 FAST and FREE |
 |
|
For the Resolution Resolved: Violent juvenile offenders ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. January/Febuary 2000 NFL LD Topic Editor and Researcher: Craig Linton I make no warranty regarding this document and the contents herein. The user of this document retains full responsibility for insuring the accuracy of information provided herein. Use at your own risk! Special Thanks to steve@frad.org for providing me a link to all the evidence at the Juvenile Forensic Evaluation Resource Center. Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page Richard E. Redding, J.D., Ph.D., "Conditions and Programming for Juveniles in Adult Correctional Facilities". JUVENILE FORENSIC EVALUATION RESOURCE CENTER, http://ness.sys.virginia.edu/juv/CondProg.html STATISTICS OF VJO's There has been a 39% increase since 1988 in the number of juveniles in adult facilities (Perkins, 1994) and many states project substantial increases in the number of juveniles committed to their adult correctional system (Lis, Inc., 1995). Seventy-five percent of the juveniles in adult facilities were 17 years-old when committed, 97% were male, about 75% were African-American, about 51% committed a violent person offense and 44% committed a drug or serious property offense (Perkins, 1994). Beyer (1997) paints a bleak picture of a juvenile's life in adult prison, noting that they are at greater risk for suicide (due to lack of supervision) and physical and sexual abuse from older inmates. They are eight times more likely to commit suicide, 500 time more likely to be sexually assaulted, and 200 times more likely to be beaten by staff than are juveniles in juvenile facilities (Beyer, 1997). It is difficult for juveniles to avoid being raped in prison, where at least 14% of inmates are raped (Beyer, 1997; see also Dumond, 1992). Forst, Fagen, and Vivona (1989) found that juveniles in prisons were five times more likely to be sexually assaulted than those in juvenile facilities. 27 states house juvenile in the general population or in protective custody within adult facilities 12 states house juveniles in facilities or units for "youthful offenders," and often provide special programming 6 states house offenders under age 18 in separate facilities or units 4 state correctional departments have both adult and juvenile divisions, and may house juveniles in separate facilities 12 states place juveniles with other agencies ADULT TIME TURNS VJO INTO ADULT CRIMINAL Because these juveniles are exposed to a criminal culture where inmates commit crimes against each other, these institutions may socialize a wayward juvenile into a true career criminal (see Forst, Fagan & Vivona, 1989). Juveniles in adult facilities also have higher rates of disciplinary reports (almost twice as many, on average) than adult inmates (Lis, 1996). Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page Richard E. Redding, J.D., Ph.D., "Conviction and Sentencing in Juvenile Versus Criminal Court". JUVENILE FORENSIC EVALUATION RESOURCE CENTER, http://ness.sys.virginia.edu/juv/Conviction.html EVERY STATE IS DIFFERENT It is clear, however, that there is wide variation between and within states in transfer rates, conviction rates, incarceration rates, and sentence length (Howell, 1996), and research on adjudication outcomes is mixed. VJO's HAVE HIGHEST ACJS CONVICTION RATE Some studies show that transferred juveniles are convicted more often in juvenile court than criminal court, but other studies show that the criminal court conviction rate is comparable to or higher than the juvenile court rate. Generally, serious violent juvenile offenders have the highest criminal court conviction rates. SENTENCING AND INCARCERATION RATES Rudman, Harstone, Fagan, and Moore (1986) found that violent juvenile offenders convicted in criminal court were more likely to be incarcerated and received sentences that were about five times longer than those adjudicated in juvenile court. Fagan, Forst, and Vivona (1987) found that juveniles charged with person offenses received considerably longer sentences in criminal court than in juvenile court. A recent U.S. Justice Department (1996) study found that criminal courts incarcerated thirty-two percent of violent juvenile offenders, whereas juvenile courts incarcerated only twenty-four percent. Probation was the most common disposition in juvenile courts for all offense types (General Accounting Office, 1995). EVEN LONGER SENTENCES IN ACJS = LESS TIME THAN JJS. Thus, juveniles convicted in criminal court, particularly serious and violent offenders, are more likely to be incarcerated and receive longer sentences than juveniles retained in the juvenile system. But apparently they often serve only a fraction of the sentence imposed, perhaps less time than they would have served in a juvenile facility (Fritsch, Caeti, & Hemmens, 1996). Moreover, there is considerable jurisdictional variation in incarceration rates and sentence lengths. Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page Peter L. Sheras, Ph.D., "Depression and Suicide in Juvenile Offenders". JUVENILE FORENSIC EVALUATION RESOURCE CENTER, http://ness.sys.virginia.edu/juv/DepSuic.html DEPRESSION/SUICIDE STATS MAY BE MISLEADING In working with juvenile offenders, especially incarcerated offenders, it may also be true that reports of suicide attempts or significant depression may be exaggerated as a calculated manipulation by the juvenile to alter their treatment in the institution. Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page Richard E. Redding, J.D., Ph.D., "Deterrence Effects of Transfer Laws". JUVENILE FORENSIC EVALUATION RESOURCE CENTER, http://ness.sys.virginia.edu/juv/Deter.html DETERRENCE EFFECT OF ARRIRMING Thus, the practice of transferring juvenile offenders to criminal court does not appear to deter juvenile crime. It is possible, however, that transfer laws may have a deterrent effect over the longer term if juveniles are deterred by hearing about substantial numbers of juveniles tried and sentenced as adults. Research is needed to examine the long-term deterrent effects of transfer laws and to examine whether such laws produce small, long-term changes in offending rates that would not have been detectable in the above studies. Additionally, research should examine whether inadequate implementation of transfer laws or an insufficient threat of serious punishment explains their apparent failure to deter crime. Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page Richard Redding, J.D., Ph.D., "Recidivism Rates in Juvenile Versus Criminal Court". JUVENILE FORENSIC EVALUATION RESOURCE, http://ness.sys.virginia.edu/juv/RecidRates.html RECIDIVISM RATE IN CJS A key purpose of transfer laws is to enhance community protection against serious and violent juvenile offenders, but community protection actually may be reduced over the long-term by transferring juveniles to criminal court. Recent studies indicate that juveniles tried in criminal court have greater recidivism rates after release that those tried in juvenile court. BENEFITS OF REHABILITATION AFFECT RECIDIVISM The generally higher recidivism rates in criminal court is perhaps because the rehabilitation efforts of the juvenile justice system are more effective as a result of the emphasis on individualized and non-punitive treatment regimes. The greater degree of retributive punishment inherent in criminal court adjudication and adult incarceration also may produce a variety of counter-deterrent effects: stigmatization, humiliation, loss of self-respect, attenuation of guilt or shame feelings, hardening of the delinquent self-concept, weakened ties to families, peers, and community, and diminished job and educational prospects. Back to LD Evidence Shack Main Page
 |
FAST and FREE |
|
E-Mail Webmaster