Full Cycle: Then and Now

-->

           Today’s criminal justice system has and continues to evolve into what we hope is more successful in reducing crime.  It seems as thought since time began, incarceration has been a form of punishment. Even when juveniles began to be incarcerated, the punishment was harsh. Over time, court systems and communities have changed their views on what should be done with young offenders. By the 20^th century, we had changed our idea about youth, and began to develop a different kind of punishment for them, prevention and deterrence. However, juveniles in our criminal justice system were not always allotted this opportunity.

In an article by Claire Shubic and Jessica Kendell, Rethinking Juvenile Status Offense Law: Considerations for Congressional Review of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention, they explain the history of the term “juvenile delinquent.” It was created in order to separate children from adults in the criminal justice system. Also, in 1961, California was the first state to create a special category for juvenile status offenders. The goals of these laws were to decrease the stigmatization of status offenders by being able to tell status offenders from delinquents. By the late 1960s, there was concern among juvenile representatives that the court-based status-offense system, created as a result of the juvenile delinquency system, often failed to act in the youth’s best interests. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice released the Task Force Report on Juvenile Delinquency, which found that many status offenders were housed in jails and similar secure detention facilities. The Commission recommended that delinquent offenders be removed from secure custody, reasoning that families and community-based organizations should be responsible for these delinquent youth. Over time, our community being responsible for the delinquent youth, our criminal justice system has continued to develop programs that are aimed to keep juveniles out of the system.

Although all of those programs have not all been successful, some have, and they are continuing to evolve and become more successful. “The numbers have certainly reduced: a 21.6 per cent reduction against the 2005/06 baseline had been achieved nationally by 2008/09 with far greater falls in many parts of the country,” (Smyth). Although I would like to be able to say this was a statistic that was represented in California, it is not, this is a statistic that pertains to England. This article, “What Have We Done Right? Targets and Youth Crime Prevention,” takes a look into the strategies that England has developed over the years and what has made them so successful. It explains what their focus is on and how their system has also changed over the years. “We need to intervene as early as we can to stand the best chance of preventing such children from going down the wrong route,” (McVeigh). England, like the U.S, sees the importance of getting to the root of the cause of delinquent behavior.

According to Jerome Driessen, in Hennepin County, the daily population of juveniles in detention has decreased by 54% and the number of annual admission to the Juvenile Detention Center has decreased by 40%. “Focusing on Juvenile Justice Reform in Minnesota,” brings to light the affect that the newly developed prevention programs have had on the number of juveniles in detention centers. It goes on to explain that programs that are developing are creating a new opportunity for juveniles to be reintegrated into the community in a positive way, and it is decreasing the number of incarcerated youth. This was the plan from the beginning, as mentioned in before, delinquent offenders should are being released to the community in hopes for a push in the right direction.

As prevention and intervention programs evolve around the world, we all have a similar goal in mind. It is important that we can learn from each other when it comes to matters of the youth that are our future. Evidence based practices, restorative justice, and more evolving programs are just the beginning of the huge step towards the original goal of the Commission in 1967.

References

Driessen, Jerome. “Focusing on Juvenile Justice Reform in Minnesota.” American

Correctional Association. 2011: 38-42.

Smyth, Graham. “What Have We Done Right?” Targets and Youth Crime Prevention.”

Kendall. Jessica & Claire Shublk. “Rethinking Juvenile Status Offense Laws:

Considerations for Congression Review of the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act.” Family Court Review.  2007. Vol. 45. Issue 3:

384-398.

McVeigh, T. (2010), Doncaster council faces snap inspection, Guardian, 24th January

2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/24/edlington-doncaster-

council-faces-snap-inspection.

Restorative Justice: Examined

As Delinquency prevention programs have evolved over the years, one form of prevention that has developed and has been successful is restorative justice. Restorative justice has made its way though the Criminal justice system in many forms; juveniles, sex offenders, drug addicts, etc. Programs with restorative justice principles attempt to involve the community and the victims into the decision making process for proper punishment. According to Nancy Rodriguez’s article, Restorative Justice at work: Examining the Impact of Restorative Justice Resolutions on Juvenile Recidivism, official juvenile court data from both urban and metropolitan areas states that juveniles who participated in restorative justice programs were less likely to recidivate then the comparison juvenile groups. Restorative justice programs are another form of successful delinquency prevention programs that have over time become more successful and are continuing to lower recidivism rates in young offenders.
       According to G. Johnstone, in order for restorative justice to be successful there are a few key components that need to be involved. First, the crime must be one that is in violation of a person by another person. Johnstone claims that it should be much more serious and personal then someone just breaking legal rules. Secondly, he believes that when responding to the crime, the main focus should be on making sure the offender understands the full extent of the damage that he/she has caused. He hopes that this will prevent them from reoffending. Thirdly, he says that the idea of the repercussions and the offender, the victims and community should be allowed to decide prevention measures collectively. He also makes a very important point; there should be effort to improve the relationship that the offender has with the community and the victim so that he/she can be reintegrated in to the community. I chose this point of view because his simplicity of his expectations of restorative justice are right on point when looking at delinquency prevention.

As with most criminal justice concepts, restorative justice has many different meanings depending on the person. In the article, Restorative Justice in Theory, Lois Presser explains his view on restorative justice and how there are many different theories that contribute to making it successful. Presser emphasis that recidivism may reduce crime at different levels; individual levels (micro), and/or societal levels (macro). In his article he makes a strong point that there are three contributes to restorative justice, theories of crime reduction, where he explains the different theories that contribute significantly to crime reduction. Secondly, he explains theories of victim healing, where he explains how the process of emotional, physical, or mental healing for the victim is key in the affects of restorative justice. Lastly, he emphasizes on theories of community building and it's importance for the offender, the community, and the victim. Like many other prevention programs, restorative justice programs have their focus, strengths, and weaknesses.

In terms of delinquency prevention, restorative justice seems to have a strong effect on the minds of youth offenders. Young offenders often come from broken homes, doing all that they can to survive in society. These young offenders are easily influenced by the people around them, as was explained in social learning and social control theory. When looking at programs like restorative justice, as seen in Rodriguez’s research, it is fair to say that these programs seem to have a positive effect on the youth. An important question to ask is, why?

When analyzing the affects of programs such as these, like Johnstone and Presser have done, there are many underlining factors that go unnoticed. Johnstone explains that the more personal the crime and punishment, the more successful the outcome of restorative means will be. This is true for many reasons, relating back to what causes juveniles to commit crime. These children are seeking approval, acceptance, and understanding. When they are caught committing a crime unlawful or against a person, they are likely to rebel. However, if these youth offenders were to be given the opportunity to fix their wrong, and a chance to show the community that they are a better person then that, they are likely to take the acceptance and succeed with it. This is true because they are being acknowledged, not ignored and thrown in a cell. This makes it easier for them to fit back in to the community they live in, instead of being seen as an outcast, and in turn committing more crimes. Recidivism rates are dropping in young offenders who have been put through the restorative justice program.

Much like other juvenile delinquency programs, restorative justice has its strengths and weaknesses. However, when looked at from a perspective that understands how and why it may be successful, it is easy to adapt to fit the offenders needs, whether it be reintegration, or simply forgiveness. Much like Evidence Based Practice, there is research that shows that restorative justice is successful in dropping recidivism rates in young offenders. However, lack of resources and funds make it nearly impossible to keep facilitated. Once unsuccessful programs are eliminated, the hope is to continue to reinforce successful programs such as EBP and Restorative Justice Programs.

References

Johnstone, G. Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates, Cullompton, Devon:

Willan publishing. 2002.

Maguire, Mary & Dan Okada. “Restorative Justice in Theory.” Critical issues in

 Criminal Justice: Thoughts, Policy, and Practice. 2007: 321-333.

Omale, Don John O. “Justice in History: an Examination of ‘African Restorative

traditions’ and the Emerging ‘Restorative Justice’ Paradigm.” African Journal

of Criminology and Justice Studies. Nov. 2006: 33-63.

Rodriguez, Nancy. “Restorative Justice at Work: Examining the Impact of Restorative

Justice Resolutions on Juvenile Recidivism.” Crime and Delinquency. 2007.