Gender Bias in the American Juvenile Justice System

Introduction 

Over the years, the American juvenile justice system has been very instrumental in protecting juveniles’ rights as well as rehabilitates them to be productive citizens. However, the existent procedures and policies, as well as programs, were structured to meet the needs of male juveniles who were the majority in the system (Neiman, 2015). Irrespective of the overall decline involvement of juveniles in the system, there has been an alarming increase in girls’ involvement. This is because of some factors among them the failure of the Juvenile system to address gender-particular needs of females (Herz, Ryan, & Bilchik, 2010). Gender disparities influence the arresting of girls as well as affect their rehabilitation success. It is mandatory for the juvenile justice system to change to accommodate and address the needs of girls. 

The Then and Now Juvenile Justice System 

The juvenile justice system was established to rehabilitate juvenile offenders in an effort to make them productive citizens (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2013). The judges had the final say of what treatment was appropriate for an underage offender. On the other side, the juveniles were not accorded as much rights in adult courts. From 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in several cases that established constitutional rights for juvenile offenders (Neiman, 2015). At the same time, the federal government discovered the increasing juvenile status offenses that involved many girls. Starting from 1974, it addressed the issues in general and later narrowed down to female juvenile offenders. However, these efforts seem to be ineffective as indicated by the increasing number of juvenile offenders in the system. 

i) The due process rights and expansion of the American juvenile justice system 

The first juvenile court founded in 1899 in Illinois focused on rehabilitating underage offenders to avoid committing delinquent acts in the future rather than punishing them for their offenses. Guided by parens paterae doctrine, the judges had a wider discretion to determine the best treatment for individual juvenile offenders (Neiman, 2015). For females, the judges focused on sexual promiscuity as well as apparent features in prostitution. Their goal was to instill morality into the girls and teach them about motherhood, marriage and family life. By the end of 1945, every state had set up a juvenile court hence increasing awareness of improved policies and protections for juveniles in the system. However, the children were judged based on adult laws that led to unfair and arbitrary punishment (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2013). Starting from 1966, the courts established numerous constitutional rights for juvenile offenders. The court declared it due to process violation for a judge to move a juvenile to an adult court without holding a hearing. Later the rights were extended to the right to charge notification, right to cross-examine witnesses, right to counsel representation as well as protection against self-incrimination (Neiman, 2015). 

ii) Federal involvement in juvenile justice 

One the other hand, the federal government tackled the issue of increasing juvenile offender concerns. More than often, juveniles were arrested and arraigned in court for fighting, petty larceny, alcohol-related offenses, and disorderly conduct. A large number of girls arraigned in juvenile courts had committed non-violent crimes. Comparatively, barely a fifth of boys was arraigned in court for the same offenses. The government commission attributed the disparity to lack of disposition alternatives. The commission also omitted the punishment of status offenses that eventually resulted in frustration to the judges. Incapacitated by law to punish juvenile offenders the judges turned to Relabeling and bootstrap to protect and prevent re-occurrence of offenses by juveniles (Neiman, 2015). With the passing of the 1992 Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act by Congress, every state was required to develop a gender-based program (Herz, Ryan, & Bilchik, 2010). However, to date, female-specific services are only acknowledged in a substantial percentage of states, and most of the current state plans lack and inappropriate pertain to gender issues. 

Causes of the Gender Disparity 

Even though there are efforts to eliminate gender disparities in juvenile justice system, girls are still mistreated. They continue to be detained disproportionately for non-violent offenses and more are arrested on assault charges (Freiburger, & Burke, 2011). This is because of paternalism towards girl status offenders, and apparent gender disparities that are inadequately addressed by the juvenile system’s procedures and practices. 

i) Status Offenders and Paternalism 

Female underage offenders are irrationally charged with non-violent offenses such as incorrigibility, running away and truancy. This treatment is founded on historical perception of juvenile systems on gender roles (Teilmann & Landry, 2017). Its efforts focus on controlling criminal behaviour of male offenders and preventing girl’s sexual immorality. As a result, the girls are classified as delinquent often for sexual misconduct or immorality cases (Neiman, 2015). The continued judicial paternalism has influenced the treatment of female juvenile offenders. The absence of due process right particularly in the status cases possesses a great challenge for the judges. Moreover, the mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence has increased the number of female juvenile arrested for assaults (Teilmann & Landry, 2017). 

ii) Mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence 

Over the last few years, arrests rates of girls for aggravated and simple assaults have drastically increased. This is partly attributed to the increasing violence among females, however, the enforcement of domestic violence laws give a better explanation (Neiman, 2015). Unlike previously, under the new laws and policies will charge a female juvenile with incorrigibility and she will detained. 

iii) Gender-specific differences 

The current research proposes that disparities in female’s emotional well-being, mental health and experiences play a significant role in their involvement in the juvenile system (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2013). The differences explain why girls commit and recommit offenses as well as expose the inadequacy of the juvenile justice system to assist the girls. Unlike their male counterparts, girls face high rates of sexual and physical abuse. As a result, they are more likely to commit offenses and be arrested compared to boys (Neiman, 2015). Moreover, most girls in the juvenile systems have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders, which are attributed to childhood exposure to violence, abuse and trauma. The juvenile system often worsens these gender-specific problems. In most instance, girls will commit offenses as a response to abuse they underwent. Many of them are arrested and detained for running away today. Detaining these girls fails to address the core reason of their offense such as violence and abuse at home (Freiburger & Burke, 2011). The juvenile system continues to be predominantly male-centered institution. Most of the programs for delinquents are designed around male needs because of their high population in the juvenile system (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2013). Moreover, most of these systems lack facilities to meet the needs of girls and their emotional and mental issues. 

Reform efforts 

The 1992 Reauthorization of the JJDPA opened the path for review of the issues affecting both genders. Since then, there is an increasing development of gender-based programs that consider the characteristics of female and male juvenile offenders (National Research Council, 2013). Some states have implemented gender disparity addressing applications with the help of advocacy groups as well as federal grants. 

i) Nevada 

Some two counties in Nevada discussed successfully the irrational percentage of female juveniles detained for domestic violence. Any juvenile charged with this offense was required by the Nevada statute to be mandatory held for twelve hours. To address gender disparity in the juvenile system, the two counties analyzed the girls’ detention data. In both Clark and Washoe counties, girls comprised of 22% and 28% of all detentions but 43% and 40% of domestic battery dentations respectively (Gary, 2017). Consequently, the Nevada legislature amended the law and directed juvenile arrested for the domestic battery should be acquitted as well as provided other means to deal with domestic violence. As a result, there have been low cases of disproportionate detention of girls. 

ii) PACE Center for Girls 

Established in 1985, the center has successfully developed a gender-specific treatment for the girls. The center serves as both a detention center and a rescue center for girls who are at risk of offending. In so doing, the center works towards preventing girls from getting into the juvenile detention system. On top of addressing the specific female needs, it also provides them with career preparation, counseling, community service opportunities, life management skill, and academic education as well as helps them to fit in the society after their detention (Neiman, 2015). 

iii) Hawaii Girls Court 

This unique program acts more like a probation center than a court. Founded in 2004, it deals with girls that have been adjudicated delinquent. Female juvenile offenders are enrolled in the program after passing a test offered by the staff. They are then grouped into eights and retain these groups for one year. During the period, the girls usually receive alternative education, vocational training, domestic violence prevention, health education, life-skill training, and teen pregnancy prevention among others. They visit the court once a month for review and esteem building. Upon completing the program, the girls are required to obtain a GED or go back to school (Sherman, 2011). In so doing, the center has significantly reduced recidivism. 

What next? 

Juvenile justice system’s policies and practices are slowly evolving to address female youth offenders. There is a dare need to address the reasons why girls commit deferent offenses and consequently rehabilitate them successfully. The first way is to develop more gender-specific intervention programs as well as establish some control over the decisions of judges in dealing with juvenile offenses in the juvenile justice system (National Research Council, 2013). The government needs to establish guidelines for the judges to follow in dealing with juvenile cases to reduce their broad discretion over youthful offenders. This will go far in addressing the issue of the disproportionate female number of status offenses (Watson & Edelman, 2012). Finally, the federal funding has to be increased to finance the developing and improvement of programs meant to address the needs of female juvenile offenders in the juvenile justice system. 

Conclusion 

The problem of gender biases is a challenge that the developers of the juvenile system did not address. Since the establishment of the first juvenile justice system, these disparities continue to be experienced. Over the years, female offenders have been subjected to rather cruel treatment compared to their male counterparts regardless of committing the same offense. Today, the female juvenile offenders are more arrested for non-violent or status offenses as opposed to male offenders. One of the main reasons is the society’s paternalistic approach towards the girls. The juvenile justice systems focus on managing criminal activities for the male juveniles, and its programs are designed to meet this end. On the other hand, the judges and the system focus on instilling moral values and paternal virtues such as motherhood, family, and marriage to the girls (Watson & Edelman, 2012). These stereotyping is deeply rooted in the society and the juvenile justice system and requires a multispline approach to reform. Funding more gender-based programs and establishing procedures and practices to limit judge’s decisions over juvenile offenders will go far in addressing gender disparity in the juvenile justice system. 

References 

Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2013).  Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice : John Wiley & Sons. 

Freiburger, T. L., & Burke, A. S. (2011). Status offenders in the juvenile court: The effects of gender, race, and ethnicity on the adjudication decision.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice ,  9 (4), 352-365. 

Gary, M. (2017).  Confronting Bias in the Juvenile Justice System    Juvenile Justice Information Exchange Retrieved 4 December 2017, from http://jjie.org/2013/12/19/confronting-bias-in-the-juvenile-justice-system/ 

Herz, D. C., Ryan, J. P., & Bilchik, S. (2010). Challenges facing crossover youth: An examination of juvenile ‐ justice decision making and recidivism:  Family court review ,  48 (2), 305-321. 

National Research Council. (2013).  Reforming juvenile justice A developmental approach . National Academies Press. 

Neiman, N. (2015). Gender bias in the juvenile justice system. 

Sherman, F. T. (2011). Justice for girls: Are we making progress.  UCLA L. Rev. ,  59 , 1584. 

Teilmann, K., & Landry, P. (2017). Gender Bias in Juvenile Justice:  Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency ,  18 (1), 47-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002242788101800104 

Watson, L., & Edelman, P. (2012). Improving the juvenile justice system for girls: Lessons from the states:  Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y ,  20 , 215.