Thursday, December 4, 2014

Tough Laws for Youth Criminals Likely Does Not Deter Them from Committing Crimes; Youth Sentenced to Adult Jails at High Risk of Rape



Each year, an average of 200,000 youth charged with crimes are tried in adult court, where judges tend to enact tougher punishments, including sentencing to adult prisons. In the 1970s and 1980s the United States experienced severely heightened youth crime rates, causing states nationwide to authorize harsh, no-nonsense penalties for many youth who commit crimes. These harsh penalties were designed to "scare" many young, potential  criminals straight, but many studies show this may not be the case.

Does the prospect of being tried as adults deter juveniles from crime?


After tougher laws regarding the treatment of juvenile criminals were put into place in the 1980s and 1990s juvenile crime rates dropped. Between 1999 and 2008 the number of juveniles arrested dropped 15.7%. Supporters of the tough approach regarding criminal juveniles argue the juvenile crime rate's decrease in the 1990s was directly proportional to tougher laws.

Although the crime rate dropped after tough laws were introduced, many believe there is no correlation between the two. These individuals cite the natural rise and fall of the juvenile crime rate which has occurred over the last century.

I asked Judge J. Michael Wachs, an Associate Judge for the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County who hears juvenile cases, if he believed trying juveniles as adults would help lower the crime rate.

                                             


Judge Wachs was adamant that a harsh approach towards juveniles would not work as a scare tactic for future potential criminals because most juveniles fail to think before they act.


Judge Wachs mentions he believes juveniles should be tried as juveniles, except in cases of serious offenses. However, statistics show nearly half of all juveniles tried in adult court are not tried for person on person offenses.

Laurence Steinberg, a Temple University psychology professor, compared the juvenile brain to "a car with a good accelerator but a weak break." Professor Steinberg went on to say, "With powerful impulses under poor control, the likely result is a crash."In clearer terms, Professor Steinberg believes juveniles lack the impulse control that fully developed adults have.

Judge Wachs and Professor Steinberg are not alone regarding their opinions on juvenile impulse control and forethought. According to (Weiner & Wolfgang 1989), youth typically commit crimes with little forethought. The study also concluded that "spontaneity and risk-taking are characteristics of juvenile crime."

If this study is correct, than it is unlikely that harsh laws on youth crime would serve as effective deterrents for potential youth criminals.


Youth convicted as adults are at severe risk of being raped, assaulted while serving in adult jails


 Youth sentenced to adult prisons are easy targets for other inmates, and even guards. In 2011, the Department of Justice estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time. That same year, 90,479 rape cases were reported outside of prison. 


A government survey, released in 2010 by the Bureau of Justice statistics, found that 12 percent of youth in juvenile detention reported being sexually abused at their current facility within the last year. The rate was higher than 30 percent in some of the worst facilities. This same survey concluded that youth are exposed to severely heightened risk in adult prisons. 

Many experts believe these numbers significantly underestimate the problem. The survey only includes reported rapes and sexual assault instances, but the majority of these cases go unreported. One major reason for this is many of the youth distrust their adult authority figures, and many are simply too embarrassed to admit they were sexually assaulted. Youth in adult facilities are disproportionately targeted by older inmates.

Surprisingly, a large majority of reported sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by prison staff. More than 80 percent of young male victims identified female staff at their facility as the perpetrators. In addition, youth who have been previously victimized are more then twice as likely to be assaulted while incarcerated. 

In my interview with Judge Wachs, I asked if he was aware that youth sentenced to serve time in adult jails were at risk to be victimized. 

Judge Wachs admitted that youth being victimized was an "unfortunate byproduct of having juveniles tried in adult court."
Despite the negatives, I asked Judge Wachs if there were positives to trying juveniles in adult court. He believes there are certain instances when trying a juvenile in adult court is absolutely necessary, even considering the heightened risk they will be sexually assaulted if convicted. 

Juveniles convicted of crimes are protected under 

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. This federal law provides funds to states that follow four "core protections" regarding the care 
and treatment of youth during their time in the 
justice system. The four core protections are:


  • Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) -- The Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders requires that youth who are runaways, truants, or curfew violators cannot be detained in juvenile detention facilities or adult jails
  • Sight and Sound Separation -- The Sight and Sound separation protection forbids contact between juvenile and adult offenders
  • Adult Jail and Lockup Removal -- Jail Removal disallows the placement of youth in adult jails and lockups, except under certain special circumstances
  • Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) -- The DMC protection compels states to tackle the issue of over-representation of youth of color in the justice system
According to The Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) the four core protections established under the Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act were created for children, youth and families involved with the juvenile and criminal courts to help ensure they are guarded by federal standards for care and custody, while also upholding the interests of community safety and the protection of victimization.

Although the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act has been effective in protecting youth, it does not apply to juveniles tried as adults. Consequently, its purpose in protecting youth from various dangers they face in adult facilities can be disregarded by state prosecutors. 


- - PAGE 2 - -

Juveniles tried as adults are more likely to reoffend once released

Two recent large studies suggest that juveniles sentenced to harsher penalties when tried as adults are not "scared straight." Surprisingly, after their release, these juveniles tend to reoffend sooner and more often than those who go through the juvenile system.

The first study was conducted by researcher Jeffrey Fagan from Columbia University. Mr. Fagan compared 15 and 16-year olds charged with robbery and burglary in four communities in New York and New Jersey. Both of these states have similar guidelines regarding first and second-degree robbery and first-degree burglary. Fagan randomly selected 400 robert offenders and 400 burglary offenders. The 15 and 16-year olds' cases were tried in criminal court in New York, and the 15 and 16 year olds in New Jersey were handled within the juvenile system in New Jersey. 

Jeffrey Fagan examined the recidivism rates of the offenders from both states after their release. Fagan's findings were that 76 percent of robbers charged as adults were rearrested, compared to 63 percent of those charged in juvenile court who reoffended. A significantly larger group of juveniles tried in criminal court were incarcerated a second time. In addition, reoffenders charged as criminals on average committed another crime well before those tried as juveniles.

The second study was conducted in 1996 in Florida by Donna Bishop, a researcher from Northeastern University. Donna Bishop's findings support Jeffrey Fagan's. She concluded contrary to what many believe, those who were given the "adult crime adult punishment" treatment were actually not less likely to reoffend, but instead had a higher chance of becoming a repeat offender. 

Donna Bishop's research compared the recidivism rated of nearly 3,000 juvenile offenders tried as adults versus an equal sample who were tried as juveniles. Bishop concluded that, "The findings suggest that transfer made little difference in deterring youths from reoffending. Adult processing of youths in criminal court actually increases recidivism rather than [having] any incapacitative effects on crime control and community protection."

The researches followed the same offenders six years after their studies. Both Donna Bishop and Jeffrey Fagan once again found higher recidivism rates for most juveniles who were waived up to adult court. There were a few exceptions, however, which were property felons, who were determine to be somewhat less likely to reoffend compared to those tried in juvenile court; although those who did reoffend did so sooner and more frequently than their counterparts who were tried as juveniles.

Despite her research, Donna Bishop is adamant that there is still a great deal of research that needs to be conducted before it can be definitively said that youth criminals waived to adult court are more likely to reoffend than youth who remain in the juvenile system.

In conclusion, although researchers and skeptics believe there is not enough research to determine whether juveniles tried as adults are more likely to reoffend, experts in the field, like Judge Wachs, believe attempting to scare a juvenile by waiving him or her to adult court is not an effective way to help them, or society. Hopefully future research will produce a definitive answer to this question.








No comments:

Post a Comment