Prediction of recidivism among “second timers” in the juvenile justice system: Efficiency in screening chronic offenders

Identification of small subgroups of high-risk juvenile offenders from the general population to target them for intervention has proved elusive. It is argued that second-time delinquents represent a group that can be efficiently screened for chronic offenders. With a sample of 298 second-time juvenile offenders, both prospective and retrospective risk instruments are found to predict chronic delinquent behavior well. It is proposed that such risk instruments be used to focus benign intervention on high-risk, second-time juvenile offenders.     

The Injustice of a Felony Conviction for Offenders Under Age Twenty‐One: A New Option for the Courts to Save Our Youths’ Futures

When the Criminal Justice System adjudicates an individual felony offender, it complicates many aspects of that individual's life; from applying for colleges, and jobs to attempting to become contributing member of society. In New York, to prevent seven‐ to sixteen‐year‐old youth who commit felony offenses from becoming felony offenders, the courts prosecute them as juvenile delinquents or juvenile offenders. In the United States, individuals under the age of twenty‐one cannot purchase alcohol or tobacco and cannot get married without parental consent, but they can be charged with a felony. Before and even after reaching the age of twenty‐one, individuals are still in need of guidance, support, education, employment, and stability as brain development is still ongoing. To help protect those who have not reached the age of twenty‐one, states should implement Senior Youthful Offender Hearings as proposed in this Note. This hearing is a two‐part hearing: (1) determine if an individual should be considered eligible for the protections under the current Youthful Offender Laws and (2) determine sentencing and alternatives to incarceration, focused on steering Senior Youthful Offenders on the right path.     

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.     

Identifying chronic juvenile offenders

With the recent rise in juvenile offending, particularly violent crime, legislative and public attention has focused sharply on juvenile corrections. In the past few years, juvenile justice has witnessed stronger legislative dictates requiring public agencies to consider the public safety implications of their policy decisions, an increasing emphasis on outcomes-based evaluation, and a renewed interest in matching services to juvenile's needs. Consequently risk classification, and specifically the identification of chronic juvenile offenders, have assumed a much higher policy profile. Here we review the historical development of risk classification in the context of a rational decision-making model. We discuss the major risk factors identified in the literature and describe in detail a study to identify and respond to chronic juvenile offenders in Orange County, California. Recognizing the advantages of the researcher/practitioner team approach adopted there, we attempt to replicate both the process and the results in Philadelphia. Using a unique juvenile justice database we test but reject the Orange County model; instead we develop a classification model of chronic offending that better fits this juvenile population. Using the Philadelphia model, we demonstrate the policy potential of risk classification by examining the impact of program type and of neighborhood on chronic offending.     

Parental Involvement in Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment: Requiring a Role as Informed Supervisor

Sex offenses, particularly those against children, have always been viewed negatively in society. A large portion of these offenses are committed by children against children. Most state legislatures focus on punitive measures when dealing with juvenile sex offenses, yet few place treatment on equal ground. Treatment has been shown to be effective in reducing the rate of recidivism of juvenile sex offenders. Juvenile sex offenders that participate in treatment have shown lower recidivism rates than adult offenders or untreated juvenile sex offenders. This Note advocates that states adopt legislation based on a successful statute in Colorado that creates a sex offender management board consisting of a multidisciplinary treatment team for juvenile sex offenders' treatment while requiring parental involvement in treatment as “informed supervisors” when the team deems it appropriate.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Sex offender treatment on juveniles has been successful in reducing recidivism, as juveniles are more receptive to treatment than adults.
• Supervision and treatment of juvenile sex offenders would be more effective if parents or guardians are involved in the juvenile's sex offender treatment.
• States should adopt legislation based on the Colorado model that creates a sex offender management board and multidisciplinary team to supervise the treatment of juvenile sex offenders and requires appropriate parental involvement in the treatment as “informed supervisors”.

     

Presidential address: Juvenile justice at the crossroads: Presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences

Three interacting factors appear to significantly affect our treatment of youths and thus our juvenile justice policy: ideology, the media, and politics. As a result of these factors, although juvenile violent crime is decreasing, legislatures still advocate a harsh, punitive stance toward youthful offenders. Legislative initiatives have resulted in determinate sentencing for juveniles, more youths handled by the adult criminal court, and more youths sentenced to adult institutions. Recent evidence suggests that the public supports more prevention and early intervention strategies for youths and favors rehabilitation rather than punishment. These conflicting trends suggest that we are at a crossroads: the juvenile justice system can continue its harsh, reactive stance, or it can choose a more proactive approach. The members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences have an opportunity to play an active role in the development of criminal justice policy.     

A CALL TO CONGRESS TO GIVE BACK THE FUTURE: END THE "WAR ON DRUGS" AND ENCOURAGE STATES TO RECONSTRUCT THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

While the "War on Drugs" has been criticized in many respects, there has been little attention given to the detrimental impact it has had on children. Fortunately, both state and federal governments are recognizing the problem and have begun taking steps to combat the negative effects the "War on Drugs" has had on children. More work however, still needs to be done. This Note advocates for Congress to amend the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act to induce states to offer rehabilitation to nonviolent youth drug offenders, rather than incarceration, which will reduce incarceration and its detrimental effect on children, promote public safety and save money. As a funding stipulation, the amendment will require states to develop and implement deinstitutionalization programs for nonviolent juvenile drug offenders.     

Criminalizing Health-Related Behaviors Dangerous to Others? Disease Transmission, Transmission-Facilitation, and the Importance of Trust

Statutes criminalizing behavior that risks transmission of HIV/AIDS exemplify use of the criminal law against individuals who are victims of infectious disease. These statutes, despite their frequency, are misguided in terms of the goals of the criminal law and the public health aim of reducing overall burdens of disease, for at least three important reasons. First, they identify individual offenders for punishment, a paradigm that is misplaced in the most typical contexts of transmission of infectious disease and even for HIV/AIDS, despite claims of AIDS exceptionalism. Second, although there are examples of individuals who transmit infectious disease in a manner that fits the criminal law paradigm of identification of individual offenders for deterrence or retribution, these examples are limited and can be accommodated by existing criminal laws not devoted specifically to infectious disease. Third, and most importantly, the current criminal laws regarding HIV/AIDS, like many other criminal laws applied to infectious disease transmission, have been misguided in focusing on punishment of the diseased individual as a wrongful transmitter. Instead of individual offenders, activities that enhance the scale of disease transmission—behaviors that might be characterized as ‘transmission facilitation’—are a more appropriate target for the criminal law. Examples are trafficking in human beings (including sex trafficking, organ trafficking, and labor trafficking), suppression of information about the emergence of infection in circumstances in which there is a legally established obligation to disclose, and intentional or reckless activities to discourage disease treatment or prevention. Difficulties remain with justifications for criminalizing even these behaviors, however, most importantly the need for trust in reducing overall burdens of disease, problems in identifying individual responsible offenders, and potential misalignment between static criminal law and the changing nature of infectious disease.     

Assessing and predicting the competency of juvenile court volunteer probation officers

The volunteer movement in criminal justice settings is burgeoning. It has been estimated that by the end of 1982 there will be over one million volunteers working in criminal-justice-related functions. The volunteer role that appears to be increasing most rapidly is that of the one-to-one counseling relationship with delinquent and young adult offenders on formal or informal probation. While the demand for volunteer probation officers is increasing rapidly, few of our courts have attempted to develop and validate screening instruments capable of assessing and predicting the general competency of the volunteer. The need for such instruments has been emphasized recently by Judge Keith J. Leenhouts, Director of Volunteers in Probation, a division of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. The present study attempts to assess the usefulness of one such potential screening device, the Critical Incident Response Test (CIRT) developed by Traitel (1972) and others at the Oakland County Juvenile Court in Pontiac, Michigan. It is hoped that this study will motivate other probation departments and court volunteer programs to develop and validate similar selection instruments.     

An experimental evaluation of teen courts

Teen Court (TC) is a juvenile diversion program designed to prevent the formal processing of first-time juvenile offenders within the juvenile justice system. TC instead utilizes informal processing and sanctions in order to prevent future offending. Despite its widespread popularity throughout the United States of America, little rigorous research has been conducted on the effectiveness of the TC model for reducing recidivism. Using an experimental design, this study examined the effectiveness of TC in reducing recidivism and improving the attitudes and opinions of juvenile offenders in comparison with a control group of youth who were formally processed. Self-reported delinquency was higher for those youth who participated in TC. TC youth were also found to have significantly lower scores on a scale of belief in conventional rules than had youth who were processed in the Department of Juveniles Services. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Judges’ Perceptions of Screening,Assessment, Prevention,and Treatment for Substance Use, Mental Health,and HIV among Juveniles on Community Supervision: Results of a National Survey

Juvenile Justice‐Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ‐TRIALS) National Survey was funded in part to describe the current status of screening, assessment, prevention and treatment for substance use, mental health, and HIV for youth on community supervision within the US juvenile justice system. Surveys were administered to community supervision agencies and their primary behavioral healthcare providers, as well as the juvenile or family court judge with the largest caseload of youth on community supervision. This article presents the findings from the judges’ survey. Survey results indicated juvenile and family court judges were open to innovations for improving the court's performance, rated their relationships with collaborators highly, and appreciated the impact of screening, assessment, prevention, and treatment on judicial practices.     

Juvenile Justice in Oregon: Balanced and Restorative Justice in Action

The goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) are to hold juvenile offenders meaningfully accountable, hear and empower crime victims and engage communities both as stakeholders who have been negatively impacted and as advocates to make things right for the crime victim, offender, and community. This article examines how several Oregon juvenile justice agencies have put BARJ into action over the last 25 years, highlighting specific examples of how several agencies have made this the philosophical underpinning of their work. An overview of the philosophical principles, values, and goals that drive this approach is also discussed.     

Musci preferences as data in assessing and treating offenders and victims

Contemporary music has been criticized for promoting violence, hatred, misogyny, sexual excess, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, narcissism, and self-pity. The authors, a criminologist licensed as a mental health counselor and a clinical psychologist, have found that exploring individuals' music preferences can often provide invaluable assistance in understanding how offenders and victims fulfill existential needs common to both of them. These insights can be useful in setting appropriate therapeutic goals, assessing violence potential toward self and others, and making recommendations regarding the need for placement in a secure facility. Notes Paper delivered at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March.     

Risk assessment vs real prediction: The prediction problem and public trust

Confusing risk assessment and the prediction of individual behavior has led to false claims which, if translated into juvenile court or adult sentencing policies (selective incapacitation, for example), may lead to further erosion in public confidence in the justice system. Considerable emphasis has been placed on the consequences of false positives in the literature and in this paper. The false negative has different but equally damaging effects because the impression may be given that increasing the severity of sanctions for selected serious offenders is the solution to juvenile delinquency and adult crime. Analysis of official police records for three birth cohorts from Racine, Wisconsin, reveals that, although high-risk groups produce a disproportionate share of the delinquent and criminal behavior recorded in police reports and juveniles in high-risk groups continue into adult crime disproportionately to others, serious juvenile offenders still account for only a portion of the serious offenses that will ultimately be committed by adults. Therefore, selective incapacitation of early offenders may take only a small bite out of crime. When referrals rather than police contacts were utilized as the predictor variable, there was little difference in predictive efficiency.     

Difficulties of cultural diversity. An exploratory study into forensic psychiatric reporting on serious juvenile offenders in the Netherlands

This paper discusses psychiatrists' assessments of the personalities of ethnic minority and ethnically Dutch juvenile offenders. Psychiatric reports and recommendations help courts determine the type and duration of sanctions. Psychiatrists are involved in almost all cases of serious juvenile crime, because under Dutch law, determining criminal responsibility is a matter for psychiatrists. The courts usually follow the recommendations of forensic psychiatrists when giving judgment and sentencing juvenile offenders.Far too little research has been conducted up to now on the difficulties encountered by forensic psychiatrists when making assessments. The present study discusses the nature and extent of these difficulties. It is based on an analysis of personality reports and sentence recommendations produced by psychiatrists attached to the juvenile courts in relation to youths subsequently sentenced to Placement in a Youth Custodial Institution (PIJ sanction) in the year 2000 (N = 164). A PIJ sanction is the most rigorous response available under the Dutch criminal law for juvenile offenders.The study shows, on the basis of the psychiatric reports, that arriving at a diagnosis is often more difficult when dealing with ethnic minority boys than in the case of their ethnically Dutch peers, since ethnic minority boys more frequently present themselves in a threatening and manipulative way, and tend to conceal their real selves. The reports indicate that the psychiatric assessment of personality is often difficult because forensic psychiatrists struggle with an inadequate knowledge and understanding of minority cultures, which seems to suggest that there is a need for a broader cross-cultural approach that would make it possible to conduct comprehensive personality assessments of serious juvenile offenders.This study was made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), and was authorised by the Ministry of Justice.     

Evidence-based practice in group work with incarcerated youth

As a result of the Youth Criminal Justice Act's increased focus on restorative justice, treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration of youth, many more juvenile offenders require mental health services while resident in youth detention facilities [Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002, c.1). Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/Y-1.5]. Several common characteristics such as violence, aggression, and other antisocial behaviors, associated with criminal behavior, have been identified among male and female offenders. Dialectical behavior therapy, originally developed by Linehan [Linehan, M. M., 1993a. Cognitive–behavioural treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guildford Press] for chronically parasuicidal women diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, has been successfully modified for use with other populations, including violent and impulse-oriented male and female adolescents residing in correctional facilities. The intent of this article is to encourage the wider use of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) with young offenders. It includes an extensive review of the evidence-base to date and describes some of the creative modifications that have been made to standard DBT program format to meet the particular needs of various groups in both Canada and the United States. In keeping with the movement toward more evidence-based practice, the authors argue that DBT is a promising approach in group work with incarcerated adolescents and should be more widely used.     

Juvenile Involvement in Fratricide and Sororicide: An Empirical Analysis of 32?Years of U.S. Arrest Data

Despite the interest in juvenile homicide offenders, few studies have systematically examined their involvement in incidents involving specific victims. This study focused on one victim type, the killings of siblings. To date, siblicide research has been based primarily on case studies. Bivariate and multivariate techniques were used to systematically investigate offender, victim, and incident characteristics associated with fratricides and sororicides committed by juvenile homicide offenders in single victim, single offender incidents over a 32-year period (1976–2007), as recorded in the Supplementary Homicide Report data base. Juvenile sororicide offenders, relative to juvenile fratricide offenders, were significantly more likely to be female and to kill younger victims. The article concludes with a discussion of the findings in terms of past research, their implications for intervention and prevention, and directions for future research.     

危险评估与控制——新刑罚学的主张

在我们的社会中,少部分犯罪分子实施了大部分犯罪。如果能够“标定”出这些犯罪分子,并对他们加以控制,全社会的犯罪将会得到有效控制,而且犯罪控制成本将大大降低。所谓“标定”就是危险评估。经过长期探索,危险评估已经出现很多工具。如何使危险评估既保持较高的信度与效度,同时又提高可操作性,是危险评估研究与实践需要解决的重要问题。危险控制的措施主要有：延长具有高度危险罪犯的监禁期;构建罪犯的“危险”回应机制;确立“危险罪犯”标定与控制制度;性犯罪登记、公告制度。     

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.