Theoretical Evaluation of Incarceration for Juvenile Delinquents

Juvenile incarceration has long been viewed as a deterrent to delinquent and juvenile populations.  Deterrence is a part of the theoretical framework that justifies the application of punishment.  By definition deterrence, “assumes that sanctions delivered in a certain, swift, and severe manner will serve to increase sanction risk perceptions and subsequently reduce criminal activity.” (Fagan, Losoya, Loughran, Mulvey, Piquero, and Schubert)  When punishment fails to produce deterrence, questions must be raised about the success of the application of punishment.  Research has proven through increasing juvenile recidivism rates that incarceration does not have a deterrence factor for juvenile delinquents.  Theoretical evaluations of incarceration acknowledge the severe implications of incarcerating juveniles.  Instead of having a reformation effect upon delinquent juveniles, adverse consequences including increased recidivism rates, negative labeling, and differential association problems are created through the application of incarceration.

          Incarceration has long been used as a form of punishment and a perceived reform of juvenile offenders; however closer examination of increasing recidivism rates suggests incarceration does not deter juvenile offenders from reoffending.  The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is unable to account for a national statistic because of the significant variation of juvenile detention programs from state to state; however close examination of several state level juvenile recidivism statistics provides irrefutable support that recidivism rates are increasing among juveniles.  For example, the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) released a report on juvenile recidivism in 2011.  The report stated that in 2008, 40.9% of juvenile males released returned to IDOC within three years (Schelle, 1); additionally, 82% of the juveniles who recidivated were re-incarcerated for new crimes. (Schelle, 4)  Similar results were found by the Sentencing Guidelines Commission of the state of Washington.  For the fiscal year of 2007, it was reported that 52.81% of all male offenders and 45.53% of all female offenders recidivated. (SGC 1-4)  Some states show even higher recidivism rates.  According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the fiscal year of 2004 to 2005, 81.1% of juvenile offenders were re-arrested after release from the Division of Juvenile Justice. (Chapman, Carr, Grealish, Grassel, and et al)  Of that 81.1% recidivism rate, 56.5% returned to state-level incarceration, 33.8% returned to the Division of Juvenile Justice, and 32.3 % were committed to Division of Adult Institutions. (Chapman, Carr, Grealish, Grassel, and et al)  The shocking recidivism rates at state levels indicate that incarceration as punishment fails to create a deterrence effect among juvenile offenders.  The lack of deterrence is only the beginning of the negative implications incarceration has upon juvenile offenders.  Incarceration also adversely affects juveniles by stigmatizing and labeling them.

Juveniles who have been incarcerated face being labeled as a delinquent, a criminal, and a nuisance.  The Labeling theory is used by many criminologist and psychologists to help explain why offenders who are labeled as such continue committing crimes and even adopt the criminal label as their own personal identity.  According to labeling theorists, “criminal behavior may increase after sanctioning because formal sanctions attenuate legitimate life pathways, or because sanctioned criminals engage in a process of value identification with their label, and thus adopt norms and behavior patterns typical to that label.” (Lin)  In other words, those who are labeled as a criminal begin to act as a criminal because of their label.  Being labeled as a criminal or a delinquent often times can limit job opportunities, education opportunities, housing opportunities, and many other essential opportunities for a successful life.  When these options are limited the labeled individual will result to adopting the identification of the label.  Often, juvenile delinquents will experience different treatment from teachers, parents, friends, and potential employers because they have been labeled as delinquent or criminal.  When the juvenile is unable to break the stigma of the label they have a tendency to gravitate towards peers who also have been labeled as delinquent.  Association with delinquent peers only encourages the antisocial behavior and the delinquent behavior.  The negative effects of labeling caused by incarcerating juveniles are not the only negative theoretical consequences.  Differential association theory is another potential adversity to incarceration.

Differential Association is a theory created by Edward Sutherland who theorized that criminal behavior is learned through observation and interaction with others.  According to Differential Association Theorists, “…juveniles who are incarcerated, and thus surrounded by other juveniles who have committed crimes (including the most serious offenders), will be more likely to internalize these criminal definitions and that therefore, their propensity to commit crime after release will increase.” (Lin)  As juvenile delinquents associated with other delinquents during incarceration they are more likely to associate and adopt the delinquent label and learn more delinquent behavior.  The setting of incarceration increases the likelihood of criminal education, as explained by The United States Department of Justice: “Furthermore, prison has been characterized as a sort of “school for criminals,” where inmates become more deeply entrenched in criminal lifestyles, develop delinquent identities, acquire negative peers, and learn more sophisticated criminal techniques. “(Lin)  The association with delinquent peers in an incarceration environment increases the likelihood that criminal values will be learned and adopted through interaction with other delinquent juveniles.  Lastly, the incarceration environment is riddled with exposure to, “…bullying, substance use, violence, trauma, loneliness, and psychological distress.” (Ashkar, and Kenny)  The overwhelmingly negative influences from both delinquent peers within confinement and the negative influences from the incarceration setting itself, creates a likelihood that delinquent juveniles will adopt increasingly antisocial values, behaviors, and criminal advancements through differential association.

           Incarceration is based on the believed theoretical framework of punishment as a deterrence factor; however after examining state level statistics that show incarceration has no deterrence, but rather increase the likelihood of continued delinquency through the labeling and differential association theories, it becomes apparent that incarceration is aiding in the perpetual cycle of juvenile delinquency.  Such a revelation requires alternative sanctioning that provides more positive results, lower recidivism rates, and a better environment for the juveniles.  One alternative that is being increasingly used within the juvenile justice system are prevention programs.   Prevention programs lower recidivism rates and provide an excelling alternative to incarceration.

References:

Arthur, Pat, and Tim Roche. Arkansas Department of Human Services. Arkansas Division of Youth Services. Juvenile Justice Reform in Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: JEHT Foundation, 2008. Print.

Ashkar, Peter, and Dianna Kenny. "International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 52.5 (2008): 584-597. Print.

Chapman, Stevem, L Carr, Brenda Grealish, Kevin Grassel, et al. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research, Juvenile Justice Research Branch. 2010 Juvenile Justice Evaluation and Outcome Report. Sacramento, CA: CDCR Office of Research, 2010. Print.

Fagan, Jeffrey, Sandra Losoya, Thomas Loughran, Edward Mulvey, Alex Piquero, and Carol Schubert. "Criminology." Criminology. 47.3 (2009):  Print.

Lin, Jeffrey. United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Exploring the Impact of Institutional Placement on the Recidivism of Delinquent Youth. New York: National Institute of Justice, 2007. Print.

Schelle, Sarah. Indiana Division of Youth Justice. Indiana Department of Correction. Juvenile Recidivism 2011. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Government, 2001. Print.

SGC,. State of Washington. Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders. Olympia, WA: Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2008. Print.