CHAPTER THIRTEEN

DELINQUENCY CONTROL- A LOOK TO THE FUTURE

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

1.      To understand the influence of political positions on juvenile justice policy.

2.      To be aware of the progress, or lack of progress, in implementing deinstitutionalization, diversion, and due process reforms.

3.      To know of the feasibility of implementing measures to deter juvenile delinquency.

4.      To know about public beliefs and research findings pertinent to the serious offender.

5.      To understand the influence of research on juvenile justice policy.

CHAPTER OUTLINE:

Positions on Delinquency Control

The Extremes

·        Extremism stems from the deep schism in society between the two opposing beliefs about how the offender should be treated, both positions being locked into a polarizing struggle for supremacy.

·        During the 1960s and early 1970s, the public was handed a great deal of information that contended that the solution to all crime problems lies in a humanistic approach.

·        Gaining credence daily is the view that the crime rate is increasing due to the “coddling” of offenders as practiced by “bleeding heart liberals” during the 1960s and 1970s.

·        The pendulum has shifted away from rehabilitation back toward punishment.

The Middle Ground

·        The middle ground contends that the approach to solving crime problems should be geared toward the person and the type of crime involved.

·        Thus, a small percentage of repeat, violent offenders need to be removed from the community; the majority of juvenile offenders can be reached through more humanistic approaches.

·        This dual approach demands cooperation and support from the community to be successful, yet it is the polarization of the citizenry that allows this middle ground to get lost in the shuffle.

·        Another obstacle in the path of gaining community support for efforts against crime is that fear of crime also means fear of contact with known offenders.

·        The public does see crime as a very serious problem, yet new and innovative programs will be difficult to initiate unless concern is translated into support.

Juvenile Justice Administration

·        Agencies that handle juveniles are often referred to as components of a system; but, too often, that label is a misnomer; coordination and even cooperation do not always exist.

·        The juvenile justice system includes not only law enforcement, court, and correctional personnel, but also the numerous private and public delinquency prevention programs which serve adolescents who are potentially or presently lawbreakers.

The Need for Coordination

·        Due to the system’s complexity, there has been a need for a concerted effort at federal, state, and local levels to establish a system of justice more rational, consistent, and fair.

·        In their Proposed Comprehensive Plan for Fiscal Year 1998, OJJDP identified one of its major goals was to improve the juvenile justice system and promote effective allocation of system resources.

·        There continues to be a problem in coordinating the various components of the juvenile justice system; this is particularly serious in the relationship between the court, protective services, and law enforcement agencies.

·        The trend toward conservatism and away from treatment programs for youths has intensified fragmentation within the juvenile justice system.

Methods for Improving Coordination

·        In the 1980s there were federal efforts to solve problems, provide coordination, set priorities, and use more logical procedures.

·        Several states have used this approach to deal with problems of local and state coordination of delinquency control efforts.  Michigan is one example of this approach.

Implementation of Key Juvenile Justice Policies

·        Diversion, deinstitutionalization, and due process are three major national policy recommendations set forth in the 1970s.

Progress and Problems in Deinstitutionalization

·        Federal guidelines have encouraged local law enforcement, court, and correctional personnel to avoid the use of institutions under a number of different conditions.

·        There has been pronounced national progress in deinstitutionalizing status offenders, though the amount of progress varies considerably from state to state, and even between counties and cities.

·        Unlike the progress in deinstitutionalizing status offenders, there is no clear national gain in efforts to reduce the numbers of delinquent youths in correctional institutions.

·        We need to better understand and confront the difficulties in shifting to the more desirable system of community-based treatment in order to make progress in this area.

·        The detention of delinquent and status offenders in jails and police lockups which were intended for adults is another unsolved problem pertaining to deinstitutionalization, particularly in rural areas.

·        A 1980 amendment required that adult lockups and jails be completely closed to juveniles by 1985, a deadline that was later extended to 1988.

·        Legal actions have been another source of challenge to the confinement of youth in jails.

Alternatives to Jail

·        The jailing of juveniles is often a result of lack of alternatives rather than any preference for such treatment.

·        There has been a lack of attention to the problem of jailing juveniles, however, in part because of the lack of available services, and also because some key officials do not feel that the practice is problematic.

Issues in the Implementation of the Diversion Policy

·        Since the 1973 recommendations of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, numerous local programs have been funded and implemented to divert status offenders from the juvenile court.

·        Most of these diversion programs depart significantly from what would be considered to be pure diversion programs for they do not allow youths freedom in seeking voluntary assistance.

·        As a result of the diversion from the initial conceptualization of diversion, the actual effect of these programs has often been to increase the number of youths in regular contact with the juvenile justice system (i.e., “widen the net”).

·        In one sense, the national policy of diversion is highly successful; in another sense, these programs did not achieve their major objectives of reducing the total numbers of youths involved with the juvenile justice system or decreasing stigmatization to a greater degree.

Continuing Problems in Ensuring Due Process

·        In several of its rulings, the Supreme Court has confirmed the rights of juveniles who are arrested and are before the court to constitutional protection.

·        The actual implementation of these laws does not always conform to their intent, however.

·        Another area of concern pertinent to due process guarantees is the rapid expansion of diversion programs.

·        There have been continued efforts through the courts to protect juveniles’ rights to due process throughout their contact with police, court, and correctional agencies.

New Areas of Concern Policymakers

·        Unlike the deinstitutionalization, diversion, and due process approaches to reform of the juvenile justice system, more recently there is a demand to make the system “tougher.”

Deterrence

·        Central to the position that we must make our juvenile justice system “tougher” is a belief in the effectiveness of deterrence and the failure of treatment for juveniles.

·        In considering the usefulness of the deterrence approach, we must recognize that deterrence can occur only if people perceive that the certainty and the severity of punishments are increased.

·        The waiver of juveniles to adult court is a currently popular method of those who advocate the deterrence approach.

·        Even if more procedures and punishments are changed to ensure more severe treatment of juveniles, this is unlikely to have major impact on juvenile delinquency.

·        A careful look at the process through which deterrence is achieved raises considerable doubt on the feasibility of implementing successful deterrence policies.

·        Another criticism is that deterrence implies that sociological and psychological factors have little or no influence on a person’s behavior relative to the costs of punishment.

Serious Offenders

·        Closely related to the deterrence issue is contemporary concern about serious juvenile offenders, including those who are violent and who repeatedly commit major property crimes.

·        Policies, such as the efforts to deter youths, are frequently designed for the serious offender and then applied to a much larger group, because of the failure to differentiate between various types of delinquents.

·        Even with increased resources, the question remains as to whether they will be concentrated on incarceration, treatment, or some combination of these approaches.  At the root of this question are the polarized opinions regarding the appropriate method for controlling youths.

·        On the liberal, or treatment-oriented side, arguments are for a direct attack on the social conditions which contribute to serious delinquency.

·        On the conservative, or deterrence-oriented side, some states have passed legislation to make it easier, or even mandatory, to use incarceration and other severe penalties in an effort to deter youths.

Restorative Justice

·        One approach to responding to juveniles in the justice system that has received a great deal of attention in the last few years is restorative justice.

·        Restorative justice focuses on the victim, the community, as well as the offender; it is based on the balanced approach to juvenile justice.

·        This philosophical framework provides managers as well as policymakers with a new way of thinking about imposing sanctions, rehabilitation, and public safety.

Research in Delinquency Prevention and Treatment

·        Research can provide a sound basis on which successful programs can be replicated in different environments and communities; there are, unfortunately, serious deficiencies in research to evaluate prevention policies and programs.

·        Most programs and methods are not evaluated so as to provide useful information about the success of control efforts.

·        Empey and Lubeck provide some helpful suggestions for carrying out useful research.

·        No aspect of the criminal justice system has received more attention than juvenile and adult corrections.

History

·        Accounts and statistics have been maintained from the early nineteenth century in housekeeping, budgeting, and auditing; these data were used as reports for finding sources and in planning for future needs.

·        With an expanding offender population, the need for the increased accuracy of analytical techniques became acute.

·        For many years, the effectiveness of correctional programs has been evaluated by counting the convicted offenders who return to criminal behavior.  Using such a measure, however, has many drawbacks.

·        Experiments conducted since the 1950s have demonstrated the relative feasibility of various alternatives to incarceration such as community treatment, halfway houses, work release, and probation subsidy.

Ongoing Research

·        OJJDP has taken important steps in improving the quality and quantity of juvenile delinquency research.

·        In recent years, the nature of research has changed in many ways.

·        The value of evaluations of diversion programs lies not only in their pinpointing programs’ effects on recidivism, but also in their showing that the programs increased the flow of youths into the system.

·        Another important shift in delinquency program evaluation is the increased recognition given to the value of controlled experiments.

·        Another continuing concern in delinquency program evaluation is the need to relate success in some demonstrable way to a specific strategy or technique which is based on a theory of delinquency causation.

·        Research by itself does not lead to change.  However, when it is disseminated and applied by individuals and groups with compatible beliefs and interests in the area of delinquency control, it can have considerable impact on policy.