Juvenile Justice: Indeterminate Sentencing, Recidivism & Reform

Introduction

There are pros and cons to indeterminate sentencing. As Portman (2018) points out, prison officials tend to favor indeterminate sentencing because they believe it provides prisoners with an incentive to behave, show progress toward reform, and serve time quietly in hopes of obtaining an early release from the parole board. While this may be true, it also places a great deal of power in the hands of the parole board, whose members essentially determine the fate of the incarcerated each time an individual comes up for review. If the board holds any form of prejudice, or if the individual has few outside supporters to advocate on his or her behalf, the chances of early parole are diminished. For these reasons, it is important to weigh the pros and cons of indeterminate sentencing — especially in the context of juvenile justice. An indeterminate sentence for a juvenile offender could potentially mean a sentence of life behind bars before the offender even reaches 18 years of age (ACLU, 2018).

This paper provides an analysis covering: (a) the current state of juvenile criminal recidivism, (b) whether 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 those states track it only by using rearrest or reincarceration as the signal event. Half of U.S. states use analytics to assess juvenile offenders' risk levels for recidivism, factoring in variables such as the needs of the juveniles, their length of detention, and their enrollment in service programs (Walsh & Weber, 2014). The point is that tracking recidivism and its risk among juveniles is not a top priority for half of U.S. states — a situation partly justified by the fact that juvenile arrest rates have dropped by 50% over the past 20 years (Walsh & Weber, 2014).

Nevertheless, the statistics suggest that greater focus on tracking recidivism is warranted. In 2011, for example, when the study cited by Walsh and Weber concluded, 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).

Most juvenile recidivists in Washington were between the ages of 15 and 17. The most common type of offense among juvenile recidivists was gross misdemeanor, followed by misdemeanor, property offenses, and assault. Specifically, gross misdemeanor offenses were committed by 2,600 juvenile recidivists, misdemeanors by 1,397, property offenses by 1,145, and assault by 315. Drug offenses, while committed by only 184 recidivists, had the highest recidivism rate among all offense categories, with 59.55% of these offenders repeating the offense before reaching adulthood (Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2008). With the recidivism rate near 50% for juveniles committing gross misdemeanors, there is a clear need to address the situation across all offense types. Even juvenile sex offenders have a recidivism rate of nearly 23%.

On Whether Existing Prevention, Punishment, and Rehabilitation Efforts Are Successful

Existing prevention, punishment, and rehabilitation efforts, as the recidivism rates suggest, are only approximately half-effective. Some states have demonstrated that alternative solutions can meaningfully reduce juvenile crime. For example, Texas and California began limiting juvenile corrections to those with serious convictions, and the money saved through reduced incarceration was redirected to local districts "to fund local solutions to youth offending" — with the result that "both states experienced marked declines in youth incarceration and offending" (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark, 2016, p. 18). In other words, states that invest in programs emphasizing prevention and rehabilitation rather than punishment demonstrate through declining juvenile crime rates that these approaches are effective at reducing both juvenile crime and recidivism.

The aggregate statistics reinforce this conclusion: between 2001 and 2013, a 53% drop in juvenile incarceration occurred across the United States, driven by "steep reductions in youth crime rates" attributable to the type of community-based programs facilitated by states such as 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 depend largely on the population and perspective being considered. Corrections officers generally view indeterminate sentencing favorably because they believe it incentivizes inmates to reform in hopes of early release. Critics — including prisoner advocates — view it negatively because it places excessive power in the parole board. The following outlines both sides of the debate.

Pros

Incentive to reform: Indeterminate sentencing motivates those incarcerated to be model prisoners in hopes of early parole.

Emphasis on accountability: It places emphasis on the seriousness of the crime and the need for the juvenile to reflect on his or her behavior.

System flexibility: It gives the criminal justice system greater flexibility and discretion when determining sentences.

Cons

Excessive power in parole boards: Indeterminate sentencing places too much authority in the hands of the parole board.

Constitutional concerns: It potentially violates the constitutional rights of juvenile offenders (ACLU, 2018).

Risk of despair: Rather than inspiring reform, not knowing the length of one's sentence can lead juveniles to despair, potentially reinforcing criminal behavior rather than discouraging it.

Appropriateness for Different Types of Juvenile Offenders

For different types of juvenile offenders, indeterminate sentencing may seem appropriate in certain cases — for example, for recidivist juvenile offenders who commit felonies, corrections officers may be correct that indeterminate sentencing serves as an incentive for reform. On the other hand, critics may also be right: without adequate support, indeterminate sentencing might have the opposite effect and lead some juveniles even further toward becoming hardened criminals.

Conclusion

Indeterminate sentencing is viewed by corrections officers as an incentive to reform. However, this perspective is formed within the context of the traditional justice system, in which the primary method of addressing juvenile offending is punitive. New research demonstrates that alternative methods are actually more successful at reducing juvenile crime rates and, by extension, instances of recidivism. Diversion programs and restorative justice approaches can each play a meaningful role in reducing the number of repeat juvenile offenders.

Still, the statistics indicate that significant heterogeneity exists across jurisdictions. Depending on where one looks, the effects of various strategies — whether indeterminate sentencing, diversion programs, or restorative justice initiatives — can vary considerably from state to state. Policymakers must therefore account for local context when designing and implementing juvenile justice reform.

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. U.S. 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

Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2008). 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.