SOCI 488
There
has been a growing debate as to whether or not the system of juvenile
corrections is "too soft". A specific argument that has been made in
support of "tougher corrections" deals with stricter punishment for
offenders, as opposed to providing programs and rehabilitative measures.
Advocates of this measure subscribe to the mantra, "If you did the crime,
you must do the time" in the strictest of senses. However, there is
evidence that perhaps the juvenile corrections system is "too harsh"
and that the outcome of "tougher" forms of corrections are
detrimental to the juvenile offenders that comprise these structures. For
example, institutions found to operate in an overall strict manner were found
to have an impact on the inter-personal socialization of its inmates. In a
classic study, Barry Feld found that institutions that operated in a highly
controlled, highly authoritarian fashion had negative impacts on the way in
which inmates interacted; oftentimes, offenders' exaggerated violent and
hostile tendencies merely reflected their environment. A common characteristic
of these institutions was the lack of institutional autonomy experienced by the
inmates. This translates into a lack of programs available, support systems for
inmates, as well as a minimal level of healthy interaction between inmates and
staff. Interestingly enough, the opposite environment was found to exist in
institutions that operated on rehabilitative and treatment-oriented premises.
Lower levels of violence and hostility were attributed to the focus on, what
some would consider "soft", methods of corrections (Regoli and Hewitt
2003:409). Therefore, the claim can be made that "tougher"
corrections actually results in negative effects for juvenile offenders. In the next few paragraphs, several examples
will be cited to validate the argument that juvenile institutions are not too
soft, as well as reasons why stricter measures would be unnecessary in the
juvenile corrections system. This issue
has long been a contentious one, and we will seek to prove that not only has
the juvenile corrections system been too strict, but it has also been
detrimental to the life chances of the offenders who are housed within said
system.
In some cases, the lack of
basic needs can lead to detrimental effects in the juvenile correctional
system. A study in 1992 of
It should go without saying
that the debate surrounding whether juvenile corrections are "too
soft" or "too tough" is a controversial one. Advocates of the
"too soft" approach contend that the present form of juvenile
corrections merely coddles offenders rather than punish. While the "too
tough" advocates stress rehabilitation over punishment, there is evidence
that strict correctional policies can negatively impact the juvenile offenders.
The bottom line here is that a lack of
programs, improper institutional amenities (such as personal space), and
strict, authoritative approaches to control were found to result in increased
occurrences of violence, hostility, as well as various mental and physical
health problems. In regards to these findings, it appears that the "too
tough" approach of juvenile corrections does not work effectively in
addressing juvenile inmates in a manner that is productive.1
In Florida,
Governor Jeb Bush has provided a tremendous impetus toward a safer state by
firmly committing his administration to a "Tough Love" approach to
juvenile justice. The Governor and the
2000 Legislature sent out a strong “Tough Love” message to young Floridians; if
they get into serious trouble, there will be serious consequences. For example:
Under a law that took effect October 1, 2000, a 16- or 17-year-old using a gun
to commit a violent felony like armed robbery or car-jacking will face
mandatory adult sentences of 10 years, 20 years or life, depending on whether
they fire the gun or injure somebody. 10-20-Life -- that’s about as clear-cut a
message against adolescent gun violence as we can send. It has been made clear
in
Michigan Early Offender Program
This program provides specialized,
intensive, in-home interventions to youth who are age 13 or younger at the time
of first adjudication and who have two or more prior police contacts.
This program includes interventions
such as sending parents an admonishment letter from the county attorney,
referring delinquents to child protective services and other agencies,
identifying diversion programs, identifying children in need of protection or
services petitions, and targeting early intervention for high-risk children.
This fully developed Canadian program emphasizes a multi-systemic approach combining interventions that target children, parents, schools, and communities. It includes a centralized police protocol to expedite services for children who engage in delinquent activity.
This program provides services
coordinated by a community intervention specialist who conducts an in-depth,
strength-based family assessment, including physical and mental health,
substance abuse, economic strengths/needs, vocational strengths/needs, family
functioning, and social functioning. All
multi-systemic programs designed to deal with child delinquency rely on
particular approaches and programs targeting the child, the family, peers, the
school, and the community. Many programs either have proven to be effective or
hold promise within these domains. Society
has to take care of the children, since they are the future. If this means teaching
them a lesson when they commit a crime, then so be it. If society were any
easier on crime then the every citizen would say forget the laws and do as they
please and then we'd have utter chaos. Children need to be disciplined, and
when they are not disciplined properly by their parents then it becomes the
courts job.2 Conversely,
if a society is too tough on juvenile offenders without regard to the welfare
or their emotional state, this can also spell disaster. While some may argue that society is too soft
on offenders, this is simply not true.
In our opinion, Jeb Bush's program exemplifies how to seek a middle
ground between being too strict and too soft when it comes to juvenile
corrections. Whoever said that you can't
have it both ways was clearly mistaken!
The
There
are 1900 plus Detention Centers that could make a world of a difference in the
United States if we can reach out and touch only even a moderate percentage of
the kids passing through the system. Most kids in Juvenile Delinquent Centers
do not know how to read, even though they will not admit to it. These children
are not dumb, they have just never learned. Juvenile Delinquency facilities can
teach remedial reading, math even science topics to show them some of the
possibilities of life they had not considered.
However, many of said facilities are severely under-funded and
under-staffed. The right touch could
make a difference in one of there lives. They all deserve a second chance to
start out fresh in there lives.
If we were not to teach these
children while they were in Juvenile Delinquent centers then how would they
survive when they are released? They would end up right back in the Juvenile
delinquent center or in the adult criminal justice system. We should not blame
the juvenile delinquent children alone, we must also blame the people (parents)
who were not home to teach these children how to properly act. "Before it's
too late, let's give these kids a second chance."4
Recent reports from the state
government make it obvious that the California Youth Authority – the state's
youth prison system – is a factory of misery and child abuse.
Other Bay Area counties have already
shown this kind of vision and courage.
This article indeed supports
the idea that the correction system is too tough and that youth are not
rehabilitated. Putting young offenders in adult prisons increases, not lessens,
their propensity for committing crime. While in prison, the juvenile offender
will learn from older, more hardened criminals.
[After all, prison is crime college]. When he or she is released back
into the community (in his or her 20s, undereducated, un-socialized,
unemployable, and at the peak of physical power), this individual will be the
very model of the person society wished most to avoid creating (American Civil
Liberties Union, 1996). Another study from
The correctional system is too
tough, and the ages that children are sent to prison at are also too young.
Children are still developing and although they commit a crime, it does not
necessarily mean that a child does not need additional care. State laws on
offense and trying as adults reveal that in certain U.S. States, there are no
age constraints that allow youth to be put into prison.
In 1974, Congress passed the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which still governs the
juvenile justice system today. The act required the separation of juvenile
offenders from adult offenders, and the deinstitutionalization of status
offenders. A 1980 amendment mandated that juveniles could not be placed in
adult jails, with a few exceptions. The 1974 act also created the federal
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and offered
grants to encourage states to develop community-based programs as alternatives
to institutionalization. However, more children are being charged as adults and
are serving adult sentences. Instead of offering children an option for rehabilitation,
they are incarcerated and assumed that if let out, they will become a better
citizen. Nevertheless, correctional facilities are tough enough and at times
too tough. They are by no means too soft, and they do not coddle incarcerated
individuals. Overly strict juvenile
correctional facilities are detrimental to the development of adolescents and
youth, and can actually harm their well being.5
The
nation faces at least one distinct crime related challenge: preventing at-risk
children from becoming criminals and restraining convicted criminals who are
under “supervision” of the criminal justice system (on probation, parole, or
pretrial release) from committing additional crimes. A society tells as much
about itself by what it punishes as what it praises, by what it condemns as
well as what it encourages, and by what it receives reprobation as what
receives approbation. Too often, for too many, it says “nobody cares” and
“nothing matters.” That has to change soon or the carnage of violence that have
become almost permanent features of
The
Confinement as a form of
rehabilitation or punishment is harsh; however, we won't dispute the fact that
it is necessary for dealing with crime and delinquency. For example, treatment-oriented institutions
promote rehabilitation. In
treatment-oriented facilities that used a cottage system, substantially less
hostility and aggression among inmates were observed compared to
custody-oriented institutions. According
to the textbook, this greater harmony was largely due to the introduction of
formal collaboration between staff and inmates, which increased the social
solidarity of the entire institution and diminished incentives for violent
solutions (pg409). According to a study done by Bernard Berk (pg. 408), he
found that inmate attitudes toward the institution were more positive in
treatment-oriented than in custody-oriented institutions. He also discovered
that inmate attitudes were shaped by the prison experience.6
In
summary, it is simply preposterous to reach the conclusion that the juvenile
justice system is too soft. If anything
this system is, in fact, too tough and this can detrimental to the
socialization process of an incarcerated juvenile. Though we concede that incarceration may be a
necessary disposition for offenders, getting tough on juveniles as a deterrent
to prospective criminals is simply not the solution that society should accept! In our view, the rehabilitation of juvenile
offenders should be the main prerogative of correctional facilities, rather
than places to hold 'societies bad seeds.'
While it is true that many juvenile offenders may have been complicit in
doing irreversible harm to society, we must remember that 'might does not
always make right' in the juvenile system of corrections.
1- Jose Lopez
Sources Used
Regoli, Robert M. and John D. Hewitt. 2003. Delinquency in
Society.
United States Department of Justice. 1998. Beyond the Walls: Improving
Conditions of Confinement for Youth in Custody.
2- Victoria
Therriault
Sources Used
http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp
http://www.djj.state.fl.us/djj/AboutDJJ/agency/visionandfocus.html
3- Tonya Sargent
Sources Used
www.usdoj.gov
www.hrw.org
4-Kristin Doherty
www.acsa.net
5- Sofia Salem
Sources Used
C. Lenore Anderson, Youth Corrections System Is Not Working,
Oakland Tribune
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/childadult.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/states.html
6- Julie Brown
Source Used
Regoli, Robert M. and Hewitt, John D. "Delinquency in
Society" 5th Edition