Juvenile Justice: Treatment or Punishment?

Introduction 

The purpose of the juvenile justice system is to intervene in the criminal behaviors of the youth through the court and rehabilitate the offenders in juvenile correctional facilities. Just like the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile justice system in the United States operates with the belief that dealing with delinquent behaviors helps in preventing the involvement of the youth in criminal activities. The current American criminal justice system recognizes the distinction between the juveniles and adults and has assigned less accountability for the juveniles who are convicted of various crimes. Juvenile programs in the United States have adopted reform-based interventions for the minors with the belief that young offenders have a potential to change and became useful adults in the future. However, due to reforms in the criminal justice system, juvenile systems have evolved, shifting their response to various social changes. For instance, in the late 1980s, the number of young criminals increased dramatically, prompting the juvenile system to impose harsher punishments towards the offenders. As a result of this change, more juvenile offenders faced trial as adult criminals with some of them being sentenced to death. 

Imposition of harsher approaches towards the juvenile offenders has prompted debates on whether or not juvenile justice system should adopt punishment or treatment for specific crimes. I believe that juvenile prisons are not effective as punishment for juveniles as they harden young people who may recover through rehabilitation. Therefore, in this paper, I will support the idea that state juvenile systems should implement a philosophy of treatment for the juvenile offenders to enhance their recovery. The crime discussed in the paper is theft, the most common crime committed in the United States. The paper will begin by outlining the differences between the concepts of punishment and treatment and then build a case based on my position (treatment). The paper will also present a review of the juvenile crime statistics between Boston, Chicago and New York for a crime or criminal justice issue. The review will include an analysis of the juvenile delinquency statistics based on such demographic factors as ethnicity, socio-economic status, gender, and race. I will also discuss the theories that explain juvenile delinquency and 

Treatment versus punishment 

Concept of Punishment 

Punishment is one of the main goals of correctional facilities that involve the infliction of suffering on offenders for offenses like the legal transgression. It is an undeniable fact that the use of punishment against offenders is a controversial issue in the juvenile justice system as it requires moral and legal justification guided by philosophical theories on how it can be justified. The two theories or philosophies that support the punishment model include retributive and utilitarian. While the utilitarian theory supports the use of punishment as a way of deterring or discouraging offenders from committing crimes in the future, retributive theory supports punishment as a way of inflicting suffering or pain on the offenders as a “payback” for the crimes they have committed. Retributivists argue that human beings have the ability to make rational decisions and, therefore, sane and competent offenders should be punished. Insane offenders, on the other hand, should not be punished. 

According to utilitarians, correctional facilities should use laws to prevent the occurrence of future crimes and revive peace in the society. They consequentialist nature of the utilitarian theory recognizes that the infliction of suffering on criminals has dire consequences not only on the offender but also on the society and that punishment should be limited depending on the condition of the offender. An illustration of the consequentialist nature of punishment is the release of an inmate with a debilitating disorder like Muscular Dystrophy. In this case, the society does not benefit if the inmate is confined for a long time because he or she is not in a position to commit crimes. 

Concept of Treatment 

The concept of treatment or rehabilitation lies on the notion that individual adopts criminal behaviors due to the influence of various risk factors like parental risks, poor parenting, cognitive deficiencies, biological risks and poor mental ability among others. Although this perspective does not rule out the fact that people commit crimes out of choice, it asserts that people’s decision to break the law is significantly influenced by their social surroundings, biological makeup, and psychological development. For instance, children who are exposed to delinquent peers and other criminogenic risk factors like impulsive temperament are more likely to engage in criminal activities that are punishable by law. The use of treatment model in correctional facilities would only make sense if a person’s criminal behavior is not freely willed but rather caused. From this perspective, it is clear that the concept of treatment focuses on the use of correctional interventions designed to offer guidance to offenders with the aim of altering the various factors that influenced them to commit a crime. 

Take, for instance, an adolescent who is arrested and detained for committing a robbery. Robbery is a serious theft-related crime that a juvenile may engage into due to influence by several factors like cognitive deficiencies, poor parenting and exposure to delinquent peers. In this case, the treatment model would be the most appropriate to guide the offender, for example, on choosing peer groups that do not have delinquent behaviors. The treatment would also assist the offender to cope with factors that may influence them to engage in criminal activities. 

Juvenile crime statistics 

According to the United States Census Bureau, the total number of Juveniles in the entire US was 74, 181, 500 as of the year 2010 and the population is projected to increase over the next few years (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2015). Reports produced by several federal agencies like juvenile courts, Bureau of Investigation and police departments indicate that juvenile delinquency in the United States was more rampant in the 1990s and has, since then, decreased steadily. For instance, a recent report released by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the year 2014 indicates that the number of juvenile arrests in the year 2011 was approximately 1.47 million, a decrease of 11% from the previous year. Some of the juvenile crimes that decreased in the year 2011 include murder, robbery, aggravated assault and forcible rape (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2015). The recent downward trend of juvenile crimes is similar to the downward trend of detention and incarceration of juveniles nationwide. Reports, for example, show that youth confinement nationwide decreased by 32% from the year 2001 to the year 2010. In this section, I will review the juvenile crime statistics in Boston city and other two states, namely, Illinois and New York. Statistics presented here will be useful not only in describing the nature of the problem but also in evaluating community resources and agency methods used in addressing the issue of juvenile delinquency. 

Juvenile crime in Illinois 

According to a report released by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority in the year 2014, the number of juvenile arrests in Illinois state in the year 2012 was 46, 800 (Kaba, 2014). Among the juveniles arrested, a majority of them were accused of property and person offenses. In terms of classes, 59% of the arrests made were misdemeanor offenses, and 25% were felonies. Out of the total number of juveniles arrested for misdemeanor in the entire states, a majority of them (74%) were residents of Chicago City (Kaba, 2014). 

The racial disparity in juvenile arrest statewide suggests that the African American juveniles are more likely to get arrested and face the justice system than their white counterparts (Kaba, 2014). In the year 2012, data reveal that, out of the total number of arrests in the state (46, 800), the number of African American Juveniles was 59% and the number of white juveniles was 40%. Statistics further reveal that the African-American juveniles were involved in about 61% of juvenile arrests for misdemeanor and felony offenses and 38% involved the white juveniles (Kaba, 2014). Data also reveals that the total number of drug arrests statewide in the year 2012 was 6, 654, with about 4662 of them occurring in Cook County. Out of the number of drug arrests in Cook County, 70% of them involved the African Americans whereas 30% involved the white and other minority groups. In Chicago City alone, the rate of black youth arrested in the year 2012 was 7.6 times per 100 juveniles (Kaba, 2014). This ratio was five times higher than that of the Latinos (1.5 per 100 juveniles) and white juveniles (0.7 per 100 juveniles). Out of the total number of juvenile arrests that occurred in Chicago in the same year, about 84% of them involved boys. Data obtained from the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts indicate that the average number of juveniles detained in Illinois (excluding Cook County) every day in the year 2012 was 422, with 79% being male detainees (Kaba, 2014). 

Juvenile crimes in Boston 

According to data from Citizens for Juvenile Justice, the number of juvenile arrests has declined in Boston. The number of young people arrested in 2011 has dropped by nearly 20% compared to a report in 2010. The report has also found a decrement in violent and property offenses by juveniles in Boston. The data indicates a decrease of 8% and 4% in the year 2009 respectively compared to juvenile violent and property crimes in the year 2008. Researchers state that the number of the offenses committed by juveniles has reduced i.e. the rate of violent crimes dropping by 36% and by 45% for property crimes. Also, they have observed that there has been a decrease in Juvenile charges. For example, a report made in the year 2012 stated that the number of youth crimes brought before judges in juvenile courts decreased by 13% compared to the year 2011 hence presenting 44% reduction in the accumulative proceedings since the year 2008. In the year 2011, Boston juveniles received indictments which represented a decrease of 15% from the year 2010 and a decrease of 30% compared data produced in the year 2007. 

The report also indicated that young people of color are disproportionally represented in juvenile courts in Boston. In the year 2011, the African-Americans and Hispanic juveniles represented 53% of the total filed cases with African-Americans representing about 38% of the charges and Hispanics representing 25% of the charges (Crutchfield, Fernandes & Martinez, 2010). The number of white juvenile cases was the lowest with a rate of 15% in Boston. The Department of Youth Services found that nearly two-fifths of minors held in pre-trial detention have open cases with close to 60% of Hispanic girls in Boston has open cases while still in detention in the year 2011 (Crutchfield, Fernandes & Martinez, 2010). In the year 2012, male juvenile cases on violent crimes have increased four times than females. 

Figure 1: Chart showing the juvenile crime rate according to Ethnicity and race in Boston 

Juvenile crimes in New York 

Despite the considerable reduction of juvenile cases in the present years, many young people have been detained and are waiting for trials. According to the city’s statistics, averages of 360 young people were arrested in the year 1999. Over the years these figures have raised hence bringing up concerns on costs and effectiveness and has raised concerns of considering other alternatives for juvenile cases. Contrary to this perception, the number of juvenile cases has reduced by approximately 30% between the year 1994 and 1998. Courts state that the number of minors accused of cases such as murder and possession of weapons has gradually increased since the year 1999. According to the figures from the Department of Juvenile Justice, nearly 5,300 juveniles were arrested in the year 1999. In New York, young people found guilty are put on probation or are at times sent to a detention facility. With approximately, 2,100 juveniles in state detention facilities, the numbers have remained constant for a long time (Spohn, 2013). 

Many juvenile cases in New York are associated with African-Americans who have the highest number of cases followed by Hispanics. Most people suspected of murder cases are blacks with a rate of 56.4% and 35% for Hispanics who account major suspects while White suspects rate at 6.8% murder cases (Spohn, 2013). For arrests and cases filed, African American people have the highest rate of 52.4% and 35.9% for Hispanics. In cases such as rape, the frequently arrested are the African Americans ranging to 44.3% and 41.3% for the Hispanics with 7.0% remaining for other ethnic groups (Spohn, 2013). 

Figure 2: Chart showing the juvenile crime rate according to Ethnicity and race in New York City 

Recidivism rates as an indicator of success or failure 

Recidivism refers to the situation whereby individuals engage in criminal activities even after they have completed their term in prison. Such recurrence of criminal activities may lead to the re-arrest, re-incarceration or the re-conviction of the offenders. Some of the common reasons why offenders engage in criminal activities even after their release from prison include, amongst others, lack of job training, antisocial attitudes, lack of education, lack of socialization and lack of support from family members. Based on statistics, Illinois has the highest number of recidivism rates compared to New York and Boston. Although recidivism is the most common indicator used to determine whether or not states or city correctional facilities have succeeded in rehabilitating the offenders, there are other factors that could be used to determine the same. Such factors include health, education and employments. 

Theories explaining juvenile delinquency 

Over the last ten decades, research in the field of criminology has improved as criminologists, and other researchers interested in the development of deviant behaviors among young people have sought to unearth the underlying facts explaining why young people engage in criminal activities. Studying juvenile delinquency has been an important milestone in the field of criminology as it has provided the theories that help in understanding and explaining the motives of young people in committing crimes. The three theories used to explain juvenile delinquency include biological, psychological and sociological theories. To evaluate which theory best supports my premise on the implementation of a treatment model for juvenile offenders, I will begin this section by describing the three theories separately to create an understanding of what they suggest in regards to juvenile delinquency. 

Biological theories 

Biological theories suggest that individuals develop criminal behaviors due to a flaw in their biological makeup. Such flaw could result from brain abnormalities, heredity or neurotransmitter dysfunction. In his biological theory of Positivism, Cesar Lambrosso argued that children who commit crimes as they grow up are likely to have inherited genetic factors. Other criminalists like Sheldon argued that people behave differently depending on their body type. Concerning juvenile delinquency, the theorist argued that young people with a mesomorphic body type are more likely to engage in criminal activities than children with endomorphic body types (Champion, 2004). Biological theories of juvenile delinquency also include biosocial approaches which suggest that delinquency among young people accommodate not only biological but also sociological factors (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). Biosocial theory of juvenile delinquency suggests that becoming delinquent depends not only on the genetic make-up but the surrounding environment of an individual. For example, a child with a brain damage is more likely to commit a crime. The risk of engaging in criminal activities increases due to the child’s exposure to environmental stressors like delinquent peers and bad parenting. Other social factors are likely to cause delinquent behaviors among young people include racial disparity, community conditions, poverty and social relations (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). 

Psychological theories 

Psychological theories of juvenile delinquency assume that crimes occur due to abnormal or inappropriate mental processes that take place within an individual’s personality (McDavid & McCandless, 1962). Given this assumption, it would be reasonable to argue that psychological theories mainly focus on the offender and address the processes within the individual which result in them having delinquent behaviors. Two psychological theories used to explain juvenile delinquency include social learning theory and psychodynamic theory (Meena, 2016). Psychodynamic theory suggests that adolescents adopt delinquent behaviors as a result of abnormal personalities that they developed as they grew up. The social learning theory suggests that young people adopt criminal behaviors from their social relations with their peers (Meena, 2016). The theory asserts that although anybody has the potential to engage in crime due to the many opportunities for unlawful activities presented by the modern society, people have the choice of whether or not to engage in criminal activities. This assertion implies that children who grow up in a poor neighborhood and exposed to drugs and criminal gangs are more likely to engage in crimes at their young age and in the future if no intervention is made. 

Sociological theories 

Sociological theories connect criminality with other broader factors like social structures and the values of peer groups, families and the society (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002). Sociologists argue that criminality occurs due to lack of proper socialization and unequal opportunities among individuals and groups. Take, for instance, children who reside in high-poverty areas and their parents are low-income earners. Such children are likely to drop out from school, and since they have limited opportunities for achieving their goals in life, they might turn to criminal activities like robbery as an alternative to achieve their goals. 

Among the three theories discussed above, the theories that best support my position on treatment model for juvenile offender rather than punishment include biological and psychological theories. Based on these theories, the treatment model would be used to alter the factors that influence a juvenile to engage in criminal activities. Such common factors include genetic make-up, cognitive abnormalities and social relations among others. 

Criminal justice intervention strategy 

In my view, the most appropriate treatment-related intervention strategy that would be effective in countering theft-related crimes like robbery, burglary, and shoplifting among juveniles is the multisystemic therapy, one of the most cost-effective treatment strategies for reducing the number of detained minors while alleviating their antisocial behaviors. An important feature that makes multisystemic therapy the most effective treatment strategy for countering theft-related crimes among the youth is that it is family and child-centered in the sense that it addresses the problems associated with different variables that may negatively influence the youth towards delinquency. Such variables include family, neighborhood, school as well as peer groups (Borduin et al. 1995). 

It is important to note that the interventions included in the multisystemic therapy address the specific needs of the offenders, their families, and their surroundings. Therefore, this intervention strategy would be effective in countering theft-related crimes among the juvenile delinquents as it focuses on helping them to make sound decisions especially when selecting their peer groups. The strategy would also assist the family to monitor the behaviors of their loved ones (Borduin et al. 1995). 

Conclusion 

Punishment and treatment are models that are commonly used in the juvenile criminal justice to reduce delinquency among the young people. While the concept of punishment focuses on inflicting suffering on the offenders as a payback for the crimes they have committed, the concept of treatment focuses on educating and providing guidance to the offenders with the aim of helping them to become useful or meaningful people in the society. In light of the concepts of social justice (equality and human rights), I would recommend state government to abolish punishment for juvenile offenders and adopt the treatment model in all the juvenile correction facilities. 

References 

Borduin, C. M., Mann, B. J., Cone, L. T., Henggeler, S. W., Fucci, B. R., Blaske, D. M., & Williams, R. A. (1995). Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: long-term prevention of criminality and violence.    Journal of consulting and clinical psychology ,    63 (4), 569. 

Champion, D.J. (2004). The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing and the Law. 4 th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall Inc. 

Crutchfield, R. D., Fernandes, A., & Martinez, J. (2010). Racial and ethnic disparity and criminal justice: how much is too much?. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 100 (3), 903-932. 

Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2002). New terrain in youth development: The promise of a social justice approach. Social Jusctice, 29 (4), 82-82. 

Kaba, M. (2014, April). Juvenile Justice in Illinois: A Data Snapshot. Retrieved from https://chiyouthjustice.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/juvenile_justice_in_illinois.pdf 

McDavid, J. W., & McCandless, B. R. (1962). Psychological theory, research, and juvenile delinquency.    The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science ,    53 (1), 1- 14. 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2015). Juvenile Offenders and Victims - 2014 National Report. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2014/downloads/NR2014.pdf 

Spohn, C. (2013). Racial disparities in prosecution, sentencing, and punishment. The Oxford handbook of ethnicity, crime, and immigration , 166-193.