Juvenile Detention and Its Effectiveness, Research Paper Example

Executive Summary

Juvenile reform programs peering into the development of new programs to reduce overcrowding in juvenile facilities by separating heinous crimes from misdemeanour crimes and releasing those youngsters that have served enough time on their sentence back into society on community based options because they do not pose a threat to society. “Some have suggested that the informality in juvenile courts and the public support for alternative responses to youth crime make the juvenile justice system an ideal setting for restorative justice experimentation.” (Bazemore, 1998).  Gray Pieroth favoured this type of reform based on the principle that it would eliminate a need for additional construction of juvenile facilities and would benefit each county as a whole cost effective wise. This type of community based option could be effective if a responsible adult would be willing to supervise the release of the juvenile with the added effect of electronic monitoring. If the option of a supervising adult is not a feasible option a 24 hour supervised shelter might be an option to juvenile detention centre lock-up. Research shows that juveniles do not learn any skills to prevent further criminal activity whilst being locked up in detention for detention is a means of preventing further crime until the juvenile has his/her day in court and to ensure the juvenile attends his/her day in court with regards to the crime committed. Often judges or parents’ simply do not know what other action to take with complicated juveniles thus they lock them up in detention centres. Criminologists have studied the psyche of juvenile offenders and found that their criminal behaviour is based on learned behaviours which can be changed through behaviour modification therapy especially with those offenders who have committed minor offenses.

Issue Definition

“Between 1985-1995 the juvenile detention population increased approximately 75%.”(Lubbow & Barron).  A reformation would effectively cover the juvenile, the juvenile’s family, the courts, the social workers, the schools, the lawyers and the community. The juvenile would be enabled to attend a more effective program that would allow him/her to be reformed for the crime committed and understand why he/she should not behave in such a manner again. The social workers will have an easier job coping with the offender because they will be in a treatment program that will aid the offender to understand the ramifications of their actions. The schools should see positive behaviour changes in the juveniles after completing mandated therapy sessions. The lawyers should be able to close their cases with ease and not have to convict young offenders. The District Attorney should not have to prosecute as many young offenders. The community should feel more at ease that the young offenders are getting help for their problems and will be safe to return to society. The idea behind juvenile reformation is to guide the young offenders and teach them while they are young enough to be moulded that they do not have to choose an adult life of crime and mischief. Many times juveniles have grown up in dysfunctional households and are only acting out for attention and counselling can help them to make better choices in life. In situations where juveniles have committed heinous crimes such as rape or murder there may not be an option for reformation though they may have an option for counselling whilst in the detention centre. This paper is geared to reform the juvenile offenders that have committed the lesser offenders back into society and keep the population of the juvenile facilities at a minimum with strong hopes that the juveniles will not become repeat offenders into their adulthood lives.

Historical Background

“Children are no always looked after in the best of facilities neither is their rights protected or they imprisoned for the best interests of public safety.” (Steinhart, 1998). It appears in 1996 the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) of Cook County, Illinois began to investigate why 38% of juveniles were not making their court dates and as a result were being locked up in juvenile detention centres. It appears that they simply forgot the dates because parents’ did not bring them or notify them. In 1998 that percentage was lowered to 19% because of the efforts of the JDAI in the Cook County area. “To aid in lesser detainees the Cook County Judges commenced lessening the time between arrests and the court dates.” (Stanfield, 2009). It appears that the political and bureaucratic practises of the county system have contributed to the population of the juvenile system through slowed court trials.

Statistics show in 1965 there were 58 arrests per 100,000 juveniles because of pressure by the public and by 1985 that number had risen to a whopping 74%. There was a huge distribution of minority males being locked up. There were 29% of the offenders locked up for violent crimes with another 30% locked up for minor public order offenses. A whopping 34% of the youngsters were locked up for technical violations of the law. With this statistic it should be recognized that this is not a reason to keep the juveniles locked up unwarranted because this actually fosters a negative angry maladjusted temperament in a juvenile which fosters the juvenile to reoffend.

As a result of this overcrowding a new reform was commenced in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, particularly Broward County through a lawsuit challenging the illegality of overcrowding in the juvenile centres. A formal test was to be administered to determine if an offender was to be locked up in a detention facility or to be put on alternative methods of community based reforms. “The Annie E. Casey Foundation implemented the JDAI in 1993 in five particular sites: Cook, Sacramento, Multnomah, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin and New York, City”. (Stanfield, 2009). The Milwaukee County and New York policy reforms were terminated because there was no political support.

Theoretical Key Concerns

This new reform is important because objectively the current system is not working. There is overcrowding in the juvenile systems, juveniles are not showing up for court dates and as a result are being locked up for long periods of time and juveniles are often re-offending for both petty and dangerous crimes. One of the key concerns was to change the way the adult supervisors of the juvenile facilities thought of the current operating process. This was accomplished by bringing a new theoretical rationality to the juvenile detention system and giving it an overhaul. Research has shown that the juvenile system has been neglected further than the welfare system and as a result there has been unwarranted crime on the streets with relation to tourists, police officers and other children which could have been prevented. Managers, government agencies and schools should have been working together to prevent major crimes such as school bombings, school shootings and school stabbings which petrified many communities to no end. It appears that the judges have not been active in assigning the youngsters to alternatives to juvenile detention centres and that is the main reasons for the lack of success in these areas. “James Morris a Sacramento County Judge stated in the 1990’s that the old way of doing things have been embedded in our psyche and change is difficult, but he agreed that reform is needed.” (Stanfield, 2009).

Literature Review

It has been brought to light that the Public Defenders also contributed to the lack of success with attempting to lower the juvenile detention population. Legal requirements held that evaluations beyond the normal were required for juvenile cases which required time consuming protocol making the time of each juvenile in detention to be prolonged without avail. There was too much emphasis on trying children as adults; for 40% of the petitions to try children as adults were denied across United States courts during the 1990’s. The idea that resolution to the case came only after all of the preparation for trial had been conducted and wasted time further keeping the youngster in the detention centre. Probation Officers were always sceptical of alternative resolutions hence the District Attorneys’ and Probation Department were always bucking heads and wasting time. Collaboration is still a struggle with the DA’s office and the key was to identify the children brought in initially that could quality for alternative based programs then to identify those in custody that could qualify for early release. Risks needed to be assessed and time spent on the case had to be assessed to persuade the District Attorney that it might be in the best interest to grant an early release. Risk Assessments were given to youth offenders to determine if they possessed characteristics to offend again in the near future. With a point score in the middle the child would be released to an adult to supervise the visitation with an electronic tagging system. On the other hand a child with a score of 10 or more would have no chance of alternative based programs. The child would go straight to detention. They would be considered a high risk.

Policy Alternatives

“Strategies have been written to reform the juvenile detention policies in hope to lower the detention population.” (Schwartz, 2001). Youths by the thousands have been dropped off at detention centres for fear of not knowing what to do with them because there is no adult to tend to them. This practise is not only illegal but unconstitutional. In order to eliminate this practise there was a home opened called New Avenues for Youth to determine placement for displaced children.

House arrest or home detention is an alternative to jailing the youngster. The child is permitted to go to school and to attend a few afterschool activities within some limits. Non-profit organizations help to maintain centres for those youngsters that need confinement due to naughty or belligerent but non-criminal behaviour without the presence of an adult to care for them.

Chicago has in place an evening reporting system that is similar to monthly probation for adults but instead the juvenile reports to a centre that of which has a variety of community activities for the youngster to participate to keep them actively busy. The purpose of the programs is to keep the youngsters out of trouble by providing positive activities for them to take on after school.

“Data is used to determine which issues can be changed and in what fashion but data does not take into consideration political and social implications.” (“Annie E. Casey Foundation”).

“The move toward retribution has challenged the once absolute dominance of the treatment or “best interests” mandate of the juvenile court. There is little evidence, however, that this has brought any benefits to crime victims (Bazemore and Umbreit 1995a; Elias 1993).” (Bazemore, 1998).  The punitive paradigm suggests that current funding for victim and offender services may be directed towards new reform programs for juveniles.

Recommendations

Statistics show that 90% of youngsters who participate in these evening and alternative programs actually complete them successfully. Special shelter programs have also been contracted for those juvenile offenders without adult support. There is health and mental health services for those juveniles that need as warranted. JDAI has no more grant money but it serves as an informational program for all juvenile offenders. As a result of this study the time required to process a juvenile case with the DA’s office has somewhat reduced from the 1990’s to present. Statistics do not formally tell the political and social ramifications that the children, families and community have suffered. The population in the juvenile facilities across the states has dropped since the 1990’s but thee is much more grant money needed to continue the promotion of alternatives to juvenile detention. “An overcrowded juvenile facility should not become the norm rather the exception with the new reforms.” (Henry, 2007). “Further it is recommended that reforms should be made to eliminate racial bias from detention determination because current statistics show that minorities and males of colour are more likely to be detained than those not portraying those characteristics.” (Baldwin, 2008).

Research shows that changing the system to process the cases faster, making pre-trial offers prior to full discovery and implementing full support systems for the young offenders might aid the judicial in closing these cases faster and rehabilitating the minor/misdemeanour offenders. When pleas bargains are made there is not a need for full disposition reports thus eliminating a full workload of the case on the DA’s office. The process of the DA’s office could be transformed to a more efficient process by carefully screening each case when the offender either enters the centre or long before trial. This could be accomplished by having advocates and psychologists review the file or hiring more attorneys’.

Research shows that victims of juvenile crimes have been disrespected in courts of law by not giving the victims and families of victims the attention their case deserved because either the case was dropped altogether or the juvenile was given a lighter sentence. Judges have identified understanding the victims frustration with situations but stand to point out not every child can be tried as an adult and penalized as so as an adult because they simply do not have the same mentality as an adult when committing a crime.

Continued organized reformation is the key to the success of making the victims happy, pleasing the offender and families involved and keeping the costs down in the court system. The key is to punish the offenders with the appropriate punishment but to keep in mind these offenders are juvenile and they still have hope to be reformed. Of course for the heinous crimes such as murder and rape, these cannot be reformed. The study is concentrated on the lesser crimes and the crimes of technicality such as minor violations of probation or lock up due to not having an alternative due to a child that is just over bearable to deal with.

References

This particular reference speaks about a study conducted in Cook County, Illinois where it was studied and found that children react better to alternative means of lock-up such as home detention and electronic monitoring.

Stanfield, R. (2009) The JDAI Story: building a better juvenile detention centre Retrieved November 4, 2009 from, http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/jdai%20story.pdf

Detention Reforms can be accomplished through communities working together and the collaboration of the judicial including the District Attorney, the social workers and the Probation Officers.

Promoting and Sustaining Detention Reforms (2001) Retrieved November 4, 2009 from, http://www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid=%7B7B33401F-2F79-409F-A58C-E13A7B7C7A91%7D

The roles of Detention Reform are constantly changing but in order to promote a reform it must be acknowledged by the judiciary that they play an important role in the administering of the new reforms.

Changing Roles and Relationships in Detention Reforms (2000) Retrieved November 4, 2009 from, http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/ojjdp/fs200018.txt

Data is very important to make a determination if reform will work in Juvenile Reform but it is not the only determining factor. Both social and political factors play equal roles in affecting Juvenile Reform within the community.

By the Numbers: The Role of Data and Information in Detention Reform (1999) Retrieved November 4, 2009 from, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED441054&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED441054

The key to reducing unnecessary delay with case processing is having the District Attorney analyze the cases prior to pre-trial intervention and have a collaborative role with the judges. This will save exhaustive effort and promote the Restorative Efforts.

Reducing Unnecessary Delay: Innovations in Case Processing (2007) Retrieved November 4, 2009 from, http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/reducing%20unnecessary%20delay.pdf

A structured approach will be emphasized through organization of the various outreach non-voluntary programs that are available to aid in the promotion of the alternative detention programs.

Planning for Juvenile Detention Reforms: A Structured Approach (1998) Retrieved November 4, 2009 from, http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/planning%20for%20detention%20reforms.pdf

There should be strong aims to eliminate racial bias with reformation because statistics show through the years mostly men of colour have been either jailed or adjudicated.

Baldwin, J. (2008) A Blueprint for Juvenile Justice Reform Retrieved November 4, 2009 from, http://www.ytfg.org/documents/Platform_Juvenile_Justice.pdf

Judges play a key role in the process to reform juvenile detention. In some counties the judges promote alternative methods to juvenile detention. In other counties the political and social influence of the community promotes the judges to rule against new reformation.

Bazemore, G. (1998) Crime Victims and Restorative Justice in Juvenile Courts: Judges as Obstacle or Leader? Retrieved November 4, 2009 from, http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n1/bazemore.html