|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this article by Armstrong and Altschuler was to describe trends in juvenile justice corrections philosophy, and argue for community-based programs for juvenile offenders.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a non-experimental review of literature in order to argue for community-based corrections for juveniles. The authors also presented findings from a previous study they conducted, which surveyed 11 programs across the United States designed to serve juvenile offenders. How the data were collected was not presently discussed.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
In the first section of this article, the authors discussed the foundations of juvenile court philosophy. The authors stated that many juvenile justice agents believed children were not entirely responsible for their acts, and that wayward children were in need of protection; these ideas dominated court proceedings in the late 19th century. What followed from this, according to the authors, was a tendency for the court and corrections to absolve youth of responsibility, and look for causes of criminal behavior in the youth's wider social and economic circumstances. In addition, the court tended to take a rehabilitative/therapeutic position regarding the punishment of juvenile offenders. In 1967, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society was released and, according to the authors, was responsible for dramatic changes in juvenile justice in the 1970s. The new objectives dominating reform were decriminalization, due process, deinstitutionalization and diversion.
The principles of deinstitutionalization and diversion were intended to circumvent locking up large numbers of youth, and emerged in the form of community-based sentencing alternatives. According to the authors, there emerged a "get tough" approach to juvenile justice in response to the deinstitutionalization and diversion strategies of the criminal justice system. Underlying this punishment scheme were a number of new policy proposals. For example, waiving juveniles to adult court, lowering the age limit that juveniles could be transferred to adult court, and imposing mandatory sentences for certain crimes. The authors argued that these measures were attempts to deter criminals, and that deterrence as a punishment rationale has not been proven effective at reducing crime or recidivism. The authors also contended that the "get tough" approach is supported by an incapacitative punishment rationale. The authors stated this approach assumes community protection cannot be served in other ways, and that deterrence is best served by incapacitative methods. The authors argued that the type of community corrections they have in mind would be able to effectively house offenders, protect society, and function without the conditions that may breed criminal behavior. The authors also noted that "get tough" penology is based upon a complex notion of 'serious juvenile offender'; a notion that has no clear definition. Additionally, the authors reported that "get tough" proponents have misrepresented adolescent crime rates in two ways: (1) by holding that the number of youths under age 18 who have committed serious index crimes is large, and (2) that youth are primarily represented in crimes that have life-threatening or major physical or psychological harm. The authors claimed that the literature proves these assumptions false. The authors also claimed that the greatest threat juveniles pose is in the area of property offenses. The authors stated when considering sanction options, practitioners should be aware that property crimes make up the bulk of juvenile offenses. In addition, when attempting to determine the level of potential harm that an offender poses, practitioners should consider both dangerousness and predicted behavior.
The authors stated that their previous work examining 11 programs designed to serve juvenile offenders revealed the following objectives: (1) humane care, (2) maximum reintegrative potential, (3) minimal future criminal behavior, and (4) to provide an effective transition into community living. The authors also reported the programs they observed were effectively exerting control and supervision, and transmitting a sense of the seriousness of consequences that befall juvenile offenders.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors recommended that community-based programs reflect community life outside the program. There must be some link, according to the authors, between the juvenile and the social and economic forces in the community. The authors also recommended that community-based programs be under constant scrutiny, especially, given the fact that programs are becoming increasingly privatized.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Juvenile Offender
Juvenile Crime
Juvenile Delinquency
Juvenile Violence
Juvenile Justice System
Juvenile Court
Community Based
Theory
Offender Rehabilitation
Offender Treatment
Juvenile Treatment
Intermediate Sanctions
Delinquency Intervention
Delinquency Treatment
Crime Intervention
Crime Treatment
Violence Intervention
Violence Treatment
Intervention Program
Correctional Institution Intervention
Correctional Institution Treatment
Justice System Intervention
Justice System Treatment
Diversion
Correctional Decision Making
05-05 |