a hearing on the question of a waiver, but the juvenile court entered an order waiving jurisdiction without a hearing. Kent was indicted, tried, and convicted on six counts of housebreaking and robbery but acquitted on two rape counts by reason of insanity.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 26/50

In its decision of Kent v. United States (1966), the Supreme Court said that the defendant has certain minimum safeguards, including the right to a hearing, the right to the assistance of an attorney, and a statement of the reasons for transfer if the judge decides to transfer the case to adult court. They decided that there must be a meaningful right to representation by counsel and a hearing on the issue of transfers to criminal court. In other words, the juvenile court must conduct a hearing before a juvenile is transferred to an adult criminal court. By making that decision, the Court established that procedures concerning waiver must measure up to the essential of due process of law, including a formal hearing, the right to legal counsel, and access to social records.

In re Gault (1967) was also a landmark case that established the constitutional right of children to have appointed counsel in juvenile delinquency proceedings. In this case, 15-year-old Gerald Gault was charged with and convicted of making an obscene phone call to a female neighbor and was sentenced to the Arizona State Industrial School (a juvenile correctional facility) for an indeterminate period though not to exceed his twenty-�irst birthday. During his trial, Gault never had access to a lawyer, was not allowed to confront or cross-examine his accusers, and was not allowed to appeal the decision. There was no written record of his confession or his court hearing, and his sentence was longer than that an adult would have received for the same offense. The Supreme Court overturned Gault’s conviction, ruling that he had been denied several basic rights. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas announced, “Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.” Fortas said that Gault was entitled to the following:

• Adequate notice of the precise nature of the charges brought against him

• Notice of the right to counsel and, if indigent, the right to have counsel appointed

• The right to confront witnesses and have them cross-examined

• The privilege against self-incrimination, which applies to juvenile and adult proceedings

The Supreme Court held that juveniles at trial, faced with incarceration, were entitled to many of the rights granted to adult offenders, including counsel, notice of the charges, cross-examination of witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination. Overall, the Gault decision mandated a more formalized juvenile court system.

In both the Kent (1966) and the Gault (1967) case, the Supreme Court made clear its intention that the legal protection of due process be expanded for juveniles. Over time, there were other cases that helped expand the rights of juveniles brought into the criminal justice system. One of those was In re Winship (1970). In this case, a 12-year-old boy was accused of stealing $112 from a woman’s purse in a locker. The Court addressed the question of standard of proof in juvenile cases, which has to do with how strong a case must be to prove delinquency. In its decision, the Court extended the reasonable-doubt standard of proof to juvenile delinquency proceedings where there was the possibility of commitment to a locked facility. The Court ruled that the standard of proof in a delinquency proceeding that could result in a child’s commitment must be “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than a “preponderance of the evidence.”

Yet another case that expanded the rights of juveniles was McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971). This case helped de�ine the rights of a juvenile in a jury trial. The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles were not to be afforded the constitutional right to a jury trial in a delinquency proceeding. This aspect of the adversarial process was not appropriate for the juvenile justice system.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 27/50

In Breed v. Jones (1975), the Supreme Court made the waiver process more explicit by ruling that states cannot �irst adjudicate a juvenile as delinquent and then waive or transfer the youth to adult court, as this is a violation of double jeopardy. In this case, the Court established that the double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution extends to juvenile offenders through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. After this case, juveniles could not be tried in a juvenile court and transferred to an adult court for a similar action.

Some questions surrounding the interrogation of juveniles accused of crimes were addressed in Fare v. Michael (1979). Here, a juvenile murder suspect consented to an interrogation after he was denied the opportunity to consult with his probation of�icer. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional mandate to allow a suspect to speak with his or her probation of�icer. In other words, a child’s request to see his or her probation of�icer at the time of interrogation did not operate to invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. According to the Court, the probation of�icer cannot be expected to offer the type of advice that an accused would expect from an attorney.

The Supreme Court ruled that a juvenile who is awaiting court action can be held in preventive detention if there is adequate concern that the juvenile would commit additional crimes while the primary case is pending further court action. In Schall v. Maring (1984), the Court ruled that the juvenile does have the right to a hearing on the preventive detention decision and a statement of the reasons for which he or she is being detained. In this case, the Court upheld a state statute allowing the placement of children in preventive detention before their trial. The Court concluded that it was not unreasonable to detain juveniles for their own protection.

The legality of searches in a school was addressed in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985). In this decision, the Supreme Court determined that the Fourth Amendment applied to school searches. The Court adopted a “reasonable suspicion” standard as opposed to “probable cause” to evaluate the legality of searches and seizures in a school setting.

Two �inal cases in which the Supreme Court addressed the rights of juveniles were Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) and Wilkens v. Missouri (1989). In these cases, the Court concluded that the imposition of the death penalty on a juvenile who committed a crime between the ages of sixteen and eighteen was not unconstitutional and that the Eighth Amendment’s clause concerning cruel and unusual punishment did not prohibit capital punishment in these cases.

In 2009, the Supreme Court considered if it was cruel and unusual punishment to sentence teenagers to life in prison for their criminal behavior. The cases, Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida, revolved around two Florida men who were serving life in prison with no chance of parole for nonhomicidal crimes they committed as teenagers. Terrance Graham committed an armed burglary when he was 16, and Joe Sullivan committed sexual battery when he was 13. The inmates argued that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison violates the Eighth Amendment. Although Florida argued that such sentences are not extreme, the Supreme Court ruled that those in prison for non-murderous crimes committed as juveniles should be given a chance to demonstrate that they have matured enough that they are �it to rejoin society. The court did not rule that those in prison should automatically be released or resentenced. The Court also ruled that, in the future, no juvenile who committed a crime that did not involve murder should be given a life term in prison. Thus, over the years, the Supreme Court has clari�ied many issues regarding the rights of juveniles who have entered the justice system. Only a small number of the cases that helped de�ine the rights afforded to juveniles are listed here. This is only one example of a political organization affecting the treatment of juveniles. Another is Congress.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 28/50

Congress and Juvenile Justice The Supreme Court is not the only federal branch of government to have an impact on the juvenile justice system and to provide rights to juvenile offenders. Congress has also passed many pieces of legislation to help states create effective juvenile justice systems. Congress not only passed new legislation but also provided �inancial assistance to states. As the costs of juvenile justice grew, the federal government gave the states more money.36 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn36)

Congressional involvement in preventing juvenile crime �irst started in 1909, when the White House sponsored the Conference on Children and Youth. During this conference, President Theodore Roosevelt expressed the need for national involvement in all youth issues and urged the formation of the Children’s Bureau, which eventually became the primary federal instrument of change. It launched the �irst federally sponsored juvenile delinquency–related research endeavors, such as the study of the District of Columbia’s juvenile court law (1914) and the study of children before Connecticut courts (1914). They also sponsored a questionnaire measuring the extent of the American juvenile court movement (1918) and a survey of organizations and methods of ten juvenile courts (1912).

In 1929, President Hoover appointed the Wickersham Commission to investigate the national crime problem. In 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps was created. As part of this, a program was developed for jobless males ages 18 to 25. They established the National Youth Administration (1935) to employ college and high school students in part-time jobs. These attempted to get juveniles employed and away from crime.

During the Great Depression, the Children’s Bureau expanded its interest in preventing juvenile delinquency. It began to study court and probation reports, investigated institutional care and treatment of delinquent children, and provided technical guides for community and court services for children on probation.

Most federal juvenile justice- and family-related policymaking efforts were eliminated during World War II. During this time, the government sponsored only three major forums related to juvenile crime because of the war: the Fourth White House Conference on Children and Youth (1940), the National Commission on Children and Youth (1942), and the National Conference on Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency (1946). The Interdepartmental Committee on Children and Youth was created in 1948 to coordinate youth-serving activities sponsored, organized, and funded by several federal departments.

Throughout the 1950s, the federal government developed new ways to combat juvenile delinquency. The Federal Youth Corrections Act of 1951 provided training and rehabilitation programs for youths who violated federal laws. The next year, the Children’s Bureau gathered a group of experts and asked them to recommend ways to decrease rising delinquency rates. In 1954, the Children’s Bureau created the Juvenile Delinquency Service to provide technical assistance to states, localities, and public and private agencies; prepare and publish standards and guides for these agencies and the courts; and recommend necessary federal and state legislation.

The Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency was created and was kept busy through the 1950s. The subcommittee conducted hearings between 1953 and 1958 and eventually recommended a comprehensive federal program to assist states and local governments in strengthening and improving delinquency programs.37 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn37)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 29/50

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report indicated at that time that crime by juveniles had more than doubled since 1950 and that arrest statistics for juveniles were increasing. In response, Congress passed the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Act of 1961 to help control and prevent juvenile delinquency. It gave the Department of Health, Education and Welfare the ability to provide categorical grants to state and local governments to allow them to plan and create projects aimed at reducing juvenile crime. Large sums of money were channeled to state and local governments through this program. It also served to set the framework for future federal juvenile justice policy.38 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn38)

The president at the time, Lyndon Johnson, was also active in helping to prevent juvenile crime. He created the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1965 and included a provision to examine the juvenile justice system and make recommendations for future federal efforts. The commission’s 1967 report provided several recommendations, including the need for active support of diversion programs for juveniles, support for projects to reduce unemployment, improved standards of living, new community-based residential facilities and youth service bureaus, increased educational opportunities, increased quality of public education, and a complete overhaul of the juvenile justice system.39 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn39)

The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice issued its report in 1967. The commission suggested that the juvenile justice system needed to provide underprivileged youth with jobs and education that would lead to success. The commission also recognized the need to develop effective law enforcement procedures that would control hardcore youthful offenders and provide them due process of law when they came before the courts.40 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn40)

The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968 was then passed by Congress. It was enacted to carry out some of the commission’s recommendations. The bill initially authorized a three-year $150 million grants-in-aid program to strengthen state and local juvenile justice and delinquency prevention efforts as well as to coordinate all federal youth development activities. However, the act lacked speci�ic focus. Its objectives were prevention and control, but neither substantive distinctions between the two approaches nor differentiations between treatment needs of certain types of youth were made. Additionally, most funds assisted the state organization of juvenile planning bureaucracies rather than the creation of new youth programs.41 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn41)

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1968 created the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Administration, which was to help states develop new juvenile justice programs, particularly focused on diversion programs for youth, decriminalization, and decarceration. In 1968, Congress also passed the Omnibus Safe Streets and Crime Control Act. Title 1 of this law established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) to provide federal funds to improve the adult and juvenile justice systems.42 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn42)

By the end of the 1960s, the federal government had adopted new responsibilities for juvenile crime. The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice had suggested a massive public program for juvenile justice reform, and Congress was attempting to comply with the recommendations.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 30/50

The Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Act of 1961 and the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968 assumed new federal obligations for delinquency prevention and control. The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968 was a national effort to help states and cities develop and maintain programs that had the goal of deterring delinquency and assisting those juveniles who had committed crimes. Together, these programs gave millions of dollars to the states.

Regulating the federal money that was being provided to the states became a concern. In response, Congress passed the Crime Control Act of 1970, which created the Interdepartmental Council to coordinate all federal juvenile delinquency programs that were being administered by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In 1972, Congress amended the Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention Act of 1968 to force state and local governments to develop and adopt comprehensive plans to obtain federal assistance.43 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn43)

Because juvenile crime continued to receive much publicity during this time, the Nixon administration established the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals in 1973. Its �inal report on juvenile justice and delinquency prevention identi�ied 12 major concepts that were central to the development of standards and goals for juvenile justice:

1. Increase family stability

2. Develop programs for families needing service, including families with children who are truant or who run away, families with children who disregard parental authority, and families with children who use intoxicating beverages or who are under 20 years old and commit delinquent acts

3. Develop programs for children who are neglected or physically abused

4. Develop programs for young people to prevent delinquent behavior before it occurs

5. Develop diversion activities whereby youths are processed out of the juvenile justice system

6. Develop dispositional alternatives so that institutionalization can be used only as a last resort

7. Extend due process to all juveniles

8. Control the violent and the chronic delinquent

9. Reduce the proportion of minorities who are victims of delinquent acts and who are clients in the juvenile justice system and increase the proportion of minority policymakers and operators in the juvenile system

10. Increase the coordination among agencies to improve the operation of the juvenile justice system and to increase resources and knowledge about how to deal with juvenile offenders

11. Improve research

12. Allocate resources, especially to the many states that do not have their own resources to deal with juvenile programs44 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn44)

The recommendations of the National Advisory Commission formed the basis for the 1974 legislation called the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974. In this legislation, Congress

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 31/50

expressed its concern for the need to safeguard children’s rights. The act promoted placing offenders in the least restrictive appropriate treatment setting; establishing community-based programs in place of large, custodial institutions; and diverting youth from formal juvenile justice system processing.45 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn45) Additionally, this act eliminated the old Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Administration and replaced it with the Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) within the LEAA.

In addition to creating the OJJDP, the 1974 JJDP Act established the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention as an independent cabinet-level body. It was established to coordinate all federal juvenile delinquency programs and to determine the most appropriate federal roles and policies, improve the effectiveness of federal programs in reducing delinquency, increase the organizational and managerial ef�iciency of federal activities, and facilitate implementation of effective programs at the state and local levels.46 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn46)

Between 1973 and 1975, there was a plethora of federal �inancial assistance for juvenile delinquency projects available to states through at least ten separate entities. Each grant opportunity had its own requirements and goals. The programs were combined when the JJDP Act was passed.

The JJDP Act was a landmark federal commitment to juvenile justice. It re�lected organizational and philosophical shifts in the government’s approach to juvenile justice. The responsibility for youth issues was transferred to the Department of Justice. In addition, the federal juvenile delinquency programs were reorganized so that they would have a more coordinated approach. To do this, the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was also created.47 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn47) The OJJDP began overseeing federal grant programs in 1975.

Amendments were made to the JJDP Act in 1977 that required all state juvenile detention and correctional facilities to be monitored to determine if they were suitable for juvenile offenders. The amendments also expanded funding of special programs that dealt with school violence, youth advocacy, and youth employment.48 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn48)

Throughout the 1970s, the most important goals of federal legislation were removing juveniles from detention in adult jails and eliminating the coincarceration of juvenile and status offenders. During this period, the OJJDP stressed the creation of formal diversion and restitution programs around the United States.49 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn49)

The JJDP Act was reauthorized by Congress and President Carter in December 1980. This extended the act another four years and made some major changes. This time, OJJDP became a separate organization that now operated under the authority of the U.S. attorney general within the Department of Justice. The administrator of OJJDP, a presidential appointee, was given the ability to implement JJDP Act provisions. The new role of the OJJDP was to develop and implement programs to reduce or even prevent juvenile criminal behavior.50 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn50) Additionally, the LEAA was phased out.

The Reagan administration proposed in March 1981 that the OJJDP be terminated while at the same time substantially cutting back other federal criminal justice agencies.51

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 32/50

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn51) But in December 1981, OJJDP was reinstated into the federal budget for two more years.

Throughout the 1980s, the OJJDP shifted its priorities from reducing the stigma attached to juvenile offenders to the identi�ication and control of chronic, violent juvenile offenders. This goal was in line with the Reagan administration’s more conservative views of justice. The federal government poured millions of dollars into research projects designed to study chronic offenders, predict their behavior, and evaluate programs designed to control their activities.52 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn52)

When Congress reauthorized the JJDP Act in 1992, it reemphasized the importance of lawyers in juvenile delinquency proceedings. Congress charged the OJJDP with developing a program to enhance the quality of due process available to children in juvenile court by improving the level of legal representation in delinquency proceedings.

Recent sessions of Congress have passed bills related to juvenile crime. In the 109th Session of Congress (2005–06), members debated a bill (HR 864) that would provide programs and activities to prevent underage drinking. The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act (the STOP Act) required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking, which is to produce a yearly report on each state’s performance in preventing or reducing underage drinking. The bill was signed into law (L 109-422).

During that same Congress, the members passed a bill (HR 4472; PL 109-248) called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The new law created the national Sex Offender Registration and Noti�ication Act and created a three-tier classi�ication system under which offenders must register after being convicted of a sexual offense.

In the next Congress, the members passed a proposed bill (S 1738) that would require the Department of Justice to improve the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, to increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, and to make other improvements to increase the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute child predators. The bill was named the Providing Resources, Of�icers and Technology to Eradicate Cyber Threats to our Children (PROTECT) Act. The bill was signed into law (PL 110-401). Congress also passed a law (S 1829; PL 110-240), called the Protecting our Children Comes First Act of 2007, to revise and expand the grants for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

It is clear that even today, Congress continues to debate and make legislation that impacts the juvenile justice system and how juveniles are treated in the system. Congressional action also has a dramatic impact on the funding that is provided to states that allows them to implement programs for juveniles.

Interest Groups and Juvenile Justice There are many interest groups that lobby legislators on the federal and state levels and try to in�luence legislation so that it will re�lect their interests. One example of these is the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ). Based in Washington, D.C., the CJJ serves as a resource on juvenile delinquency prevention and other juvenile justice issues. Each state created an advisory group, as required in the JJDP Act, whose members are appointed by governors. Called state advisory groups, they provide assistance and guidance to elected of�icials so that they can meet federal requirements to receive funds, administer federal funds, and generate local citizen involvement in reducing youth crime and violence. In 1980, the National Coalition of

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 33/50

State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups was founded. In early 1993, the organization’s name was changed to the Coalition for Juvenile Justice.

The CJJ has taken many positions on issues related to juvenile justice. For one, it opposes new laws that try and sentence youthful offenders in adult criminal courts, except in the rare cases of chronic and violent offenders, and then only at the discretion of a juvenile court judge. Under no circumstance does the CJJ support sending a child younger than age 15 into the adult system. The CJJ also opposes the death penalty for any individual whose offenses were committed before age 18. It is opposed to the unequal treatment of minority youth in the juvenile justice system, believing that all children deserve to be treated the same regardless of race, ethnicity, or other factors.

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition is another group that works to promote policies that keep children out of trouble but also to protect those youth who have entered the system. It organizes congressional brie�ings, provides congressional and administration staff with the latest information and research, and provides grassroots support for legislation, among other things.53 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn53)

Bureaucracies and Juvenile Justice Probably one of the most well-known and largest bureaucracies that deals with criminal justice issues is the Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). This federal agency was created by Congress in 1974 to improve juvenile justice policies and practices on both the federal and the state level. It sponsors many research studies on juvenile crime, establishes training programs, helps set policies to guide federal juvenile justice issues, disseminates information about its research and other pertinent information, and provides funding awards to states to provide state and local programs that assist juvenile offenders.54 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn54)

All states have state-level bureaucracies that are responsible for implementing programs to assist juveniles. For example, Texas has the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to help provide a quality level of probation services to juveniles. It helps provide probation services to juveniles as an alternative to the commitment of juveniles, and it provides �inancial aid to help local communities establish and improve their probation services. The agency also helps set uniform standards among agencies and develop a communications system among state and local agencies to improve the quality of their contacts. Texas also has the Texas Youth Commission, which operates the institutional component of the juvenile justice system. It provides for the care, custody, rehabilitation, and reestablishment of juveniles in the community. Like such commissions in most states, this one oversees both institutional and community-based residential programs.55 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn55)

Florida also has a Department of Juvenile Justice with four core functions: prevention and victim services, detention, probation and community corrections, and residential and correctional facilities. Its overall mission is to protect the public and reduce juvenile crime in the state.56 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn56) Kansas has the Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority, the goals of which are to deal effectively with violent, serious, and chronic juvenile offenders; provide individualized care; work to strengthen families; provide education and work experience to juvenile offenders to develop skills; cooperate with other agencies; and provide leadership.57 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn57)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 34/50

Some other state juvenile justice agencies are the Department of Youth Services (Alabama), the California Youth Authority, the Division of Youth Corrections (Colorado), the Louisiana Of�ice of Youth Services, the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee (Massachusetts), the New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission, the Oregon Youth Authority, the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, and the West Virginia Division of Juvenile Services.58 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn58)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 35/50

13.7 ROLE IN POLICY PROCESS Usually, juveniles who are “at risk” of committing criminal offenses or those who already have committed an offense do not have access to the political system and are unable to have much in�luence on the policy process. Instead, the interest groups and bureaucracies that revolve around juvenile justice become their surrogates and represent the interests of the youth in the political process. These groups often play a major role in de�ining policy that concerns how juveniles are treated and what programs and services are available to those youth. They help ensure that juveniles are provided the rights guaranteed to them under the U.S. Constitution.

Problem Identi�ication Most often, juveniles who face problems that result in criminal behavior cannot help identify major problems that need to be solved to prevent further juvenile offenses. Additionally, in most cases, legislators may be completely unaware of any new issues and problems in the juvenile system, as they have limited contact (if any) with the system. The major way in which issues pertaining to the juvenile justice system are identi�ied is through interest groups or bureaucracies, such as those noted previously, who deal with juvenile offenders bringing the problems to light. They can attempt to persuade legislators that issues need more attention or more money. In some cases, a trigger event, such as a school shooting, may help identify a problem that can be addressed by legislators.

At the federal level, the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee of the OJJDP advises the president and Congress on matters related to juvenile justice.59 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn59) At the state level, there are many agencies that help identify problems. One of these is the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, which was described earlier. This organization helps educate lawmakers, juvenile justice professionals, and the public regarding the issues and needs of the juvenile justice system.60 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn60) Occasionally, executives at either the federal or the state level may appoint a task force made up of practitioners, academics, and/or other experts in the �ield (such as psychologists or doctors) who will develop a set of recommendations to deal with a problem or issue. Often these task forces have more legitimacy behind them, as they are composed of people with a certain expertise who have the impression of wanting to make effective policy without regard for politics.

Agenda Setting The same bureaucracies or interest groups that identify new problems must also be effective in persuading legislators to put new issues that concern juvenile justice on the political agenda. Since agencies and interest groups are formally unable to put the issue on the agenda themselves, they must be able to persuade a legislator about the extent of the problem and the need for attention. As noted earlier, a trigger event may help show legislators that a problem exists. For example, after the Columbine High School shooting, some of the surviving students met with legislators in Washington, D.C., who then proposed legislation to Congress so that another school shooting could be prevented.

For the most part, it is relatively simple to get juvenile justice on the agenda. Most politicians will be supportive of programs to help juveniles and prevent juvenile crimes as long as the proposed program shows some signs of being effective. It is easy for politicians to be supportive of these programs, as it brings them positive media coverage.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 36/50

Occasionally, presidents may even be able to put the issue of juvenile delinquency on the political agenda. In fact, President Kennedy focused on issues surrounding juvenile justice, arguing that stopping adult crime begins with helping at-risk youth and presenting the need for congressional action on the issue.

Policy Formulation Criminal justice bureaucracies or interest groups help in�luence legislation by testifying in front of committees and subcommittees and providing information to legislators. These three actors (bureaucracies, interest groups, and congressional committees) work together both formally and informally (through the iron triangle) to make policy. They provide each other with the information needed to make a policy that will deal with a problem effectively.

Any task forces and research groups that were put together by the executive branch may also propose policy solutions for problems and work for those proposals. They can testify in front of Congress or may work to in�luence public opinion concerning a particular issue. Since these task forces sometimes have more legitimacy, their actions may seem more powerful and have more impact on the �inal legislation that is passed.

Program Implementation Programs to deter or prevent juvenile offenses or those that help juvenile offenders who are in the system are implemented by the bureaucracies, such as state juvenile justice departments and agencies that oversee the juvenile justice system in that state. They have been given broad discretion to de�ine terms and phrases that were left unde�ined in legislation passed by the legislative body. Bureaucracies on the state and local levels sometimes have discretion over how to spend federal grant monies made available to them. This ability to de�ine the speci�ics of a bill or how to spend money gives them signi�icant power in the implementation stage of the policy process.

Almost every state has some services for juveniles that are provided through the local government, while others are implemented at the state level. Residential programs (commitment) for delinquents and any aftercare programs tend to be implemented by states, whereas probation and readjudication detention of juveniles are most often local responsibilities. In some states, such as Florida and Maine, there is a state executive agency that has control of all delinquency services. In other states, such as Ohio and California, the organization of juvenile services is characterized by local control of probation and sometimes detention services. Other states have a combination of implementation, such as Georgia, which has a mix of state-controlled and locally controlled delinquency services. They have largely state-run agencies but with signi�icant local control in the more populous cities in the state.61 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn61)

Program Evaluation and Reassessment Programs to assist juveniles are constantly under review from federal research agencies, such as the OJJDP or the General Accountability Of�ice. These studies attempt to determine if the programs are successful in helping juveniles out of a life of crime. After a study is completed, the results are usually published and made available to the public and other practitioners in the �ield. If the program has been successful, other communities may decide to implement a similar program in their jurisdiction. If not, the program will, more than likely, not be re-funded and may be disbanded. The Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee of the OJJDP is one organization that is responsible for evaluating the progress and accomplishments of juvenile justice activities and projects. Another agency within the OJJDP that is involved in the evaluation stage is the Disproportionate Minority Contact Of�ice (DMC). The DMC coordinator organizes the planning,

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 37/50

implementation, and evaluation of efforts to reduce the disproportionate number of contacts between minority youth and law enforcement.62 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn62)

The Justice Research and Statistics Association works with the OJJDP to “develop and enhance juvenile justice evaluation capacity in the states. The goal of this project is to provide useful resources and practical technical assistance to local and state policymakers, program administrators and staff, and evaluators to strengthen their ability to implement and utilize evaluation studies and their �indings.”63 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn63) After completion of the project, a “national Advisory Group … will review the �indings.”64 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn64) This is an example of a metaevaluation.

Many places have a research and planning division of their agencies that collects data and publishes that information in annual publications to distribute the data to key decision makers. They then use this to determine if programs are cost effective and if they should be re-funded.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 38/50

13.8 JUVENILE JUSTICE ISSUES There are many examples of key issues that personnel working in the juvenile justice system must face on a daily basis. Some of these issues have serious implications for how juveniles are treated (or the level of punishment they receive) and what their chances are of successfully becoming a productive and crime- free member of society.

Preventive Detention The physical detention of juveniles to prevent or deter additional future juvenile crime is a controversial policy that many jurisdictions use. Detention refers to the temporary care of children in physically restricted facilities pending court disposition or transfer to another agency. The detention of a juvenile can be either before adjudication, where some juveniles are placed in a detention facility overnight until parents can be noti�ied, or while they are awaiting trial. Or, they may be detained if the court presupposes that a juvenile might commit another offense dangerous to him- or herself or the community. In some cases, juveniles may be detained if they are violators from other jurisdictions.

Until recently, the placement of juveniles in adult facilities was a common policy. In some areas, juvenile offenders are still held alongside adult offenders. This is usually done only in rural areas where there is no opportunity for separate facilities. It has been shown that juveniles who are housed alongside adults can become the victims of adults, of the staff, and of their own hands. According to federal guidelines, all juveniles within state custody must be separated from adult offenders, or the state could lose federal funds for juvenile justice programs. Separation requires that juveniles have either totally independent facilities or separate areas within shared facilities so that juveniles and adults do not have either planned or accidental contact.

The decision about what to do with youth after their arrest and before the trial has been debated for years. Some youth are released under community supervision whereas others are placed in secure detention facilities. Sometimes, the parents do not want the children at home, or in other situations there may be a lack of alternatives for the youth. It has been argued that pretrial detention removes children from their homes and schools, but also increases the chances that they will be moved further into the justice system. It has also been said that these children are more likely to meet gang members within the institution, and delays the access they may have for appropriate mental health services.65 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn65)

Those opposed to detention not only point to the dangers of harm or violence directed at the juvenile prisoners but also argue that many juveniles are not given the same or equal rights as an adult who may be facing a loss of freedom through detention. Although juveniles do have the right to a detention hearing where evidence is provided and a determination is made as to the need for detention, many accusations of unfair treatment remain. Some argue that the poor and minorities are placed in detention more often than wealthy, majority juveniles. They argue that every year, thousands of juveniles are held in detention and corrections facilities. Most juvenile facilities are overcrowded, leading to dangerous and unhealthy conditions.

Most professionals agree that juvenile detention centers should be reserved for those youth who present a clear and substantial threat to the community or to themselves. Many jurisdictions have created more approaches to detention, such as day resource centers, detention alternative programs, or family shelters.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 39/50

Other options can include those listed in Box 13.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec5#ch13sb02) .

Despite the fact that the JJDPA of 1974 requires that states separate adults and juveniles at all stages, more than 8,000 youth are held in adult jails, where they face serious risk of abuse and assault. It has been estimated that children held in adult facilities are �ive times as likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon, and eight times as likely to commit suicide than children con�ined to facilities that hold only juvenile offenders.66 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn66)

Currently, about 70 percent of youth in secure detention centers are being held for nonviolent offenses such as status offenses or other minor offenses. This could be emotionally harmful to youth, and may increase the likelihood of future delinquent behavior.67 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn67)

Juveniles and the Death Penalty Some states allowed for the death penalty in cases where the offender was a juvenile when the crime was committed, but in early 2005, this practice was deemed unconstitutional by a Supreme Court decision. In their decision, the justices raised signi�icant questions concerning the development of the human brain and whether juveniles are mature enough to be subject to capital punishment. Most people recognize that adolescents are more susceptible to peer pressure than adults and that bigger issues within society are often at least partially responsible for juvenile crime.68 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn68) Further, many would argue that current American standards of decency reject the death penalty for juveniles.69 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn69) The increase in juvenile homicide and in brutal, senseless offenses committed by juveniles in the past decade makes this debate more critical than ever.

Those who oppose the death penalty for juvenile offenders �ind that it has little deterrent effect on youngsters who are impulsive and do not have a realistic view of the destructiveness of their misdeeds or their consequences; therefore, the capacity of the young for change, growth, and rehabilitation makes the death penalty particularly harsh and inappropriate.

Supporters of the death penalty for youth often argue that juveniles, particularly “older” juveniles (i.e., sixteen or seventeen years old) have the capabilities to understand the consequences of their crimes. Additionally, the prevention of further crime by the speci�ic juvenile offender, as well as others, requires the swift and certain punishment for that offense.

For many years, the Supreme Court allowed for capital sentences for juvenile offenders. For example, the Court addressed the question of teenagers on death row in the 1982 case of Eddings v. Oklahoma. After hearing the facts of the case, the members of the Court reversed the death sentence of a 16-year-old male who had been tried as an adult in criminal court. The Court argued that young people tend to be less mature, less responsible, and less self-disciplined than adults and are therefore also less able to consider the long-range implications of their actions. Thus, a court, when deciding whether to apply the death penalty in a juvenile case, must consider a defendant’s young age and his or her young mental and emotional development. The Court, however, did not address the larger question of whether imposing the death sentence on the offender was prohibited because he was only 16 years old at the time the offense

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 40/50

was committed.70 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn70)

In 1988, the Supreme Court again addressed whether the death penalty applied to juveniles in the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma (487 U.S. 815). The speci�ic question in this case was whether imposing the death penalty on an offender who was 15 years old at the time of the murder violated protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The defendant, William Thompson, was a 15-year-old with a record of three convictions for violent assaults with deadly weapons. He was convicted of the �irst-degree murder of his brother-in-law after he savagely beat him, shot him, and then cut up his carcass with a knife. Thompson received the death penalty for his offense. The Court overturned Thompson’s death sentence by a vote of �ive to four on the fact that Oklahoma did not specify any minimum age of eligibility for the death sentence. Only four justices held that the death sentence for crimes committed by people under 16 years old is necessarily cruel and unusual. In short, the Court concluded that the Eighth Amendment prohibited application of the death penalty to a person who was younger than 16 at the time of the crime. The Court did not address the issue of whether the Constitution prohibited the use of the death penalty for juveniles who were 16 or 17 years old when they committed their crime, leaving the possibility of executing older teenagers open. At the same time, the case indicated that a growing portion of the population was very uncomfortable with the idea of putting minors to death.71 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn71)

The following year, the Supreme Court again faced the issue, this time upholding the death penalty for juveniles. This time the case was Stanford v. Kentucky (429 U.S. 361, 1989). In this case, Stanford was seventeen when he committed murder. The Court ruled that it is not cruel and unusual punishment for a state to execute an offender who was 16 or 17 at the time of their crime. The Court stated,

We discern neither a historical nor a modern societal consensus forbidding the imposition of capital punishment on any person who murders at 16 or 17 years of age. Accordingly, we conclude that such punishment does not offend the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.72 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn72)

In March 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who were younger than 18 at the time of their offense could not be executed, stating in their �ive-to-four decision that the practice of executing juveniles was a violation of the cruel and unusual clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case, Roper v. Simmons (S.Ct., 205 WL 464890), revolved around Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he broke into the house of Shirley Crook. He abducted her, hog-tied her, then threw her, bound and gagged, into a river to drown. He then bragged to his friends that he could get away with the crime because of his age. Simmons’ death sentence was reversed by Missouri’s Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court justices backed that ruling.

In reaching their decision, the justices argued that medical and social-science evidence consistently demonstrates that teenagers are too immature to he held accountable for their crimes. In essence, the justices argued, juveniles lack maturity and are particularly susceptible to peer pressure. Juveniles are also more agreeable to reform than are adults.

The Simmons decision means that more than 70 juveniles on death row in approximately 20 states across the nation will not be executed. Instead, their death sentences will be vacated and life sentences imposed.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 41/50

The decision that states could not impose the death penalty on juveniles who commit serious, brutal criminal offenses was praised by some, but others maintain that at least some juvenile offenders are capable of understanding the seriousness of their offenses and should pay the ultimate penalty for that offense. In years to come, the Supreme Court may continue to ban the execution of juveniles or may choose to allow it under certain circumstances.

Racism in the System As with the adult criminal justice system, there are allegations of racism in the juvenile justice system as well. These allegations, however, are controversial. There are many statistics to show that minority juveniles are overrepresented in the system. For example, the ratio of the custody rate for minorities to that for whites was 2.9 to 1.73 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn73) Other statistics show that in 2008, black youth were involved in 52 percent of juvenile violence crime arrests and 33 percent of juvenile property crime arrests, even though they make up only 16 percent of the youth population.74 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn74) Since 2004, the arrest rate for aggravated assault increased 4 percent for black juveniles while the white rate declined 9 percent. The robbery rate increased 56 percent for black youth whereas only 30 percent for white youth.75 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn75) These numbers demonstrate an overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system. It has also been argued that “an Afro-American male born today will, if present imprisonment and crime rates continue, have more than a one in four chance of being in state or federal prison before he dies.”76 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn76) Table 13.5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec8#ch13table05) shows the custody rates of juveniles in the system broken down by race. This shows that there are far more minorities in the system than whites per 100,000 people.

TABLE 13.5 Custody Rates by Race, 2006

Race Rate per 100,000

White 170

Black 767

Hispanic 326

American Indian 540

Asian 85

Source: Statistical Brie�ing Book, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/qa06204 (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/qa06204) .

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 42/50

There are also statistics to show that minority juvenile offenders are treated differently in the punishment phases. Of the juveniles held in custody for criminal acts. Thirty-nine percent where white, 38 percent were black, 19 percent Hispanic, 2 percent were American Indian, and 2 percent were Asian.77 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn77) Again, these statistics show the different treatment given to whites and minorities.

The disproportionate number of juveniles who come into contact with the juvenile justice system has been terms “disproportionate minority contact or DMC.” Through the Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, grant money has been made available to those states who design programs to reduce DMC within their states. The ultimate goal of the program is to ensure equal and fair treatment for every youth in the system.78 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn78) In 1992, the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Institute was developed to help states reduce the number of children who are detained, to minimize the number of youth who reoffend, and to improve the conditions of con�inement.79 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn79)

However, there is another side to this argument, and there is evidence to show that there is not as much racism in the system as one might think. A study done by Pope and Snyder focused on data collected from the National Incident Based Reporting System. After analyzing the information and controlling for other characteristics, they concluded that, for violent offenses, there was no difference in the overall likelihood of arrest for white juveniles and nonwhite juveniles. They did �ind that the likelihood of juvenile arrest was affected by several other characteristics. They found that a juvenile was more likely to be arrested when there was a single offender, there were multiple victims, or there was victim injury or when the victim and offender were family members (rather than strangers). The odds of arrest also increased when the offender was male and when the victim was an adult or white. In fact, because of the association of these other incident characteristics with offender race, a greater proportion of white juvenile offenders were arrested than were nonwhite juvenile offenders for most person offenses (e.g., robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault).80 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn80)

Another study of juvenile arrests that looked at data from the National Crime Victimization Survey between 1980 and 1998 showed that the serious violent offending rate for black juveniles was higher than the rate for white juveniles. For 1980–1998, the offending rate for black juveniles was, on average, 4.1 times higher than the offending rate for white juveniles. On average, the arrest rate for black juveniles was 5.7 times higher than for white juveniles.81 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn81)

According to the studies, the argument can be made that minority youth commit more crimes than white youth, are involved in more serious incidents, or have more extensive criminal histories. This is why they tend to be overrepresented in secure facilities even if no discrimination by system decision makers occurs. Thus, minority youth may be overrepresented within the juvenile justice system because of behavioral and legal factors.82 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn82)

Thus, there is evidence to support both sides of this argument. More research in future years may give the edge to one side or the other.

Serious, Violent Juvenile Offenders

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 43/50

In most states, a juvenile is de�ined as a boy or girl under the age of 18. In some states, the age is sixteen, and in very few it is 15. Many juveniles commit petty offenses that really are not very serious. However, there are more and more juveniles committing brutal, violent criminal acts, such as homicide, aggravated assault (including weapons offenses and attempted murder), robbery (including armed robbery), kidnapping, voluntary manslaughter, rape or attempted rape, and arson of an occupied building. There are also juveniles committing felony larceny/theft, auto theft, fraud, dealing in stolen property, burglary, breaking and entering, carjacking, extortion, forgery and counterfeiting, embezzlement, drug traf�icking, arson (other than of an occupied dwelling), and violations of weapons and �irearms regulations/statutes. These juveniles have been labeled serious, violent juveniles (SVJs). An SVJ does not include those youth who commit status offenses, minor forms of aggression (simple assault, juvenile �ist �ights), violations of ordinances, vandalism, drunkenness, malicious mischief, disorderly conduct, and traf�ic and motor vehicle law violations. Rather, they are typically involved in serious forms of delinquency.83 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn83)

SVJ offenders are a distinct group of juveniles who tend to start criminal behavior early in their lives and continue to offend into their later years.84 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn84) Even in early childhood and adolescence, SVJ offenders tend to have behavior problems, such as aggression, dishonesty, property offenses, and con�lict with authority. They tend to have multiple problems at home and at school with things such as truancy, substance abuse, and mental health problems. They often have a lack of strong social ties, antisocial peers, and a poor attitude toward school.85 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn85)

Since SVJ offenders often begin to show behavior problems and delinquency early in their lives, the need for early intervention has been identi�ied. The prevention of SVJ involves family and parent-focused components, child-focused components, and peer-based components, such as con�lict resolution.86 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn86) Some professionals argue that programs that target children before they begin school can identify potential SVJ offenders and work to prevent such behavior. These programs include early (preschool) home visits to teach parent–child interaction techniques, other programs for preschoolers to help parents support their children’s development, programs for school-age children to reduce involvement with antisocial peers and reduce aggressive behavior, and programs for adolescents, such as anti–drug use classes.87 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn87)

Gangs A juvenile gang is understood to be a group of juveniles who come together to commit serious criminal behavior. The typical de�inition of a gang is three or more individuals who engage in criminal activity and who identify themselves with a particular sign or name. However, it is much more complicated that this. Klein offers one widely accepted de�inition of a gang:

Any denotable adolescent group of youngsters who (a) are generally perceived as a distinct aggregation by others in their neighborhood, (b) recognize themselves as a denotable group (almost invariably with a group name) and (c) have been involved in a suf�icient number of delinquent incidents to call forth consistent negative responses from neighborhood residents and/or enforcement agencies.88 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn88)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 44/50

Generally, gangs are groups that exhibit characteristics that set them apart from other groups of juveniles.89 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn89) A gang is a speci�ic form of a group that becomes involved in activities and behaviors that include con�lict. There are social gangs, in which membership is based not on “self-protection” but on feelings of mutual attraction and friendship. But there can also be delinquent gangs that are organized primarily to carry out delinquent acts. Other gangs have been identi�ied as violent gangs, which become a vehicle to act out hostility and aggression.90 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn90)

All gangs have a name and territorial neighborhood base. Joining a gang involves some type of an initiation rite that often includes the commission of a delinquent act. Senseless violence is an important gang activity, as is drug use.91 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn91)

The OJJDP’s 2007 National Youth Gang Survey found that there were more than 27,000 active gangs across the United States and more than 788,000 gang members, a 7.7 increase from 2002.92 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn92) Most police departments have gang units that attempt to identify these gang members and their crimes. They also have programs that attempt to convince gang members to leave the gangs and to prevent others from ever joining. Social intervention programs that provide counseling or other attempts to change the values of gang members are also attempts to get juveniles out of gangs. There are also programs to make meaningful opportunities available to at-risk youth.

Despite all the attention given to gangs, there is some evidence that gang violence and crime is not as serious a problem as we are led to believe. McCorkle and Miethe conclude that during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the reaction to gang violence in Las Vegas was nothing but a “moral panic.” As a result of the increased media attention gang violence received, there was new legislation that was overstated when compared to the actual threat posed by gangs. Although criminal gang activity did increase at the time, the political reaction to it was exaggerated, say McCorkle and Miethe. They argue that the nature, frequency, and severity of a social condition such as gang violence are often grossly exaggerated in order to justify further political action. In this case, gang violence simply was not as serious as it was made out to be.93 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn93)

Transfer to Adult Court Some juveniles are transferred from juvenile court to adult criminal court in a process known as a waiver, bind-over, or removal. All state statutes allow for this kind of transfer to allow for the adult criminal prosecution of juveniles.94 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn94) It typically occurs through a judicial waiver, a prosecutorial decision, or a speci�ic statute that excludes certain youth from the juvenile court.95 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn95) Forty-six states currently have judicial waiver provisions whereby the juvenile court judge can waive jurisdiction for those juveniles who have committed serious violent offenses. Sometimes the prosecution has the discretion to choose, in certain cases, whether to initiate cases in juvenile or adult court. This is called direct �ile law, and it occurs in 15 states.96 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn96) Twenty-nine

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 45/50

states have statutory exclusion provisions that grant adult courts original jurisdiction in certain juvenile cases. In these states, the legislatures have decided what kinds of cases should be heard in the adult courts, taking the decision making out of the prosecutors’ hands.97 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn97)

Some states allow for transfer between the ages of 14 and 17. However, others restrict waiver proceedings to mature juveniles and specify particular offenses. Other jurisdictions have de�ined the bind-over process on the basis of a juvenile’s past record and current offense.

Recently, many states have amended their waiver policies to automatically exclude certain offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction. These statutes that remove certain juveniles from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because of offense, age, or previous record have become increasingly popular.98 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn98) In many states, 16- and 17-year-old offenders who have been charged with rape, murder, or armed robbery are automatically bound over to adult court.

Opponents say that the process is done unfairly and that children tried in adult criminal court may be incarcerated under conditions so extreme that the children will be permanently damaged. They also argue that these juveniles may be given a stigma that may be attached to a conviction in criminal court. In their eyes, labeling children as adult offenders early in life may seriously impair their further educational, employment, and other opportunities. The juveniles transferred to adult court are disproportionately minority, and this demographic trend is increasing.99 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn99)

Often, the bind-over laws are political responses to juvenile crime.100 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn100) The bind-over process provides the illusion of doing something about juvenile crime—a “quick �ix.”101 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn101) The new laws come from today’s political concerns and interests in maintaining the legitimacy of juvenile justice. When juveniles continue to commit serious violent offenses and brutal acts of juvenile violence, they are threatening the system. Diverting the most violent offenders from the juvenile justice system satis�ies public and of�icial demands to see these serious delinquents punished in a public, criminal court.102 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn102)

Nonetheless, the number of cases waived to criminal court via judicial waiver is increasing.103 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn103) The new law is simply shifting the legal decision from juvenile justice of�icials to criminal justice of�icials.104 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn104)

In most cases, states have a “once an adult, always an adult” clause, meaning that if a juvenile who has been prosecuted as an adult once and subsequently accused of a new offense, he or she will from then on be tried as an adult. Others require the juvenile to be of a certain age or to have committed a serious offense to be tried in adult court for subsequent offenses.105 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn105)

The OJJDP has concluded that youth transferred to adult court had higher rates of recidivism and reoffended more often than youth offenders who remained in the juvenile courts.106

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 46/50

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch13lev1sec9#ch13cn106)

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 47/50

CONCLUSION

Despite early attempts to prevent juvenile crime with a distinct juvenile justice system geared toward rehabilitating juvenile offenders rather than punishing them, juveniles continue to commit sometimes serious offenses. In recent years, the public has become more concerned with the seriousness of the offenses and have called on politicians to react, which they have done by passing more severe and harsh punishments for juvenile offenders. The system today has become more punishment oriented than in earlier years, but it retains many elements of the treatment programs the Founding Fathers supported. Despite this, the juvenile justice system must face many serious issues, such as preventive detention, racism, serious violent youth, and transfers to adult court. To solve the problems that arise in the juvenile justice system, many organizations and personnel have become involved in the policy process in an attempt to make the system more effective in reducing juvenile crime.

Notes 1. John Scalia, Juvenile Delinquents in the Federal Criminal Justice System (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). 2. Ibid. 3. “Juvenile Arrests 2008” Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice; available online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov) . 4. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplementary Homicide Reports for the years 1980–2006. Washington, D.C.:

FBI. 5. Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, Annual Report 2009, Washington, D.C.: Of�ice of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; accessed 2/18/2010 from www.facjj.org (http://www.facjj.org) , page 7; Mark Soler and Lisa M. Garry “Reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact: Preparation at the Local Level” September 2009; Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Of�ice of Justice Programs, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp) .

6. Statistical Brie�ing Book: Juveniles in Corrections (Washington, D.C.: Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice), available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qu08201.asp? (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qu08201.asp?)

7. Statistical Brie�ing Book: Juveniles in Corrections (Washington, D.C.: Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice), available online at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qu08201.asp? (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/corrections/qu08201.asp?)

8. Ibid., p. 16. 9. Ibid., p. 17.

10. Gayle Olson-Raymer, “National Juvenile Justice Policy: Myth or Reality?” in Juvenile Justice Policy, ed. Scott H. Decker (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984), p. 21.

11. Ibid. 12. John T. Whitehead and Steven P. Lab, Juvenile Justice (Cincinnati: Anderson, 1996), pp. 41–42. 13. Samuel Walker, Popular Justice: A History of American Criminal Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998),

p. 105. 14. Ibid., p. 43. 15. Ibid., p. 105; Whitehead and Lab, Juvenile Justice, p. 43. 16. Simon I. Singer, Recriminalizing Delinquency: Violent Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice Reform (New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 27. 17. Whitehead and Lab, Juvenile Justice, p. 43.

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 48/50

18. Ibid., pp. 42–43. 19. Walker, Popular Justice, p. 106. 20. Ibid., p. 107. 21. Whitehead and Lab, Juvenile Justice, p. 44. 22. Walker, Popular Justice, p. 168. 23. Whitehead and Lab, Juvenile Justice, p. 53. 24. Jeffrey M. Jenson and Matthew O. Howard, “Youth Crime, Public Policy and Practice in the Juvenile Justice System:

Recent Trends and Needed Reforms,” Social Work 43 (4, 1998): 324–34, at 327. 25. Ibid., p. 328. 26. Ibid. 27. James Q. Wilson, “Never Too Early,” in Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, ed. Rolf Loeber and David P.

Farrington (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998), pp. ix–xi, at ix. 28. Francis A. Allen, The Borderland of Criminal Justice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964). 29. T. J. Bernard, “What Stays the Same in History?” in Exploring Delinquency, ed. Dean G. Rojek and Gary F. Jensen

(Los Angeles: Roxbury, 1996), pp. 3–8, at 7. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. Wilson, “Never Too Early,” p. x; Kevin N. Wright and Karen E. Wright, “A Policy Maker’s Guide to Controlling

Delinquency and Crime through Family Interventions,” in Hancock and Sharp, Public Policy, Crime and Criminal Justice, pp. 349–64.

33. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report, p. 109. 34. Jenson and Howard, “Youth Crime, Public Policy and Practice in the Juvenile Justice System,” p. 324. 35. Charles Smith, Pul Alexander, Garry Kemp, and Edwin Lemert, A National Assessment of Serious Juvenile Crime and

the Juvenile Justice System: The Need for a National Response Vol. III: Legislation, Jurisdiction, Program Interventions, and Con�identiality of Juvenile Records (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1980); Marc Miller, “Changing Legal Paradigms in Juvenile Justice,” in Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders, ed. Peter W. Greenwood (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986); Michael F. Aloisi, “Emerging Trends and Issues in Juvenile Justice,” in Hancock and Sharp, Public Policy, Crime and Criminal Justice, pp. 365–80.

36. Olson-Raymer, “National Juvenile Justice Policy,” p. 27. 37. Ibid., p. 30. 38. Ibid., p. 31. 39. Ibid., p. 32. 40. Larry J. Siegal and Joseph J. Senna, Juvenile Delinquency (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1991), p. 408. 41. Olson-Raymer, “National Juvenile Justice Policy,” p. 37. 42. Siegal and Senna, Juvenile Delinquency, pp. 408–9. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid., p. 409. 45. Jenson and Howard, “Youth Crime, Public Policy and Practice in the Juvenile Justice System,” p. 328. 46. Olson-Raymer, “National Juvenile Justice Policy,” p. 40. 47. Ibid., p. 34. 48. Ibid., p. 38. 49. Siegal and Senna, Juvenile Delinquency, p. 409. 50. Ibid. 51. Olson-Raymer, “National Juvenile Justice Policy,” p. 39. 52. Siegal and Senna, Juvenile Delinquency, p. 410. 53. “Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition” (2004), available online at www.building-

blocksforyouth.org/issues/federaladvocacy/jjdpwho.html (http://www.building- blocksforyouth.org/issues/federaladvocacy/jjdpwho.html) .

54. “About OJJDP” (2004), available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/about/about.html (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/about/about.html) .

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 49/50

55. “The Texas Juvenile Justice System” (2004), available online at www.tjpc.state.tx.us/about_us/juv_justice_overview.htm (http://www.tjpc.state.tx.us/about_us/juv_justice_overview.htm) .

56. “Learn More about the Department of Juvenile Justice” (2004), available online at www.djj.state.�l.us/AboutDJJ/agency/about_us_index.html (http://www.djj.state.�l.us/AboutDJJ/agency/about_us_index.html) .

57. “About the Juvenile Justice Authority” (2004), available online at http://jja.state.ks.us/about.htm (http://jja.state.ks.us/about.htm) .

58. “State Juvenile Justice Grants Information Links” (2004), available online at www.jrsa.org/jjec/state_info/header.html (http://www.jrsa.org/jjec/state_info/header.html) .

59. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/statecontacts/categoryde�initions.html (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/statecontacts/categoryde�initions.html) .

60. “The Texas Juvenile Justice System” (2004), available online at www.tjpc.state.tx.us/about_us/juv_justice_overview.htm (http://www.tjpc.state.tx.us/about_us/juv_justice_overview.htm) .

61. Patrick Grif�in and Melanie Bozynski, “National Overviews,” State Juvenile Justice Pro�iles (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2004), available online at www.ncjj.org/statepro�iles/ (http://www.ncjj.org/statepro�iles/) .

62. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/statecontacts/categoryde�initions.html (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/statecontacts/categoryde�initions.html) .

63. Justice Research and Statistics Association, “Juvenile Justice Evaluation Needs in the States: Findings of the Formula Grants Program Evaluation Needs Assessment” (2004), available online at www.jrsa.org/pubs/reports/jj_needs_assessment.htm (http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/reports/jj_needs_assessment.htm) .

64. Ibid. 65. Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, Annual Report 2009, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; accessed 2/18/2010 from www.facjj.org (http://www.facjj.org) , page 12.

66. Building Blocks for Youth, “Children in Adult Jails” (2004), available online at www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/issues/adultjails/factsheet.html (http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/issues/adultjails/factsheet.html) .

67. Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, Annual Report 2009, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; accessed 2/18/2010 from www.facjj.org (http://www.facjj.org) , page 11.

68. B. C. Feld, “The Juvenile Court Meets the Principle of the Offense: Legislative Changes in Juvenile Waiver Statutes,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 78 (1987): 471–533.

69. V. L. Streib, Death Penalty for Juveniles (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1987), p. 34. 70. Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections, p. 22. 71. Feld, “The Juvenile Court”; Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections. 72. Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections. 73. Statistical Brie�ing Book, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, available online at

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/qa06204 (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/court/qa06204) . 74. Charles Puzzanchera, “Juvenile Arrests 2008” (December 2009), Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdf�iles1/ojjdp/228479.pdf (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf�iles1/ojjdp/228479.pdf) .

75. Ibid. 76. Wilson, “Never Too Early,” p. ix. 77. Howard N. Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, Juveniles Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report (Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Of�ice of Justice Programs, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), available online at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstabb/nr2006/downloads/chapter7.pdf (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstabb/nr2006/downloads/chapter7.pdf) .

2/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch13,ch13lev1sec1,ch13lev1sec2,ch13lev1sec3,ch13lev1sec4,ch13lev1sec5,ch… 50/50

78. Jeff Slowikowski, “Disproportionate Minority Contact” October 2009, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdf�iles1/ojjdp/228306.pdf (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf�iles1/ojjdp/228306.pdf) .

79. Mark Soler and Lisa M. Garry, “Reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact: Preparation at the Local Level” (September 2009) Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdf�iles1/ojjdp/218861.pdf (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf�iles1/ojjdp/218861.pdf) .

80. Ibid., p. 14. 81. Ibid., p. 13. 82. Ibid., p. 12. 83. Rolf Loeber, David P. Farrington, and Daniel A. Waschbusch, “Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders,” in Loeber

and Farrington, Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, pp. 13–29, at 15. 84. Ibid. 85. Ibid. 86. Gail A. Wasserman and Laurie S. Miller, “The Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offendings,” in Loeber

and Farrington, Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, pp. 197–247, at 199–207. 87. Ibid. For other prevention strategies, see Richard F. Catalano, Michael W. Arthur, J. David Hawkins, Lisa Berglund,

and Jeffrey J. Olson, “Comprehensive Community and School Based Interventions to Prevent Anti-Social Behavior,” in Loeber and Farrington, pp. 248–83; James C. Howell, “Promising Programs for Youth Gang Violence Prevention and Intervention,” in Loeber and Farrington, pp. 284–312; David M. Altschuler, “Intermediate Sanctions and Community Treatment for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders,” in Loeber and Farrington, pp. 367–85.

88. M. W. Klein, Street Gangs and Street Workers (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1971), p. 13. 89. Whitehead and Lab, Juvenile Justice, p. 127. 90. Lewis Yablonsky, Juvenile Delinquency into the 21st Century (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 2000), pp. 178–80. 91. Ibid., p. 181. 92. Arlen Egley, Jr. and Christina E. O’Donnell, “Highlights of the 2007 National Youth Gang Survey” (Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009). 93. Richard C. McCorkle and Terance D. Miethe, “The Political and Organizational Response to Gangs: An Examination

of a “Moral Panic” in Nevada,” Justice Quarterly 15 (1, 1998): 41–64. 94. Patrick Grif�in, “National Overviews,” State Juvenile Justice Pro�iles (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile

Justice, 2004), available online at www.ncjj.org/statepro�iles/ (http://www.ncjj.org/statepro�iles/) . 95. Alida V. Merlo, Peter J. Benekos, and William J. Cook, “Waiver and Juvenile Justice Reform: Widening the Punitive

Net,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 8 (2–3, 1997): 145–68. 96. Grif�in, “National Overviews.” 97. Ibid. 98. Merlo et al., “Waiver and Juvenile Justice,” p. 151. 99. Ibid., p. 152.

100. Simon I. Singer, “The Automatic Waiver of Juveniles and Substantive Justice,” Crime and Delinquency 39 (2, 1993): 253–61.

101. Merlo et al., “Waiver and Juvenile Justice,” p. 153. 102. Singer, “The Automatic Waiver.” 103. Merlo et al., “Waiver and Juvenile Justice,” p. 151. 104. Singer, “The Automatic Waiver.” 105. Grif�in, “National Overviews.” 106. Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, Annual Report 2009, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, Of�ice of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; accessed 2/18/2010 from www.facjj.org (http://www.facjj.org) , page 13; R.E. Redding, Juvenile Transfer Laws: An Effective Deterrent to Delinquency? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Of�ice of Justice Programs, Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdf�iles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf�iles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf) .