The Children's Code Reform Movement in New Mexico: The Politics of Expediency

Like many states, New Mexico has experienced a "get-tough" movement in regard to the handling of juvenile offenders. In 1993 the state formulated a major revision of˜the˜Children's Code, and this revision did a variety of things. Among the changes incorporated into the Children's Code revision was a movement from essentially one category of offenders - delinquent children – with provisions for transferring certain serious offenders to adult court, to three categories. The additional two categories of juvenile offenders included "youthful offenders" and "serious youthful offenders." The upshot of these designations was that the state legislature more carefully defined the jurisdiction of the children's (juvenile) court, and prescribed more severe punishment for the most serious offenders. This article explores some of the forces at work in bringing about the revisions in New Mexico's Children's Code. We argue that the personal and institutional goals of politicians and other opinion leaders were more important than a rational reaction to any real crisis. Specifically, the threat to institutional resources posed by such serious offenders may well have kept institutional stakeholders within the juvenile justice system from objecting to recent changes in New Mexico's juvenile code.     

JUVENILE CRIME AND WHY WAIVER IS NOT THE ANSWER

Many states deal with the issue of juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. This is done by a method of waiver. Waiver allows adult criminal courts to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles.¹ In effect, a juvenile is tried and sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived (removed) from the juvenile court to the adult court. Waiver in juvenile (youths seventeen and younger) cases should never be allowed because juvenile offenders are too immature and incompetent to appreciate the nature of their crimes and because the juvenile justice system is a more appropriate place to rehabilitate juvenile offenders.     

The effect of transfer mechanism from juvenile court on conviction on a target offense in criminal court

The question of whether juvenile offenders should be handled in criminal court has been addressed by a number of studies. However, few have examined the effectiveness of the type of transfer mechanism and how it relates to protecting the public. Whether the mechanism used to transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court has any effect on the likelihood of being convicted of a target offense criminal court is examined here. It was found that the juveniles sampled in this study had a greater chance of being convicted on their target offense in criminal court if they were sent there via judicial waiver than if they were excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction by statute.     

Knowledgeable Judges Make a Difference: Judicial Beliefs Affect Juvenile Court Transfer Decisions

This study examined how judicial knowledge and attitudes about transfer affects transfer decisions by juvenile court judges. Participants included 232 juvenile court judges from around the country who completed a vignette survey that presented a prototypical case involving a serious juvenile offender. Participants were asked to decide whether the juvenile should be transferred and to rate his rehabilitative potential. Judges who believed in the deterrent effects of transfer were more likely to recommend that the juvenile be transferred and to rate him as having lower rehabilitative potential. More experienced judges saw greater rehabilitative potential in the juvenile and were less likely to transfer him to the criminal court. Overall, judges tended to think that transfer lacked general and specific deterrent effects, endorsed rehabilitative over punitive goals in sentencing, and felt positively about the juvenile justice system's effectiveness in handling serious offenders. Yet, a sizable minority of judges felt otherwise. The implications of the findings for judicial education and legal advocacy are discussed.     

Reforming Justice by Geography; Organizational Responses to the Problem of Juvenile Crime

Growing public sentiment over the problem of juvenile crime has resulted in an administrative focus on "toughening" and rationalizing the sanctions for serious offenders. Our analysis of ten states examines two measures of organizational power, discretion and jurisdiction, to specify the changing mandate of juvenile justice. A typology of reorganization strategies is developed which consists of three "policy change" categories—regulation, negotiation, and displacement. Our findings have implications for defining the recent reforms in juvenile justice, distinguishing patterns within seemingly random geographical variation, and anticipating further directions in the control of serious youthful offenders.     

Risk assessment: Identifying patterns of risk in young offenders with the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory

Effective case management of juvenile offenders requires differential treatment of juveniles that is based on clearly established patterns of need and risk ascertained by valid risk prediction tools. This study was the first attempt to determine whether profiles of offenders would provide valid and useful information beyond simple risk level (high, medium, and low). Using cluster analytic techniques, this study identified five risk profiles using juvenile court intake and probation samples (n = 301 and n = 372, respectively). The two samples were selected to represent youth entering the juvenile justice system and those already under the jurisdiction of the court. The results indicated that statistically dependable profiles could be identified which may provide more detailed information than risk level alone. Further, it appears that risk profile may provide a more useful method of categorizing offenders and their needs.     

Food security and secure food in the Anthropocene

Delinquency in middle class areas (and why it is low) has been a neglected topic in criminology. The book by Singer [1] advances knowledge about this topic, focussing on Amherst (NY), but also comparing it with the high crime area of Newark (NJ). The book discusses various community and neighborhood factors that might have contributed to the low crime rate in Amherst, but also emphasizes the importance of parenting and juvenile justice processing. The book highlights the need for more research on community/neighborhood effects on offending after controlling for individual and family factors. It also highlights the need for more research on self-reported delinquency versus court processing of middle class versus lower class youth, and on possible juvenile justice system biases after controlling for characteristics of offenses and offenders. Its main policy implications are that more programs and opportunities are needed for youth in lower class areas, there should be more efforts to increase collective efficacy in these areas, and juvenile court processing should be minimized as much as possible.     

From status to delinquent offenses: Escalation?

An important issue in juvenile justice today is whether the juvenile court should maintain or abandon its present legal jurisdiction over status offenders. Arguments in favor of retaining such jurisdiction are often based on the relatively untested assumption of career “escalation”—the idea that juvenile misbehaviors, if left untreated, will increase in seriousness with age from status offenses to more serious forms of delinquency. However, our analysis of self-reported surveys from a national panel of boys indicates that patterns of juvenile misbehaviors are more likely to be stable or constant over time than to increase in seriousness. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.     

CONTROLLING OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN: RACIALIZED VIEWS OF DELINQUENCY AND WHITES’ PUNITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD JUVENILE OFFENDERS*

The juvenile justice system was founded on, and until recently developed around, the idea that society should afford delinquents more leniency and rehabilitative care than adult criminals because of their lower levels of physical and cognitive development and, thus, diminished culpability for law violations and higher amenability to treatment. The past four decades, however, have witnessed a sustained movement to recriminalize delinquency through the enactment of policies that treat juvenile offenders more like their adult counterparts. Feld (1999a) and others have argued that this punitive turn in juvenile justice is in part a result of the racialization of delinquency and violent victimization in the post–Civil Rights era. This study provides the first test of the key assumption underlying this thesis, namely, that Whites’ support for getting tough with juvenile offenders is in part tied to racialized views of youth crime. Drawing on data from a recent national survey, we examine the extent to which relative racial typifications about delinquency and victimization, as well as racial resentment, are associated with general punitiveness toward juvenile offenders as well as support for lower minimum ages of criminal justice jurisdiction. Regression results show that Whites who hold such typifications and those who are more racially resentful are both more likely to embrace punitive youth justice policies and favor transfers for younger offenders. The implications of the findings are discussed.     

When Juveniles Commit Sexual Offenses: Considerations and Recommendations for Judges

Considering sexual offenders’ impact on victims, families, and communities, one cannot understate the importance of utilizing evidence‐based dispositions with juvenile offenders adjudicated for sexual offenses. This proves difficult, however, as the body of literature regarding juvenile sexual offenders is complex and often misunderstood. Research on how juvenile sexual offenders experience – broadly construed – the juvenile justice process is particularly sparse. The research that is available about juvenile sexual offender treatment, recidivism, and outcomes in general tends to be mixed as to the best way to deal with this distinctly stigmatized population. Thus, the purpose of this review article is primarily educational in that we summarize the highlights of current research and thinking in regards to juvenile sexual offenders with which judges should be familiar, and subsequently offer practice recommendations. The ultimate goal in offering and applying these recommendations in juvenile court settings is to help alleviate potential collateral consequences, increase positive long‐term outcomes for juveniles, and increase public safety.     

Legal,Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

States have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders for trial and sentencing in criminal court and possible incarceration in adult prisons. These changing trends in juvenile justice raise three questions about what actually happens to juveniles once they are in the adult criminal justice system. To what extent does trial in adult court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability, and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders? This article discusses state transfer laws and the legal consequences of criminal court prosecution, and analyzes current research on deterrence effects of transfer laws, conviction and sentencing in juvenile versus criminal court, recidivism rates in juvenile versus criminal court, and conditions and programming in juvenile versus adult correctional facilities. The research findings have two important implications for juvenile justice policy: the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court should be minimized, and imprisonment of juveniles in adult facilities should be avoided whenever possible. These implications are discussed, and directions for future research are identified.     

JUVENILITY AND PUNISHMENT: SENTENCING JUVENILES IN ADULT CRIMINAL COURT*

The study outlined in this article addressed a key limitation of prior research on the punishment of juveniles transferred to adult court by employing propensity score matching techniques to create more comparable samples of juvenile and young adult offenders. Using recent data from the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, it tested competing theoretical propositions about the salience of juvenile status in adult court. Findings indicate that even after rigorous statistical matching procedures, juvenile offenders are punished more severely than their young adult counterparts. We found no evidence that this “juvenile penalty” is exacerbated by an offender's race or gender, but it does vary starkly across offense type and mode of transfer, being driven primarily by drug crimes and discretionary waivers. The import of these findings is discussed as they relate to the future of juvenile justice policy regarding the continued use of juvenile transfer to adult court.     

THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT*

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.     

Societal views of justice for adolescents accused of murder

Examines citizens' views about when juveniles accused of homicide should be tried and punished as adults. Responses from two randomly selected samples of adult Georgia residents suggest that these views are strongly influenced by whether adolescent defendants have been victims of abuse. Laypersons prefer juvenile court for juveniles who kill abusive parents (76% for first time offenders. 77% for those with one prior adjudication). Respondents are split concerning how to punish abused juveniles who have two prior adjudications (49% recommend juvenile court) and abused juveniles with one prior offense who kill a neighbor (48% recommend juvenile court). Most respondents, however, prefer adult court for repeat offenders who kill and have no history of child abuse. These findings suggest that legislative automatic transfers are overly simplistic compared to the contextual sensitivity of community sentiment. Policymakers may have serious misconceptions of societal views of fairness in this area.     

Delinquent Careers and Criminal Policy

This article critically examines the prevailing judicial waiver statutes that require juvenile court judges to make individualized determinations as to a youth amenability to treatment and danger to society. It concludes that such decisions cannot be made with an acceptable degree of accuracy using current methods of clinical diagnosis or prediction, and that the broad discretion given judges in making transfer decisions results in inconsistent and discriminatory applications that undermine the fairness and predictability of the process. In light of the expanding research on the development of delinquent careers, it contends that a legislative redefinition of juvenile court jurisdiction that automatically excludes certain youths from the juvenile court on the basis of their present offenses and past records not only identifies more accurately those youth who should be prosecuted as adults, but also increases the fairness, rationality, and predictability of the adulthood determination. It suggests that an application of "just deserts" principles to the juvenile court waiver decision could have salutary consequences for youths, the juvenile and criminal justice systems, and social control.     

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PROBLEM OF YOUTH AT RISK

During the 2006–2007 American Bar Association (ABA) year, a special ABA Presidential Youth at Risk Initiative has addressed several important topics: addressing the needs of juvenile status offenders and their families; foster children aging out of the foster care system; increases in girls, especially girls of color, in the juvenile justice system; the need to better hear the voices of youth in court proceedings affecting them; and improving how laws can better address youth crossing over between juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Lawyers are encouraged to use their skills to improve the systems addressing at‐risk youth and their families and to help facilitate coordination of youth‐related community efforts. Learning how to effectively communicate with youth is an important skill attorneys must learn. Through the Youth at Risk Initiative, the ABA has held continuing legal education programs, hosted community roundtables among youth‐serving stakeholders, and developed projects on: juvenile status offenders; lawyer assistance to youth transitioning from foster care; educating young girls on violence prevention, conflict resolution, and careers in law and justice; and provision of useful information to youth awaiting juvenile court hearings. New ABA policy has addressed services and programs to at‐risk youth, assuring licensing, regulation, and monitoring of residential facilities serving at‐risk youth, enhanced support for sexual minority foster and homeless youth, juvenile status offenders, and improving laws and policies related to youth exiting the foster care system.     

Youth justice — crisis or opportunity?

Conclusion Throughout the 1980s, major developments took place in the way in which agencies, which constituted the juvenile justice system, worked together. The 1990s have seen an increase in public and political attention on law and order. As yet, neither this concern, nor the introduction of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, has reversed the general trend of diverting young offenders from court and custody. Moreover, in the first three years of the decade, there have been no indications that concern about crime has generated an upturn in prosecution of youthful offenders.New proposals to expand secure accommodation within both the local authority and the independent sector, put forward by the Department of Health, and the proposed introduction of secure training centres in the new Criminal Justice Bill, indicate political responses to perceived public concern, rather than planned responses to identified need. In the light of these developments, it is important that local youth justice agencies operate a process of inter-agency strategic management based on sound, valid and agreed data. It is important that in the rush to assuage public concern, sound management of the youth justice system, as well as sound management of individual youth offenders, is not jettisoned.This is the message and legacy of the career of Josine Junger-Tas who has taught many of us that youth crime is open to rational analysis and policy making. Her intellectual analysis, tempered with her effervescent personality, is an example to us all.     

Public Opinion of Teen,Classroom, and Formal Court Styles

The present research examined the views of a community sample regarding teen court, classroom court, and formal/traditional court. Participants read vignettes of teen offenders who had committed crimes of high or low severity and were given relatively severe or mild sentences through one of the three courts. Results revealed stronger support for teen court than the other courts, a general preference for harsh sentences, and a preference for match between crime and punishment. The results of this study indicate that teen courts are seen as providing an appropriate means to sentence juvenile offenders and are likely to receive public support for their continued operation.     

ESTIMATING A DOSE‐RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LENGTH OF STAY AND FUTURE RECIDIVISM IN SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENDERS*

The effect of sanctions on subsequent criminal activity is of central theoretical importance in criminology. A key question for juvenile justice policy is the degree to which serious juvenile offenders respond to sanctions and/or treatment administered by the juvenile court. The policy question germane to this debate is finding the level of confinement within the juvenile justice system that maximizes the public safety and therapeutic benefits of institutional confinement. Unfortunately, research on this issue has been limited with regard to serious juvenile offenders. We use longitudinal data from a large sample of serious juvenile offenders from two large cities to 1) estimate a causal treatment effect of institutional placement, as opposed to probation, on future rate of rearrest and 2) investigate the existence of a marginal effect (i.e., benefit) for longer length of stay once the institutional placement decision had been made. We accomplish the latter by determining a dose‐response relationship between the length of stay and future rates of rearrest and self‐reported offending. The results suggest that an overall null effect of placement exists on future rates of rearrest or self‐reported offending for serious juvenile offenders. We also find that, for the group placed out of the community, it is apparent that little or no marginal benefit exists for longer lengths of stay. Theoretical, empirical, and policy issues are outlined.     

Stereotypes influence beliefs about transfer and sentencing of juvenile offenders

Despite sharp drops in juvenile crime since the mid-1980s, punitive policies regarding juveniles who commit serious offenses still exist. We assessed beliefs about two such practices: transferring offenders from the juvenile justice to the criminal justice system, and subjecting them to sentences of life without parole (LWOP). We examined whether stereotypes about juvenile offenders – the extent to which people believe they are dispositionally violent superpredators versus economically and socially impoverished wayward youth – influence support for these policies. We measured 321 participants’ beliefs about the causes of juvenile crime and juveniles’ potential for recidivism and rehabilitation. Using vignette methodology and actual case facts, we described a 13-, 17-, or 21-year-old offender who murdered a stranger or abusive parent, and asked whether he should be transferred to criminal court and sentenced to LWOP. As endorsement of the superpredator stereotype increased, so did support for these practices. Offenders who murdered an abusive parent were shown more leniency. Older offenders were generally treated harsher, except by people with strong superpredator stereotypes who, on the issue of LWOP appropriateness, did not distinguish among juveniles of different ages. Findings suggest that stereotypes can influence judgments in cases involving juveniles and indirectly affect policy-making about juvenile offending.