Paternalistic Gender in the System of Juvenile Justice - Term Paper Example

 «Paternalistic Gender in the System of Juvenile Justice» INTRODUCTION The sex bias in the system of juvenile justice has been an issue of vehement debates and extensive research. In the broad circle of researchers and reformers there is an opinion that females are more frequently referred for status offences and often receive harsher treatment than male offenders for more serious crimes. The problem of gender bias in juvenile justice system is a topic of great concern. Disproportionate representation of female status offenders in the diversion agencies and harsher treatment of women for petty crimes in comparison to male dispositions suggest of some pattern or prejudiced attitude towards women by juvenile courts. It is also true that imbedded in society stereotypes have an impact on decision-making in justice system. Morality issue, which plays a central role when it concerns female offenses, is a firm foundation of harsh dispositions for female offenders even for minor crimes. The question which arouses interest in this situation is if the juvenile courts are reluctant to protect female offenders. Mostly likely they are not. Rather they are reluctant to learn about young women’s perspectives and understand underlying reasons for their offending conduct of misbehavior. It seems that gender prejudices outweigh the desire to help young women to cope with their life difficulties. That’s why it is important to direct initiatives to divert female status offenders from diversion institutions, the correctional assistance of which is debated. Legal reformers should pay close attention to the female psychology and women’s needs at a certain stage of their development. Taking into account many aspects of youth problems and needs, legal initiatives are going to achieve greater results than when basing their arguments on set social prejudices. THE VIOLATION OF APPROPRIATE SEX ROLE EXPECTATIONS THROUGH THE TIME The gender bias in juvenile justice system remains a controversial issue after many years of studies. Bias is a complicated phenomenon which is so volatile so it is difficult to understand what it favors this or that time. It's because individuals formulate judgments and ideas based on stereotypes and apply these stereotypes to predict other’s behaviors. The use of the stereotypes to interpret one’s environment suggests of mechanisms by which “individual decision-making processes are influenced by societal-level processes” (Triplett 1993, p.544 in Sealock and Simpson 1998, p.429) Juvenile justice system has been primarily set to control female adolescent sexuality as a way to protect women from immorality and waywardness during the Progressive Era. Since that time the juvenile justice system still controls female sexuality and morality to this or that extent. (Herz 1998, p.175) Whatever the offence has been, the principle preoccupation was with girls’ immorality and sexuality which was not the case for boys. In the studies of a great number of researchers (Chesney-Lind, 1973; Odem, 1995) there is evidence that female status offenders were treated more harshly than males and females charged with criminal offences. (Macdonald and Chesney-Lind 2001, p.174) The probable reason for gender bias in justice system lies in the fact that females have always had stricter parental control or supervision. Early juvenile system concern with moral conduct of female offenders reflects “intense preoccupation with girls’ sexuality and their obedience to parental authority.” (Macdonald and Chesney-Lind 2001, pp.173-174) When a young woman did not meet sex role expectations, the family was inclined to refer a daughter to court which was never applied to young men. (Herz 1998, p.177) It is of general knowledge that women were brought up to match the roles of wives and mothers and when they failed to meet these social expectations, they were placed in residential settings which was a common practice in early 1900s. 1970s also exhibit paternalistic treatment of females. (Scheuble and Laurie, 1991) Social treatment of women who are “out of control” has been ingrained in society. In the 19th century behavior different from social expectations was treated as a mental illness which laid the foundation for referring female offenders to the justice system. (Herz 1998, p.177) Moral misbehavior was severely sanctioned in early years when in early 20th century majority of female juvenile delinquents were sent to reformatories. The girls were referred to the juvenile courts for immorality meaning the evidence of sexual intercourse and waywardness. Moreover, young women referred for status offences “spent 5 times as long in detention as their male counterparts.” (Macdonald and Chesney-Lind 2001, p.179) The “morality issue” is imbedded in the term “paternalism” which is mentioned in cases when women sticking to traditional female roles of purity get preferential treatment whereas female violators of moral principles are treated more severely than males who committed the same offence or more serious offence. (Horowitz and Pottieger 1991, p.76) The system exhibits paternalistic gender bias against “immoral” females. In the study of Horowitz and Pottieger (1991, p.77) there appears no direct gender bias but rather a public contempt to criminal youth as a source of disorder and danger. For example, at the arrest stage gender differences were displayed in the greater number of arrests of Black males involved in drug sales in comparison to arrests of Black females or Whites involved in drug activity which can be explained by the fact that street drug sales are more represented by Black males. The same is true for women’s imprisonments for less serious offences such as prostitution which is a staple of young female offenders. Morality of the female offender is considered at the sentence stage. Prior criminal record, deviant behavior, alcohol or drug abuse impact “respectability status” of a female defendant which has an impact on severity of sentence. Disrespectable offenders with criminal history were likely to get more severe sentence than women with no prior criminal history for the same offence. This suggests that justice treatment depends on defendant’s preexisting respectability. A disrespectability status and the need for formal intervention plays more significant role for female offenders than for male. (Herz 1998, p.180) GENDER BIAS AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF JUSTICE SYSTEM The existence of gender bias in juvenile justice system has been argued for many years of extensive and less extensive research. The most evident gender bias is noted in the diversion agencies which address not serious law violators. A great number of women referred for the status offences to the diversion centers raised the question of sexism within the juvenile justice system. (Polk 1984, p.656) The majority of females referred to diversion programs are minor offenders being accused of status offences with the background of less serious delinquent behavior than males. Many researches (Adler, 1984; Herz, 1998; Horowitz and Pottieger 1991) agree that diversion as not any other formal justice institution contains disproportionate number of females. At their majority diversion referrals are far from delinquent offenders but rather people who are normally released by the police. The number of reviews observed in the research of Adler (1984, p. 405) show that the greater proportion of females referred to diversion agencies are minor offenders in comparison to males (56% versus 48%). In the evaluation report of Carter and Gilbert (1973, cited in Adler 1984, p.405) the similar tendency has been observed – more females (86%) were referred for nonoffence behavior than males (62%). As the research of Adler (1984) suggests diversion serves different functions depending on gender. For males it is “a way of referring delinquent offenders who have penetrated the justice system out of that system.” For females, it is a way to control “inappropriate sex role behaviors” such as waywardness, incorrigibility, family or personal difficulties, etc. Diversion agency has always been in charge of the juveniles involved in truancy, school discipline problems, disobedience, etc. Higher proportion of female offenders involved into “morality disobedience” is referred to the diversion agency than to the juvenile court - 40% in diversion programs versus 25% females in delinquency agency. (Adler, 1984) However, it should be also emphasized that though both men and women are charged for the same offences, female violators are harsher treated than males. (Herz 1998 p.174) The differential treatment can be also explained by gender based perceptions and assumptions that females need protection and guidance. Harsher treatment is aimed to protect and help females who violated gender roles. (Scheuble and Laurie, 1991) The Bishop and Frazier (1992 in Herz 1998, p.176) after investigation of status offence contempt charges found out that female status offenders receive institutionalization for contempt charges more often than their male counterparts. Johnson and Scheuble (1991 in Herz 1998, p.176) found bias in handling of status offenders when they considered geographical location aspect in their research. In rural settings where traditional sex roles expectations are different from urban settings, female status offenders receive probation for the charges for which the male offenders are dismissed. A number of researchers highlight the importance of a type of offence and prior referrals to the court at the adjudication stage. In the study of Cohen and Kluegel (1979 in Horowitz and Pottieger 1991, p.76) there is evidence of gender bias expressed against boys for property offences and against girls for drug and alcohol offences as well for decorum offences for which females are more harshly treated. However, in the study of Horowitz and Pottieger (1991, p.97) the results showed that at the adjudication stage there was little or no bias against males for property crime and possible bias against boys at major felony arrests. There was not found any bias against girls for drug offences. As many researches (Dannefer and Schutt 1982; Smith and Alexander 1980; and others) suggest at the disposition stage the severity of the punishment depends on the severity of the crime and prior offences rather than gender or race biases. On the other hand, there are evidences of sentence bias against females charged for minor or status offences (Chesney-Lind 1988) or males involved in felonies or serious criminal offences (Teilmann and Landry 1981). (Horowitz and Pottieger 1991, p.80) However, at the disposition stage males are more likely to receive incarceration disposition for petty property crimes than females which can be attributed to stereotypes about dangerousness. In this case there is sex discrimination against males when female youths receive more lenient treatment for delinquency offenses at the consideration of prior record and offense seriousness. The lenient outcomes are attributed to the view that female youth are “less dangerous, less threatening, and less likely to recidivate than male youth.” (Guevara, Herz, and Spohn 2006, p.265) In the study of Scheuble and Laurie (1991, p.267) with a sample size of 36,680 juvenile court referrals covering the time frame of nine years, after testing offense type, gender, previous contact with the court system the authors come to the conclusion that race, gender, and their interaction influence pre-adjudication detention and disposition outcomes. The incomplete knowledge about youth race or gender prejudices and “stereotypes of dangerousness, blameworthiness, and amenability to rehabilitation” determine outcomes of the disposition. REFORMS IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM In recent years status offenders were in the focus of many reforms such as the deinstitutionalization of status offenders program and the revision of juvenile codes when minor offences are to be referred to diversion agency instead of juvenile court. (Adler 1984, p.403) As there was an evidence of status offence abuse by juvenile courts, correctional reformers urged Congress to pass Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDP) which required beneficiaries of federal delinquency prevention funds to deinstitutionalize status offenders. The number of incarcerated young women considerably fell. Still after the passage of the Act female status offender were still harshly sanctioned. (Macdonald and Chesney-Lind 2001, p.180) With the 1992 Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act the failure to manage gender bias was evident. The focus of the 1992 Reauthorization was on analyzing gender specific services and developing a plan to prevent and treat juvenile delinquency. The Disproportionate Minority Confinement Initiative as a core requirement of the reauthorization was to address minority overrepresentation in correctional facilities, determine the reasons for overrepresentation and implement programs to avoid this problem. Five pilot states were granted training, technical and financial assistance. RECOMMENDATIONS For implementation of effective programming to divert juveniles from status offenses and more serious crimes, the reformers should consider the causes for misbehavior of young people. The reasons underlying such status offences as truancy, running away, alcohol consumption may be family problems or even physical abuse at home, bad relationships with family members or peers, desire to be independent. Juveniles with these problems should be addressed by other institutions and professionals to help them rather by detention or correctional facilities. Youth with these problems should be addressed through special programs which are aimed at prevention rather than correction. Family-centered services, processing or intake centers, attendant care are a good assistance to runaways. There are also truancy related programs such as school-based youth or family services or alternative schools. Education of judges and lawyers for better understanding of juvenile needs and better handling of cases with juvenile offenders should be introduced. Educational programs for judges and lawyers explaining gender discrepancies and methods to avoid them should be developed. The destructive influence of adult offenders on juveniles in detention facilities is not going to have beneficial results on the further conduct of juvenile status offenders. Girls charged for minor offenses and referred to the diversion agencies are in potential danger of being involved in further delinquent cases. As some studies (Haapenen and Rudisill, 1980 cited in Adler 1984, p.405) suggest females unlike males after having experience in alternative agencies gained significantly in delinquency which exhibited both in self-reports and official records. That’s why 1992 amendments to the Act were aimed at the improvement of juvenile justice system to deter juvenile defendants from adult jails and placing them in secure detention. As juveniles are subject to much informal controls such as family and school than adults, the emphasis should be made to these controls as a means of juvenile offences prevention. As “in nearly all societies the family has more social control of its own than other groups and relationships” (Black, 1976, 108) strengthening family and its controls maybe a reasonable recommendation for cutting young women from status offenses and juvenile justice system accordingly. Moreover, women should be addressed with gender specific programs which account for female experience and needs, empower young women for positive developments and social perspectives. Building strong links with family is very important for females as their physiological peculiarity is about focusing on “relationship” and building their identity through the relationship with other people. Gender specific programs should consider these sex peculiarities and implement programs based on them. The same concern about gender based programs is highlighted in Macdonald and Chesney-Lind (2001) research. The authors recommend considering a number of factors from girl’s development and to the roots of delinquent behavior to develop appropriate policies. As youth, receiving services in diversion programs, appear to be vulnerable to harmful effects in the future, the approaches in the system should be changed. It is true that diversion programs are reported to contribute to widening of the social control and increasing of delinquency of diversion participants (Adler 1984, p.408). These potential harmful effects may negatively influence girls’ future. Thus it is important to divert juveniles which have psychological problems rather than delinquent bahavior. The approaches for referring female juveniles to the diversion centers should be based on careful analysis of the need for diversion and psychological testing to find out the reason which brought a child to status offence in the first instance. CONCLUSION As the above research suggests gender bias is quire prevalent in the system of juvenile justice. Many researches talk about paternalistic gender bias against “immoral” females. The great majority of population in diversion centers is young women charged for status offenses for which their male counterparts are released. The most evident reasons for gender biases in justice system seem to appear from stereotypes about female behavior and sex roles. Informal social control, which have always been stricter in relation to women, impact the amount of formal social controls which results in harsher dispositions. Decision-making process is really biased by stereotypes imbedded in society about male and female roles. Women, brought up as mothers and controlled by their family, are seen as delinquents when they fail to meet certain sex roles expectations. Those who get out of this set perception frame are viewed as females who need protection and guidance and thus a harsher treatment. A disproportionate number of female status offenders in diversion centers suggests of the need to focus on psychological assistance granted to females who in the majority of cases have problems with family, peers or their selves. Reformers should account for the fact that women focused on building “relationship” fail to cope with great amount of stress when these relationships turn out to be destructive for them. Solving the problem of youth delinquents through the diversion programs is not always the right decision for female status offenders as they are likely to be vulnerable to harmful effects in the future. Instead, alternative programs, which account for female experiences and needs and inspire them for positive developments, are to be introduced. REFERENCES Alder, C. (1984). Gender Bias in Juvenile Diversion. Crime and Delinquency, 30 (3), 400-414. Black, D. J. (1976). The Behavior of Law. New York, NY: Academic Press. Carter, G.W. and Gilbert, G.R. (1973), An evaluation Progress Report of the Alternate Routes Project. Los Angeles: Regional Research Institute in social Welfare, University of Southern California cited in Alder, C. (1984). Gender Bias in Juvenile Diversion. Crime and Delinquency, 30 (3), 400-414. Cohen, L.E. and Kluegel J.R.. (1978). Determinants of Juvenile Court Disposition: Ascriptive and Achieved Factors in Two Metropolitan Courts. American Sociological Review 43: 162-76 Guevara, L., Herz, D., and Spohn, C. (2006) Gender and Juvenile Justice Decision Making What Role Does Race Play? Feminist Criminology. 1 (4), 258-282 Herz, D. (1998). The differential effects of Informal and Formal Social Controls on the Processing of Status Offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 14 (2), 173-192. Horowitz, R. and Pottieger, A. E. (1991). Gender Bias in Juvenile Justice Handling of Seriously Crime-Involved Youths. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28 (1), 75-100. Johnson, D. and Scheuble, L. K. (1991). Gender Bias in the Disposition of juvenile court referrals: the effects of time and location. Journal of Criminology, 29 (4), 677-699. Macdonald, J. M. and Chesney-Lind, M. (2001). Gender Bias and Juvenile Justice Revisited: A multiyear Analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 47 (2), 173-195. Polk, K. (1984). Juvenile Diversion: A look at the Record. Crime and Delinquency, 30 (4), 648-659. Sealock M.D. and Simpson S.S. (1998). Unraveling bias in arrest decisions the role of juvenile offender type-scripts. Justice Quarterly: 15 (3), 427 Read More