CRJ 301

Juvenile Treatment vs Punishment

Annette Gordon

CRJ301

Dr. Chasity Miller

May 2, 2016

Since the creation of the juvenile justice system, there have been continued debates and countless views on whether or not a juvenile should receive treatment or punishment when committing criminal offenses. There is also an added question to whether treatment or punishment offers better end results for society. However, the opinions of juvenile punishments have changed as the years have progressed. Taking note to society’s feelings on juveniles and justice, the juvenile justice system has taken notice to those opinions and made changes within the system.

The way that our youth is punished by law have made major strides over the years. For example, The Stubborn Child Act of 1646 was a law in Colonial Massachusetts that declared a child of at least the age of 16 could be taken to court by their parents. In many instances, the punishment for these disobedient teens was death. Following in the 1700’s was the Age of Enlightenment which “began a seismic shift in the philosophy of how criminals should be punished” (Listwan, 2013. Ch. 2.3). The utilitarian views of deterrence were very influential during this period. It was also now thought that prison should be separated on a person’s characteristics rather than housing all criminals (adult and child) together. In 1779 the Penitentiary Act would be passed. This Act would create the State Prisons systems. And in the 19th Century the Child Savers Movement would emerge. This Movement also played the role of great influence to the development of the juvenile justice system.

The 20th Century would bring to us the Progressive Era, otherwise known as the Age of Reform. This Era brought “four major interventions, all of which remain in our system today: probation, parole, intermediate sentencing, and the establishment of separate juvenile courts” (Listwan, 2013. Ch. 2.5). The age that a youth was considered as a juvenile in this period was a child 16 and younger. The Age of Reform would continue developing and by the year 1925 almost every US State had created a separate process for juveniles who committed offenses. “The juvenile rights period emanated at a time when there was a great deal of social unrest in the United States” (Listwan, 2013. Ch. 2.6). In 1971 the National Advisory on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals would make recommendations for the entire justice system across the United States. “The organization disseminated recommendations for each of the organizations of the system including the police, courts, and corrections” (Listwan, 2013. Ch. 2.6). Three of these recommendations were specifically directed at the juvenile justice system: “diverting juveniles to treatment programs, decriminalizing certain offenses, particularly those relating to juveniles, and unifying services for both adults and juveniles” (Listwan, 2013. Ch. 2.6).

Due Process would be granted to juveniles in 1966 following the ruling by the US Supreme Court in Kent –vs- United States. More and more changes in the juvenile system would continue to progress as the years passed by. However, not all of these changes would result in the philosophy of rehabilitation. “Today there appears to be cracks emerging in the get tough or penal harm movement” (Listwan, 2013. Ch. 2.8). In some ways, it is safe to say that the juvenile justice system has taken a step back in time.

Since the creation of the juvenile justice system a debate has been existing in the effectiveness of treatments versus punishments in concerns to juvenile offenders. There seems to be a constant switch in opinions that has been a reoccurring factor. However, there have been many research studies that have proven that incarceration and punishment do not offer the same positive effects as treatments do within the juvenile system. The attitude of many people is that the juvenile justice system needs to be strict with juvenile offenders and “throw the book at them”. Some people say that they (the juvenile) is old enough to know right from wrong. And, there are many people that think juveniles should be sentenced as adults. After all, going to jail will teach them that what they did was wrong; in the end deferring them from recidivism. But, are these theories, in reality, fact or even ethically correct?

Then there are others out there that believe that treatment rather than punishment is the solution for juvenile criminals. The thought is that if treatment and rehabilitation is that this techniques have much more of a positive influence on youth and decreases the odds of them one day reoffending. These methods offer these juveniles things that may be lacking in their lives such as education, structure, and guidance from an encouraging role model. With treatment, these youths have an opportune chance to “find themselves” and make positive changes in their lives.

There are many environmental, as well as demographic factors that must also be taken into consideration before condemning juvenile offenders. These are all important factors that must be taken into consideration before just deciding to punishment them for their wrongdoings. For example, what was the mental state of the juvenile at the time of the offense? What is the age, race, and gender of the juvenile offender? What are the living conditions or the juvenile? Again, these are just of few examples of many environmental factors. After decrypting these factors the following step is to figure out the best solution (treatment program).

Environmental and demographics have a great deal of impact of some crimes that may be commit by juveniles. However, there are numerous at-risk issues for youth no matter where live. For example, drugs.

(FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2012).

Sadly, drugs are not the only crimes that juvenile commit. The graphs below show examples of States and the juvenile arrest rates for a specific crime. This information was collected in 2007. Pictured below is an example of several crimes committed by juveniles.

(U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011).

(Juvenile Court Statistics: The National Court Data Archive, 2009).

“A primary purpose of the juvenile justice system is to hold juvenile offenders accountable for delinquent acts while providing treatment, rehabilitative services, and programs designed to prevent future involvement in law-violating behavior” (Cothern, 2000). Each US State varies in their laws on sentencing a juvenile delinquent. One particular area in these various State laws in whether or not a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty, and if so at what age?

“Increasing numbers of capital offenders, including youth who committed capital offenses prior to their 18th birthdays, are now subject to “absolute” sentences, including the death penalty and life in prison without parole” (Cothern, 2000). As of the year 2000, 38 US States were authorizing the capital punishment. Of these 38 authorized death penalty states, 23 of them permitted the death penalty “of offenders who committed capital offenses prior to their 18th birthdays.

Below is some information gathered from three States: Alaska, Texas, and Vermont. The information provides statistics on gender, race, areas of crime, probation, etc.

(Alaska Department of Health and Social Services: Division of Juvenile Justice, 2015)

(Alaska Department of Health and Social Services: Division of Juvenile Justice, 2015)

Alaska faces unique challenges in providing re-entry services to juvenile offenders because of its size, geographic isolations, and cultural heritages. The Transition Services Unit provides vast amounts of services and programs to youth entering into the McLaughlin Youth Center located in Anchorage. “This programming does not start as the juvenile offender approaches his or her release -- it starts as soon as he or she enters the youth center” (Kelly, 2007). Upon entering into the youth facility the young offenders are assessed using what it referred to the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. The only exclusion to this assessment is if the youth enters the facility as a sex offender. The juvenile sexual offenders are given the Sex Offender Protocol.

(Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2010)

As they approach release, all” juveniles receive an individualized aftercare plan that provides a detailed transition/ reintegration/aftercare "map" for them to follow and identifies services they will receive” (Kelly, 2007). All juveniles released from the McLaughlin Youth Center must go to the Job Ready Group and the Targeted Reentry Program; both in collaboration with the Boys and Girls Clubs. While incarcerated each youth receives services provided to them by the Anchorage School District as well as GED testing which is provided by the facilities staff members. Also, “if eligible, they may participate in the Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring program, functional family therapy and an aftercare substance abuse group” (Kelly, 2007).

(Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2014).

“The juvenile justice system in Texas has come full circle in the past thirty years—from its foundational focus on rehabilitation , to a get-tough approach, and right back again to a focus on rehabilitation” ( Darnell, 2013). Texas juvenile courts, after their reform, are now referred to as “problem solving” of “therapeutic” courts. These new juvenile courts were designed by the legislation of Texas for the purpose of focusing on the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents rather than the punishment. The theory behind this ideal is to discover exactly why said delinquent committed a crime.

Texas also faces unique situations with gang affiliation. Because of the gang issues, Texas has formed Gang Courts. These are specialty courts “that address the prevalence of gang members” (Darnell, 2013), within Texas’s juvenile justice system. With gangs also comes drug related gang violence. Especially in gangs that run the boarders of Texas and Mexico. The following graph illustrates the percentage of gang members as well as their specific genders. Keep in mind that this is only juvenile gang member affiliation and is only data collect from one Texas jurisdiction.

(OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Texas), 2003)

The Texas legislature has tighten the laws on juvenile felony offenders. As you can see in the graph below these tighten laws have decreased juvenile felony offenses drastically from 2007 to 2011. Texas is also one of 10 states that requires juvenile sex offenders to register on the sexual offender list.

(Harris County Texas Juvenile Crime Statistics)

Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center located in Colchester, Vermont is the only “locked down” juvenile facility located in the state. The main goal at Woodside is to “reduce the likelihood of aggressive and/or criminal behavior; protect the community while the adolescent receives treatment; and ensure the safety of the adolescent (Bellas & Clements, 2004). Woodside houses 12 male youths at a time for a period of 12-18 months. These boys receive long-term intervention programs which are used to promote behavioral changes. Other than Woodside, Vermont has three other juvenile facilities which are secured by staff. These units house youth between ages 12 -18 for 10 day periods. These are “emergency” juvenile units that provide intense crisis interventions to youth whom are a threat to themselves and society. These units are: Sandhill which houses seven girls, Mountainside which houses four boys and four girls, and 206 Depot Street which house five boys (Bellas & Clements, 2004).

(Vermont Center of Justice Research, 2006)

(Bellas & Clements, 2004)

Each of these states, Alaska, Texas and Vermont have their own laws and was they address juvenile offenses/offenders. However, Alaska and Vermont seem to address treating the juvenile rather than punishing them as Texas does.

There are biological, psychological, and sociological theories behind finding out just why a juvenile commits a crime. There is also the theory that some people are just naturally born to be criminals. There are those people feel that overall the biology, genetics, and development is the explanation as to why someone commits crimes. For example: a poor diet, mental illness, bad brain chemistry could be the reason for aggressive criminal conduct. Then we have those who feel that social control is the reason that people commit criminal acts. For example: most people commit crime because of the controls that society places on individuals through institutions such as schools, workplaces, churches, and families.And lastly, there are those people who feel that the brain has total control of what we do (Listwan, 2013. Ch. 4). The reality of the situation is that we most likely will never know exactly what factors push a person to commit criminal acts.

The juvenile justice intervention that I feel proves to be most positive is intense treatment. A child that commits a crime has a piece missing somewhere. We first need to preform evaluations to see if we can reach some idea of where to start. After pinpointing the issue, we then need to figure a plan for the best outcomes for that youth.

Providing treatment to juveniles can prove to have a much larger influence of a young person then punishing those does. Treatment has the potential of helping a youth offender to make positive changes in their lives. The youth gain knowledge through positive interactions and are given encouragements that help them to build their self-esteem levels. They learn to love and respect their selves and to understand that they have potential to do great things. In the end treatment gives youth the necessary tools to decrease their chances of reoffending. Yes, punishment is part of the process. However just putting a child (or anyone else) behind bars is not the solution. This method makes people “harder” and many times open the door up to more criminal activities. Incarceration alone also decreases the odds of a juvenile offender establishing their place in society.

There are numerous juvenile prevention programs that have proven to be positive towards the rehabilitation process in juvenile delinquents. The Primary Prevention Program “focuses on the conditions that could lead to delinquent behavior such as truancy, poor parenting, and prenatal exposure to toxins” (Listwan, 2013. Ch. 10.2). The Secondary Prevention Program moves the focus to “services to the delinquent youth ad address the delinquent behavior at its earliest stages” (Listwan, 2013. Ch. 10.2). The Tertiary Prevention Program works on “reducing recidivism among those who are already in the juvenile justice system” (Listwan, 20113. Ch. 10.2). There are many agencies that extend from these three juvenile prevention programs such as Big Brother/ Sisters, family functional therapy, art therapy, life skills, and nurse-family partnership just to name a few.

The best solution for decreasing juvenile delinquency and recidivism is treatment. Sure this takes a lot of caring and giving from mentors and monies from our localities and states. However, even if we can help just one kid, I say it is all worth it. This one kid also has the potential to help other kids that are facing the same challenges to stop where they are now before it is to late. I also feel that treatment should override punishment in concerns to juveniles. How can we morally through a child behind bars or even sentence them to death? I say that we cannot allow this to happen. Changes must be made to the juvenile system now.

“I think it's important for us as a society to remember that the youth within juvenile justice systems are, most of the time, youths who simply haven't had the right mentors and supporters around them - because of circumstances beyond their control”- Q'orianka Kilcher (Famous Quotes).

References

Alaska Department of Health and Social Services: Division of Juvenile Justice. (2015). Statistics. Retrieved from http://dhss.alaska.gov/djj/Pages/GeneralInfo/Stats.aspx

Bellas, M. L., Ph.D., & Clements, W. H., PH.D. (2004, April). DETERMINANTS OF LENGTH OF STAY AT WOODSIDE JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER. Retrieved from http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/juv-justice/reports/vermont-juvenile-detention.pdf

Cothern, L. (2000, November). “Juveniles and the Death Penalty”. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/coordcouncil/cc_01.html

Darnell, Drew. 2013. "Specialty Juvenile Courts in Texas: Using the Rehabilitative Juvenile Justice Approach to Reform Texas's Youngest Gang Members." St. Mary's Law Journal 44, 715. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews, EBSCOhost (accessed May 1, 2016). Retrieved from EbsoHost: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=eb451778-6a25-4e24-94ce-1aa7ebc724db%40sessionmgr107&vid=2&hid=119

Famous Quotes. (n.d.). Retrieved May 02, 2016, from http://www.brainyquote.com

FBI-Uniform Crime Reports (2012). Drug Abuse. Retrieved from: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

Harris County Texas Juvenile Crime Statistics. (n.d.). Yahoo Image Search Results Page. Retrieved from https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrBxcDlZydXcd4ABQBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBuY2M3NnZpBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNwaXZz?p=texas youth sex offender stats

Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage. (2010). Sex Offenders in the Alaska Juvenile Justice System. Retrieved from http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/27/1spring2010/a_myc_sexoffenders.html

Kelly, M. (2007). A Career Devoted To Helping Youthful Offenders. Corrections Today, 69(3), 28. Retrieved from EbscoHost: http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/eds/detail/detail?sid=a2bb65d4-6cf4-4a97-930c-49f071a0ae64%40sessionmgr4001&vid=6&hid=4208&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=25497630&db=crh

Listwan, S. J. (2013). Introduction to juvenile justice [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Texas), (2003)). Gangs in Texas 2001: An overview. Retrieved from https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/cj/2001gangrept.pdf

Texas Juvenile Justice Department. (2014). The State of Juvenile Probation Activity in Texas 2012. Retrieved from http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/publications/reports/RPTSTAT2012.pdf

The National Juvenile Court Data Archeive. (2010). Juvenile Court Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/239114.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011, September). “Juvenile Arrest in the United States, 1980-2009”. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus8009.pdf

Vermont Center of Justice Research. (2006). Juvenile Justice Sourcebook Deliquency and Criminal Dispositions in Vermont 2004. Retrieved from http://humanservices.vermont.gov/publications/jj-sourcebook-04