Juvenile Delinquency and Reoffense - Essay Example

Introduction In the contemporary setting, we become aware that children and young individuals are now committing offensive behaviour and crimes that were previously committed only by adults. Thus, we now have the terms ‘juvenile delinquents’ and ‘child offenders’. The offenses that young people commit nowadays range from petty burglary to violent homicide and rape. However, society does not see it fit that individuals under the age of 18 years old be prosecuted in criminal courts because of perceived inability and immaturity to appreciate the legal system. Adult courts are also seen to cause traumatic experiences for a young individual. Thus, the juvenile justice system was established and empowered to deal with cases of juvenile delinquency. After serving the punishment handed down by the juvenile justice system, the juvenile delinquent is released from custody or supervision. The interest in the effectiveness of the justice system in reforming the individual gave rise to a wealth of literature particularly in the subject of re-offense. This paper aims to determine and discuss the nature of troubled youth re-offense and evaluate the policies aimed in addressing them. In reading this paper, one will come to know that re-offense is more commonly referred to as recidivism and that several socio-demographic, legal and policy-related factors are involved in its dynamics. Recidivism Reoffending is more commonly known as recidivism and is legally taken to refer to the act of an individual committing an offense after being released from a correctional facility. The interest in determining the tendency of an individual to commit a crime again has given rise to several studies concerning recidivism. Maltz (1984) conducted a literature review and was able to identify at least 14 working definitions with the most prominent being re-arrest, resentence and readjust/reconviction (i.e. on trial and investigation again). The three main definitions are as follows: (a) Re-arrest An individual is re-arrested once he is taken into custody after being released from custody or supervision after a certain time. This measure is argued to be dubious due to the fact that the arrestee may have been arrested for a delinquent behaviour that he did not commit. In short, the mere act of being arrested is taken to be indicative of recidivism. (b) Resentence A child or an adolescent is considered to have been resentenced once he is subjected to a period of custody or supervision. However, much of the resentence is not contingent on the process of adjudication but more on the report provided by the probationary officer which can be highly subjective. For example, the probationary officer may have deemed it probable that the individual will reoffend again and recommended the return-to-custody as a pre-emptive measure. (c) Re-adjudication/Reconviction This measure is considered by many researchers such as Champion (1998) to be the most reliable indication of re-offense. Through an official judicial proceeding, it confirms that the person has subsequently committed an offense (not necessarily the same one that he committed). It should be noted that re-adjudication is primarily applied for juveniles in juvenile court but there are juveniles being tried and found guilty in adult courts. In this process, they are considered as being reconvicted. Many studies such as that of Greenwood et. al. (1993) found this measure to be more appropriate due to the relative ease of access to data and subjects not being required to cooperate. Nonetheless, there is an increasing tendency to combine and use all of the three prominent definitions such as what was conducted by Caggiano (1986) and Langan & Levin (2002). Predicting Recividism Sociological and criminological research such as that of Klein & Caggiano (1986) and the Florida Department of Corrections (2003) have investigated the connection between recidivism and variables such as age, race, gender, offense type, family background, peer pressure and educational background. Juvenile justice policy makers routinely use data from studies concerning recidivism to evaluate rehabilitation programs. The following provides an understanding on the dynamics of recidivism. (a) Age Research by Langan and Levin (2002) indicate that the younger the offender is, the greater the probability for re-offense. In a longitudinal study, the researchers found that 80% of the persons under the age of 18 that were subjected to a correctional or supervisory system were re-arrested and reconvicted as compared to 45% of people of age 45 and older. Katsiyannis et. al (2004) investigated the records of juvenile courts and found that the number of 15 year-olds (upon time of first adjudication) re-adjudicated is higher in number than 16 and 17 year old cases. However, this is criticized by many since many 16 and 17 year old individuals who committed an offense is referred to the adult court system rather than juvenile courts. In addition, jurisdictions in cases like rape and murder are handed to the criminal court system rather than in juvenile proceedings. Miner (2002) conducted a study that controlled the effects of transfer of cases to adult courts and found that there is indeed the tendency for people belonging to younger age brackets to offend and reoffend. Duncan (2005) had a similar result when he studied the predictors of recidivism of serious juvenile sex offenders. More importantly, it was found that that the younger is the person at the age of release the greater is the probability for reoffending. In effect, there is an inverse relationship between age at release and recidivism. (b) Race and Sex The pervading notion is that there is a strong correlation between re-offending to racial classification. Indeed, this is reflected in studies of Harms (2003) and Benda (2001). There are different ways that race can affect re-offense. One observation was that there was a greater tendency for one race to reoffend when compared to another race. The pervading stereotype, in the US for example, is that blacks are more likely to re-offend as compared to whites. This racial stereotyping, while prejudicial, is actually supported by scientific research. In a study involving 272,111 former inmates, Langan & Levin (2002) found that Latin Americans are less likely to reoffend while African Americans had a greater tendency to relapse into offensive conduct. Race can also be factor in deciding and handling a custodial adjudication to a juvenile delinquent. Decisions made can be a function of the racial composition of the community affected and the characteristics of the court. According to Bridges and Steen (1998), racial stereotyping can lead a juvenile court and the community to consider only past offenses as a basis for declaring that a juvenile has reoffended. Racial influence in re-offense is a hotly debated topic and researchers such as Katsiyannis et al (2004) offer evidence that shows that race has no effect on recidivism. The interest in determining which race is more likely to live a life of crime is prejudicial and unjust to all members of the race specified. According to Katsiyannis et al (2004), those who pursue this matter is governed by an ethnocentric view of society. However, our belief would lead us to also consider that the research on racial probability offers us a more complete view of the nature of recidivism and begs us to look further on what could be causing the phenomena. According to Cureton (2000), certain races can turn to criminal behaviour because of the perceived inequalities in representations not only in the justice system but in all systems of society. For example, blacks are more likely to commit and recommit offensive behaviour because they may have developed a perception that the law and its enforcers treat them differently. Interracial gender-based studies have also been conducted to determine whether there are significant differences in re-offense rates among same sex of different race. African American males were found by Strom (2000) to be more likely to re-offend when compared to his White, Native and Hispanic counterparts. However, further investigation revealed that the real reason why African Americans were more likely to reoffend was that the police were more critical of them. This does not imply racial stereotyping as a significant portion of arresting officers were black. It was mainly due to the proven susceptibility of blacks to participate in more serious type of offensive behaviour. In all racial categories, young men have been found to be more likely to commit offensive behaviour as compared to their female counterparts. In the juvenile setting, Stuart and Baker (2004) found that only 22% of arrested youth and only 17% of the total incarcerated or given punishment are females. More importantly, males are more likely to commit a serious type of crime. (c) Offense Type One of the basic question in re-offense studies concerning the youth is whether the gravity of their past offensive behaviour can influence their decision to re-offend. There are research that states that there is direct relationship between the degree of the offense committed and the likelihood of re-offense. On the other hand, there are also studies showing that there is actually an inverse relationship. For the first type, research conducted by Corrado (2003) indicates that the type of offense play a significant role in re-offense behaviour upon being released from custody. Those juveniles who have committed a more violent crime such as homicide have been found to be more likely to commit another offensive behaviour compared to those who have only participated in minor and property offenses. In a longitudinal study, Hagan (2001) found that adolescent sexual offenders such as rapist and child molesters are more likely to re-offend than their non-sex offending counterparts. On the other hand, Langan & Levin (2002) was able to show that the reverse is true. Those convicted of violent offenses such as homicide and robbery have the lowest recidivism rate. Adolescents who were released from custodial sentence for crimes such as public-order transgressions and drug-related behaviour were also less likely to commit another offense when compared to those who committed property offenses such as arson, theft and larceny. (d) Family Background When dealing with the youth, the question of his/her family background naturally comes into mind. The family setting to which the youth belongs is essentially the most important determinant in the assimilation of values and beliefs and the most important factor in the likelihood of committing and re-committing an offense. Parents and guardians are considered to be the foremost vanguard of counteracting negative behaviour of adolescents and are also the most important support system in reducing or encouraging recidivist behaviour. In addition, Warr (2003) noted that parents and siblings have the capacity to prevent the formation of friendships with delinquents thereby minimizing negative peer influence. His study stems from the fact many juvenile delinquents are emboldened to offend because of support and encouragement by their delinquent peers. Reintegration into mainstream society after being placed into custody or supervision is one of the most challenging phases of living a normal life and one of the most important factors that must be monitored in order to ensure the success of reintegration is functional family therapy. According to Gordon et al (1995), families can aid greatly in the reduction of offensive behaviour by providing necessary support and feelings of belongingness and acceptance. Intervention treatments such as counselling and monitoring are not as effective as functional interaction among family members. (e) Peer Influence Entering into friendly relationships with juvenile delinquents has long been established as a major factor in committing anti-social and criminal behaviour. Studies such as that of Warr (2003) points out that it is not only the act of seeing friends commit delinquent behaviour that transforms one into a juvenile delinquent but the pressure generated by friends to do the same often for the sake of fun and camaraderie. While having delinquent peers is associated with offensive behaviour, the reverse is also true. That is, delinquency of an individual makes it more likely for him to form associations with delinquent persons. Thus, individuals who have been released from custody or supervision are more likely to reoffend once he enters an association with delinquent individuals. However, Akers (2000) argues that blaming the commission of another offense in relationships with other people who may prove to be delinquent is not entirely correct because the individual could have developed a psychological notion to re-offend again to get revenge to the system that placed him in custody. He may even be the reason for friends to be delinquents as well. In some cases, the notion of having ‘birds of the same feather flock together’ can come into play. That is, the individual is actually a delinquent before he even enters into a friendly relationship . His peers did not have to put pressure on him to behave as such. (f) Educational Background and School Discipline Aside from family and friends, the school provides the necessary enhancement to social capital in the form of reinforcing socially conforming values and providing discipline that teaches students about the consequences of offensive and negative behaviour. There is a wealth of literature linking the lack of education and criminal behaviour. Individuals who did not have the opportunity to learn the necessary skills offered by educational institutions find it hard to find employment or appreciate the legal systems of society. The relationship between being uneducated and criminal behaviour is considered by many to be straightforward but there is an increasing literature stating that crimes with greater effect on the members of society, such as large-scale fraud, are committed by highly educated individuals. In any case, those children and young individuals who failed in obtaining education or who dropped out midway are more likely to commit and re-commit an offense. According to Bynum and Thompson (2005), the more educated the individual is, the more likely he is to appreciate the notion that committing another offense will only lead to a further loss of opportunities. Those who are enrolled in schools but are performing poorly have a higher affinity to be a juvenile delinquent and a recidivist. Using academic performance as an indicator of juvenile delinquency, Archwamety and Katsiyannis (2000) found that delinquents are those with lower academic performance and is 3.5 times likely to be arrested. Reintegration in the educational system after being released from custody is a very sensitive affair for formerly delinquent individuals. The social stigma of being found guilty of acting offensively against society can result in the process of reformation and reintegration. A person branded as a juvenile delinquent carries with him a sense of humiliation which can ultimately drive him to turn to delinquent peers (Bartollas, 2003). Policies and Reforms in the Legal System The study of youth re-offense is inextricably tied with two reforms in the justice system: a) shift from retributive system to restorative justice system and b) prevention of adolescents in being tried in criminal courts. In treating juveniles, authorities were previously concerned in providing an avenue for them to be reintegrated in society and make full use of their life as opposed to adults who are considered to be mature enough to know the repercussions of his action thus deserving severe punishment. However, there is an increasing tendency to try young individuals in adult courts. In spite of the establishment of the Juvenile Justice courts, many cases involving offending youth were being summarily referred and tried in the criminal justice system. A 2005 study conducted by the Coalition for Juvenile Justice revealed that approximately 218,000 cases involving adolescents were forwarded to the criminal justice system instead of having it reviewed by the juvenile courts. There are several examples of young individuals who have been incarcerated in adult prisons, living together with hardened criminals and serving sentences that would essentially cast them out of society (p. 22). Proponents of young individuals being tried at court often cite the psychological theory of deterrence theory wherein swift, severe and certain legal sanctions are necessary to deter an individual from committing criminal acts. The juvenile justice system is argued by proponents of youth in adult courts to be too lenient and unable to deter individuals from committing rape, murder and arson. However, there is much evidence such as that of Mayers (2001) showing that offenders are less likely to re-offend if their cases are tried in juvenile courts rather than in adult courts. The result of research by Greene (2001) showed that juveniles tried and sentenced in juvenile courts are 35% more likely to reoffend again. The reason behind the greater probability of young offenders to commit crime again is best summed up in the research conducted by Di Iulio (2003). Juvenile offenders are not individuals who have a tendency to commit repeated or random acts of serious violence. Neither did they have the necessary mental faculty to realize the gravity and repercussions of their actions. It does not mean to say that they should be punished. Rather, they should be sanctioned but not in a manner that would have them mingle with hardened convicts. Juvenile offenders need adult guidance but it should not come from prisoners. They are hardly the role model we want for the youth to follow. As Di Iulio (2003) stated, ‘Jailing youth with adult felons under Spartan conditions will merely produce more gladiators’. Essentially, juvenile offenders are more likely to commit crime after a period of time from being released because they have been made to live in an environment full of criminals. The psychological process do not actually involved the juvenile offender emulating the adult prisoner. It is more on the anger against the system and community which made him undergo such humiliation and situation. Once released, this anger is released in the form of a more violent crime. This rationale is now being recognized and the noise generated by the movement is bearing fruit as there is a noticeable decrease in juvenile offender cases being transferred to adult courts. As a result of re-offense studies, the judicial system now includes a system for developing sentencing plans for juvenile offenders. These sentencing plans are developed by combining information gathered from social workers, psychologists, attorneys and other relevant and reliable sources of information. The plan makes to the judge and the jury what has been learned through developmental and psychological assessments which will aid them in properly addressing the cases of juvenile offenders. Basically, re-offense research has resulted to the recognition that juvenile offenders need to undergo a program of reform suitable for their psychological state. Essentially, many policies have been developed that considers re-offense studies. There are also many programs that have been formulated to reduce re-offense from reoccurring. However, much lies ahead in the future. Conclusion Youth re-offense, more commonly known as juvenile recidivism, is the result of many socio-demographic and penalty-related factors. Race, age and social support systems such as the family do play an important role in the process of encouraging or discouraging re-offense. Several studies have shown the effects and these studies now are introducing reforms to the judicial and social support systems. References: Akers, Ronald L. (2000). “Social Control Theory and Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test”. Criminology, no. 23, pp. 47-61. Archwamety, & Antonis Katsiyannis, (2000). Academic Remediation, Parole Violations, and Recidivism Rates among Delinquent Youths. Remedial and Special Education vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 161-170. Bartollas, Clemens (2003). Juvenile Delinquency. Allyn & Bacon, MA: Boston. Benda, Brent B. (2001). “Factors that Discriminate Between Recidivists, Parole Violators, and Nonrecidivists in a 3-Year Follow-Up of Boot Camp Graduates”. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology vol. 45, no. 6, pp.711-729. Bridges, George S. and Sara Steen (1998). “Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms”. American Sociological Review vol. 63, pp. 554-570. Bynum, Jack E. and William E. Thompson (2005). Juvenile Delinquency: A Sociological Approach. Allyn & Bacon, MA: Boston. Coalition for Juvenile Justice (2005). Childhood on Trial. Washington: D.C. Corrado, Raymond R. (2003). “Serious and Violent Young Offenders’ Decision to Recidivate: An Assessment of Five Sentencing Models”. Crime and Delinquency, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 179-200. Cureton, Steven R. “Justifiable Arrests or Discretionary Justice: Predictors of Racial Arrest Differentials”. Journal of Black Studies, vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 703-719. DeComo, Robert E. (1998). “Estimating the Prevalence of Juvenile Custody by Race and Gender”. Crime and Delinquency, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 489-506. Di Iulio (2003). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Duncan, Renae D., Wallace A. Kennedy and Christopher J. Patrick (1995). Four-Factor Model or Recidivism in Male Juvenile Offenders. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, vol 24, no. 3, pp. 250-257. Florida Department of Corrections (2003). “Recidivism Report: Inmates Released from Florida Prisons”. Statistics and Publications, May 2001. Gordon, Donald A., Karen Graves, and Jack Arbuthnot (1995). “The Effect of Functional Family Therapy for Delinquents on Adult Criminal Behavior”. Criminal Justice and Behavior vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 60-73. Greenwood, Peter W., Elizabeth P. Deschenes, & John Adams (1993). Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Final Results From the Skillman Aftercare Experiment. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation Grenier, Charles E. & George A. Roundtree (1987). “Predicting Recidivism Among Adjudicated Delinquents: A Model to Identify High Risk Offenders”. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & Rehabilitation vol. 12, no. 1, Fall/Winter, pp.101-112. Hagan, Michael P. (2001). “Eight Year Comparative Analysis of Adolescent Rapists, Adolescent Child Molesters, Other Adolescent Delinquents, and the General Population”. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 314-324. Harms, Paul (2003). “Detention in Delinquency Cases, 1990-1999”. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Fact Sheet, September 2003 # 07. Katsiyannis, Antonis, Dalun Zhang, David E. Barret, and Tracy Flaska (2004). Background and Psychosocial Variables Associated With Recidivism Among Adolescent Males: A 3-Year Investigation. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 23-29. Klein, Stephen P. and Michael N. Caggiano (1986). The Prevalence, Predictability, and Policy Implications of Recidivism. CA: Rand Corporation. Langan, Patrick A. and David J, Levin (2002). “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994”. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report (NCJ, 193427). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Maltz, Michael D. (1984). Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Miner, Michael H. (2002). “Factors Associated With Recidivism in Juveniles: An Analysis of Serious Juvenile Sex Offenders”. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency vol. 39, no. 4, November, pp. 421-436. Strom, Kevin J. (2000). Profile of State Prisoners Under Age 18, 1985-97. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report (NCJ, 193427). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Stuart, Bryan and Janet Brice-Baker (2004). “Correlates of Higher Rates of Recidivism in Female Prisoners: An Exploratory Study”. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, no. 32, pp. 29-70. Warr, Mark (2003). “Parents, Peers, and Delinquency”. Social Forces, vol. 72, No. 1, September, pp. 247-264. Read More