Activity 4

14 The Future of Juvenile Justice

Chapter Learning Objectives

On completion of this chapter, students should be able to do the following:

· Evaluate the extent to which the goals of the juvenile justice system have been met early in the 21st century

· Suggest alternatives for the future of the juvenile justice system

· Explain the restorative justice and “get tough” approaches to juvenile justice

· Discuss the possible demise of the juvenile justice system

· Discuss ways of improving on the current juvenile justice system

What Would You Do?

This What Would You Do? is different because it is located at the end of the book. As a conclusion to the book, we wanted you to consider your own personal growth throughout the course with regard to understandings in juvenile justice. We also wanted you to consider challenges that are ongoing in the system itself and how you may contribute to positive changes in the system.

At the beginning of each chapter of the textbook, you have been exposed to situations that are common in juvenile justice. Each one represents a daily challenge to the system and to the various people working in juvenile justice. As you read this chapter, reflect on your responses to each of the chapter What Would You Do? situations and decide if your reactions and views have changed over the course of the book. In other words, would you respond differently now than you would have at the beginning of the text? If so, how have your perceptions of youth, the juvenile justice system, and those working in the system changed? Have you changed the way you view society and how it handles children? Considering all that you know now, what changes would you recommend for the future of juvenile justice?

Throughout this book, we have discussed in varying detail the philosophies of the juvenile justice system, the procedural requirements of that system, and some of the major problems with the system as it now operates. We have seen that the juvenile justice system is subject to numerous stresses and strains from within. The good intentions are sometimes met with less than desirable results; thus, change and trial and error are imperative. We have arrived at a number of conclusions—some of which are supported by empirical evidence and others of which are more or less speculative—based on our observations and those of concerned practitioners and citizens.

The initial underlying assumption of the juvenile justice system is that juveniles with problems should be treated and/or educated rather than punished. Adult and juvenile justice systems in the United States were separated because of the belief that courts should act in the best interests of juveniles and because of the belief that association with adult offenders would increase the possibility that juveniles would become involved in criminal careers. The extent to which we have achieved the goals of the juvenile justice system continues to be debated. Where do we go from here? Although it is always risky to speculate, it appears to us that there are four more or less distinct possibilities for the future of the juvenile justice system.

Possibilities for the Future of Juvenile Justice

Possibility number one is that the juvenile justice system will cease to exist as a separate entity. Possibility number two is that the juvenile system will begin to rely heavily on hybrid sentencing with regard to violent juveniles. Possibility number three is that the restorative or balanced justice movement will triumph, and we will return to a more caring personal approach to juvenile justice. Possibility number four, as Lindner (2004) pointed out, is based on the fact that the juvenile court today is more focused on accountability and punishment than ever before. So, those who support the “get tough” or “just deserts” approach will reform the juvenile justice system, resulting in an increasing number of juveniles being processed in the adult justice system. “A popular view [among policymakers and supporters of get tough] is that, to protect the public safety, youth who commit serious or violent acts should be subject to the same punishments as apply to adults” (Bishop, 2004, p. 635). Unruh, Povenmire-Kirk, and Yamamoto (2009) argued that at present “adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system face multiple challenges on their pathway to adulthood. These adolescents not only have an increased risk of committing future crimes [but] are further at risk of not becoming healthy, productive adults” (p. 201). Although many states have adopted the get-tough approach and are now operating in full swing with transfers to adult court, this philosophy is contradictory to the purpose of juvenile court.

There is little argument that the current juvenile justice system is indeed in turmoil and lacks the foresight and preventive measures required for lasting reform. The challenge before us is to move from the rhetoric to the reality of what we are going to do to save their [juveniles’] lives and our collective futures. (Hatchette, 1998, pp. 83–84)

If this sounds familiar, it may be because it has been the theme throughout this text. Ohlin (1998) noted the following:

Confidence in the ability of our institutional system to control juvenile delinquency has been steadily eroding. Public insecurity, fear, and anxiety about youth crime are now intense and widespread, despite the juvenile court and probation system and the training schools that have evolved over the past century. (p. 143)

Lindner (2004) echoed this statement by pointing out that public perception has been that juvenile crimes are becoming more and more serious. The public has also perceived that the juvenile justice system is too lenient on offenders. Public outcry has led to more punitive laws, increased waivers to adult court, and a shift from the best interests of the child to punishment. In actuality, however, “the rate of juvenile violent crime arrests has consistently decreased since 1994, falling to a level not seen since at least the 1970s” (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006, p. 2), and juveniles in secure youth facilities have also declined over the last decade. Unfortunately, get-tough proponents are not choosing to advertise the decreased crime rates; instead, they have focused on the upswing in juvenile violence over the past few years.

Barriers to Change in Juvenile Justice

Uniformity of juvenile law has yet to be achieved. Many citizens still adopt an “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” attitude toward juveniles with problems, and both citizens and practitioners are often frustrated by our supposed failure to curb delinquency and abuse or neglect in spite of the millions of dollars invested in the enterprise. We continue to refuse to address the larger societal issues of poverty, dysfunctional families, failed educational systems, race, class, and gender as they relate to crime and delinquency (Ohlin, 1998, p. 152). One could write an entire text on these issues, alone, for they all contribute to the current state of affairs in juvenile justice today. Among these, however, that we have decided to look at more closely is the role of race and racial representation in the juvenile justice system.

Currently, minority youth who identify as being African American, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Native American constitute a little more than 30% of the entire U.S. population. These minority groups have suffered from generations of social inequality and disparate opportunity. Social inequality is a term for circumstances of disparate treatment and opportunity for groups of people based on ethnicity, gender, or other characteristics. Racial discrimination is a form of social inequality that includes experiences that result from legal and/or nonlegal types of discrimination based on the racial identification of the individual. Racial discrimination can occur at both the personal and institutional level. We have discussed, in prior chapters, how norms and processes throughout society collectively work against the individual who is the subject of disparate treatment, but we wanted to more squarely address both disparity and discrimination in the context of society’s means or processing minority youth.

Indeed, many authors claim that institutional discrimination is the primary reason for group differences in material wealth and living conditions, such as poverty, education, employment, access to medical care, and political power, including control of the media, political influence, and community finances (Hsia, 2004; Phillips, Settles-Reaves, Walker, & Brownlow, 2009). Exposure to both individual and institutional discrimination is stressful and also leads to frustration and feelings of hopelessness for many racial minorities. This stress and these feelings of frustration are related to negative health outcomes among minority groups (Phillips et al., 2009). See In Practice 14.1 for a closer view of how responses from the justice system may be currently ill-equipped to address minority youth who make contact with the juvenile justice system, thereby contributing to the problem and making matters worse, not better.

Phillips et al. (2009) provide research in which they examine a theory of racial inequality and social integration that examines social factors where racial discrimination is associated with negative mental and physiological health outcomes. They note that, as youth detect contradictions between opportunities in broader society and the lack of opportunity in their own lives, stress and frustration are often experienced. Racial discrimination increases frustrations, reinforces perceptions of unfairness (inequality), and further limits options to achieve life goals.

In the education system, African American and Latino youth, especially males, are highly likely to report negative encounters where their access to education is diminished. On the other hand, Asian youth have indicated higher levels of racist treatment from their peer group at school (such as racial epithets, social rejection, and physical threats). African American female youth tend to report negative racially based treatment more than any other female racial group in the school setting. Finally, African American youth of both genders tend to report racial discrimination as they grow older, on into adulthood. As can be seen, many minorities tend to report racially based discrimination that begins early in life and continues throughout their life span.

In Practice 14.1: Disparity in Juvenile Detention and Incarceration

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the issue of disparate minority representation in juvenile lockdowns had become a topic of controversy. Most of the data available on this issue emerged during the late 1990s and during the early parts of the new millennium. As a result of the data produced during the 1990s and into the millennium that followed, it became clear that the reasons for the disparity in juvenile confinement are many. Indeed, most all published literature on this issue notes that these statistics are not likely to be due to a racist system. Whereas we cannot possibly answer this question within the scope of one discussion within one section of a single textbook, it should be clear to students that throughout the history of corrections in the United States, African American men and women have been disproportionately incarcerated. Given the various historical precedents associated with the civil rights era and other indicators that our society held minorities in a weakened position, and given the common knowledge regarding the existence of institutional racism that officially existed up until the 1960s, it is not unreasonable to presume that, in some cases, racism may be part of the explanation.

Recent research by Huizinga, Thornberry, Knight, and Lovegrove (2007) investigated the often stated reason given for disparate minority confinement—that it simply reflects the difference in offending rates among different racial/ethnic groups—and they found no support in their rigorous study examining disparate minority contact with the justice system. Huizinga et al. (2007) note that “although self-reported offending is a significant predictor of which individuals are contacted/referred, levels of delinquent offending have only marginal effects on the level of DMC” (p. i). They found these results in terms of both total offending as well as more focused data that examined violent offenses and property offenses separately. Thus, it would appear that minority youth are no more delinquent than Caucasian youth.

The work of Hsia (2004) was a compilation of surveys and official investigation into the juvenile correctional systems of all 50 states. Hsia (2004) notes the following reasons for why such disparities existed in many state systems:

1. Racial stereotyping and cultural insensitivity. Eighteen states identified racial stereotyping and cultural insensitivity—both intentional and unintentional—on the part of the police and others in the juvenile justice system (e.g., juvenile court workers and judges) as important factors contributing to higher arrest rates, higher charging rates, and higher rates of detention and confinement of minority youth. The demeanor and attitude of minority youth can contribute to negative treatment and more severe disposition relative to their offenses. The belief that minority youth cannot benefit from treatment programs also leads to less frequent use of such options.

2. Lack of alternatives to detention and incarceration. Eight states identified the lack of alternatives to detention and incarceration as a cause of the frequent use of confinement. In some states, detention centers are located in the state’s largest cities, where most minority populations reside. With a lack of alternatives to detention, nearby detention centers become “convenient” placements for urban minority youth.

3. Misuse of discretionary authority in implementing laws and policies. Five states observed that laws and policies that increase juvenile justice professionals’ discretionary authority over youth contribute to harsher treatment of minority youth. One state notes that “bootstrapping” (the practice of stacking offenses on a single incident) is often practiced by police, probation officers, and school system personnel.

4. Lack of culturally and linguistically appropriate services. Five states identified the lack of bicultural and bilingual staff and the use of English-only informational materials for the non-English-speaking population as contributing to minorities’ misunderstanding of services and court processes and their inability to navigate the system successfully.

Based on the research by Hsia (2004), it is the general contention of this author that much of the reason the disproportionate confinement exists among minority youth has to do with a confluence of issues that plague members of society who have suffered from historical trauma and, generation after generation, have been restricted from access to material, educational, and social resources. Indeed, issues such as poverty, substance abuse, few job opportunities, and high crime rates in predominantly minority neighborhoods place minority youth at higher risk for delinquent behaviors. Moreover, concerted law enforcement targeting of high-crime areas yields higher numbers of arrests and formal processing of minority youth. At the same time, these communities have fewer positive role models and fewer service programs that function as alternatives to confinement and/or support positive youth development.

Further, it has been found that a disproportionate number of youth in confinement came from low-income, single-parent households (female-headed households, in particular) and households headed by adults with multiple low-paying jobs or unsteady employment. Family disintegration, diminished traditional family values, parental substance abuse, and insufficient supervision contribute to delinquency development. Poverty reduces minority youths’ ability to access existing alternatives to detention and incarceration as well as competent legal counsel. Thus, all of these factors, being associated with historical deprivations over time, have contributed and culminated in the state of affairs that we now witness among minority juveniles in the United States.

Sources:  Hsia (2004); Huizinga, Thornberry, Knight, & Lovegrove (2007).

Questions to Consider

1. True or False: Racial minorities face the same issues as whites in the United States.

2. Multiple Choice: A disproportionate number of incarcerated youth come from which of the following?

a. Single-parent homes

b. Low-income homes

c. Households where parents hold more than one low-paying job

d. All of the above

3. Based on what you’ve learned throughout the book, identify one reason why minorities may be disproportionately incarcerated and one way in which we can lower incarceration rates of minorities.

The ability to adaptively cope with racial discrimination is a very important developmental challenge for many minority youth. These youth, like nonminority youth, must build a healthy self-concept, work through psychological stress, and make life-course adjustments that entail periods of storm and stress. Unlike their nonminority counterparts, they also must develop effective coping skills when faced with racial discrimination—over which they have no power and little influence. Further, they must deal with persons who undermine their ability to achieve goals for reasons that have no logical basis. During their teens, these youth often have a good understanding about social power and are often greatly impacted by experiences, whether direct or vicarious, where racial discrimination has been inflicted against them, their friends, or their family. In many instances, prolonged feelings of anger and bitterness may exist due to these injustices.

This type of mural is common in many Latino American neighborhoods where youth express their sense of pride in cultural heritage through art that is open for the entire community to see.

Courtesy of the authors.

For minority parents, their ability to socialize their own children is usually impacted by their own experiences with racial discrimination. Indeed, in some communities where parents have experienced racial discrimination from law enforcement, they may instruct their children to not trust Caucasian police officers. The Black Lives Matter movement, which began in Ferguson, Missouri, may have been borne from some of the messages taught over time. The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was considered by many to be the result of long-term racial bias in policing and a court system that generated revenue from the poor and minorities (“Judge Approves Ferguson Deal,” 2016). Protests after the shooting aimed to bring to light the biases and the differential treatment of minorities by police. In the year since the shooting and protests, the Department of Justice has reached an agreement with the City of Ferguson to make changes to the police force, training, and use of force policies, among other things; however, citizens in Ferguson still do not trust that systemic changes will result and continue to spread a message of suspicion of city officials and the police (“Judge Approves Ferguson Deal,” 2016). The Black Lives Matter movement may have started as a protest against police violence, but it has expanded to include other issues facing minority communities, including failing schools, inadequate housing, a lack of political input, and economic unfairness. The messages of mistrust of the government, police, court system, and educational system are apparent from those involved with the movement and do not seem to be letting up anytime soon. Although their own previous experiences may be valid, this type of message being given to youth instantly creates friction between the child and police officers in general and between the child and Caucasian officers in particular. Further, this obviously sets a racist tone that permeates the neighborhood because multiple children are given the same message.

The same circumstances may exist within school systems, where minority parents who have experienced racism may instruct their children not to trust teachers of a given color or cultural background. There is research that some African American mothers report vicarious experiences of racism when they sense or observe racial discrimination that has been leveled at their children. Often, these parents will socialize their children to not trust certain racial groups of teachers. With this said, we also would like to point out that the opposite of this is also equally true; some Caucasian families may instruct their children not to trust minority teachers, thereby reinforcing prejudice and racism. Until issues related to race, racism, cultural difference, poverty, and the need for a balanced society are fully mitigated and resolved, it is likely that our ability to truly revitalize the juvenile justice system will continue to be at least partially impaired.

Possible Improvements to the Juvenile Justice System

As we can see, there is undoubtedly room for a great deal of improvement in society in general and in the juvenile justice system in particular. As we have indicated, to some extent, such improvement depends on changes in societal conditions such as poverty, unemployment, and discrimination. However, we cannot, amid this slow process of social change, sit idly by, waiting for when times are perfect for additional reform in our juvenile justice system. For instance, consider that changes in the family and in the educational system that improve our ability to meet the needs of juveniles are also crucial. Changes in the rules that govern juveniles may be appropriate in some instances. Making better use of the information made available to us by researchers and practitioners is yet another way to improve the system. In the end, taking a rational, calculated approach to delinquency and abuse or neglect will pay better dividends than will adhering to policies developed and implemented as a result of fear and misunderstanding.

Bilchik (1998a) concluded the following:

A revitalized juvenile justice system needs to be put into place and brought to scale that will ensure immediate and appropriate sanctions, provide effective treatment, reverse trends in juvenile violence, and rebuild public confidence in and support for the juvenile justice system. (p. 89)

Such a revitalized juvenile justice system would include swift intervention with early offenders, an individualized comprehensive needs assessment, transfer of serious or chronic offenders, and intensive aftercare. This system would require the coordinated efforts of law enforcement, treatment, correctional, judicial, and social service personnel. This approach to delinquency control represents a form of community programming that might help to reintegrate troubled youth into mainstream society rather than further isolate and alienate them (Bazemore & Washington, 1995; Zaslaw & Balance, 1996). To accomplish this goal, the resistance to change that characterizes most institutions must be overcome.

Revitalizing the juvenile justice system is clearly a complex undertaking. Cohn (2004) indicated that revitalizing the system includes focusing on “areas of attention and repair” (p. 43) such as the following:

1. Excessive caseloads that preclude meaningful interventions by an assumed well-trained staff

2. The failure to recognize that not the offender but the community is the real “customer” of services

3. Little understanding of the relationship among planning, change, and social policy

4. Political, hardline rhetoric leading to inappropriate changes in the juvenile code, including automatic waivers to criminal courts

5. The changing character of youthful offenders, especially in terms of substance abuse and the use of weapons when committing offenses

6. Inadequate kinds and availability of treatment programs for detained youths and for probationers and those in aftercare and, for those that work, inadequate replication efforts

7. A stubborn refusal by some significant actors to work collaboratively in defining and resolving problems of a mutual nature such as diversion or graduated sanctions

8. The failure of the “leadership” to deal head-on with inappropriate and “wrong” changes in juvenile codes, especially in terms of waivers

9. The failure of judges to provide the leadership when it comes to advocacy

10. The lack of meaningful diversion programs, including the need for more informal processes for nonviolent offenders

11. The lack of meaningful programs that involve the families (parents) of offenders

12. The failure to engage in advocacy for needed programs in the community for youth and their families

13. Too much complacency (status quo), which results in lack of appropriate planning

14. The failure to involve critical stakeholders in the development of agency-based policies and procedures

15. Inadequate involvement of subordinate staff in identifying and implementing agency mission and goals

16. Inadequate staff development and training programs that are based on the identification of core competencies

17. The failure to recognize the need for and value of wraparound services and programs, resulting in poor case management by too many case managers in too many agencies in any given case situation (i.e., the failure to recognize that too few offenders and their families receive disproportionately high levels of human services)

18. Inadequate development of ongoing and meaningful communication with superordinates and appropriate stakeholders, which results in too many being unaware of “what works”

19. The failure to design and implement a total, systems-based information technology program that enhances data sharing

20. The ongoing failure to evaluate programs to determine worthiness that should lead to decisions about program continuation, expansion, or abandonment

21. The failure to develop and implement program and operational standards

22. The failure to think systemically

23. The problem of too much stupidity!

  Material from “Juvenile Justice in Transition: Is There a Future?,” originally published in Federal Probation (Cohn, 1999b). Reprinted with permission of the author.

Basically, revitalizing the system means acknowledging that changes are needed within the structure of the system and within the individual agencies operating as part of the system. It does not mean focusing on harsher punishments or accountability. Revitalization puts juveniles and treatment first while fixing the broken aspects of juvenile justice. As Califano and Colson (2005) indicated, the goal of the juvenile justice system is protection and reform of young people who commit crimes, “but the reality is a grim, modern version of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist. Instead of providing care and rehabilitation, many facilities are nothing more than colleges for criminality” (p. 34). With this in mind, Gaudio (2010) suggested that states offer rehabilitation to nonviolent youth drug offenders, rather than incarcerating them. These changes may include the increased use of specialty courts such as drug courts, youth courts, truancy courts, and so forth, discussed earlier in the textbook.

We believe that the first possibility, the complete demise of the juvenile justice system, is unlikely simply because the goals of the system are worthy and not likely to be abandoned completely. In addition, the separate juvenile justice system employs a large supporting staff that is unlikely to be summarily dismissed, especially in light of the restorative justice movement. Based on current trends, it appears likely that the juvenile justice system will continue to provide separate services for juveniles but with an increase in the number of crimes for which waivers to adult court are used and with an increase in hybrid sentencing. Moore (2001–2002) suggested that the use of blended sentences is creating a third criminal justice system. As discussed previously, blended sentences allow juveniles to be sentenced to adult and juvenile dispositions by both adult court judges and juvenile court judges. This raises the following question: When is a juvenile offender a juvenile, and when is he or she an adult? Instead of classifying juvenile offenders as one or the other, hybrid or blended sentences allow the convenience and benefits of both courts. Juveniles are given a second chance by being allowed to rely on the juvenile court for rehabilitation while knowing that the adult court sanctions apply if rehabilitation fails. “By focusing on blending both juvenile and adult criminal sentences, the courts are moving away from an all-or-nothing approach and recognizing the lack of a bright-line rule to define a juvenile versus an adult” (Moore, 2001–2002, p. 138). At the same time, it may be that juvenile justice personnel can do a more effective job of dealing with less serious juvenile offenders. Jennings, Gibson, and Lanza-Kaduce (2009), in a study of some 300 youth, concluded that with respect to status offenders both deterrence and normalization-based rationales showed more positive results than the typical treatment-based approach and that “viewing status offending as normal adolescent behavior (i.e., normalization) has the most beneficial effect on self-concept” (p. 198).

It is unlikely that restorative justice advocates will withdraw from the field of battle in the juvenile justice system. They have gained momentum early in the 21st century because they have focused on caring for victims too long forgotten by those in the juvenile justice system, and that is not likely to change in the near future. They have successfully infiltrated every type of agency working with juveniles, and in a way, the policies they advocate fit rather well with the “just deserts” model because, in addition to being processed through the courts, offenders are forced to confront their victims in the interest of making both “whole” again. Restorative justice may not work for all juvenile offenders and all types of offenses; however, it appears to be successful with those who can be reintegrated into the community after a mistake or a minor wrongful act. As long as proponents realize this and practitioners understand its limitations, it may well work to promote dignity and self-respect, as well as lowered recidivism, in those served by its programs (Schetky, 2009). To the extent, if any, that such programs prove to be uncomfortable for offenders, this may be viewed as another form of punishment in addition to, or in the place of, judicial punishment.

We might close by looking at the future of gangs and efforts to deal with them as a way of summarizing the future of the juvenile justice system. The contemporary cycle of youth gang activities is likely to continue because members who are imprisoned manage to maintain some gang-related activities even while in prison and because recruitment, given the conditions outlined previously, is no problem. As Postman (1991) put it, we can ill afford to “hurtle into the future with our eyes fixed firmly on the rearview mirror” (cited in Osborne & Gaebler, 1992, p. 19). Papachristos (2005) put it this way:

This old and dilapidated building was once a hospital for a variety of patients, including the mentally ill and youth who had behavioral problems. This is a symbolic example of a time that is gone as the juvenile justice system moves into the modern era.

Courtesy of the authors

No amount of law enforcement will rid the world of gangs. Strategies at all levels must move beyond simple arrests and incarceration to consider the economic structures of the cities and neighborhoods that breed street gangs. Otherwise, there will be nothing there to greet them but the waiting and supportive arms of the gang. (p. 55)

Community programs aimed at alleviating the causes of gang membership as well as providing opportunities for those inclined to gang membership will need to be given priority if we hope to confront the gang problem. Support for the police is essential but so is support for myriad community programs directed at high-risk youth. The best efforts of school personnel, social services professionals, nonprofit organizations, and the community at large will also be necessary. Only by producing our best efforts in this regard can we hope to maintain the integrity of the juvenile justice system while providing appropriate alternatives for juveniles who cannot, or will not, be helped through education, treatment, care, concern, and opportunity.

This is more important than ever because, as one can tell, these youth will need a full range of services that are likely provided on a continuum that addresses the multiplicity of problems that these youth present. One issue tends to compound the severity of another, making the entire treatment process difficult to unravel. For instance, consider the vignette at the beginning of this chapter, which makes it clear that juveniles will continue to be substance abuse offenders in need of services that include appropriate assessment, treatment, and case management, as well as supervision. As we can see from Figure 14.1, the various aspects of juvenile processing all work together as part of the juvenile justice system. It is our contention that if the juvenile justice system were to disappear then so too would any possibility of truly addressing the myriad corollary issues that influence long-term delinquency and/or later adult criminality.

Figure 14.1 Elements of a Model Juvenile Intervention System

Source: VanderWaal, McBride, Terry-McElrath, & VanBuren (2001).

Career Opportunity: Youth Correctional Counselor (State of California)

· Job description: The Youth Correctional Counselor will counsel young offenders in their day-to-day activities, programming, and adjustment. Will engage in casework with individual and small-group counseling sessions for approximately 10 to 12 young offenders. Is tasked with classification of young offenders to ensure appropriate placement for living arrangements, academic study, and vocational programming. Also conducts large-group psychoeducational sessions in the facility. Prepares treatment plans and summaries for each young offender.

· Employment requirements: Any one of the following:

· Experience: One year of experience of service in the state of California maintaining security, custody, and supervision of young offenders in a secure facility.

or

· Education: A 4-year degree from a college or university.

or

Sixty hours of college credit plus 2 years’ experience with youth in any of the following combinations:

1. Youth correctional agency

2. Parole or probation department

3. Family, children, or youth guidance center

4. Juvenile bureau of law enforcement

5. Education or recreation agency

6. Mental health facility

Plus the following additional minimum requirements:

· U.S. citizenship (or applied)

· 21 years old

· U.S. HS diploma/GED

· Good physical condition

· No felony convictions

· Eligible to own/possess a firearm

· One year as a CO, YCO, or MTA or performing duties of peace officer

Beginning salary: $48,000 in California. From $36,000 to $48,000 per year, depending on area of the United States.

Source:  California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2013).

Indeed, issues related to substance abuse will likely continue to be correlated with most all other acts of delinquency and crime that we associate with these young offenders. This is what some have defined as the juvenile drug-crime cycle (VanderWaal et al., 2001). In addition, they will likely present with a number of co-occurring disorders such as depression, anxiety, and cognitive deficits. This has been found to be particularly true for youth placed in detention or some other type of institutional environment (Sedlak & McPherson, 2010). When combined with their young age and the irreparable damage done to their neurophysiological well-being, it becomes clear that this issue is multifaceted. These youth will also tend to be less healthy both physically and emotionally. Maghan (1999) has noted that future offenders will tend to be the following:

· Members of racial minority groups

· Unhealthy (average of 10 years older than physical age)

· Infected with sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, or tuberculosis

· Overly emotional and lack impulse control

· Having children of their own

· Gang affiliated

· Unmarried

· From single-parent households

So far, Maghan (1999) has been correct in his prediction, even though that prediction was made over 14 years ago. Whereas his observations are important, it is equally important to note that the characteristics just listed have been observed among juvenile offenders around the world. Indeed, youth in various industrialized nations all exhibit similar demographic and lifestyle trends. The effects of urbanization and modernization on family systems have been detrimental, and problems with high rates of poverty have exacerbated these negative effects on youth. In reaction to these changes, youth are exhibiting behaviors that place them at greater risk for negative health effects, both physically and mentally. The Internet, television, the media, and modern youth culture have proliferated around the world due to advances in communications technology and the effects of globalization. From our previous chapter, it would appear that similarities in criminal and delinquent behaviors exist as well.

Key Terms

· Black Lives Matter movement 387

· “get tough” or “just deserts” approach 383

· hybrid sentencing 383

· juvenile drug-crime cycle 393

· restorative or balanced justice 383

· revitalized juvenile justice 388

Critical Thinking Questions

1. In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing the juvenile justice system today? How will this affect juvenile justice in the future? Be sure to explain the reasons for your answer.

2. If the juvenile justice system were to be eliminated, what are the major concerns the adult system would have to address? What potential economic costs or gains would occur?

3. Consider the predictions of Maghan (1999) regarding the characteristics of future juvenile offenders. His predictions were made nearly 15 years ago. In your opinion, was Maghan correct in his predictions? Why or why not? Can you identify these characteristics in youth you know? Provide one example.