Juvenile Delinquency Sentencing: Rehabilitation and Justice

Introduction: Determining an Appropriate Sentence

In order to determine an appropriate sentence for a 17-year-old youth who committed an armed robbery, it is first necessary to study the offender's criminal history. Whether the offender had a history of escalating offenses as a juvenile, a prior history of punishment and treatment, and the offender's family background all play important roles in determining an appropriate punishment. Because each of these factors bears on the youth's intent, the possibility of rehabilitation, and future dangerousness, sentencing is best approached through three distinct scenarios: no criminal history; mid-level criminal history combined with increasing family dysfunction; and extensive criminal history with complete disruption of the nuclear family system.

Furthermore, before sentencing any offender convicted of a violent offense, a complete psychological examination should be required in order to rule out or identify mental disease, substance abuse, and other factors that may contribute to criminal behavior — factors that are not necessarily addressed adequately by the criminal justice system. For the purposes of this paper, the youth in question is assumed to have no organic mental disease, but may or may not have substance-abuse problems.

For a youth whose first offense was armed robbery, the recommended sentence would combine incarceration in a juvenile detention facility, victim-impact interviews, job-skills training, life-skills training, applicable counseling, and an extensive period of probation following incarceration. That probation period would include mandatory employment, community service hours, and continuation of any counseling begun during detention. Recommendations for the youth with a mid-level criminal history and increasing family dysfunction would be the same, with the additions of family counseling for willing participants, alternative housing arrangements post-sentencing, and more extensive counseling and life-skills training both during and after incarceration.

For the youth with an extensive and escalating criminal history, the same treatment components would apply; however, rather than placement in a juvenile facility, a sentence of six months to ten years in an adult penal facility would be imposed. If behavior in the facility proved satisfactory, transfer to a facility allowing the offender to work as a trustee would follow.

Why Incarceration Is Necessary for Armed Robbery

The reason all three youths would be incarcerated rather than receiving probated sentences is the use of a weapon during the offense. The fact that the weapon was not loaded does not lessen the severity of the offense. Armed offenses are dangerous because they increase the risk that human life will be lost. A weapon does not need to be capable of inflicting actual harm in order to elevate that risk, because the presence of a weapon increases the likelihood of violence by both victims and perpetrators.

For example, when the offender brought the gun into the store, he did so without knowing who else was present or whether any of them were armed. Customers and sales clerks could have been carrying their own weapons and might have reacted in self-defense, believing their lives were in danger. The risks to innocent bystanders, store employees, and the offender himself were greatly magnified by the use of an object observers would reasonably believe was a deadly weapon. Therefore, in order to communicate the seriousness of using a weapon during an offense — and to deter armed robbery whether or not a gun is loaded — a period of actual incarceration is warranted.

For the escalating offender, it is clear that detention in juvenile facilities has not previously been sufficient to deter criminal behavior. "Shock" incarceration in an adult facility is therefore recommended. By demonstrating that criminal escalation carries progressively harsher consequences, there remains a possibility of salvaging the capacity to rehabilitate that offender.

Incarceration is also necessary in order to compel participation in mandatory treatment programs, job-skills training, life-skills training, and counseling. Even in a heavily supervised probation environment, an offender retains a significant degree of liberty. Forcing an offender to engage with rehabilitative programs while incarcerated improves the chance of meaningful intervention, because the incarcerated person is not faced with a choice between attending job-skills training or attempting another robbery — the latter option is physically foreclosed.

Substance-Abuse Treatment as the First Priority

The first treatment program each youth would undergo is substance-abuse treatment, where applicable. There are three reasons this is the primary goal: withdrawal, culpability, and availability.

First, some substance-abusers are so deeply addicted that they experience physical withdrawal during detoxification. Concerns for the offender's physical safety therefore require medically supervised detoxification when clinically indicated. Second, the use and abuse of substances allows an offender to escape reality and avoid taking personal responsibility for his actions. Ending reliance on substances is consequently essential to helping an offender accept culpability for his crime. Finally, it is widely known that substances are available inside detention facilities. By separating incoming inmates from the general population and treating substance-abuse problems first, there is a reasonable hope that those offenders will be better equipped to resist temptation once integrated into the general population.