Diversionary Programs for Juvenile Offenders

Pros and Cons: Juvenile Justice
Introduction
There are pros and cons to indeterminate sentencing. As Portman (2018) points out, prison officials like the idea of indeterminate sentencing because they feel it provides prisoners with an incentive to behave, show progress towards reform, and serve time quietly with the hope of getting an early release from the parole board. While this may be true, it also places a great deal of power into the hands of the parole board, the members of which essentially determine the fate of the incarcerated every time the individual is up for review. If the board holds any sort of prejudice or if the individual has few supporters on the outside to intervene on his behalf before the board, it could mean that there is less chance of early parole. For these reasons, it is important to weigh the pros and cons of indeterminate sentencing, especially when it comes to juvenile justice. An indeterminate sentence for a juvenile offender could potentially and theoretically mean a sentencing of life behind bars prior to the offender’s even reaching 18 years of age (ACLU, 2018). This paper will provide an analysis that covers (a) the current state of juvenile criminal recidivism, (b) whether, in general, existing prevention, punishment, and rehabilitation efforts appear to be successful, (c) the pros and cons of indeterminate sentencing and its appropriateness for different types of juvenile offenders, (d) the impact of indeterminate sentencing on recidivism, (e) the effectiveness of diversion programs for juvenile offenders, and (f) the effectiveness of restorative justice efforts with a focus on whether they reduce recidivism and whether they provide victims with greater satisfaction than traditional punishments.
The Current State of Juvenile Criminal Recidivism
Walsh and Weber (2014) note that only 39 of the 50 U.S. states actually track recidivism and half of them only track it by using rearrest or reincarceration as the signal event. Half of U.S. states use analytics to assess juvenile offenders’ risk levels of recidivism, with factors such as the needs of the juveniles, their length of juvenile detention, and their enrollment in service programs (Walsh & Weber, 2014). The point is that tracking recidivism and the risk of recidivism among juveniles is not a top priority for half of U.S. states. The justification for this is that juvenile arrest rates have dropped by 50% over the past 20 years (Walsh & Weber, 2014).
The statistics indicate that there should be more focus given to tracking recidivism: the reason being that in 2011, by way of example, when the study cited by Walsh & Weber ended, there was still a 53% recidivism rate for boys and a 46% rate for girls in the state of Washington. In short, virtually half of all juvenile offenders became repeat offenders (Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2008). The demographics of juvenile recidivists are indicated in the table below.
To continue with the example of the problem of recidivism in Washington, most juvenile recidivists were between the ages of 15 and 17 while the most common type of offense among juvenile recidivists was gross misdemeanor, followed by misdemeanor, property offenses, and then assault, as shown in the table below. Gross misdemeanor offenses were committed by 2,600 juvenile recidivists, misdemeanors by 1,397 recidivists, property offenses by 1,145 recidivists and assault by 315 recidivists. Drug offenses, while only committed by 184 recidivists, had the highest rate of recidivism among juvenile offenders with 59.55% of these offenders repeating the offense again prior to becoming adults (Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2008). However, with the recidivism rate at nearly 50% for juveniles committing gross misdemeanors, there is clearly a need to address the situation for all types of offenders. Even juvenile sex offenders have nearly a 23% recidivism rate.
On Whether Existing Prevention, Punishment and Rehabilitation Efforts are Successful
Existing prevention, punishment and rehabilitation efforts, as the recidivism rates indicate, are only approximately half-helpful. Some states like have shown that alternative solutions are helpful in reducing juvenile crime. For example, Texas and California began limiting juvenlie corrections juveniles who had serious convictions and the money these states saved in reducing incarceration rates was sent to local districts “to fund local solutions to youth offending”—and the outcome was that “both states experienced marked declines in youth incarceration and offending” (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark, 2016, p. 18). In other words, states that support programs that focus on prevention and rehabilitation as opposed to punishment (incarceration) indicate through declining rates of juvenile crime that prevention and rehabilitation have been effective in reducing juvenile crime and by extension juvenile recidivism. The statistics indicate as much: between 2001 and 2013, a 53% drop in juvenile incarceration throughout the U.S. occurred and the reason was “steep reductions in youth crime rates” thanks to the type of programs facilitated by states like Texas, California, New York and others (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark, 2016, p. 18).
Pros and Cons of Indeterminate Sentencing
The pros and cons of indeterminate sentencing depends largely upon the population being sampled. Corrections officers view indeterminate sentencing as a good thing because they believe it incentives inmates to reform so that they can obtain an early release. Critics, such as prisoner advocates, view it as a con because it places too much power in the parole board. Regardless of perspective, below are the pros and cons of indeterminate sentencing, as all sides see them.
Pros
· Incentives those incarcerated to be model prisoners in hopes of early parole
· Places emphasis on the seriousness of the crime and the seriousness of the need for the juvenile to consider his or her behavior
· Gives the criminal justice system more flexibility and leeway when determining sentences
Cons
· Places too much power in the hands of the parole board
· Potentially violates the Constitutional rights of juveniles (ACLU, 2018)
· Can have the opposite effect of that hoped for by corrections officers and instead of inspiring inmates to reform can compel them to despair from not knowing exactly how long they have to go
Appropriateness for Different Types of Juvenile Offenders
For different types of juvenile offenders, indeterminate sentencing may seem appropriate—for example, for recidivist juvenile offenders who commit felonies indeterminate sentencing may be appropriate as corrections officers could be right: it could serve as an incentive for reform. On the other hand, critics could also be right: it might leave some prisoners without support and it could have the opposite effect and lead juveniles even further into becoming “hardened” criminals.
The Impact of Indeterminate Sentencing on Recidivism
The finding of Roach & Schanzenbach (2015) reveals that “extra prison time does not yield a statistically significant reduction in recidivism for offenders with more significant criminal histories” (p. 4) but that for individuals without much criminal history, extra prison time does serve to reduce the risk of recidivism. Zhang, Zhang and Vaughn (2014) show, on the other hand, that the application of indeterminate sentencing impacts recidivism rates differently in different states: “Whereas mandatory parole release was more likely to have a deterrent effect on recidivism in Maryland and Virginia, parole board discretionary release was more effective in New York and North Carolina” (p. 693)—and in Oregon and Texas, release programs had virtually no statistical impact on recidivism. In short, the data is indeterminate in terms of the effect of indeterminate sentencing on recidivism.
The Effectiveness of Diversion Programs for Juvenile Offenders
Wong, Bouchard, Gravel, Bouchard and Morselli (2016) found that diversion programs were effective at reducing recidivism, “with a pooled odds ratio of 1.28” (p. 1310)—meaning that juveniles who enter into diversion programs are more likely to refrain from criminal behavior in the future than those who do not enter into diversion programs. However, diversion programs can also place strain on juveniles—strain that they would not feel if simply placed on probation (Mears et al., 2016). Juveniles in diversion programs are more likely to have to experience some form of “drug testing, restitution, participation in mentoring efforts, community service, counseling” and so on (Mears et al., 2016, p. 960). While there is no hard data to indicate that diversion programs have a negative effect on juvenile offenders, some researchers are concerned that they could.
The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Efforts
Whether They Reduce Recidivism
Johnson et al. (2015) show that restorative justice is effective in lowering the rate of recidivism: among individuals who experienced to complete a restorative justice program, the recidivism rate fell by 26%. Compared to only a 10% drop in recidivism rates among individuals whose only experience was with the traditional justice system, restorative justice thus has a 15% greater effectiveness (Johnson et al., 2015).
Whether They Provide Victims with Greater Satisfaction than Traditional Punishments
What is even more interesting, however, is that “victims report greater satisfaction when sentencing is diverted from the traditional justice system to restorative sentencing” (Johnson et al., 2015, p. 2349). Victims prefer to see juvenile offenders reform rather than simply be punished—which is indicated by Johnson et al. (2015) who state that “victims reported higher perceptions of fairness and greater feelings of justice through the restorative justice programs as opposed to victim reports of traditional justice programs” (p. 2349). According to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, juvenile offenders were more likely to realize the extent of their offense and how their actions had hurt others after completing a restorative justice program—and at the same time, people in the community felt a sense of empowerment at being able to produce a change for good in their community on their own terms without having to rely on the arbitrary ways of the traditional court system (Johnson et al., 2015). For this reason, restorative justice is just one more example of the ways in which juvenile offenders can be kept from becoming repeat offenders.
Conclusion
In conclusion, indeterminate sentencing is viewed by corrections officers as being an incentive to reform. However, this line of thinking is produced within the context of the traditional justice system, in which the only method of dealing with juvenile offenders is punitive. New studies show that alternative methods are actually more successful at reducing rates of juvenile crime and thereby reducing instances of recidivism. Diversionary programs and concepts like restorative justice can play a part in lowering the number of repeat juvenile offenders. Still, statistics indicate that heterogeneity exists and that depending on where one is looking, the effects of various strategies—whether indeterminate sentencing or diversionary or restorative justice programs—can differ state by state.
References
ACLU. (2018). End juvenile life without parole. Retrieved from
https://www.aclu.org/end-juvenile-life-without-parole
Johnson, T., Quintana, E., Kelly, D. A., Graves, C., Schub, O., Newman, P., & Casas, C.
(2015). Restorative Justice Hubs Concept Paper. Revista de Mediación, 8(2), 2340-9754.
McCarthy, P., Schiraldi, V., & Shark, M. (2016). The future of youth justice: A
community-based alternative to the youth prison model. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Mears, D. P., Kuch, J. J., Lindsey, A. M., Siennick, S. E., Pesta, G. B., Greenwald, M. A.,
& Blomberg, T. G. (2016). Juvenile court and contemporary diversion: Helpful, harmful, or both?. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 953-981.
Portman, J. (2018). Indeterminate vs. determinate prison sentences explained. Retrieved
from https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/determinate-sentences.cfm
Roach, M., & Schanzenbach, M. (2015). The Effect of Prison Sentence Length on
Recidivism: Evidence from Random Judicial Assignment. Retrieved from http://www.americanbarfoundation.org/uploads/cms/documents/specific_deterrence_abf_presentation.pdf
Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2005). Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders Fiscal
Year 2005. Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
Walsh, N., & Weber, J. (2014). Measuring and using juvenile recidivism data to inform
policy, practice, and resource allocation. The National Reentry Resource Center.
Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2016). Can at-risk
youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1310-1329.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., & Vaughn, M. S. (2014). Indeterminate and determinate sentencing
models: a state-specific analysis of their effects on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 60(5), 693-715.