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.