Assignment 1: The Current Juvenile Justice System
The Current Juvenile Justice System
Part A-
With the advent of adolescence, the criminal justice system in this country had to address the needs of the juvenile population and recognize that juveniles need to be treated differently than adults. Juvenile crime cannot only be understood in terms of rational behavior, but also the irrational because “full development of the frontal lobe, where rational judgments are made, does not occur until the early-to mid-20’s” (Stier 2009). The juvenile justice system was intended to reduce juvenile contact with system while also addressing the needs of the child and the community. The juvenile justice system differs from the adult criminal justice system in several …show more content…
important ways, but the two systems end up looking quite similar when put into practice. Even though the juvenile justice system implements policies and “safeguards” that are intended to reduce contact between juveniles and the courts, many of those policies actually increase contact and increase juvenile arrest rates.
The main way that the juvenile justice system differs from the adult criminal justice system is through their core belief about how to best handle the offenders. The juvenile justice system operates on the belief that young offenders can and should be rehabilitated and tend to focus on more educational efforts and community resources as the best way to prevent delinquency (Krisberg 2005:67-68). In contrast, the criminal justice system does not have rehabilitation as a goal and focuses on more punitive efforts to promote general and specific deterrence in the general population (Krisberg 2005:68). However, the efforts to keep juveniles out of prison can actually increase their contact with the police and therefore increase the amount of arrests. For example, the use of diversion programs to prevent delinquent youths away from the formal juvenile justice sanctions can actually result in a net widening effect, increasing youth contact with the juvenile justice system rather than reducing it (Shoemaker 2009:358).
Additionally, the juvenile justice system allows for a greater amount of discretion in handling juvenile cases. Police often use a great deal of discretion in the field when deciding whether or not to arrest a juvenile suspected of committing a crime. Police often decide to arrest a delinquent youth based off his or her demeanor (Shoemaker 2009:346). Individuals who display a “hostile or antagonistic” attitude, an “overly polite” demeanor, or those who “simply assert their constitutional rights” are more likely to be arrested (Shoemaker 2009:346; Krisberg 2005:74). Because demeanor can be interpreted in so many ways, and each officer will respond to the different demeanors in different ways, it can be hard for a juvenile to know how to respond to the police and difficult for them to know which response will result in arrest and which will not. Thus, police attitudes can play a large part in interpreting demeanor and ultimately deciding who will be arrested.
There is also a good deal of discretion that occurs after a juvenile is arrested. First, prosecutors usually hold the power to decide whether to transfer a case into adult criminal court or to direct file the case in criminal court. There are sometimes guidelines for them to follow, but the decision largely rests on the prosecutor. Under direct file cases, there does not need to be a hearing as with judicial transfers, which gives the prosecution a large amount of power, and leaves the fate of some young offenders to the discretion of the prosecution alone (Nurse 2010:14).
Furthermore, juvenile delinquents are also subject to judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing. Most young offenders are placed on formal probation, but the judge may decide that the offender is better placed in a residential placement, treatment center, or correctional facility (Nurse 2010:15-16). Not only does the judge use his or her discretion in deciding on punishment, but also in the types of sentences given. Some juveniles are given determinate sentences where they know their exact release date while others are given indeterminate sentences where they are held in their placement until they are deemed rehabilitated (Nurse 2010:16). Indeterminate sentences can also place a large amount of discretion in the hands of the correctional facility, treatment center, or residential placement as they are the ones who can evaluate and determine whether a juvenile is rehabilitated and can be released or whether they must be held for a longer period of time.
Juvenile sentencing was intended to implement shorter sentences with more flexible release dates, but this is not always the case (Nurse 2010:2). With the institution of blended sentences, juveniles can actually end up serving more time than adult offenders. One form of blended sentencing allows a judge to impose both a juvenile and adult sentence on the offender, with the stipulation that if the offender successfully completes the juvenile sentence they will not be required to serve the adult portion (Nurse 2010:17). This type of sentencing brings into question the lack of protective features of the juvenile justice system compared with the adult criminal justice system, thus imposing “adult time without adult legal protections” (Nurse 2010:17).
Additional ways that the juvenile justice system differs from the criminal justice system is in the rights that juveniles have throughout the process compared to adults. Juveniles typically do not have jury trials and instead appear before a judge only (Nurse 2010:15). While juveniles now have the right to request a jury so that they have the same legal right to the due process as adults, few actually receive jury trials (Nurse 2010:15). The practice of not having juveniles appear before a jury was likely intended to protect young offenders from poorly informed and unspecialized jury panels, but can be detrimental because the verdict is based off a single mind that may or may not be operating with bias. Furthermore, in contrast to the adult system, juveniles can be detained “for their own protection as well as to maintain public safety” and typically do not have the right to post bail, leaving them stuck in detention until the trial is complete (Krisberg 2005:75). Lastly, while the justice systems are supposed to operate on an innocent until proven guilty basis, many juveniles feel that they are presumed guilty until they can be proven innocent (Rios 2011:19). This presumed guilt stems from the systemic practices that “treat young people’s everyday behaviors as criminal activity” (Rios 2011:xiv).
Not only is there more discretion involved in the juvenile justice system, but there are also more ways for juveniles to be arrested and more ways for juveniles to serve sentences, which can sometimes cause longer and harsher punishments for young offenders. Juveniles can be arrested for the same offenses as adults, but they can also be arrested for specific offenses relating to their status as a youth (Nurse 2010:10). Status offenses, such as truancy, are age-specific crimes that do not apply to adults, thus increasing opportunity for juveniles to become involved in the justice systems.
While there are many differences between the criminal and juvenile justice systems, there are far fewer similarities. First, both systems have an issue with disproportionate minority contact, housing a higher proportion of blacks and Latinos in prison or correctional facilities than would be expected based on the percentage of blacks and Latinos in society (Nurse 2010:23). The overrepresentation of these two minority groups in both the juvenile and adult justice systems is likely connected to the higher rates of poverty among them and the racism that still permeates through society (Nurse 2010:24). Both systems also emphasize public safety as a goal, although both systems often operate in ways that minimize rehabilitation and increase criminalization, which increases criminality (Krisberg 2005:68; Rios 2011:58).
While in theory the juvenile justice system is supposed to work differently than the criminal justice system, decreasing contact with the formal sanctions of the court while increasing opportunities for rehabilitation to decrease offending, when the juvenile system is put into practice it actually looks more similar to the adult system than was probably initially intended. This is in part due to the new policies that make it easier to prosecute a juvenile in adult criminal court, such as the ability to direct file a charge in criminal court and bypass the judicial waiver process that requires a hearing (Nurse 2010:13-14). Charging a juvenile as an adult can have several negative consequences. First, if a juvenile is convicted as an adult they must serve their sentence in an adult prison. It was found that “youths under age 18 who enter prison receive longer sentences and actually serve three times as long in prison compared to adults convicted of similar offenses,” which is in stark contrast to the ideal of keeping juvenile offenders out of incarceration (Krisberg 2005:78). Society would never house an adult offender in a juvenile facility because adults are not the same as juveniles, so how can we justify housing juveniles in adult facilities? Secondly, juveniles are protected from receiving a death sentence when tried in juvenile court, but when they are tried in criminal court that protection is lifted and a capitol punishment sentence can be applied (Krisberg 2005:79).
Lastly, juveniles tried in juvenile court are not declared guilty or innocent, but instead declared “delinquent” or “non-delinquent”, which “limits the impact of the juvenile record” (Nurse 2010:15).
Being declared delinquent means that juveniles do not have to disclose being convicted of a crime to future employers because they technically were not convicted, but simply marked as delinquent. This policy is one of the few practices of the juvenile justice system that actually works in the children’s best interests because it limits the negative impact of a record in obtaining future employment, which is key in helping offenders successfully reintegrate into society and prevent further brushes with the law. However, when a juvenile is tried as an adult, the safeguard of protecting the juvenile record is lost and these young individuals are forever stigmatized with a criminal record that they must now disclose to potential employers, housing, or other community services. Carrying the stigma of being marked as a convicted criminal limits legitimate means of obtaining important services that can prevent recidivism. Thus, the current juvenile justice system is not working in the ways that it is intended, often working to increase juvenile contact with the system rather than decrease it. If the current system wants to work in ways that truly rehabilitate young offenders, we need to stop treating them as if they were adults and increase or implement “wraparound support …show more content…
programs” that offer judges options other than incarceration or probation, both of which serve to increase juvenile offending (Stier 2009).
Part B-
Victor Rios (2011) in his ethnography Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys, demonstrated how easy it is for youth of color to become enmeshed in the system and how difficult it is for them to escape from punitive controls imposed on them by society, the police, and even their schools. Rios (2011) argues that there exists a “youth control complex” in which various institutions, such as schools, probation officers, and police criminalize the everyday behaviors and interactions of the youth living in Oakland (xiv). The youth control complex served to criminalize individuals even before they actually committed a crime, and in doing so imposed a permanent stigma on the youths that became internalized and ultimately self-fulfilling for many of the young boys in Oakland (Rios 2011:52). Not only did the stigma contribute to a criminal sense of self, but the constant criminalization that the boys experienced in everyday life directly resulted in deviant acts of resistance, such as stealing a $.25 bag of chips, as a way to maintain or construct a sense of dignity in the face of a society that labeled them as criminal even if they did not deserve that label (Rios 2011:104).
The threat of arrest and incarceration was a normative part of life for the black and Latino boys living in Oakland. Police presence permeated almost every aspect of their lives, coming into contact with them while in school, walking the streets, or in community centers. The police in Oakland treated the youth as criminal simply for associating with delinquent peers or having a certain appearance. These boys often felt as though they were treated the same or sometimes worse than their delinquent peers despite not being delinquent themselves (Rios 2011:143). Having a certain appearance, for example being tall or having a specific hairstyle, makes an individual more visible or signifies gang involvement, which often subjected these individuals to more harassment by the police (Rios 2011:64, 124). The police were also readily available to over-police minor infractions such as probation violations, school misconduct, or vandalism, further entrenching these boys into the system while under-policing more major crimes such as gang activity or when their help is actually requested (Rios 2011:54). The over-policing of minor citations not only prevented current probation participants from completing their probation, but also ensured that those with no prior record would be subject to arrest or placed on probation at some point in their lives (Rios 2011:44).
The probation system is a highly utilized alternative to incarceration, but rarely works in the ways it is intended to. Being placed on probation was supposed to be a way to help these young men by offering resources and support that would help them desist from crime, but in reality, probation is just another way that the system serves to control and stigmatize juveniles, preventing them from being able to escape the detrimental practice of constant supervision (Rios 2011:84-85). Many of the boys expressed how being placed on probation instilled a desire to change their behaviors, but were largely unsuccessful because the probation officers rarely offered resources that would have actually enabled them to make changes (Rios 2011:85). Furthermore, probation officers often held unrealistic expectations and placed unreachable goals as part of their probation contract, such as a requirement to not associate with old friends or gang members (Rios 2011:84). The problem is that juveniles are not able to move away from destructive forces like adults can, therefore a condition of probation that requires a delinquent to disassociate oneself from delinquent peers, who generally are friends, neighbors, and family that occupy the same schools, neighborhoods, and apartment complexes, is an impossible condition to meet (Rios 2011:84).
Probation officers also were involved in the over-policing of minor violations while under-providing assistance to help these boys remain “free”, free from crime and free from further stigmatization (Rios 2011:86). Because probation officers were involved in so many aspects of these boys’ lives, they could have acted as positive role models, which were severely lacking in the neighborhood, but instead imposed punitive sanctions that resulted in resentment and resistance, often expressed through crime (Rios 2011:47, 87). Probation presence also impacted the relationship that many of the youth had with their parents, encouraging or influencing parents to adopt a similar mindset of criminalizing and threatening their children (Rios 2011:83). One of the largest protective factors against juvenile delinquency is having a “warm, loving, and continuous relationship with a mother figure,” which is undermined by the probation officer model of parenting, which “[teaches] parents how to criminalize their own children” (Farrington 2011; Rios 2011:49).
Another way the system further interacts with youth is through schools. First and foremost, schools actively participate in applying a criminal label to non-criminal students, perpetuating the notion that all youths will become delinquent at some point (Rios 2011:6). By assuming criminality, schools find ways to expel these “risky” students, removing the only structure in their lives and leaving them on the streets where they have time to engage in delinquency or be victimized (Rios 2011:6). Schools also often employ the “full force of criminal justice institutions to regulate students’ behavior,” which increases contact with the system by criminalizing every day normative behaviors of adolescents (Rios 2011:81). As has been discussed, the adolescent brain is not fully developed which can result in low self-regulation and inability to think actions through. Students noted how they were “just trying to do something funny,” but because of the police and probation presence in schools student misconduct was treated as criminal violations and typically resulted in arrest (Rios 2011:57). Using police to maintain social order in schools undoubtedly makes the jobs of school personnel easier, but at what cost? The constant ability to call police or probation officers for non-criminal violations takes away the “safe-haven” the school should be providing from the dangers of street life, where it is already too easy to be targeted, harassed, and arrested.
As can be seen, the juvenile and criminal justice systems target, stigmatize, and criminalize youths in Oakland for just being youths.
The overbearing presence of police and probation officers throughout the lives of young men in Oakland creates a net-widening effect whereby juveniles are at an increased risk of arrest through the sanctions imposed for non-criminal behavior in schools and the presumed criminality of these youths by the police, schools, and community members. Rios’ (2011) ethnography perfectly demonstrates how the well-intentioned ideas of the juvenile justice system, like probation, can become ways to control, stigmatize, and criminalize juveniles when put into practice. A more successful implementation of the probation system would aid juveniles in successfully completing the conditions of probation by imposing attainable goals as well as helping them achieve those goals. Probation officers have the opportunity to help juvenile delinquents make positive changes in their lives if only the probation program were to be restructured. Probation as an alternative to incarceration is the right ideal, but probation programs that successfully rehabilitate juvenile offenders need to offer “help looking for a job, a mentoring program, and somewhere to hang out where [they] [do] not have to feel forced to prove [themselves]” (Rios 2011:69). If the juvenile justice system can offer assistance in the areas mentioned above, there is likely to be an increase in
successful rehabilitation thus decreasing recidivism, which is the ultimate goal of the juvenile justice system.
References:
Farrington, David P. 2011. “Family Influences on Delinquency” Pp.203-222 in Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, edited by David W. Springer and Albert R. Roberts. Boston, MA:
Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Krisberg, Barry. 2005. Juvenile Justice: Redeeming Our Children. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Nurse, Anne. 2010. Locked Up, Locked Out. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Rios, Victor M. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: New
York University Press.
Shoemaker, Donald J. 2009. Juvenile Delinquency. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Stier, Ken. 2009. “Getting the Juvenile-Justice System to Grow Up.” Time. (4 pages). Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887182-2,00.html on January 13, 2013.
Part A-
With the advent of adolescence, the criminal justice system in this country had to address the needs of the juvenile population and recognize that juveniles need to be treated differently than adults. Juvenile crime cannot only be understood in terms of rational behavior, but also the irrational because “full development of the frontal lobe, where rational judgments are made, does not occur until the early-to mid-20’s” (Stier 2009). The juvenile justice system was intended to reduce juvenile contact with system while also addressing the needs of the child and the community. The juvenile justice system differs from the adult criminal justice system in several …show more content…
important ways, but the two systems end up looking quite similar when put into practice. Even though the juvenile justice system implements policies and “safeguards” that are intended to reduce contact between juveniles and the courts, many of those policies actually increase contact and increase juvenile arrest rates.
The main way that the juvenile justice system differs from the adult criminal justice system is through their core belief about how to best handle the offenders. The juvenile justice system operates on the belief that young offenders can and should be rehabilitated and tend to focus on more educational efforts and community resources as the best way to prevent delinquency (Krisberg 2005:67-68). In contrast, the criminal justice system does not have rehabilitation as a goal and focuses on more punitive efforts to promote general and specific deterrence in the general population (Krisberg 2005:68). However, the efforts to keep juveniles out of prison can actually increase their contact with the police and therefore increase the amount of arrests. For example, the use of diversion programs to prevent delinquent youths away from the formal juvenile justice sanctions can actually result in a net widening effect, increasing youth contact with the juvenile justice system rather than reducing it (Shoemaker 2009:358).
Additionally, the juvenile justice system allows for a greater amount of discretion in handling juvenile cases. Police often use a great deal of discretion in the field when deciding whether or not to arrest a juvenile suspected of committing a crime. Police often decide to arrest a delinquent youth based off his or her demeanor (Shoemaker 2009:346). Individuals who display a “hostile or antagonistic” attitude, an “overly polite” demeanor, or those who “simply assert their constitutional rights” are more likely to be arrested (Shoemaker 2009:346; Krisberg 2005:74). Because demeanor can be interpreted in so many ways, and each officer will respond to the different demeanors in different ways, it can be hard for a juvenile to know how to respond to the police and difficult for them to know which response will result in arrest and which will not. Thus, police attitudes can play a large part in interpreting demeanor and ultimately deciding who will be arrested.
There is also a good deal of discretion that occurs after a juvenile is arrested. First, prosecutors usually hold the power to decide whether to transfer a case into adult criminal court or to direct file the case in criminal court. There are sometimes guidelines for them to follow, but the decision largely rests on the prosecutor. Under direct file cases, there does not need to be a hearing as with judicial transfers, which gives the prosecution a large amount of power, and leaves the fate of some young offenders to the discretion of the prosecution alone (Nurse 2010:14).
Furthermore, juvenile delinquents are also subject to judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing. Most young offenders are placed on formal probation, but the judge may decide that the offender is better placed in a residential placement, treatment center, or correctional facility (Nurse 2010:15-16). Not only does the judge use his or her discretion in deciding on punishment, but also in the types of sentences given. Some juveniles are given determinate sentences where they know their exact release date while others are given indeterminate sentences where they are held in their placement until they are deemed rehabilitated (Nurse 2010:16). Indeterminate sentences can also place a large amount of discretion in the hands of the correctional facility, treatment center, or residential placement as they are the ones who can evaluate and determine whether a juvenile is rehabilitated and can be released or whether they must be held for a longer period of time.
Juvenile sentencing was intended to implement shorter sentences with more flexible release dates, but this is not always the case (Nurse 2010:2). With the institution of blended sentences, juveniles can actually end up serving more time than adult offenders. One form of blended sentencing allows a judge to impose both a juvenile and adult sentence on the offender, with the stipulation that if the offender successfully completes the juvenile sentence they will not be required to serve the adult portion (Nurse 2010:17). This type of sentencing brings into question the lack of protective features of the juvenile justice system compared with the adult criminal justice system, thus imposing “adult time without adult legal protections” (Nurse 2010:17).
Additional ways that the juvenile justice system differs from the criminal justice system is in the rights that juveniles have throughout the process compared to adults. Juveniles typically do not have jury trials and instead appear before a judge only (Nurse 2010:15). While juveniles now have the right to request a jury so that they have the same legal right to the due process as adults, few actually receive jury trials (Nurse 2010:15). The practice of not having juveniles appear before a jury was likely intended to protect young offenders from poorly informed and unspecialized jury panels, but can be detrimental because the verdict is based off a single mind that may or may not be operating with bias. Furthermore, in contrast to the adult system, juveniles can be detained “for their own protection as well as to maintain public safety” and typically do not have the right to post bail, leaving them stuck in detention until the trial is complete (Krisberg 2005:75). Lastly, while the justice systems are supposed to operate on an innocent until proven guilty basis, many juveniles feel that they are presumed guilty until they can be proven innocent (Rios 2011:19). This presumed guilt stems from the systemic practices that “treat young people’s everyday behaviors as criminal activity” (Rios 2011:xiv).
Not only is there more discretion involved in the juvenile justice system, but there are also more ways for juveniles to be arrested and more ways for juveniles to serve sentences, which can sometimes cause longer and harsher punishments for young offenders. Juveniles can be arrested for the same offenses as adults, but they can also be arrested for specific offenses relating to their status as a youth (Nurse 2010:10). Status offenses, such as truancy, are age-specific crimes that do not apply to adults, thus increasing opportunity for juveniles to become involved in the justice systems.
While there are many differences between the criminal and juvenile justice systems, there are far fewer similarities. First, both systems have an issue with disproportionate minority contact, housing a higher proportion of blacks and Latinos in prison or correctional facilities than would be expected based on the percentage of blacks and Latinos in society (Nurse 2010:23). The overrepresentation of these two minority groups in both the juvenile and adult justice systems is likely connected to the higher rates of poverty among them and the racism that still permeates through society (Nurse 2010:24). Both systems also emphasize public safety as a goal, although both systems often operate in ways that minimize rehabilitation and increase criminalization, which increases criminality (Krisberg 2005:68; Rios 2011:58).
While in theory the juvenile justice system is supposed to work differently than the criminal justice system, decreasing contact with the formal sanctions of the court while increasing opportunities for rehabilitation to decrease offending, when the juvenile system is put into practice it actually looks more similar to the adult system than was probably initially intended. This is in part due to the new policies that make it easier to prosecute a juvenile in adult criminal court, such as the ability to direct file a charge in criminal court and bypass the judicial waiver process that requires a hearing (Nurse 2010:13-14). Charging a juvenile as an adult can have several negative consequences. First, if a juvenile is convicted as an adult they must serve their sentence in an adult prison. It was found that “youths under age 18 who enter prison receive longer sentences and actually serve three times as long in prison compared to adults convicted of similar offenses,” which is in stark contrast to the ideal of keeping juvenile offenders out of incarceration (Krisberg 2005:78). Society would never house an adult offender in a juvenile facility because adults are not the same as juveniles, so how can we justify housing juveniles in adult facilities? Secondly, juveniles are protected from receiving a death sentence when tried in juvenile court, but when they are tried in criminal court that protection is lifted and a capitol punishment sentence can be applied (Krisberg 2005:79).
Lastly, juveniles tried in juvenile court are not declared guilty or innocent, but instead declared “delinquent” or “non-delinquent”, which “limits the impact of the juvenile record” (Nurse 2010:15).
Being declared delinquent means that juveniles do not have to disclose being convicted of a crime to future employers because they technically were not convicted, but simply marked as delinquent. This policy is one of the few practices of the juvenile justice system that actually works in the children’s best interests because it limits the negative impact of a record in obtaining future employment, which is key in helping offenders successfully reintegrate into society and prevent further brushes with the law. However, when a juvenile is tried as an adult, the safeguard of protecting the juvenile record is lost and these young individuals are forever stigmatized with a criminal record that they must now disclose to potential employers, housing, or other community services. Carrying the stigma of being marked as a convicted criminal limits legitimate means of obtaining important services that can prevent recidivism. Thus, the current juvenile justice system is not working in the ways that it is intended, often working to increase juvenile contact with the system rather than decrease it. If the current system wants to work in ways that truly rehabilitate young offenders, we need to stop treating them as if they were adults and increase or implement “wraparound support …show more content…
programs” that offer judges options other than incarceration or probation, both of which serve to increase juvenile offending (Stier 2009).
Part B-
Victor Rios (2011) in his ethnography Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys, demonstrated how easy it is for youth of color to become enmeshed in the system and how difficult it is for them to escape from punitive controls imposed on them by society, the police, and even their schools. Rios (2011) argues that there exists a “youth control complex” in which various institutions, such as schools, probation officers, and police criminalize the everyday behaviors and interactions of the youth living in Oakland (xiv). The youth control complex served to criminalize individuals even before they actually committed a crime, and in doing so imposed a permanent stigma on the youths that became internalized and ultimately self-fulfilling for many of the young boys in Oakland (Rios 2011:52). Not only did the stigma contribute to a criminal sense of self, but the constant criminalization that the boys experienced in everyday life directly resulted in deviant acts of resistance, such as stealing a $.25 bag of chips, as a way to maintain or construct a sense of dignity in the face of a society that labeled them as criminal even if they did not deserve that label (Rios 2011:104).
The threat of arrest and incarceration was a normative part of life for the black and Latino boys living in Oakland. Police presence permeated almost every aspect of their lives, coming into contact with them while in school, walking the streets, or in community centers. The police in Oakland treated the youth as criminal simply for associating with delinquent peers or having a certain appearance. These boys often felt as though they were treated the same or sometimes worse than their delinquent peers despite not being delinquent themselves (Rios 2011:143). Having a certain appearance, for example being tall or having a specific hairstyle, makes an individual more visible or signifies gang involvement, which often subjected these individuals to more harassment by the police (Rios 2011:64, 124). The police were also readily available to over-police minor infractions such as probation violations, school misconduct, or vandalism, further entrenching these boys into the system while under-policing more major crimes such as gang activity or when their help is actually requested (Rios 2011:54). The over-policing of minor citations not only prevented current probation participants from completing their probation, but also ensured that those with no prior record would be subject to arrest or placed on probation at some point in their lives (Rios 2011:44).
The probation system is a highly utilized alternative to incarceration, but rarely works in the ways it is intended to. Being placed on probation was supposed to be a way to help these young men by offering resources and support that would help them desist from crime, but in reality, probation is just another way that the system serves to control and stigmatize juveniles, preventing them from being able to escape the detrimental practice of constant supervision (Rios 2011:84-85). Many of the boys expressed how being placed on probation instilled a desire to change their behaviors, but were largely unsuccessful because the probation officers rarely offered resources that would have actually enabled them to make changes (Rios 2011:85). Furthermore, probation officers often held unrealistic expectations and placed unreachable goals as part of their probation contract, such as a requirement to not associate with old friends or gang members (Rios 2011:84). The problem is that juveniles are not able to move away from destructive forces like adults can, therefore a condition of probation that requires a delinquent to disassociate oneself from delinquent peers, who generally are friends, neighbors, and family that occupy the same schools, neighborhoods, and apartment complexes, is an impossible condition to meet (Rios 2011:84).
Probation officers also were involved in the over-policing of minor violations while under-providing assistance to help these boys remain “free”, free from crime and free from further stigmatization (Rios 2011:86). Because probation officers were involved in so many aspects of these boys’ lives, they could have acted as positive role models, which were severely lacking in the neighborhood, but instead imposed punitive sanctions that resulted in resentment and resistance, often expressed through crime (Rios 2011:47, 87). Probation presence also impacted the relationship that many of the youth had with their parents, encouraging or influencing parents to adopt a similar mindset of criminalizing and threatening their children (Rios 2011:83). One of the largest protective factors against juvenile delinquency is having a “warm, loving, and continuous relationship with a mother figure,” which is undermined by the probation officer model of parenting, which “[teaches] parents how to criminalize their own children” (Farrington 2011; Rios 2011:49).
Another way the system further interacts with youth is through schools. First and foremost, schools actively participate in applying a criminal label to non-criminal students, perpetuating the notion that all youths will become delinquent at some point (Rios 2011:6). By assuming criminality, schools find ways to expel these “risky” students, removing the only structure in their lives and leaving them on the streets where they have time to engage in delinquency or be victimized (Rios 2011:6). Schools also often employ the “full force of criminal justice institutions to regulate students’ behavior,” which increases contact with the system by criminalizing every day normative behaviors of adolescents (Rios 2011:81). As has been discussed, the adolescent brain is not fully developed which can result in low self-regulation and inability to think actions through. Students noted how they were “just trying to do something funny,” but because of the police and probation presence in schools student misconduct was treated as criminal violations and typically resulted in arrest (Rios 2011:57). Using police to maintain social order in schools undoubtedly makes the jobs of school personnel easier, but at what cost? The constant ability to call police or probation officers for non-criminal violations takes away the “safe-haven” the school should be providing from the dangers of street life, where it is already too easy to be targeted, harassed, and arrested.
As can be seen, the juvenile and criminal justice systems target, stigmatize, and criminalize youths in Oakland for just being youths.
The overbearing presence of police and probation officers throughout the lives of young men in Oakland creates a net-widening effect whereby juveniles are at an increased risk of arrest through the sanctions imposed for non-criminal behavior in schools and the presumed criminality of these youths by the police, schools, and community members. Rios’ (2011) ethnography perfectly demonstrates how the well-intentioned ideas of the juvenile justice system, like probation, can become ways to control, stigmatize, and criminalize juveniles when put into practice. A more successful implementation of the probation system would aid juveniles in successfully completing the conditions of probation by imposing attainable goals as well as helping them achieve those goals. Probation officers have the opportunity to help juvenile delinquents make positive changes in their lives if only the probation program were to be restructured. Probation as an alternative to incarceration is the right ideal, but probation programs that successfully rehabilitate juvenile offenders need to offer “help looking for a job, a mentoring program, and somewhere to hang out where [they] [do] not have to feel forced to prove [themselves]” (Rios 2011:69). If the juvenile justice system can offer assistance in the areas mentioned above, there is likely to be an increase in
successful rehabilitation thus decreasing recidivism, which is the ultimate goal of the juvenile justice system.
References:
Farrington, David P. 2011. “Family Influences on Delinquency” Pp.203-222 in Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, edited by David W. Springer and Albert R. Roberts. Boston, MA:
Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Krisberg, Barry. 2005. Juvenile Justice: Redeeming Our Children. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Nurse, Anne. 2010. Locked Up, Locked Out. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Rios, Victor M. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: New
York University Press.
Shoemaker, Donald J. 2009. Juvenile Delinquency. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc.
Stier, Ken. 2009. “Getting the Juvenile-Justice System to Grow Up.” Time. (4 pages). Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887182-2,00.html on January 13, 2013.