Reforms in the Juvenile Justice System (Essay Sample)

Reforms in the Juvenile Justice System
Name
Institution
Reforms in the Juvenile Justice System
Executive Summary
The judicial system has over the past half century been engrossed in a raging debate about the concept of juvenile incarceration. The primary question is how the system should hold juvenile offenders accountable for their offenses while maintaining public safety. The primary role of the judicial system is to deter criminal acts and punish offenders. These objectives are insufficient for juvenile offenders who also require rehabilitation and empowerment. The current model of incarceration has been deemed ineffective for the accomplishment of these purposes.
The current judicial model depends heavily on confinement and incarceration of offenders in large, institutional facilities sometimes referred to as prisons, jails, correction centers, training centers, or boot camps. The defining characteristics of these institutions are the large numbers of youths held in a single area, geographical isolation of centers, and military-style operation. Research shows that this model of justice is ineffective, dangerous, unnecessary, and costly. Instead, better outcomes can be realized using smaller, treatment-based correctional institutions.
The new model is built on the principles of rehabilitative treatment through community involvement, cognitive and behavioral management, development of career and vocational skills, reentry planning, and empowerment. Collaborative research studies assert that judicial reforms which encourage design and development of small, correction centers based on the therapeutic treatment result in positive outcomes in the lives of past offenders and society as a whole. This work will evaluate and compare the outcomes of placing youth offenders in large, institutional correction facilities as opposed to small, treatment-based centers.
Introduction
The United States criminal justice system puts more youth in jail and detention centers than any other country in the world (Wilson, 2011). The 2010 census reported that more than 71,000 individuals below the legal age of 18 were held behind bars for a range of crimes and offenses. The census also reported that nearly half a million youth are charged and convicted for committing crimes every year across the country. Even so, youths commit only a small proportion of the nation’s crimes. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), individuals below the age of 18 only accounted for 14% of arrested criminals. The main purpose of the judicial system is to avenge and deter criminal activity. For a long time, jail and other placement institutions have been the only solution and method of punishment offered by the system. A growing body of research indicates that mandatory placement and detention techniques are not effective in deterring youths from participating in a crime. This realization creates the need to come up with alternative solutions, treatment-based facilities, which offer different forms of punishment and counseling to the growing problem of youth delinquency.
Pre-existing Policies
Youth offender institutions (YOI’s) are centers where young offenders below the age of 21 are incarcerated. The institutions are legally recognized under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) which was passed in 1974. The core aims of the act were to “deinstitutionalize status offenders, prevent the interaction of juvenile and adult offenders, propose a way to address the over-representation of youths of color in the jail, and ensure that juvenile offenders are locked up under extreme circumstances” (Barton & Butts, 1990). The move to deinstitutionalize juvenile offenders was advised by the fact that some offenses are committed as a result of age and stage of development. In this regard, the JJDP Act seeks to protect youths who commit offenses such as truancy from school, driving under the influence, possession and consumption of alcohol, abuse of drugs, consensual sexual acts, and chronic disobedience from mandatory detainment. The legal system, under the theory of parens patriae, seeks to protect minors from committing harmful acts which would ordinarily result in incarceration of adults.
The growing body of research asserts that holding youth delinquents in correctional facilities, residential facilities, and juvenile detention centers does not yield positive outcomes. Sociologists, psychologists, child development experts, and other groups of stakeholders have expressed dismay at the state of prosecution and confinement for youths below legal age. Benekos, Merlo, & Puzzanchera, (2010) report that two-thirds of youths confined under the justice system are held for non-violent crimes such as status offenses, drug offenses, property offenses, and probation violations. Their research shows that, unfortunately, the confinement of youths has little impact on determent of crime. Approximately three-quarters of youth offenders who are arrested and confined in correction centers are re-arrested for new convictions after release. In addition, youth incarceration has been criticized for contributing to lower educational achievement of convicted individuals, high unemployment rates, higher alcohol and drug abuse problems, increased sexual and mental health problems, and high monetary costs. As a result, youth incarceration in large correctional facilities is considered largely a failed public policy approach.
Impacts of Institutionalization
Dr. Barry Krisberg, the former President of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, describes youth incarceration in prisons and correctional facilities as “toxic and dangerous” (2003). Since the early seventies, systemic abuse, violence, use of force, abuse, and excessive restraints have been documented in juvenile correctional facilities across the United States. A story run by the Associated Press in March 2008 reported that from 2003 to 2007, approximately 13,000 claims of abuse and physical violence were reported in juvenile confinement facilities across the country. The study indicated that physical abuse was committed by other inmates as well as facility staff. In fact, researchers estimate that the figure might be higher than recorded. The statistics may be distorted due to lack of formal grievance systems and fear of retribution from attackers.
In 2010, the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted a research study to establish the prevalence of sexual harassment and abuse in juvenile correction centers. In this case, sexual abuse involves unconsented sexual acts such as touching, homosexuality, kissing, groping, and rape. After surveying a representative sample of 26,650 confined youth, the BJS reported that nearly 12% of the inmates had undergone sexual victimization in the prior year (Tonry & Mark, 2008). Sexual harassment incidents are also caused by facility staff as well as other inmates. Youths held at correctional institutions are also subjected to excessive restraint and isolation. For individuals going through the adolescent stage of development, socialization and interaction with peers is critical. Isolation in jail denies them the opportunity to interact and, as a result, impacts negatively on their psycho-social development.
Incarceration of youths is also reported to be an ineffective policy in terms of determent and correction. Extensive research conducted by Loughran et al (2007) shows that nearly 75% of youths convicted and held in juvenile correction centers are likely to recidivate back to crime at some point in future (mostly within three years). Their long-term cohort study showed that 81% to 89% of minors incarcerated in New York juvenile correction centers were likely to be re-arrested by age 28. Such high figures show that the judicial system and current public policy regarding incarceration of youths is not effective. Over the years, criminologists and other experts have conducted sophisticated studies that have realized two critical outcomes; confinement of juvenile is not more effective than other forms of punishment such as fines, probations, or community service, and institutional placement in unregulated environments might exacerbate the chances of criminality.
Juvenile incarceration places a heavy toll on education and employability of individuals. Youths who are held in large correction institutions forfeit the chance to access essential services such as education. As a result, incarceration may deny individuals the chance to access important tools that are required for everyday survival in the outside world. A study conducted by the Annie Casey Foundation in 2009 revealed that only 28% of released juvenile delinquents reenrolled to school within one year after release from training institutions. The lack of education is one of the reasons that explain the high rates of recidivism. Interment has also been linked to increased cases of mental instability, which affects the chances of educational attainment.
As a consequence of the lack of education, former juvenile inmates face astronomic challenges in getting employment. First, many citizens have a negative perception of hiring and working together with former inmates. A longitudinal study by Kirk & Sampson (2013) found that individuals who had been incarcerated as juveniles suffered a 5% reduction in employability compared to other members of society. The figure rose to 9% for African American youths, who incidentally comprise the biggest proportion of individuals held in juvenile correction facilities.
One of the most tragic ironies of the judicial system in America is that a huge proportion of individuals held in juvenile correction facilities do not have a record of serious crimes that would endanger the public. The Federal Bureau of Investigation lists the four most...