In
recent years the Justice System has fallen under scrutiny for being
ineffective, a financial burden, and a system in dire need of reform. The reform should begin where the offenders
do, in the Juvenile Justice System. The
Juvenile Justice System is failing to adequately rehabilitate and educate
juvenile offenders, which can deprive them of an opportunity to become
functioning members of society. It is
necessary to further study and develop alternative ways to handle and process
juveniles in order to correct the delinquent behavior, prevent recidivism,
prevent conversion into adult offenders, and ultimately find a more cost
effective way to do it all.
The
Juvenile Justice System has taken a tough stance against juvenile offenders
resulting in higher incarceration rates.
According to the Justice Policy Institute, “Approximately 93,000 young
people are held in juvenile justice facilities across the United States.”
(Petteruti, Tuzzolo, and Walsh) A
corresponding figure identifies the national juvenile population in 2007 as, “roughly
25,000 youth held in detention centers daily awaiting their court trials or
pending placement to a correctional program,” plus 60,500 youths already
confined in correctional facilities. (Mendel)
In addition to the quantity of juveniles housed in juvenile facilities
each year, there are thousands of juveniles who are incarcerated in adult
facilities. An estimated number of over
2,200 youths are sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and
serving in adult prisons. ("Equal Justice Initiative") Combining these numbers depict the quantity
of juveniles affected each year by the Justice and Juvenile Justice System. However, for each juvenile offender there is
at least one family affected, at least one victim affected, and society is
forced to pay for the bill. The amount
of people affected by juvenile delinquency and the Juvenile Justice System is
potentially triple the number of incarcerated juveniles.
The large population
effected by juvenile delinquency is only the beginning of the social problems
found within the Juvenile Justice System.
The astronomical cost to support and run the Juvenile Justice System and
related facilities places a heavy financial burden upon states that are already
faced with a financial deficit. In 2005,
The Division of Juvenile Justice under the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation estimated the annual cost of juvenile incarceration to be
$115,129. (Baird, Loughran, Mills, Murray, and Platt) The Justice Policy Institute also examined
the relative cost to house a juvenile and concluded the cost to be $240.99 per
day. (Petteruti, Walsh, and Tuzzolo) On
a more national scale The Justice Policy Institute estimates that, “States
spend about $5.7 billion each year imprisoning youth.” (Petteruti, Walsh, and
Tuzzolo) The financial burden only
increases as the juvenile ages and continues committing delinquent and criminal
acts. The continuation of the criminal
behavior can lead the juvenile into a lifetime of crime. As identified in the Criminal Justice Review, “The largest cost is imposed by the career
criminal (US$2.1-US$3.7 million).” (Cohen, Piquero, and Jennings)
If
the necessary reform of the Juvenile Justice System fails to occur, then the
future of the system and the future for many juveniles is bleak. Ultimately the impacted Juvenile Justice
System will feed into the already impacted and overcrowded adult system,
further perpetuating the cycle of overpopulation and financial burden. The Journal
of Youth and Adolescence has studied the connection between juveniles,
their recidivism rates, and the likelihood of becoming adult offenders and has
concluded:
“…a sizeable proportion of adolescents
who engage in delinquent activity as teens will continue to engage in criminal
activity as adults…on average, over half of the juvenile delinquents followed
became adult offenders. Studies focusing on males released from juvenile
facilities tend to report even higher recidivism rates, with over 80% of sample
participants classified as adult offenders.”
(Colman, Kim, Mitchell-Herzfeld, and Shady 355-366)
Such odds are
beneficial to the correctional staff and other employees of the Juvenile
Justice and Justice System because employment opportunities will raise in
response to the rising incarceration rates.
However, such odds are terrifying from a public safety and public
finance point of view.
There is a solution to this social
problem. On June 25, 2012, the United
States Supreme Court ruled against sentencing juveniles to life without the
possibility of parole on the grounds that such a sanction violates the Eighth
Amendment. Just as importantly,
the United States Supreme Court recognized in their decision that juveniles
cannot be held to the same standards as adults and that juveniles have a
dramatically increased positive response to rehabilitation. Justice Kagan explained, “…this mandatory punishment disregards the possibility
of rehabilitation even when the circumstances most suggest it.” ("Coalition
for Juvenile Justice") Social opinion has changed from the previous “get
tough” on juveniles stance to a one with more compassion and
understanding. This understanding stems
from the multitude of recent research, including the United States Supreme
Court decision, which has been able to prove that juveniles will more likely
benefit from rehabilitation and therapy.
The change in
ideology about how juvenile offenders can be more successfully dealt with, both
monetarily and in behavioral results, is the future and solution to the current
social problem.
Several state governments have
successfully been able to implement juvenile justice programs based on rehabilitation. The results of implementing such programs
have been a dramatic decrease in cost to run the juvenile justice programs and
facilities, incarceration rates, as well as a dramatic decrease in recidivism
rates. When recidivism rates drop, it
becomes apparent that rehabilitation is an effective manner in dealing with
delinquent juveniles. The ultimate goal
of the Juvenile Justice System is to prevent further delinquent behavior, which
in the long term reduces juvenile offenders converting into adult
offenders. For example, Florida
Legislation authorized the Redirection Program. This program is an alternative to
incarceration, which focuses on less costly community and family oriented
rehabilitation. Upon analysis of the
success of the Redirection Program, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and
Government Accountability concluded,
“The Redirection Program has continued
to reduce juvenile justice costs and lower recidivism. Over a follow-up period
of just under four years, the program has saved the state $36.4 million in
initial juvenile commitment costs and avoided $5.2 million in subsequent
juvenile commitment and adult prison costs. Youth completing Redirection were
significantly less likely to be arrested, adjudicated or committed for subsequent
crimes than similar youth released from residential commitment facilities.”
(OPPAGA)
Similar programs
are being implemented in several other states, and all programs are having the
same successful results as the Redirection Program implemented in Florida. For example, the Detention Diversion Advocacy
Program was implemented in San Francisco.
This program focused on the most serious juvenile offenders and provided
them intensive rehabilitation. The
University of Nevada-Las Vegas studied the result of the program and concluded,
“DDAP participants were 26% less likely to recidivate when compared to detained
youth. In 2007 alone, CJCJ’s DDAP served 149 youth with an 85% success
rate.” (Shelden) Programs like these,
with the support of all levels of government, are the best avenue for success
and the future of the Juvenile Justice System.
The implementation of more community
based rehabilitation methods and less incarceration is extremely beneficial for
both the juvenile offenders and the state of the Juvenile Justice System. The
juveniles receive better education, therapy, and life skills while working
within the community where the delinquency began. Focusing on the environment that created the
delinquency will help to identify why the delinquency was occurring and how to
prevent it. In return the Juvenile
Justice System can be proud of its ability to provide better rehabilitation
programing to the juveniles, and manage to save a significant amount of money
in the process. Further research and development is needed to fully cultivate
the most effective forms of rehabilitation treatment and the most financially
efficient way to proceed. The investment
will be well worth the improved outcome.
References:
"Children in Adult Prisons." Equal
Justice Initiative. Equal Justice Initiative, n.d. Web. 9 Sep 2012.
<http://www.eji.org/eji/childrenprison>.
"U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down
Mandatory Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences." Coalition for
Juvenile Justice. Coalition for Juvenile Justice, n.d. Web. 9 Sep 2012.
<http://www.juvjustice.org/media/announcements/announcement_link_196.pdf>.
Cohen, Mark, Alex Piquero, and Wesley
Jennings. "Estimating the Costs of Bad Outcomes for At-Risk Youth and the
Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions to Reduce Them." Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 21.4 (2010): 391-434.
Mendel, Richard. No Place for Kids: The
Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration. Baltimore, Maryland: The Annie E.
Casey Foundation, 2011. Web.
<http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Juvenile Justice/Detention
Reform/NoPlaceForKids/JJ_NoPlaceForKids_Full.pdf>.
Murray,
Christopher, Chris Baird, Ned Loughran, Fred Mills, & John Platt, Safety
and Welfare Plan: Implementing Reform in California, Division of Juvenile
Justice, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, March 31,
2006, downloaded from www.prisonlaw.com/pdfs/DJJSafetyPlan.pdf.
OPPAGA. Redirection Saves $36.4 Million and Avoids $5.2 Million in
Recommitment and Prison Costs, Report No.
09-27, Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government
Accountability, May 2009, downloaded at www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/0927rpt.pdf.
Petteruti,
Amanda, Nastassia Walsh, and Tracy Velazquez, The Costs of Confinement: Why
Good Juvenile Justice Policies Make Good Fiscal Sense, Justice Policy
Institute, 2009, downloaded from www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/09_05_rep_costsofconfinement_jj_ps.pdf.
Shelden, Randall. United States Department
of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Detention
Diversion Advocacy: An Evaluation. Washington, DC: , 1999. Web.
<http://www.cjcj.org/files/ojjdp_ddap.pdf>.
