What works in preventing juvenile delinquency?
For years, the federal government has provided billions of dollars to state and local governments to assist them in their efforts to prevent crime [1]. However, the amount spent on prevention programs is not nearly the amount spent on punishment and secure confinement. {Refer to Blog Post #2} In this decade though, several delinquency programs have emerged and are being funded by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. According to Taylor Greene and Penn (2005), the focus might be shifting from punishment to prevention in juvenile justice partly due to the high cost of “get tough” policies that do not necessarily work [2]. Howell (2003) identified many juvenile justice programs and strategies that do not work, including shock incarceration, drug abuse resistance education, zero-tolerance policies and incarceration of juveniles in adult prisons [3]. Although we know more about what does not work today, we still do not know enough about what does work.
Twelve years ago, Sherman et al. (1997) conducted a study of factors relating to juvenile crime and the effectiveness of prevention programs on youth violence. They concluded that, although some programs work, some do not, others are promising, and there is a need to identify what works in areas of concentrated poverty where homicides are prevalent. It is also important to know what works in delinquency prevention in any community where there is a heightened problem of fear, violence, and victimization [1]. One group that attempts to find out what works in delinquency prevention is the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Since 1996, the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence has been identifying and evaluating violence prevention efforts. The center selects “Blueprint Model Programs” based on several criteria for effectiveness. The criterion includes evidence of a deterrent effect with a solid research design and reproduction of the program in another place [4]. The center also selects “Promising Programs” which are required to only meet the first criteria. At this time, there are 11 Blueprint Model Programs and 19 Promising Programs. The Blueprint Model Programs include Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Multisystemic Therapy, Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, Project Towards No Drug Abuse, and Life Skills Training [4].
In terms of how these programs can be integrated with juvenile justice systems throughout the country, Howell (2003) provided a “comprehensive strategy framework” for incorporating delinquency prevention into the juvenile justice system. The keys to this strategy are prevention, effective early intervention with at-risk children and graduated sanctions for youth in the juvenile justice system [3]. The comprehensive strategy is based on research and has been applied in many jurisdictions. It utilizes a developmental prevention approach that focuses on risk factors in the individual, family, school, and community.
Although it is easy to forget the fact that the vast majority of the juveniles in our country are not delinquent regardless of their race, class, and gender, we should remember that many parents, teachers, counselors, and community-based organizations are dedicated to the proper development of juveniles across the nation. It makes much more sense to invest society’s resources into education, health, and delinquency prevention than it does to invest into juvenile correctional facilities. Investing in delinquency prevention, however, will require the identification of prevention programs that work, can be reproduced in other areas of the country, and that can be sufficiently funded on a continual basis.
Sources:
[1] Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J. P., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (Eds.). (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t what’s promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
[2] Taylor Greene, H., & Penn, E. (2005). Reducing juvenile delinquency: Lessons learned. Race and juvenile justice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
[3] Howell, J.C. (2003). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
[4] Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (2008). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. University of Colorado at Boulder. http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html
Monday, November 30, 2009
Blog Post #5: Female Juvenile Delinquency
Although it receives much more attention today than in the past, female juvenile delinquency is not a new phenomenon. This increased attention is partly due to an increase in female arrests and court referrals for serious crimes. During the 1980s and early 1990s, arrests for the two offenses of aggravated assaults and other assaults, increased more for both males and females than other violent crimes [1]. It is important to keep in mind that violent crimes are only a small fraction of juvenile arrests and that they have declined in recent years. Also, more males than females are arrested for these violent offenses. For example, in 2006, 40 female and 724 male juveniles were arrested for murder [2]. In regards to female juvenile arrest patterns, not much has changed during the past 25 years: “Females have typically been arrested for the following offenses: running away, larceny-theft, liquor law violations, curfew violations, disorderly conduct, other assaults, and the catch all category ‘all other offenses’” [1]. Although patterns of female arrests have not changed much over time, the proportion of females referred to juvenile court for delinquency cases has changed. In 1989, 19 percent of female juvenile cases were referred to juvenile court. By 1998, the percentage increased to 24 percent. The percentage of cases referred for offenses against the person increased from 20 percent in 1989 to 28 percent by 1998 [3]. Female person offense cases increased 22 percent between 1994 and 2004. In 2004, females accounted for 17 percent of delinquency, 20 percent of drug violation, 17 percent of property, 18 percent of public order, and 30 percent of person offense cases in juvenile courts [4]. Females comprised 44 percent of petitioned status offense cases, primarily for running away [5]. So, with arrest patterns remaining the same for female juveniles, what then, is causing this increase in the number of referred cases to juvenile court?
Considering the fact that over the past few decades American society has steadily increased its emphasis on gender equality, it can be argued that law enforcement and the juvenile justice system has begun to hold delinquent girls more accountable for their discretions. Consider the studies of Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004; Deschenes & Esbensen, 1999; Howell, 2003. These studies found that although the extent of female delinquency is less than male delinquency, patterns of behavior and risk factors for both groups are quite similar. For example, academic failure, dropping out of school, substance abuse, poverty, and family problems are risk factors for both sexes [1], [6], [7]. In another study by Carr et al., researchers examined official responses to delinquency in two single-sex minimum-security residential programs and a coed aftercare program in an Alabama county. They concluded that “the girls’ treatment facility confined more girls for less serious offenses than the boys’ program” [8].
Taking into account these studies’ findings that risk factors have been similar for both sexes all along and in some cases girls have been punished more so than boys, then an increase in accountability towards female juveniles by the juvenile justice system could explain this increase in the number of referred cases to juvenile court.
Sources:
[1] Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004) Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006) Crime in the United States, 2006. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/arrests/index.html
[3] Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A., Finnegan, T.A., Tierney, N., & Snyder, H. (2003a). Juvenile court statistics, 1998. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[4] Stahl, A.L. (2008a) Delinquency cases in juvenile court, 2004. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[5] Stahl, A.L. (2008a) Petitioned status offense cases in juvenile court, 2004. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[6] Deschenes, E. P., & Esbensen, F.A. (1999). Violence among girls: Does gang membership make a difference? Female gangs in America. Chicago: Lakeview Press.
[7] Howell, J.C. (2003) Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
[8] Carr, N.T., Hudson, K., Hanks, R.S., & Hunt A.N. (2008). Gender effects along the juvenile justice system: Evidence of a gendered organization. Feminist Criminology, 3, 25-43.
Considering the fact that over the past few decades American society has steadily increased its emphasis on gender equality, it can be argued that law enforcement and the juvenile justice system has begun to hold delinquent girls more accountable for their discretions. Consider the studies of Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004; Deschenes & Esbensen, 1999; Howell, 2003. These studies found that although the extent of female delinquency is less than male delinquency, patterns of behavior and risk factors for both groups are quite similar. For example, academic failure, dropping out of school, substance abuse, poverty, and family problems are risk factors for both sexes [1], [6], [7]. In another study by Carr et al., researchers examined official responses to delinquency in two single-sex minimum-security residential programs and a coed aftercare program in an Alabama county. They concluded that “the girls’ treatment facility confined more girls for less serious offenses than the boys’ program” [8].
Taking into account these studies’ findings that risk factors have been similar for both sexes all along and in some cases girls have been punished more so than boys, then an increase in accountability towards female juveniles by the juvenile justice system could explain this increase in the number of referred cases to juvenile court.
Sources:
[1] Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004) Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006) Crime in the United States, 2006. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/arrests/index.html
[3] Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A., Finnegan, T.A., Tierney, N., & Snyder, H. (2003a). Juvenile court statistics, 1998. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[4] Stahl, A.L. (2008a) Delinquency cases in juvenile court, 2004. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[5] Stahl, A.L. (2008a) Petitioned status offense cases in juvenile court, 2004. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[6] Deschenes, E. P., & Esbensen, F.A. (1999). Violence among girls: Does gang membership make a difference? Female gangs in America. Chicago: Lakeview Press.
[7] Howell, J.C. (2003) Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
[8] Carr, N.T., Hudson, K., Hanks, R.S., & Hunt A.N. (2008). Gender effects along the juvenile justice system: Evidence of a gendered organization. Feminist Criminology, 3, 25-43.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Blog Post #4: Juveniles and the Death Penalty
Should juveniles be executed?
Today there are no juveniles under sentence of death as a result of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons. In 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Roper v. Simmons (2005) after the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that the death penalty for juveniles violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment [1]. Roper v. Simmons (2005) required the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the lower court could reject the previously held standard set by the Supreme Court and whether the death penalty for a 17-year-old offender violated the Eighth Amendment [2]. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that executing juveniles is unconstitutional and as a result, death sentences for juveniles are now invalid. The close decision in this case is indicative of the lack of consensus on this issue.
Even before the Roper v. Simmons decision, opposition to the execution of juveniles seemed to be increasing. Many organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Child Welfare League of America, and the Children’s Defense Fund were opposed to the death penalty for juveniles [3]. Sixty-nine percent of Americans responding to a Gallup Poll survey opposed the execution of juveniles [4] and several Supreme Court justices were opposed to the death penalty as well [5].
Prior to the Roper v. Simmons (2005) decision, the U.S. Supreme Court had decided several juvenile death penalty cases, including Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), Wilkins v. Missouri (1989), and Atkins v. Virginia (2002). In the cases of Stanford and Wilkins, the Court ruled that the death penalty for juveniles who were at least 16 years old at the time of their offense did not violate the Eighth Amendment. At that time, the Court left it up to the states to decide whether they would execute juveniles at age 16 or 17 because there was no national consensus on the issue [6].
In previous rulings, Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer cited new scientific data pointing to biophysical explanations for adolescents’ diminished cognitive capabilities. They wrote in an amicus supporting Simmons, “Older adolescents are not simply miniature adults, with less experience or wisdom. They are also not as equipped as adults to engage in moral reasoning and adjust their conduct accordingly” [7]. According to the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association, 16- and 17-year-olds are physically incapable of making judgments as well as adults and therefore not as culpable [7]. Some, however, disagree with this assessment and argue that as a matter of justice, some juveniles should be executed.
According to Robert Blecker, a professor of criminal law at New York Law School, the very fact that some juveniles commit atrocious crimes merits the option of capital punishment. He states, “There are some people who kill so cruelly and callously and with such wanton depravity that they deserve to die, and we have an obligation to execute them,” but that juvenile executions should be done “only for the worst of the worst” [7]. For other supporters of the juvenile death penalty, it’s not a matter of forgiveness but a matter of deterrence.
Dianne Clements, founder of the Texas-based criminal justice reform organization Justice for All, believes, “You can absolutely forgive the offender and have no issue with that person being executed.” In 1991, her 13-year-old son was shot and killed by another juvenile. She says, “Executed killers do not harm again…If you execute somebody, they’re deterred” [7].
With the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, this contested issue was legally settled, but as demonstrated, each side of the argument has its own merits. Socially, however, this argument will probably continue to exist over time, especially when atrocious murders are committed by juveniles and portrayed in the news media. Nonetheless, when the United States is the last Western societal nation to ban the death penalty [7], this in itself should be enough to show that this ruling was long overdue.
Sources:
[1] Simmons v. Roper, S.C. 84454 (2003).
[2] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
[3] American Bar Association. (2004) Christopher Simmons. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons.html
[4] Death Penalty Information Center. (2004). U.S. Supreme Court: Roper v. Simmons. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
[5] Greenberger, R.S. (2002, October 11). The economy: Supreme Court narrowly refuses to consider death penalty plea. The Wall Street Journal, p. A2.
[6] Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2009). Race and Crime (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
[7] Roh, J. (2005). Juvenile Death Penalty: Fair or Unfair?. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148888,00.html
Today there are no juveniles under sentence of death as a result of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons. In 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Roper v. Simmons (2005) after the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that the death penalty for juveniles violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment [1]. Roper v. Simmons (2005) required the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the lower court could reject the previously held standard set by the Supreme Court and whether the death penalty for a 17-year-old offender violated the Eighth Amendment [2]. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that executing juveniles is unconstitutional and as a result, death sentences for juveniles are now invalid. The close decision in this case is indicative of the lack of consensus on this issue.
Even before the Roper v. Simmons decision, opposition to the execution of juveniles seemed to be increasing. Many organizations including the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Child Welfare League of America, and the Children’s Defense Fund were opposed to the death penalty for juveniles [3]. Sixty-nine percent of Americans responding to a Gallup Poll survey opposed the execution of juveniles [4] and several Supreme Court justices were opposed to the death penalty as well [5].
Prior to the Roper v. Simmons (2005) decision, the U.S. Supreme Court had decided several juvenile death penalty cases, including Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), Wilkins v. Missouri (1989), and Atkins v. Virginia (2002). In the cases of Stanford and Wilkins, the Court ruled that the death penalty for juveniles who were at least 16 years old at the time of their offense did not violate the Eighth Amendment. At that time, the Court left it up to the states to decide whether they would execute juveniles at age 16 or 17 because there was no national consensus on the issue [6].
In previous rulings, Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer cited new scientific data pointing to biophysical explanations for adolescents’ diminished cognitive capabilities. They wrote in an amicus supporting Simmons, “Older adolescents are not simply miniature adults, with less experience or wisdom. They are also not as equipped as adults to engage in moral reasoning and adjust their conduct accordingly” [7]. According to the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association, 16- and 17-year-olds are physically incapable of making judgments as well as adults and therefore not as culpable [7]. Some, however, disagree with this assessment and argue that as a matter of justice, some juveniles should be executed.
According to Robert Blecker, a professor of criminal law at New York Law School, the very fact that some juveniles commit atrocious crimes merits the option of capital punishment. He states, “There are some people who kill so cruelly and callously and with such wanton depravity that they deserve to die, and we have an obligation to execute them,” but that juvenile executions should be done “only for the worst of the worst” [7]. For other supporters of the juvenile death penalty, it’s not a matter of forgiveness but a matter of deterrence.
Dianne Clements, founder of the Texas-based criminal justice reform organization Justice for All, believes, “You can absolutely forgive the offender and have no issue with that person being executed.” In 1991, her 13-year-old son was shot and killed by another juvenile. She says, “Executed killers do not harm again…If you execute somebody, they’re deterred” [7].
With the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, this contested issue was legally settled, but as demonstrated, each side of the argument has its own merits. Socially, however, this argument will probably continue to exist over time, especially when atrocious murders are committed by juveniles and portrayed in the news media. Nonetheless, when the United States is the last Western societal nation to ban the death penalty [7], this in itself should be enough to show that this ruling was long overdue.
Sources:
[1] Simmons v. Roper, S.C. 84454 (2003).
[2] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
[3] American Bar Association. (2004) Christopher Simmons. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons.html
[4] Death Penalty Information Center. (2004). U.S. Supreme Court: Roper v. Simmons. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
[5] Greenberger, R.S. (2002, October 11). The economy: Supreme Court narrowly refuses to consider death penalty plea. The Wall Street Journal, p. A2.
[6] Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2009). Race and Crime (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
[7] Roh, J. (2005). Juvenile Death Penalty: Fair or Unfair?. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148888,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)