Juvenile Offenders
The Justice Department regularly releases demographic information about juvenile offenders. Females make up 13 percent of juveniles in correctional facilities (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014, p. 195). Nationally, 75 percent of juveniles in correctional facilities are from non-dominant groups; in Colorado in the number is 81 percent, with 51 percent being black, 13 percent Latino, and 25 percent American Indian (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014, p. 197). Seventy-eight percent of juveniles in adult facilities are 17 years old, while 18 percent are 16 years old (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2000, p. 41).
The Justice Department also recently released the results of interviews with juvenile offenders. Almost one-third of respondents professed gang affiliation, with 28 percent saying “they were members of a gang at the time of the offense that led to their current placement” (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014, p. 213). Seventy percent of respondents said that “something very bad or terrifying” had happened to them in their lives, and 67 percent said they had “seen someone injured or killed (in person—not in the movies or on TV)” (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014, p. 213). Nearly one-third of respondents “indicated a history of prior abuse, whether frequent or injurious physical abuse (25%), sexual abuse (12%), or both (7% overlap)” (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014, p. 213).
Numerous studies have shed further light on juvenile offenders. Barrett, Katsiyannis, and Zhang (2009) found that adolescents with absent fathers “tend to commit more offenses and have more encounters with the juvenile justice system” (p. 273). These authors also found that “adolescents with disabilities tend to be repeat offenders and be referred to the juvenile justice system on multiple occasions. Indeed, there is a disproportionate number of individuals with disabilities in the juvenile correctional system” (p. 273).
Kofler-Westergren, Klopf, and Mitterauer (2010) confirmed the finding of Barrett, Katsiyannis, and Zhang (2009) that most juvenile offenders have absent fathers, and they also confirmed another finding that having “a negative relationship” with one’s mother is a risk factor for delinquency (p. 40). These authors found that substance abuse was the greatest risk factor for delinquency (p. 41). A seven-year study funded by the MacAruthur Foundation (2012) also found that substance abuse was the biggest risk factor for juvenile delinquency, as “youth with a substance use disorder were more likely to continue offending over the seven years and less likely to spend time working or in school than those with no substance use issues” (p. 5).
Barrett, Katsiyannis, Zhang, and Zhang, D. (2013) found that “[p]overty (as indexed by free or reduced-price lunch eligibility), parental maltreatment, and foster care all predict membership in a delinquent sample” (p. 10). They also found strong correlations between juvenile delinquency and DSM-IV diagnoses and between juvenile delinquency and school classified learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disorders (p. 10).
Content Analysis
Colorado has two justice systems, a criminal system for adults and a juvenile system for those under 18. Colorado’s juvenile system aims to “take into consideration the best interests of the juvenile, the victim, and the community in providing appropriate treatment to reduce the rate of recidivism in the juvenile justice system and to assist the juvenile in becoming a productive member of society” (C.R.S. 19-2-102). Juveniles in Colorado accused of committing a crime are initially put in the juvenile justice system, but they can be transferred to the criminal system and tried as adults by one of two means.
First, district attorneys can “direct file” a juvenile—that is, charge that juvenile as an adult—if the juvenile is (1) older than 15, (2) charged with a class 1 or 2 felony, a sexual assault, or a crime of violence, and (3) has previously been convicted of a felony (C.R.S. 19-2-517). After the juvenile has been direct filed, they can request to have the case transferred to juvenile court, and the district court will then consider this request, basing its decision on such factors as the following: whether the safety of the community requires that the juvenile be in the criminal system; whether the offense was “committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner”; the juvenile’s maturity as determined by their “home, environment, emotional attitude, and pattern of living”; their history; their mental health status as evidenced by “relevant mental health or psychological assessments”; the “likelihood of rehabilitation by use of facilities available to the juvenile court”; “the impact of the offense on the victim”; and whether the juvenile used a deadly weapon in the offense (C.R.S. 19-2-517).
District attorneys can petition the court to try juveniles who are younger than 16 as adults. Petitions can be filed on 12- or 13-year-olds who have previously been convicted of committing a class 1 or class 2 felony or a crime of violence, and they can be filed on juveniles who are at least 14 and have previously been convicted of a felony (C.R.S. 19-2-518). After the petition is filed, an investigation and hearing is held, and the court then determines if “it would be contrary to the best interest of the juvenile or of the public to retain jurisdiction” (C.R.S. 19-2-518). The court bases its decision on such factors as the following: whether the safety of the community requires that the juvenile be in the criminal system; whether the offense was “committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner”; the juvenile’s maturity as determined by their “home, environment, emotional attitude, and pattern of living”; their history; the “likelihood of rehabilitation by use of facilities available to the juvenile court”; “the impact of the offense on the victim”; and whether the juvenile used a deadly weapon in the offense (C.R.S. 19-2-518).
A fairly well-known example of a juvenile being direct filed to criminal court is the case of Austin Sigg, the 17-year-old who killed and dismembered 10-year-old Jessica Ridgeway. Sigg was initially held in a juvenile detention facility until Jefferson County’s district attorney direct filed to have him tried as an adult (Roberts, 2012); Sigg’s attorney waived her right to request that he be tried in juvenile court (Elliott, 2012). An example of a juvenile being transferred to criminal court is the case of Jace Kleebach, who last year, at the age of 14, allegedly raped a 15-year-old girl. Although Kleebach’s attorney requested that the boy be tried in juvenile court, Judge John E. Samson “ruled the district court will retain jurisdiction over Jace Kleebach of Blair based on several factors, including the defendant's age, potential length of treatment, his previous criminal history, his ability to appreciate the nature and seriousness of his conduct and public security” (Ellis, 2015).
Historical Analysis
Throughout the 18th century, American courts accepted English common law’s distinction between “infants” and “adults,” an understanding which classified children under seven as “infants” who “were too young to fully understand their actions” and therefore could not be “held accountable for a crime” (American Bar Association, 2007, p. 4). Those over 14 were believed to understand their actions and were generally tried as adults, while those between seven and 14 lived in “a gray zone” and were evaluated on a case-by-case basis (American Bar Association, 2007, p. 4).
This system began to change in the 19th century, as state governments concluded that even adolescents were not mere “miniature adults” but instead “persons with less than fully developed moral and cognitive capacities” (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014, p. 84). By the early 19th century, states were establishing rehabilitation centers for juvenile offenders, and by the beginning of the 20th century they were establishing juvenile courts. Colorado’s first juvenile court was established in 1903 (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2015, p. 2). These courts were “based on the legal doctrine of parens patriae, which gave states “the power to serve as the guardian (or parent) of those with legal disabilities, including juveniles. In line with their ‘parental’ role, juvenile courts tried to focus on the ‘best interests of the child’” (American Bar Association, 2007, p. 5). As such, cases were “treated as civil (noncriminal) actions, and the ultimate goal was to guide a juvenile offender toward life as a responsible, law-abiding adult” (American Bar Association, 2007, p. 5).
Most juvenile courts “had exclusive original jurisdiction over all youth under age 18 who were charged with violating criminal laws. Only if the juvenile court waived its jurisdiction in a case, a child could be transferred to criminal court and tried as an adult” (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014, p. 84). This system began to erode in the 1960s and 1970s after a series of Supreme Court cases. In re Gault et al. is a prominent example. In this case, the Court ruled that 15-year-old Gerald Gault had been deprived of his due process rights after being arrested for making an inappropriate phone call to a neighbor. Although the decision might have seemed like a victory for civil liberties, Justice Stewart, who wrote the dissenting opinion, “warned that by requiring many of the same due process guarantees in juvenile cases that are required in criminal cases, the Court was converting juvenile proceedings into criminal proceedings” (American Bar Association, 2007, p. 7). By doing this, he argued, the Court had forgotten that juvenile courts served a different function than criminal courts, and he cautioned that the Court was “invit[ing] a long step backwards into the nineteenth century” when juveniles were tried as adults (American Bar Association, 2007, p. 7).
Just as Justice Stewart warned, state legislatures began making it easier to override the discretion of judges and move “juvenile offenders into criminal court” (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006, p. 113). Colorado was no exception, and beginning in 1968, “lawmakers in Colorado passed several laws expanding the circumstances under which children could be directly prosecuted in adult court, and started to require that children who are prosecuted as adults receive adult sentences” (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2015, p. 3). Colorado’s laws became even harsher in the wake of what the media dubbed “the summer of violence,” “a series of random violent acts seriously injured or killed several people in the Denver metropolitan area” in the summer of 1993 (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997, p. 52). One resulting piece of legislation allowed juveniles as young as 14 to be “direct filed as adults for qualified offenses, including all violent crimes and attempted violent crimes” (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2015, p. 2).
More recently, the parens patriae model has begun to make a comeback. One reason for this change has been the reduction of juvenile crime rates, which consequently reduced the political pressure to get tough on crime (Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers, & Schuck, 2013, p. 32). Another reason for this change was the recession of 2008-2009, which forced many states to cut back on corrections programs (Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers, & Schuck, 2013, p. 32). Finally, this change has been caused by recent Supreme Court decisions affirming that “children must be treated differently than adults” (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2015, p. 6). The Colorado Juvenile Defender Center (2015) summarizes these rulings:
In 2005, the Supreme Court held that juveniles could not be sentenced to the death penalty. In 2010, the Court ruled in Graham v. Florida that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles is unconstitutional in cases that don’t involve a homicide. In 2011, the Court underscored children’s lack of brain development by finding that a child’s age must be considered in the context of a criminal interrogation. And in 2012, the Court decided Miller v. Alabama finding that children charged with committing a homicide before their 18th birthday could not receive mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole. (p. 6)
Colorado has recently made a notable return to the parens patriae model. In 2012 Governor John Hickenlooper signed a bill into law which increased the age that juveniles can be tried as adults from 14 to 16 and limited the types of offenses for which they could be tried. The bill still allows juveniles to be tried as adults for murder, violent sex crimes, kidnapping, and violent assaults, but it gives defenders the ability “to appeal to a district judge, who would have the final say on whether they are tried as adults” (Hoover, 2012).
Choice Analysis
Colorado’s decision to try some juveniles as adults has both benefits and costs.
Benefits of Juvenile Transfers
Trying certain juvenile offenders in the criminal system satiates the need that many have for justice. Stimson and Grossman (2009) tell the story of Ashley Jones, 14-year-old who murdered her aunt and grandfather and attempted to murder her sister and grandmother. The judge recounted the crime as follows:
When Ashley realized her aunt was still breathing, she hit her in the head with a heater, stabbed her in the chest and attempted to set her room on fire.…
As ten-year old Mary Jones [Ashley’s sister] attempted to run, Ashley grabbed her and began hitting her. [Ashley’s boyfriend] put the gun in young Mary’s face and told her that that was how she would die. Ashley intervened and said, “No, let me do it,” and proceeded to stab her little sister fourteen times. (p. 10)
Stimson (2015) writes that juveniles like Ashley Jones “commit crimes so horrific in their depravity that justice could not be carried out in the juvenile system.”
Trying certain juveniles in the criminal justice system can also serve to protect the general public. Bishop-Jenkins (2012) tells how her sister and brother-in-law were murdered by a 16-year-old who had previously been in trouble with the law. “If only he had gotten in trouble the first time that he shot out people’s car windows with his BB rifle,” she writes, “or when he was accused of setting that girl’s sweater on fire in school, or any of his other serious early crimes. But he never faced legal consequences, so he kept going.” Bishop-Jenkins writes that “[i]t’s a sad fact that some sociopaths start young and remain dangerous all their lives,” and for this reason she writes that “[s]entencing has to focus not only on the offender but also on public safety and prevention of further victimization.”
Costs of Juvenile Transfers
Trying juveniles in criminal court has several negative consequences. First, it seems to increase recidivism rates. McGowan et al. (2007) found in her meta-analysis that “juveniles transferred to the adult justice system have greater rates of subsequent violence than juveniles retained in the juvenile justice system” (p. S15). Redding (2010) notes that “six large-scale studies have found higher recidivism rates among juveniles convicted for violent offenses in criminal court when compared with similar offenders tried in juvenile court” (p. 2).
Second, trying juveniles as adults does not seem to deter juvenile crime. McGowan et al. (2007) concluded that “there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether laws or policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles to the adult criminal justice system are effective in preventing or reducing violence in the general juvenile population” (p. S17). Similarly, Redding (2010) notes that the findings on deterrence “have produced somewhat conflicting findings; however, the bulk of the empirical evidence suggests that transfer laws have little or no general deterrent effect” (p. 2).
Third, trying juveniles in the criminal system tends to harm those juveniles in numerous ways. The Campaign for Youth Justice (2012) explains:
Youth sentenced as adults receive an adult criminal record, are often denied employment and educational opportunities, and can be barred from receiving student financial aid.As will be explored in the following section, some of these consequences do not only affect the juveniles in prison but also the public at large, at least in the long-run.
Most youth are denied educational and rehabilitative services that are necessary for their stage in development when in adult facilities. A survey of adult facilities found that 40% of jails provided no educational services at all, only 11% provided special education services, and a mere 7% provided vocational training. This lack of education increases the difficulty that youth will have once they return to their communities.
Youth are in extreme danger when held in adult facilities. Jailers and Corrections officials are faced with a “no win” situation when youth are placed in adult facilities: they simply can't keep youth safe and segregating youth in isolation/solitary confinement creates a different, but equally harmful result.
Youth who are held in adult facilities are at the greatest risk of sexual victimization. According to research by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, youth under the age of 18 represented 21 percent of all substantiated victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence in jails in 2005, and 13 percent in 2006 – surprisingly high since only one percent of jail inmates are juveniles. (pp. 2-3)
Economic Analysis
In the short-term, taxpayers save money when juveniles are transferred to the criminal justice system. Chammah (2015) writes, “It is more expensive to house juveniles in facilities or handle their probation since they are legally entitled to education, treatment, and other programming that is not required for adults.” In 2010, Colorado taxpayers paid $30,300 annual for each inmate in the criminal system (Henrichson & Delaney, 2012, p. 10), while during that same period they paid nearly $59,000 for each juvenile in a detention facility (Justice Policy Institute, 2009).
However, transferring juveniles into the adult system has several long-term costs that must be taken into account. As already discussed, juveniles in the criminal system are more likely to recidivate. This can take a financial toll on victims (e.g., loss or destruction of property, medical injuries). This also requires society to dole out more tax dollars to finance future prison-related expenses. Additionally, because juveniles sentenced to adult facilities have fewer educational and treatment opportunities, they go on to become less productive workers and thus less economically useful to society. Finally, as the Colorado Juvenile Defender Center (2015) points out, juveniles sentenced to adult facilities “have higher rates of mental health issues later in life, including paranoid ideation, depression, psychoticism and post-traumatic stress disorder” (p. 30). Such mental health issues can diminish one’s ability to be a productive worker, which can hurt the overall economy.
Reforms Worth Considering
Stimson (2015) and Bishop-Jenkins (2012) give compelling arguments for the need to treat some juveniles as adults, and I think that Colorado has struck an appropriate balance between giving juveniles the special consideration they deserve, on the one hand, and meeting society’s needs for justice and protection on the other. In other words, it seems appropriate to try to rehabilitate most juvenile offenders while recognizing that the public good requires that some be dealt with more harshly.
That said, it is important to remember that the vast majority of juveniles “who are prosecuted in adult court in Colorado will one day return to Colorado’s communities” (Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, 2015, p. 34). Therefore, it is important to make sure that “we form a justice system that allows young people to move beyond mistakes made during adolescence so they can transition into a productive and law abiding adulthood” (p. 34). To achieve this end, more in-prison interventions must be offered. Aos, Miller, and Drake (2006) outline several “evidence-based intervention, prevention, and sentencing alternatives,” and they argue that by implementing these programs Washington State could save $1.9 billion to $2.6 billion over a 22-year period (pp. 1, 14). Selling such programs to the public should not be difficult, especially since, as Piquero and Steinberg (2007) found, “When informed that rehabilitation is as effective as incarceration (in fact, the former is more effective), the public is willing to pay nearly 20 percent more in additional taxes annually for programs that offer rehabilitative services to serious juvenile offenders than for longer periods of incarceration” (p. 5).
Another reform worth considering would be making it easier for many juveniles in the criminal system to expunge to their criminal records. Colorado Juvenile Defender Center (2015) notes that having “a publicly-accessible criminal record” can block one’s “access to public benefits such as housing, food stamps and federal student loan eligibility” and also limit one’s “chance of being accepted into institutions of higher learning, as well as the opportunity to join a number of professions, including peace officer, public school teacher and health care professional” (p. 30).
References
American Bar Association. (2007). Dialogue on youth and justice. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/publiced/features/DYJfull.authcheckdam.pdf
Aos, S. Miller, M., & Drake, E.. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/952/Wsipp_Evidence-Based-Public-Policy-Options-to-Reduce-Future-Prison-Construction-Criminal-Justice-Costs-and-Crime-Rates_Full-Report.pdf
Barrett, D. E., Katsiyannis, A., & Zhang, D. (2009). Predictors of offense severity, adjudication, incarceration, and repeat referrals for juvenile offenders: A multicohort replication study. Remedial and Special Education, 31(4), 261-275.
Barrett, D. E., Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., & Zhang, D. (2013). Delinquency and recidivism: A multicohort, matched-control study of the role of early adverse experiences, mental health problems, and disabilities. Journal of emotional and behavioral disorders, 22(1), 3-15.
Bishop-Jenkins, J. (2012, June). Remember the victims of juvenile offenders. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/05/when-to-punish-a-young-offender-and-when-to-rehabilitate/remember-the-victims-of-juvenile-offenders
Bonnie, R. J., Johnson, R. L., Chemers, B. M., & Schuck, J. (Eds.). (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. Washington, D.C., National Academies Press.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2000, October). Juveniles in adult prisons and jails: A national assessment. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/182503-1.pdf
Campaign for Youth Justice. (2012, April). Key facts: Youth in the justice system. Retrieved from http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/KeyYouthCrimeFacts.pdf
Chammah, M. (2015, June). The 17-year-old adults. Retrieved from https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/03/the-17-year-old-adults#.vT2fMHjC9
Colorado Juvenile Defender Center. (2015). Justice redirected: The impact of reducing the prosecution of children as adults in Colorado and the continuing need for sentencing reform. Retrieved from http://cjdc.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CJDC-Report2015_FINAL_bug.pdf
Ellis, L. (2015, January). Judge denies teen’s motion to transfer case to juvenile court. Pilot Tribune & Enterprise. Retrieved from http://www.enterprisepub.com/news/court_news/judge-denies-teen-s-motion-to-transfer-case-to-juvenile/article_cc85e4ee-c47e-11e5-8cf0-5fb15cf4b742.html
Elliott, D. (2012, November). Jessica Ridgeway case: Austin Reed Sigg to be tried as an adult. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/jessica-ridgeway-austin-sigg-adult_n_2200179.html
Henrichson, C., & Delaney, R. (2012, January). The price of prisons: What incarceration costs taxpayers. Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Price_of_Prisons_updated_version_072512.pdf
Hoover, T. (2012, April). Hickenlooper signs 'direct file' into law that limits charging juveniles as adults. Denver Post. Retrieved from http://www.denverpost.com/ci_20444785/hickenlooper-signs-direct-file-into-law-that-limits
Justice Policy Institute. (2009, May). Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/09_05_rep_costsofconfinement_jj_ps.pdf
Kofler-Westergren, B., Klopf, J., & Mitterauer, B. (2010). Juvenile delinquency: Father absence, conduct disorder, and substance abuse as risk factor triad. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9(1), 33-43.
MacArthur Foundation. (2012, December). Research of pathways to desistance: December 2012 update. Retrieved from http://www.pathwaysstudy.pitt.edu/documents/MfC_RPD_2012_final.pdf
McGowan, A., Hahn, R., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., ... & Lowy, J. (2007). Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(4), 7-28.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1997, October). Juvenile justice reform initiatives in the states: 1994-1996. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/reform.pdf
Piquero, A., & Steinberg, L. (2007). Rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Public preferences in four models for change states. MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/WILLINGNESSTOPAYFINAL.PDF
Redding, R.E. (2010, June). Juvenile transfer laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency? Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220595.pdf
Roberts, M. (2012, November). Austin Sigg, Jessica Ridgeway’s accused killer: New mug shot, new cell—in adult jail. Westword. Retrieved from http://www.westword.com/news/austin-jessica-ridgeways-accused-killer-new-mug-shot-new-cell-in-adult-jail-5844458
Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 National report. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2014/
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf
Stimson, S.D. (2015, December). Adult punishments for juveniles. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/05/when-to-punish-a-young-offender-and-when-to-rehabilitate/adult-punishments-for-juveniles
Stimson, C.D., & Grossman, A.M. (2009, August). Adult time for adult crime: Life without parole for juvenile killers and violent teens. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/adult-time-for-adult-crimes-life-without-parole-for-juvenile-killers-and-violent-teens
Task Force on Transforming Juvenile Justice. (2009). Charting a new course: A blueprint for transforming juvenile justice in New York State. Retrieved from http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/Charting-a-new-course-A-blueprint-for-transforming-juvenile-justice-in-New-York-State.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment