Juvenile Delinquency Is a Term

Juvenile delinquency is a term that has many meanings throughout time and it is one that is often misused. In its technical sense juvenile delinquency is a term utilized to describe a lawful violation by a youth (Smith, 2008). Many of these law violations only exist for youth and are considered to be status offenses such as truancy, disobedience, running away, and violating curfew. These are only violations of the law when committed by youth but would not be unlawful if committed by an adult. Yet there is also an increasing amount of serious crime committed each day by juvenile offenders, particularly those between the ages of 15 and 19. Prevention and intervention strategies have done little to curb the continued rise in crime by this population. Criminal acts by juveniles are widespread across populations, particularly in urban areas, and are most often petty crimes such as theft, vandalism, fighting, and underage drinking (Smith, 2008). There have been many different approaches to prevention and intervention strategies throughout time many of which have been politically and socially driven yet none of these approaches have adequately addressed this issue.

Juvenile crime has risen significantly in the last several decades with the rate of juvenile arrests increasing by 79% between 1978 and 1993 (Levitt, 1998). This rate is three times higher than that of their adult counterparts. This gap was more significant even in the murder rates of juveniles which increased by 177% while the murder arrest rate for adults decreased (Levitt, 1998). As the incidence of juvenile crime, particularly violent crime, rose in the 1990s, there was a movement in the juvenile justice system to enforce harsher sanctions on juveniles (Chamberlin, 2001). As youth began to be seen as executors of serious and violent crimes, principles of rehabilitation became less important than ensuring the safety of the public. There was a significant push to transfer these more severe juvenile offenders to adult court where they could be tried in the criminal system that historically has handed down harsher sentences. Juvenile judges also began to take a more severe stance on offending youth and many jurisdictions implemented minimum sentences for certain offenses (Tate, Repucci & Mulvey, 1995).

It is believed that a combination of biological and psychosocial factors play a role in the causation of dissocial and delinquent behaviors that arise in youth and childhood. Biological causes can include factors such as abnormal autonomic responses and neuroendocrine disturbances whereas psychosocial causes include family conflict, abusive or neglectful relationships in childhood, mental health issues, and exposure to violent behaviors (Remschmidt & Walter, 2010). It is believed that these causation factors are interactive with risk increasing as exposure to these factors increase. Yet some youth have protective factors that safeguard them from the development of antisocial behaviors such as strong support networks, family cohesiveness, strong educational ties, and community engagement (Remschmidt & Walter, 2010). Of equal importance is the concept of resiliency in youth which has been defined as a youth's ability to experience a stressful or traumatic event and utilize adaptive coping strategies to continue to function in day-to-day life (Remschmidt & Walter, 2010). The development of delinquency is directly related to the formation of maladaptive coping strategies as a response to stressful life situations and prevention and intervention strategies should utilize this as a starting point.

The juvenile justice system has historically differed from the criminal system in the manner in which the accused were evaluated and sentenced (Kupnick, 2003). Juvenile justice proceedings are often less formal than criminal proceedings and youth are evaluated and sentenced based on a goal of rehabilitation (Kupnick, 2003). On the other hand, criminal proceedings take an offense based approach with the goal of punitive sentencing. However, punishment and retribution has gained widespread acceptance and is increasingly practiced in the juvenile system with violent youth (Tate, Repucci & Mulvey, 1995). The juvenile justice system has not been consistent in their approach to treatment of youth which can be directly linked to the subjectivity of the system as well as the moral and ethical issues associated with punishing youth and determining the age of maturation.

There has been much controversy over whether the juvenile justice system should have maintained its rehabilitative focus or should it continue to focus on punishment and deterrence. There was significant dissatisfaction with the juvenile justice system's ability to rehabilitate offenders and as a result more and more support has emerged for an offense based approach with increased sanctions. Juvenile justice sentences were viewed as being too lenient on youth who had committed violent crimes and recidivism did not appear to be decreasing (Chamberlin, 2001). Many states listened to the argument that in order to ensure that violent crimes by juveniles continue to decrease that the juvenile justice system needs to continue to include a focus on punishment (Chamberlin, 2001). In fact, many steps were taken to treat juveniles more like adults in the criminal system where sanctions are proportionate to the crime committed and mandatory sentencing is common practice (Chamberlin, 2001). There is widespread belief that some of the ineffectiveness of the juvenile justice system came from its informal nature and that a transition to a more formal process may strengthen results (Chamberlin, 2001).

Retributive justice as it exists in the criminal justice system is based upon the notion of rewards and consequences (Fontaine, 2008). It is believed that if one works hard and follows the law then they will be rewarded with all of the freedoms that society can afford them. However, should they choose not to conduct themselves within the legal system they will become indebted to society and must pay this debt through the retribution process (Fontaine, 2008). This punishment should be in proportion to the culpability of the crime committed (Fontaine, 2008).

Juvenile Justice should adopt a similar retributive approach where the primary focus of the court is on identifying the offenses and handing down punishments as deterrence for future crimes committed (Kupchick, 2003). This approach allows the juvenile justice system to focus on the safety of society from the future threats of the youth rather than the future outcome of the youth alone (Kupchick, 2003). In this system, evaluations should be focused on the factors of the crime, such as the evidence presented, the severity of the crime, and history of offenses (Kulpchick, 2003). This differs from a rehabilitative model which focuses on the offender and as the primary factor and trying to identify what led them to the criminal behavior and how to stop this behavior from occurring again.

Under this approach, the court system will address juveniles in a formal manner through the use of due process procedures as is the case in the criminal system rather through the use of informal processes that have not been proven effective in reducing recidivism (Ash, 2006). Under an informal model, juveniles are not afforded the same protection that exists for adults in the criminal system (Kupchick, 2003). For example, the juvenile system takes liberties with the concept of due process, often allowing information about a vast array of youth's life to enter into court proceedings and sentencing even if they are irrelevant to the particular crime being tried. This occurs on the premise that the information allows courts to provide youth with the best possible rehabilitations, but it may also be the case that this information can lead to harsher sentences for youth than if it was not entered in (Kupchick, 2003).

Increasingly state laws have been revised to allow for an increase in the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile justice system to the criminal system (Chamberlin, 2001). This has allowed for an increase in the types of sentences that can be handed down to youth who commit serious crimes, as well as a decrease in the level of confidentiality that was previously expected in the juvenile justice system where juvenile records were often sealed at the age of 18 (Chamberlin, 2001). A focus on punishment would require that the juvenile justice system establish clear cut standards under which juveniles can and will be transferred to the criminal system. Under the current model, there are specific ways that a juvenile can be transferred to the adult system including a judicial waiver of jurisdiction, a waiver at the discretion of the prosecutor, and a mandatory waiver based on legislation (Chamberlin, 2001).

Sentencing of juveniles into custody has meant a number of things over the years including youth held in detention centers, training programs, shelters, or community-based foster homes (Levitt, 1998). Levitt (1998) attests that in situations where juvenile sentencing is lenient there is a pattern or increasingly violent offenses whereas when a youth faces severe punishment this pattern decreases. The same can be observed in youth transfers to the adults system or when a youth comes to the age of maturity. If a youth ages into a system that is more lenient in their sentencing then the recidivism rate of these youth increases as compared to the decrease that has been observed in youth who age into a system of harsher punishments (Levitt, 1998). This is particularly important when making decisions about court processes and sentencing practices in the juvenile court. The ability of youth to recognize that sanctions will drastically increase in the adult system is ample reason to justify the use of punishment in the juvenile system.

Under a model that focuses on punishment, sentencing will need to be harsh enough to deter the youth from continued behavior but not so harsh that it increases the likelihood of future acts. If juvenile detention centers and community-based programs emphasize human assets and place stigma on those who commit crimes a decrease in recidivism may occur (Levitt, 1998). Sentencing considerations will now shift to an offense-based system, one in which the nature of the act rather than the youth himself become the basis for determination of appropriate consequences (Ash, 2006).

Intervention in crimes will need to be consistent in arrest, the court process, corrections, probation, and community oriented programs if a focus on punishment is really going to deter youth from committing additional acts of violence. Law enforcement personnel will need to enforce laws consistently and equally rather than relying on personal discretion when making arrests. At times law enforcement officials will attempt to give youth additional chances before referring them to the court system but this will only increase the likelihood that their behaviors will escalate as they view their actions free of consequences. This is also true for probation officers who will need to effectively implement regulations regarding what constitutes a violation and under what circumstances this violation should result in incarceration.

Community oriented intervention programs will need to reevaluate their approach to dealing with youth who commit crimes. The current focus of community interventions has been to look at youth offenses through the lens of a social problem that can be rectified through community based interventions (Chamberlin, 2001). This model loses sight of the need for punishment and causes problems for youth who eventually transition into a punitive adult system (Chamberlin, 2001). Current community based approaches only widen the disparity between the juvenile and adult systems. Additionally, these programs do very little to dissuade youth from reoffending or from offending in the first place (Chamberlin, 2001). In order to truly be effective, these programs would need to not only target re-offenders but all youth who have committed crimes. Historically, these programs have been situated in low-income areas with the belief that these youth do not have access to other resources, but it does not effectively provide services to those who do not live in these disadvantaged communities.

There are several arguments against the use of punishment when dealing with juvenile offenders starting with the increased costs associated with incarceration in correctional facilities, as well as the lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of punitive strategies in preventing future crimes (Ash, 2006). There is also evidence to suggest that harsher punishments may in fact increase the likelihood of recidivism and the severity of crimes (Ash, 2006). There have also been several arguments about the immaturity of adolescents in relation to their ability to make sound decisions about committing crimes (Ash, 2006). The belief is that due to the reduced decision making capabilities of youth their culpability is severely reduced and sentences should reflect their true abilities. However, it is also true that if youth are determined to have the same decision making capabilities as adults then they should be subject to the same punishments as their adult counterparts. When looking at it from this perspective one must contemplate that if the punishment must fit the maturation and developmental stage of the youth then it may need to be coupled with therapeutic or alternative intervention strategies to ensure a change in behavior and a reduction in recidivism.