Rethinking the Juvenile Justice System, Essay Example

Introduction

The issues involved in juvenile justice present challenges different than those involving adults. In plain terms, it is more disturbing to the society when juveniles offend because the potential for an adult life of crime is in place, and because juvenile criminality in itself seems to represent a failure on society’s part. Added to this is the hard reality of a criminal justice system which, in the view of many, merely perpetuates criminality; consequently, incarcerating young offenders is widely viewed as encouraging the life of criminality feared. At the same time, there are also many who believe that, once the age of reason is reached, the component of youth is irrelevant, and the society is all the more obligated to protect itself from young people very likely criminal in nature.

This is a matter then inherently difficult to correctly resolve and, in the meantime, society essentially and inconsistently only modifies its criminal justice response to the young.

As the following will explore, and fully taking into account concerns regarding inherent criminal natures, juvenile justice demands an approach all its own. No matter the causes, the reality remains that the only opportunity to shift an offender’s life and behavior may reasonably occur when the offender is very young. Incarceration may be mandated in some cases, but the greater advantages to all concerned lie in developing ways to avoid this consequence, and thus lessen the likelihood of cycles of criminality set in motion. As each argument is presented, it is this state of juvenile imprisonment as intrinsically damaging that will provide a rational foundation. Ultimately, juvenile justice fails today, and the only ethical approach is to then consider how utilizing the factor of youth itself may alter this grim scenario.

Current Reality

As may be obvious, there would be little need to reexamine incarceration as a valid means of addressing juvenile offenders if it revealed positive results. Unfortunately, and as is well-documented, the converse is true. Multiple studies confirm that the majority of juveniles imprisoned are rearrested within short periods of release and/or incarcerated again. A California study conducted between 1998 and 2000 and employing 28,000 such offenders noted a recidivism rate of 72 percent (Shelden, 2011, p. 428). What is most notable about this figure is that it is actually higher than rates for adult offenders, and this is corroborated by other research. Recidivism rates decrease with age, in fact, and those released from prison aged between 26 and 35 are between 10 to 30 percent less likely to be arrested than those under 21 (Maxfield, Babbie, 2011, p. 79). No matter the study, it very much seems that incarceration at an earlier age more promotes incarceration occurring later, which clearly indicates the prison as facilitating criminality.

Certainly, society is more than entitled to protect itself from juvenile offenders, just as it is ethically responsible to address any crime within the same framework of due punishment. If, as will be explored, there are potentials in averting juvenile crime not present in adult, the reality remains that victims of crimes are typically unconcerned with the ages of the offenders; only the offense matters to them, and the rights of both victim and society must be dominant in any addressing of juveniles. Added to this is the fact that a great deal of juvenile crimes is of a severity identical to adult crime. Some juvenile offenders do engage in more minor crimes, as in vandalism and petty theft, but a great many are violent and/or affiliated with dangerous gangs. Juvenile offenders proportionately commit fewer violent crimes than do adults, a fact identified by extensive research. According to government data, juveniles under 18 are responsible on average for approximately 25 percent of all violent crimes (Office of Justice Programs, 2012).

A lower percentage, however, does not lessen the severity of the crimes and, as noted, victims and the society are entitled and obligated to address these criminals regardless of age.

Several issues within these statistics themselves, however, indicate that patterns are in place by no means promoting society’s welfare. Most critical is the rate of recidivism as exceeding that of adults. In plain terms, the only rational explanation for this is that the imprisonment itself serves to encourage criminality, for the only other explanation would be the illogical one of juvenile offenders as being somehow more innately criminally inclined than adults. The facts reveal that, in fact, the younger the age of the offender incarcerated, the greater likelihood exists that they will offend again (Shelden, 2011, p. 429). If prisons have become notorious as breeding grounds for criminality for adults, this process is then all the more confirmed by the juvenile recidivism rates. This in turn translates to the inescapable fact that, the benefits of temporary incarceration for the society notwithstanding, the criminality is actually being fostered. More to the point, people at the stages of their lives most open to change, adolescents, are essentially being “trained” or conditioned to adopt a permanent criminal identity. For both offender and society to be truly served, then, alternative methods of criminal justice address must be explored. In a very real sense, reducing juvenile crime relies on reducing the number of imprisoned juveniles.

Relevant Approaches

It is necessary to understand how certain theories apply to juvenile justice before any valid approach transcending basic incarceration is considered. Moreover, these theories present rationales crucially important to the subject, and offer opportunities to investigate more effective avenues of both punishment and more rehabilitative response. To begin with, Kelling’s and Wilson’s “broken window” theory has profound repercussions on the issues of juvenile offenders. This groundbreaking theory challenged conventional ideas of how and why crime develops, and by means of a focus on environment. More exactly, crime is not actually generated by deprived neighborhoods, but these arenas become ideal settings for crime because their disrepair creates an atmosphere of carelessness and lack of social order.

The theory concentrates on the role of the police as maintainers or custodians of social order, rather than as agents in place to directly confront crime. Nonetheless, it also presents important ideas as to the likelihood of such neighborhoods to promote juvenile crime, and how communal interaction may forestall it. For example, in citing the case of a massive housing project in Chicago, the authors note that a boy’s stealing a purse was reported to the police by onlookers in an open way (Kelling, Wilson, 1982). The article indicates as well how youth gang activity in this project remains an enormous issue, but there is a valuable point to be seen in the general theory. It is inevitable that juveniles are impressionable, as adolescence is the period of intense character formation. In childhood and the teen years, the individual gains a sense of identity, and this is vastly generated by comprehending their external environment. The deprived environment creates a sense of hopelessness, as well as a feeling of being disregarded by the mainstream, and this is likely to then promote recklessness. As the authors note, vandalism, a typical juvenile offense, more commonly occurs in areas where there are no social controls. This in turn leads to juveniles as adopting personas viewed as dangerous by the residents (Kelling, Wilson, 1982). It seems critical, then, to note how the maintenance of basic social order, with the police as monitoring agents, may well impact on juvenile offending.

Put another way, juveniles are reactive to the parameters around them, even as they develop within them. A stronger sense of boundaries, then, in place through police and community interaction and agreed-upon policy, seems like an effective means of discouraging the earliest stages of juvenile offending. This is not to suggest that, as Kelling and Wilson note, the mid-20^th century police tactics of “roughing up” suspicious adolescents should be in practice; rather, it goes to the immense responsibility of the society, in the form of the community, to rationally address juvenile crime through a cohesive and ordered structure. It cannot be emphasized too strongly how vulnerable juveniles are to external and social influences, a fact powerfully reinforced by the high rates of recidivism in those juveniles imprisoned. Young people, in simple terms, learn what is instructed, no matter the content. Consequently, the environment that makes it clear that criminality is not acceptable “teaches” the juvenile a critical lesson. Equally importantly, it reflects the obligation of the society to focus on those formative years in which juvenile deviance may be diverted or eliminated.

The “broken window” theory also goes to how stigmatization, and particularly in terms of race, enables juvenile crime. That is to say, if the juvenile in the disordered environment perceives no valid restraints on behavior, so too are such juveniles generally assessed as dangerous automatically. Added to this is racial profiling by the police, which is supported as practiced on juveniles by multiple studies. In plain terms, black and Hispanic youths are more likely to be pulled over by the police, just as white juvenile offenders tend to be released from detention pending trial more often than minorities. These cycles in turn promote further crime, in that the minority offender has a record more damaging to future chances of rejoining society (Siegel, Welsh, 2011, p. 58). In this risk and reward system as it occurs, the risks far outweigh rewards, for the minority juvenile is stigmatized before any actual arrest is made. All of this goes to something of an inescapable equation: as the encouragement of social order and the maintenance of boundaries breeds respect in the community in and for the juvenile, the converse and automatic suspicion furthered by profiling must increase senses of hopelessness in juveniles, and thus encourage a disregard for the law and social customs already set against them. Here, there is also a parallel to the noted ineffectiveness of incarcerating juveniles, in that an expectation of punishment is so ingrained, the juvenile has no real reason to reform their behavior.

Recommended Strategies

To date, the juvenile justice system ultimately fails, certainly in its consistent molding of young offenders into habitual criminals. If it is reasonable to argue that juvenile offenders must be to some extent punished by the standards held to adults, it is also equally valid to assert that a failure to address the opportunities within this sphere itself is unconscionable. No other offender presents the potentials for change as does the juvenile, if only because the character of the individual offending is newly formed, and consequently subject to influence. By and large, and society’s right to protect itself notwithstanding, that society may only reasonably address juvenile crime through taking responsibility for offering alternatives of a beneficial nature. As Glassier points out, all human beings seek to fulfill the needs of love and belonging, power, freedom, and fun (2010, p. 28). Choices made invariably go to satisfy these needs, and it is the obligation of adults to ensure that children and adolescents are guided to make the right ones for themselves.

This no simple path. In essence, society’s assuming of this responsibility translates to universal efforts to nurture and develop young people. At the same time, the institutions and processes for this are already very much in place; it is effort and commitment which must be increased. The school, for example, is ideal for both noting problems before they arise and for offering attentions which positively encourage the developing adolescent identity. Attention of an individual kind must be paid here, just as the same focus on the adolescent as the individual, and one at a critical stage of making choices, is necessary when juveniles are first taken into the justice system. The effort is certainly immense in scope, and demands a virtual restructuring of these institutions. The alternative, however, fully supports the ambition. More exactly, without such a commitment to the juvenile as the person capable of change, society is left with the ongoing reality of a system in which juvenile criminality is virtually shaped into adult criminality, and through the dual processes of disregard and incarceration.

Conclusion

To assert that juvenile offenders are undeserving of punishment, depending upon the offense, is both unreasonable and irresponsible. Society must protect itself, no matter the ages of the offenders. At the same time, juvenile justice is irrefutably unique, for these are the offenders at the threshold of choice. Age here dictates options unavailable in later years, and a tragic evidence of this potential to “change” lies in how many youthful offenders return to the prisons, because the prisons reinforce the negatives already within the adolescent. There can be one answer only, and that is in the society finally taking responsibility for guiding these individuals at this point when guidance is possible. In no uncertain terms, juvenile justice today fails, and the only ethical and rational approach is to then consider how utilizing the factor of youth itself may alter this grim scenario.

References

Glassier, W. (2010). Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom. New York: HarperCollins.

Kelling, G. L., & Wilson, J. Q. (1982). “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.” The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/

Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2011). Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, 3^rd Ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning.

Office of Justice Programs. (2012). Statistical Briefing Book. U. S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201

Shelden, R. G. (2011). Delinquency and Juvenile Justice in American Society, 2^nd Ed. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc.

Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2011). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice and Law, 11^th Ed. Belmont: Cengage Learning.