The Kids are Alright: Making a Case for Abolition of the Juvenile Justice System

When considering abolition of the criminal justice system, there is no greater or more impactful relevance than for juveniles that find themselves inextricably linked to the juvenile justice system. From its inception, the philosophical foundation of juvenile care was to provide individualized, compassionate assistance to young men and women perceived to be in need of emotional care and/or social control. With the establishment of the Cook County Juvenile Court in 1899, the American juvenile justice system has endured a 118-year odyssey that has produced progressively rational, largely unsympathetic, and increasingly punitive practices. With happenings such as the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’, ‘juvenile life without the possibility of parole’, ‘teen courts’, and ‘deferred prosecution probation’, current juveniles that make unassuming mistakes and errors in judgment are adjoined to a system that sustains and reinforces itself through these mistakes and errors. The charge of this article is to recommend the abolition of the contemporary juvenile justice system, with safeguards for the protection from serious offenders and a return to the compassionate care that is warranted for the majority of juveniles that currently bolster the system.     

Adultification in Juvenile Corrections: Examining the Orientations of Juvenile and Adult Probation and Parole Officers

Legislative activity, court decisions, and other activities have left open to question how distinct is the juvenile justice system from the criminal justice system. While several scholars have considered adultification of juvenile courts, no study has systematically examined the adultification of juvenile corrections. The present study assesses whether one type of juvenile corrections, probation and parole, has been adultified by comparing the professional orientations of juvenile and adult probation and parole officers. The study finds that juvenile probation and parole officers do differ from adult officers across several dimensions of professional orientation that are critical to the distinctiveness of the juvenile justice system. Specifically, our analyses show that compared to adult probation and parole officers, juvenile officers tend to more strongly adhere to ideals of treatment, welfare, and offender-focused probation and parole supervision.     

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.     

Discretionary Justice: Decision Making in a State Juvenile Parole Board

The literature in Criminal Justice is replete with commentary on both the virtues and injustices associated with adult parole board decision-making. There has been far less attention paid to juvenile parole boards in part because so few of them exist. Institutional release decisions in most states still remain the purview of juvenile institutional staff members. This paper examines parole Authority decision-making in a citizen-dominated state juvenile parole board. The paper focuses on the conduct of hearings, dispositional guidelines, criteria used by board members in decision-making and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole Authority decision making is also discussed. During recent years, the literature in criminal justice has become replete with commentary on the virtues and injustices associated with parole board decision-making. Consequently, many questions have been raised about disparate sentences, the criteria used by parole boards in making decisions, unstructured discretion, and the pressing need for guidelines and statistically accurate parole prediction instruments. The intent of this paper is to examine parole decision-making in a state juvenile parole board where individualized treatment and rehabilitation have been long standing goals. The paper focuses upon the criteria used by board members in decision-making, the conduct of hearings, the guideline system used to determine a recommended length of confinement and the advocacy role of parole officers and institutional staff. The influence of deinstitutionalization and least restrictive policies on parole board decision-making is also discussed. The author is presently completing the second year of a two-year appointment as a member of the Parole Authority under discussion. Since December, 1983, the author has continuously observed and participated in approximately 300 individual parole hearings over thirty-seven hearing days.     

Detention Decision-Making in a Predominantly Hispanic Region: Rural and Non-Rural Differences

This study examines the implementation of juvenile detention policy by comparing decision making in two jurisdictions where Hispanics represent the numerical majority of the population. One jurisdiction is rural and the other is a jurisdiction with over 1000,000 population. Interviews with juvenile justice probation and parole officers and judges are combined with a quantitative analysis of official records from 1994. Detention decision making is different in these jurisdictions. There is more formal processing and detention of juveniles in the rural jurisdiction. This is attributable to a perception of the community as heterogeneous rather than homogeneous, and a lack of alternatives as compared to the non-rural jurisdiction.     

Do legal variables predict police decisions regarding the prosecution of juvenile offenders?

This study investigated whether legal variables predict police dispositions as regards the prosecution of juveniles. For this purpose first apprehensions of a sample of 479 Israeli adolescents (aged 13.5–15.5) in a one-year period were analyzed. The association between the legal variables and police dispositions was analyzed separately within four hierarchical stages of involvement with the juvenile justice system. Previous referral to court and previous court appearance were found to be excellent predictors of police decision to prosecute. However, in the earlier stages of involvement with the juvenile justice system, (i.e., when juveniles had no previous court referrals or appearances), the predicting power of the few available legal variables (type and seriousness of offense and number of previous police apprehensions) was found to be negligible. In the discussion of the findings, the contradicting labeling and deterrence theories are applied to the functioning of the juvenile units within the police: The present study has empirically identified the specific point where police decision-making reflects a switch-over from the labeling to the deterrence approach. Some suggestions for future research are put forward in order to improve the predictability of police dispositions at the early stages of the juvenile's involvement with the criminal justice system.     

Decomposing disproportionate minority contact in juvenile justice

The objective of this study was to decompose racial disparity in juvenile justice decision-making into a part explained by differing characteristics of racial groups, and an unexplained part often attributed to discrimination. Individual case-level data from Alabama and logistic regression were used to model detention, petition, and disposition decisions in the juvenile justice system. Decomposition of racial disparity between white and black juveniles using the nonlinear Blinder-Oaxaca methodology suggested that about a half to three fourths of the racial gaps in the three juvenile justice decision points were caused either by discrimination or unobserved predictors. Decomposition of racial disparity in juvenile justice can help devise effective public policy by quantifying the extent to which specific policies can reduce disproportionate minority contact.     

Juvenile parole policy in the United States: Determinate versus indeterminate models

This paper presents an overview of eight approaches in juvenile parole policy for terminating, extending, and discharging youths from juvenile parole or aftercare. These types were derived from the results of a national survey of juvenile parole policy in the United States. This survey was sent to the departments of correction, youth service bureaus, and legislative service agencies for the 50 states. The survey sought comparative data on trends in substantive and procedural approaches for handling parole duration and discharge issues for juvenile offenders. These trends are evaluated in relation to movements toward formalism in corrections, recent reforms in juvenile sentencing, standards promulgated by various standard-setting groups, and recent shifts in juvenile justice philosophy in the United States.     

The Knowledge of Detained Juveniles About the Juvenile Justice System

This article examines the knowledge and perceptions of detained juveniles about the roles of juvenile justice officials and the nature of the juvenile justice system. Data were collected through interviews in a group setting. The small sample size limited the generalizability of the findings but provided specific information important for future research and policymaking on an under‐studied group. The study found that the experiences of the juveniles with the justice system provided only limited understanding of the system's processes and confusion about juvenile justice officials' roles. The juveniles did not have a clear understanding of how each official's role operated within a set of roles that constitutes the system. Further, they did not fully understand the cumulative effect of juvenile processing.     

DISRUPTING THE PATHWAY FROM FOSTER CARE TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM—A FORMER PROSECUTOR'S PERSPECTIVES ON REFORM

Nearly half a million children are victims of abuse and neglect and part of our foster care system. Over time, many of these youth cross into our juvenile and then adult justice systems; some will end up as federal offenders, immersed in a process where mandated penalties provide little room for flexibility or consideration of the characteristics and needs of the individual. This article will offer the perspectives of a former prosecutor and child welfare advocate on: (i) the current conditions and challenges within our foster care system—the feeder for many youth into gangs and criminal activity; (ii) the misaligned priorities and disheartening patterns we currently see in our justice system; and (iii) the ill‐advised practices, that set our nation apart from the rest of the world, allowing juvenile offenders to receive life without parole sentences. The article will then discuss a series of recommendations in all of these areas that would enable us to turn the corner and chart an improved and more hopeful path for our nation's vulnerable and at‐risk children and youth.     

Screening the Mental Health Needs of Youths in Juvenile Detention

There is an increasing number of juveniles coming into the justice system with a variety of mental health and substance abuse concerns. While the actual number of youths with mental health disorders in the juvenile justice system has been difficult to determine, it is estimated to be substantially higher than it is for youths in the general population. In addition, researchers have estimated that a high number of these juveniles experience co‐morbid mental health disorders. The purpose of this study was to examine the number of youths who present symptoms of a mental health disorder at intake into a juvenile detention center in the Midwest. Two hundred‐four youths were assessed with the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument‐Second Version (MAYSI‐2; Grisso & Barnum, 2000), a mental health screening instrument. At least 68% of the youths identified symptoms of a mental health disorder at intake. Given the significant number of youths who identified symptoms of a mental health disorder at intake into detention, the need to provide mental health services for juvenile detainees should not be ignored.     

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT*

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research. Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.     

Dealing with Juvenile Offenders in the Criminal Justice System

The treatment of juveniles within the criminal justice systems is a matter of great variety in the 11 European countries studied comparatively. The study focuses on the age of criminal responsibility, ways to divert juvenile offenders from the criminal justice system or avoid criminal justice responses to them, juvenile proceedings and special reactions and sanctions. In spite of different approaches there is a common trend towards preventing juvenile offenders from being treated by criminal courts and being sentenced to criminal sanctions.     

Sifting Through the Ashes: Processing Arsonists in Juvenile Justice

National estimates have suggested that less than one-in-five arsons are cleared by arrest. Interestingly, juveniles account for nearly 50% of arson arrests, a proportion greater than all other non-status offenses. While the criminological literature on juvenile arson has been fairly consistent, a dearth of applied criminological literature has observed how the juvenile justice system responds to arsonists. Drawing on data on more than 5,000 juveniles from a large southern state, this study was able to differentiate between the system responses for arsonists and other felons. The findings suggested that the juvenile justice system distinguished between arsonists and other felons in some respects, but these distinctions failed to align with the suggested approaches of the criminological literature.     

Juvenile Delinquency in the Cross-Cultural Context: The Egyptian Experience

This essay is a theoretical analysis of the cultural and structural factors that define and explain the extent of juvenile delinquency in the Arab Republic of Egypt. While delinquency in the United States and other Western countries continues to increase in rates as well as in the degree of violence, juvenile delinquency in Egypt remains relatively stable and remarkably benign. This can be attributed to three main factors: (a) an orthodox religion-based value system in which Islamic institutions exert dominant influences on the day-to-day moral behavior of juveniles; (b) a closely-knit family structure that functions within a communitarian environment in which children are constantly disciplined whereas they are taught socially acceptable behavior and shamed when they succumb to criminal behavior; and (c) an extraordinarily progressive juvenile justice system, which treats delinquency as a social phenomenon rather than a criminal endeavor. The study presents statistical data, based on official statistics, which show the levels of predelinquent and delinquent activity in the different provinces based on their degree of urbanization. Furthermore, the study attempts to explain the reasons behind the present deviance in society by discussing the possible impact of Social Control Theory, Strain Theory, and the idea of Relative Deprivation. The more serious aspects of deviance, it appears, emerged during the infitah era (economic opening) championed by president Sadat in the mid-seventies as an attempt to modernize—and westernize—the traditionally conservative nation.     

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR HISTORICAL ANALYSES

One of the most obvious deficiencies in the literature on the criminal justice system is reflected in the lack of research on the historical development of the police, courts, and corrections. Even more evident is the paucity of research which is theoretically or methodologically grounded. As a result of the failure of historians to specify their a priori assumptions, methodology, and theoretical perspective, it is difficult for consumers of the literature to appreciate how researchers have selectively sampled and interpreted historical events and arrived at their conclusions. This article addresses this problem by adapting and applying to historical research on the juvenile justice system some of the theoretical and methodological insights presented by Thomas S. Kuhn (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and George Ritzer (1975) Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. The study focuses upon outlining the assumptions and methodology underlying three theoretical perspectives which have been consciously or unconsciously adopted by a majority of historical researchers: the march of progress, social context, and conflict perspectives. After outlining these perspectives, a selective review of the juvenile justice literature is offered in order to demonstrate how these orientations have been applied in interpreting the origin, development, operation, and impact of the juvenile court and juvenile reformatory. Finally, suggestions are offered which provide general guidelines for applying these perspectives to any aspect of the criminal justice system within an historical context.     

The age of death: Appraising public opinion of juvenile capital punishment

Despite its original purpose to protect and rehabilitate wayward children, the juvenile system has grown more punitive and has embraced the use of harsher punishments, including execution, for juvenile offenders. Relatively little is known, however, about public attitudes toward the use of capital punishment for juveniles. This research explored the determinants of death penalty opinion, identified the minimum age at which respondents were willing to allow a juvenile to be put to death and examined the willingness of respondents to support an alternative sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The results suggested that, while one-quarter of the sample was willing to execute juveniles who were fifteen and under at the time of the crime, there was less support for the execution of juveniles than of adults. In addition, of those who supported the use of the death penalty for juveniles, almost one-half would support LWOP as an alternative to the death penalty.     

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.     

Putting kids to death: Specifying public support for juvenile capital punishment

Using a statewide sample of 539 Tennessee residents, we explored the extent to which the public supports the death penalty for juveniles. The analysis revealed that a majority of respondents favored juvenile capital punishment, often for young offenders. The respondents, however, were less supportive of juvenile than of adult execution. Most important, as an alternative to juvenile capital punishment, nearly two-thirds of the sample favored life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP); four-fifths favored a life sentence with work and restitution requirements (LWOP+W/R). Notably, even among those who endorsed capital punishment for juveniles, a clear majority supported LWOP+W/R. Taken together, these findings reveal that although the public is willing to execute juveniles who commit first-degree murder, they prefer alternative sentencing options that avoid putting youths to death.     

Short‐Term Effects of Sanctioning Reform on Parole Officers' Revocation Decisions

Parole officials have traditionally been afforded considerable discretion when making sanctioning decisions to be able to tailor sanctions according to substantively rational concerns such as individuals' unique needs and situations. However, the application of substantive rationality in sanctioning can also generate unwanted disparities because sanctioning decisions may be based on extralegal factors that parole officials consider relevant. Concerns regarding disparate treatment of offender groups have prompted a number of states to consider adopting administrative violation response policies that emphasize formal rationality and uniformity by restricting parole officers' discretion and structuring sanctioning decisions according to legally relevant criteria. By emphasizing formal rationality in sanctioning, structured sanction policies present a dilemma for parole officers—uniformity versus individualized treatment. In 2005, the state of Ohio implemented an administrative violation response policy designed to reduce parole officers' reliance on revocation hearings and promote uniformity in sanctioning decisions. This study involved an examination of whether Ohio's shift to structured sanctioning coincided with differences in legal and extralegal effects on parole officers' decisions to pursue revocation hearings. Analyses of data collected before and after the implementation of the policy revealed a reduction in the number of revocation hearings officers pursued. Only modest increases in uniformity were observed, however, because there was little disparity resulting from officers' hearing decisions before the policy was put in place. These findings are discussed within perspectives on justice system actors' decision making.