Juvenile Justice Programs, Research Paper Example

The problem of juvenile crime has been debated by many law enforcement groups, politicians and scholars. According to Karen M. Hess, Juvenile Justice is “a system that provides  a legal setting in which youth can account for their wrongs or receive official protection.” (Hess, 2004, p. 3). But figuring out how juveniles ought to account for their wrongs can be complicated. Two major, opposing approaches for dealing with juvenile crime seem to have emerged from these debates. One is a harsh approach. Proponents of this approach believe that the solution to juvenile crime lies in scaring juveniles straight. They also tend to believe in making the penalties for crime so unattractive, that juveniles will be unlikely to want to reoffend. The most visible type of program that is heralded by proponents of this approach is e the juvenile boot camp.

The second approach to dealing with juvenile crime is a therapeutic approach. Instead of trying to scare juveniles straight, proponents of the therapeutic approach believe in trying to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, often though psychological, educational or community-based programs. Perhaps the most comprehensive programs of this type are restorative therapy programs, which generally focus on trying to reconcile juvenile offenders with their communities.. Comparing boot camps and restorative approaches side by side reveals that gentler approaches are sometimes more effective than the harshest programs.

Boot Camps

Juvenile boot camps seem to have emerged, largely as a response to the perceived failure of traditional methods of youth rehabilitation. In a 1995 article, Sunday Mail writer Marcus Casey related that one fourth of every crime and one half of every violent crime was committed by a juvenile. (Casey, 1995, p. 2) This news pushed the government toward trying new methods of rehabilitation.  Many believed that the answer lay in military-style juvenile boot camps.

Program Description

In 1995, US authorities tested a theory that suggested that boot camp might be an efficient tool in rehabilitating juvenile offenders. They put on a three-year trial in Mobile Alabama that subjected juvenile offenders to a marine-styled boot camp (Casey, 1995, p. 1). Indeed, Sunday Mail writer Marcus Casey described one marine-like scene from the camp as follows:

• “GOOD afternoon sir,” stammers a frail, bespectacled boy of 13 inthe 9am sunshine.
• “”I beg your pardon!” a big man in uniform bellows an inch from the boy’s nose.
• “”Good afternoon SIR!” the boy repeats louder, stiffly at attention and eyes locked ahead on nothing.
• “”What meal did you just eat?” the man yells.
• “”Breakfast sir!” the boy says.
• “”What time of day is it?”
• “”Afternoon sir!”

The camp, according to Casey, was run entirely by ex-Marines and modeled after the type of boot camp these marines had attended. Like a military crew, the boys all wore the same uniform and each one had their head shaved. Instructors yelled orders, got in the boys’ faces constantly, and ordered them to do pushups on a whim.Casey spoke of the camp in glowing terms, calling it “It’s an impressive, well-oiled unit, not what you’d expect from a group made up of car thieves, drug dealers, robbers, bashers and vandals.” Meanwhile, one instructor Casey interviewed described the program as one in which marine instructors removed juvenile offenders from their normal surroundings and everything they were used to, got in their faces to confuse and intimidate them, and then were able to teach them properly.

Goals

But scaring juveniles was only one goal of the boot camp program. Other goals of the camp included building self-esteem, responsibility, a cooperative attitude and educational development. According to Casey, “Recruits” wash their own clothes, read literature, study violence prevention, and even learn skills for job hunting. Interestingly, the camp also involves parents, requiring them to take parenting classes with their kids. Casey also suggests that drill masters fill in a gap for many of the boys who have never had fathers. Indeed, says Casey, “Simply, most of the boys don’t have or never have had a father figure, and at the end of 90 days they invariably lean towards one of the instructors.”

The main goals of the Mobile boot camp seem to be to reduce crime, to improve the relationship between children and their parents, and to develop and enrich the lives of recruits.

Results

While it is sometimes hard to measure how much a program has helped relationships between families or how much an individual’s life has been enriched by a camp, it is easier to measure recidivism. Juveniles who went through the Mobile camp had a 20 to 30 percent recidivism rate, as compared to the 40 to 60 percent seen in the main detention center. Casey quotes Strickland Center Director Bob Martin as saying, “In 22 years of dealing with juvenile delinquents, I have never seen as successful a treatment program as this.” Strickland also reported that the kids who graduated showed “A tremendous improvement in behavior, demeanor and self-respect and self-concept.”

But the results were not all positive. The US Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention noted that after the initial 90 day period, the Mobile camp experienced high rates of attrition. But it also noted that participants in the camp made “substantial improvements in academic skills” and that a significant number were able to find jobs afterward. And it challenged Casey’s findings, claiming that there was no sign at all that the boot camp had reduced recidivism (US Department of Justice, 1996, p. 1).More recent studies have shown that boot camps reduce recidivism only very slightly or not at all (Bottcher & Ezell, 2005, p. 332).Furthermore, other boot camps have shut down because of problems with performance and abuse.

Restorative Justice

Description

According to restorative justice scholar Howard Zehr, restorative justice looks at crime differently than criminal justice. The criminal justice approach, he says, asks the following questions: Which laws have been broken? Who broke them? What punishment do they deserve? Meanwhile, restorative justice asks the following questions: Who is hurt? What do they need? Who is obligated to meet these needs? (Zehr, 2002, p. 21)

Built on this model, the Restorative Justice Community Center of Southwestern New Mexico focuses on “preventing and responding to crime.” It emphasizes the idea that crime is injury toward people over the fact that it is a violation of law. According to the community center, “The focus is on healing those affected and holding accountable those responsible for the crime.” In order to do this, the community center involves those who have been hurt in the restorative process. The restorative process involves dialogue, which often takes the place as mediation between the offender and the offended. This takes the form of conferencing and circles, and is required to be structured, facilitated by mediators, and non-aggressive. The goals of the program are to “promote understanding”, “create new meaning”, and “support agreements.” These agreements generally involve an apology and an agreement regarding restitution, including direct financial reimbursement and community service.

Goals

The main goals of the program are to help repair the damage done to individuals and to hold those who do the harm accountable. Other important goals for the program are reduce recidivism and to increase satisfaction with the criminal justice system.

Results

According to the center, both offenders and victims have voiced satisfaction with the program. Indeed, the center says the following:

• Victims and offenders who participate in mediation are more
• satisfied with the criminal justice system than those who do not.3
• Satisfaction rates with conferencing range from 73% into the high
• 90% range.(The Restorative Justice Community Center of Southwestern New Mexico, 2006, p. 2)

The program appears to reduce recidivism. Indeed, according to the center, one study showed a 32% lower rate of recidivism than a control group. Furthermore, says the center, offenders who did offend again “commited less serious offenses.” (The Restorative Justice Community Center of Southwestern New Mexico, 2006, p. 3)

The satisfaction of offenders and victims who participated in conferencing was even higher – ranging from 90 to 100%. On the whole, 98% of participants in the Grant County restorative justice system reported that they were satisfied with the program, buy, says the center, only 48% of the public was satisfied with traditional methods of prosecution (The Restorative Justice Community Center of Southwestern New Mexico, 2006, p. 2). It is fair to say, then, that, at least in this case, the restorative justice program meets one of its goals. It helps heal those affected by crime and increases their satisfaction with the criminal justice process.

On the other hand, this program does little to help protect the public from violent criminals, and focuses mainly on non-violent offenders. It might not be safe to use a community based approach alone on the most violent juvenile offenders. It also may not work for some offenders. Consider, for instance, the case of the six-year-old boy who attempted to beat a baby to death. Furthermore, crime is often the result of psychiatric disorders, and this program contains little in the way of addressing mental health. (Reynolds, 2010, p. 204).

Conclusion

Because of the high success rate of the New Mexico restorative justice system in reducing recidivism and increasing satisfaction in the justice process for victims as well as offenders, the restorative approach seems to be a more effective program. It is, in many ways, less risky than boot camps, which have the potential to be abused.  However, I would borrow a page from the Mobile boot camp, by adding more parental involvement to the program. I would also involve medical professionals to assess juvenile offenders, to make sure they were competent enough for conferencing and mediation and did not need any medical assistance.

Bibliography

Bottcher, J., & Ezell, M. E. (2005, August). Examining the Effectiveness of Boot Camps: A Randomized Experiment with a Long-Term Follow Up. Crime & Delinquency, 42(3), pp. 309-332.

Casey, M. (1995, April 2). Shocking Bootcamps Tame The Delinquents. Sunday Mail, pp. 1-6.

Hess, K. M. (2004). Juvenile Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Reynolds, L. (2010, February). The Contribution of Psychiatric Disorder to Juvenile Recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(2), pp. 204-216.

The Restorative Justice Community Center of Southwestern New Mexico. (2006). The Hard Facts: Restorative Justice As Evidence-Based Practice. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from The Restorative Justice Community Center of Southwestern New Mexico: http://www.rjnm.org/documents/rj_facts.pdf

US Department of Justice. (1996). Juvenile Boot Camps. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from Office of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/reform/ch2_g.html

Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.