filename
stringclasses 5
values | text
stringlengths 2
5.76k
|
|---|---|
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Minimum – These prisons usually have dorm style housing, typically for only non-violent offenders,
with shorter sentences (or sentence lengths left after downgrading). The fencing or perimeters of these
types of facilities are usually low levels. The BOP generally refers to these as camps.
Low – These types of prisons are similar to minimums, to include some kind of dormitory style
housing. However, there are normally more serious or disruptive offenders in these types of prisons.
The fencing around the perimeter of these is generally higher, and maybe even a double fence.
Offenders are typically in these institutions for longer periods.
Medium – Here, there is a transition from dorm-style housing to cells. Normally, there are two
persons to a cell, but not always. The perimeter is usually a high fence, and may even have barbed
wire, or there are large walls surrounding the institution. Freedom of movement within the institution
is reduced, seen as privilege. Inmates here typically longer sentences, and include violence convictions.
High or Maximum – Similar to medium, but most of these offenders have violence convictions, and
longer sentences, including life. Many of these individuals will spend most of their day in a cell, and
more often than not, these are single occupancy.
Super-Max or Administrative Control – Depending on what the mission is for that particular
prison, the prisoners in these institutions could be vastly different. For instance, if it is a facility that is
designated for mental health, it would not operate the same as one that is a super-max. The super-max
facilities would have individuals in their cells for almost all of every day. Many services would come to
them at their cell, instead of them going somewhere (i.e., sick call), the cells would almost all be single
occupancy. Visitation of these inmates would be much more regimented and monitored. Most of these
individuals are also classified as extreme threats to the successful operations of the prison and are long-
term inmates (LWOP – life without the possibility of Parole).
Intake Centers – An intake center can be part of an institution, running alongside the normal
operations of an institution. The purpose of an intake center is to classify the offenders coming from
the various courts in the jurisdiction, post felony conviction. The offender has an initial classification,
where they are getting assigned to one of the jurisdiction’s prisons, based on a point system for that
agency. This assessment is looking at priors, prior and current violence, escape risk, and potential self-
harm. For example, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility in Oregon is their intake of prison. It also is the
women’s prison for Oregon. Inmates come to CCCF and are assessed, then shipped off to one of the
other institutions in Oregon (or placed in a level there if female). Inmates will gain later classifications at
their destination prison, in terms of work assignments, mental health status, cell assignments, and other
items.
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
341 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 8.13. Who Goes to Prison?
DAVID CARTER
The types of people that end up in prison are quite different than individuals that go to jail. Almost all people
that go to prisons in the United States are people that have been convicted of felony-level crimes and will
be serving more than a year (or they could have multiple years on their jail sentence). To give you a more
detailed depiction of this, see the image below.
People Incarcerated in the U.S.
342 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | People Incarcerated in the U.S.
Focusing in on the left side of the graphic, there are roughly 1,316,000 State Prisoners. Here we can see
the types of crimes that they are convicted of. A little over half (54-55%) are incarcerated for violent crimes.
Drug crimes and property crimes make up the next big sections for the state prisoners. When you add in
the federal prisoners (about 180,000) and the private sector prisoners (another 150,000+), territorial prisoners
(11,000), Indian Country prisoners (2,500), we start to see how that number changes to about 1,700,000
prisoners.
One of the more notable items here, and what is different from the jails, roughly 93% of the prisoners are
male. In jail, that number is roughly 85% male. While the total volume of prisoners has dropped slightly in
the last few years (since 2015), this following graphic shows that we have increased our number substantially
over the last 45 years.
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
343 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | US State and Federal Prison population
This growth of the prison population will be discussed in greater detail in the final section on corrections,
Special Issues. However, in the next section, we will discuss where the largest volume of individuals under
correctional control resides, probation and community corrections.
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
344 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9: Community Corrections
Learning Objectives
Up to this point, we have spent much time on understanding crime, how it is policed, and how it is prosecuted
in the courts. The next section will cover the last third of the justice system, corrections. This section will focus on
punishments that happen in the community. Be the end of this section, students should be able to:
•
Understand what is meant by Community Corrections
•
Recognize the different types of Community Corrections
•
Understand the pros/cons of the different main types of Community Corrections
Critical Thinking Questions
1.
Why do some people convicted of a crime get jail/prison, while others do not?
2.
What factors are involved with the decision to use alternative sanctions, versus incarceration?
3.
What are some of the pros/cons of each of these decision points?
4.
Does the level of punishment change, based on the person? How?
5.
Are there other consequences involved after the punishment has been given? If so, what are they?
345 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.1. Diversion
DAVID CARTER
The bulk of this chapter deals with official actions from the courts on individuals in the community, while
they are under some sanction. However, there is also a large number of individuals that do not even make it
that far in the system, due to some form of diversion. Diversion is presented in this chapter, as it is an action
that would effectively keep a person in the community. Diversion is a process whereby an individual, at
some stage, is diverted from continuing on in the formal justice process. Diversion can come as early as initial
contact with a law enforcement officer. This discretion that the officer uses could be considered a diversion,
as the officer is saying that this individual does not need to continue on the justice path. It could be a verbal
warning, a warning ticket, or just a decision by the officer to not start a formal ticket (citation).
347 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Different Diversion Points in the System
Diversion can also be something more formal, for instance, from a judge prior to a judgment, in lieu of a
judgment, or as a condition of a judgment. A formal diversion process can start. An example of this could be
where a judge could sentence someone to a sanction. In lieu of that sanction, the judge offers a person the
chance to complete a diversion program, effectively nullifying the judgment upon successful completion.
It is difficult to know the exact amount of diversions that occur in the United States, across the variety of
places where diversion can occur. However, it is estimated that millions of diversions happen each year. This
could be saving the courts or corrections systems hundreds of millions of dollars.
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
348 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.2. Intermediate Sanctions
DAVID CARTER
Community corrections as a whole has changed dramatically over the last half-century. Due to a rapid and
overwhelming increase of the offender population, largely based on policy changes, we have witnessed an
immense increase in the use of sanctions at the community level; this includes probation. It has only been
within the most recent 10 years that we have seen a decrease in community corrections. Individuals on
probation hover around 3.7 million, with another million in some form of community-level control, for a
total of about 4.6 million under community supervision, probation, or parole.
1 Because of the sheer volume
of these intermediate sanctions, it is important to put it in the perspective of jails and prisons. Below is a
graphic to demonstrate how much we are talking about.
U.S. Correctional Control
1. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2018). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016. Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
ppus16_sum.pdf
349 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | National correctional control, 2018
This graphic does not include the volume of people in the community corrections outside of regular
probation, or parole (which is about another million), but it does shed light on just how much probation is
used. Therefore, it important to understand that the vast majority of individuals under correctional control
aren’t even in the prisons and jails in the United States, even though that alone is a hefty number. The
majority of persons under correctional control fall are in sanctions like Probation, Intensive Supervision
Probation, Boot Camps/Shock Incarceration, Drug Courts, and Halfway Houses. Therefore, this section will
discuss the history and effectiveness of some of the forms of intermediate sanctions we use in the United
States.
As we have discussed, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a fundamental shift in corrections. This
is largely due to the “Nothing Works” dogma in the area of rehabilitation. Many reforms were made towards
the housing of offenders. Many liked this idea because they did not trust the government’s attempts at
rehabilitation. Others were pleased as well since more emphasis was placed on control. Rooted in deterrence
theory, and to lesser extent incapacitation, intermediate sanctions flourished and were seen as an instant
success. That is, because they promised to increase control of the growing offender population, maintain
security, and do all of this at a reduced cost, they were quickly welcomed across the nation. However, by
reviewing each one, we can see the problems that promising too much may have created.
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
350 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | What Would You Do?
As stated before, there are three primary goals for corrections, to punish the offender, to protect society, and to
rehabilitate the offender. Often the first two goals might be opposing to the last goal. Additionally, doing too much
of the first one might have unfavorable on the second and third. Here is an example of how this might happen.
Let’s say there is a guy, who is married, has a couple of kids, a stable blue-collar job, a house /mortgage, and
is living just a little bit better than a paycheck to paycheck. We can call him the average Joe Citizen. This might
even sound familiar, and you may even know him. Joe likes to hang out with his friends after his men’s softball
game, having a beer and catching up on life. For all intents and purposes, Joe is a decent guy. He does not have a
significant criminal record. Perhaps one misdemeanor when he was a juvenile, and a couple of speeding tickets, like
tens of millions of other adults.
However, one time after softball, Joe is driving home and his wife is texting him to pick something up at the store.
He looks down at his phone at the exact wrong time that someone pulls out in front of him. An accident occurs. No
one is seriously injured, but the damage to both vehicles is enough to warrant a write up of the accident. This leads
to police presence. At the scene, the officer smells alcohol on Joe. The officer is obligated to go through standard
procedures, which results in Joe being arrested. This is not asking you to debate this action, as it is a violation, and
the officer had every right to arrest Joe. The question is this – what should Joe’s punishment be?
The reason to ask this is due to both the rule of law and the consequences of those laws. Joe should be punished,
as he chose to drive after drinking alcohol. But, would Joe’s incarceration lead to other events that may have lasting
effects? Probably.
This brings up the question of at what point does the level of punishment last beyond its intended point? If Joe
receives a lengthy jail sentence, will he lose his job? Will he lose his family? Will this put him a greater risk of
recidivating in the future? What point has the immediate action caused punishment beyond what the law stipulates
is punishment? These are all valid questions. There are other alternatives out there, that still cover the concepts of
punishment, monitoring, sanctioning, and control. However, these alternatives can still allow individuals to stay in
the community, which this chapter will present with community corrections.
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
351 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.3. Probation
DAVID CARTER
Probation is arguably the oldest ,and certainly the largest, of the intermediate sanctions. Its roots stem
from concepts of common law from England, like many of our other legal/correctional practices. In early
American courts, a person was able to be released on their own recognizance, if they promised to be
responsible citizens and pay back what they owed. In the early 1840s, John Agustus, a Boston bootmaker
was regularly attending court and began to supervise these individuals as a Surety. A Surety was a person
who would help these individuals in court, making sure they repaid these costs to the courts. We would
consider John Augustus as the Father of Probation, for this work in the courts in Boston in the 1840s and
1850s. Augustus, pictured below, would take in many of these individuals, providing options like work and
housing, to help ensure these individuals would remain crime free and pay back society. He continued this
practice for nearly two decades, effectively becoming the first probation officer. For a more lengthy historical
discussion of probation, see the history of probation at https://probation.smcgov.org/history-probation.
352 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | John Augustus
Probation is a form of a suspended sentence, in that the jail or prison sentence of the convicted offender
is resuspended, for the privilege of serving conditions of supervision in the community. Conditions of
probation often include: report to a probation officer, submit random drug screens, do not consort with
known felons, pay court costs, restitution, and damages, attend AA or NA courses, as well as other
conditions. Probation lengths vary greatly, as do the conditions of probation place on an individual. Almost
all people on probation will have at least one condition of probation. Some have many conditions, depending
on the seriousness of the conviction, while others are just a blanket condition that is imposed on all in that
jurisdiction, or for that conviction type. Juvenile Probation Departments were within all States in the 1920s,
and by the middle of the 1950s, all States had adult probation.
Probation Officers
Probation officers usually work directly for the state or federal government, but that can be directed
through local or municipal agencies. Many Counties will have a community justice level structure where
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
353 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | probation offices operate. Within these offices, probation officers will be assigned cases (caseload), in term of
the probationers, they will manage. The volume of cases in a probation officer’s caseload can vary from just a
few clients if they are high need/risk clients, to several hundred probationers. It depends on the jurisdiction,
the structure of the local PO office, and the abilities of the probation officers themselves.
The role of the probation officer is complex, and sometimes diametrically opposing. A PO’s primary
function is to enforce compliance of individuals on probation. This is done through check-ins, random drug
screenings, and enforcement of other conditions that are placed on the probationers. Additionally, the PO
may go out into the field to serve warrants, do home checks for compliance, even make arrests if need be.
However, at the same time, a probation officer is trying to help individuals on probation succeed. This
is done by trying to help individuals to get jobs, get schooling, enter into substance or alcohol programs,
and generally support people on probation to be successful. This is why the job of the PO is complex, as
they are trying to be supportive, but also having to enforce compliance. Many equate this to kind of like
being a parent. Recently, there has been a movement within probation to have probation officers act more
like coaches than just disciplinarians. Here is a talk about how POs can view themselves as coaches to enact
positive change within individuals on probation:
http://criminaljusticeofficehours.libsyn.com/dr-brian-lovins-probation-
coaches?fbclid=IwAR2pHROGAPpm09-PFqVzFG10ItFhCi1huFItChe65Ew7-gXDB0OSacCliQs
The other primary function of a probation officer is to complete PSI reports on individuals going through
the court process. A PSI or Pre-Sentence Investigation report is a psycho-social workup on a person headed
to trial. It includes basic background information on an individual, such as age, education, relationships,
physical and mental health, employment, military service, social history, and substance abuse history. It also
has a detailed account of the current offense, witness or victim impact statements of the event, and prior
offenses (criminal records), which are tracked across numerous agencies. Finally, the PSI also has a section
that is devoted to a plan of supervision or recommendations, which are created by the PO. These usually list
out the conditions of probation recommendations, if probation is to be granted. Judges use this information
during sentencing discussions and hearings, and will usually follow these recommendations often (around
85% of the time). Thus, many of the conditions of probation are prescribed by the PO.
Individuals on Probation
As stated, there are several million people on probation, serving various lengths of probation, and under
numerous conditions or condition types. Additionally, the convictions which place individuals on probation
vary, to include misdemeanors and felonies. Probationers serve their probation at the state level, and there is
even federal probation. As depicted below, it is easy to see how much probation is used in the United States.
Use of Probation in the U.S.
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
354 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Correctional Control by Type 1975-2016
Probation is not a right, and it is not a suspended sentence. It is a privilege, but it most certainly comes
with conditions for the suspension of the incarceration. Due to how cheap probation is, relative to jail or
prison, and the ability for lower-risk individuals to maintain connections within their community, millions
of people will be on probation in the United States at any given time.
Other important factors that help to decide if a person warrants probation is within the PSI and other
assessments are done on the individual. If the person is basically, a prosocial person, has an education and a
job, has a family, these would all be considered as ties to the community. These ties to the community could
weaken or break if a person was incarcerated. Thus, providing a sanction while allowing the person to stay
in the community is often the approach that is utilized within probation and other intermediate sanctions.
Probation Success
There are mixed reviews about probation. Recently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2018 report, for 2016.
1 listed the successful completion rate at about 56%. In years past, this number has been reported higher,
upwards of 65%, depending on the years 2008-2013.
2 There are a host of reasons listed for unsuccessful
completion, which include: incarcerated on a new sentence/charge, or placement for the current sentence/
1. Kaeble, D. (2018). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2013. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, April 2018, NCJ 251148 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus13.pdf
2. Huberman, E. J., & Bonczar, T. P. (2014). Probation and parole in the United States, 2013. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2014, NCJ 248029 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus13.pdf
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
355 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | charge, absconding (fleeing jurisdiction), discharged to warrant or detainer, other unsatisfactory reason,
death, or some other unknown or not reported reason. Unsuccessful completion can produce some different
responses but can include a concept called tourniquet sentencing. Tourniquet sentencing is where the
restrictions of a level of sanction are increased, due to non-compliance, in order to force compliance. If an
individual on probation is not adhering to the conditions of probation, a PO can recommend a probation
revocation hearing. This bench hearing can lead to an informal admonishment by a judge, an increase in
the sanctions or sanction lengths, an increased level of control (moving from regular probation to intensive
supervised probation), even up to placement in a secure facility (jail or prison), all depending on the
infraction of the condition of probation that has been violated. Many go from regular probation to ISP, in
an effort to force compliance through increased monitoring.
Intensive Supervised Probation
Intensive Supervision Probation (ISP) began in the late 1950s, early 1960s, in California. Their basic
premise was to allow caseworkers (POs) to have smaller caseloads and increase the level of treatment across
offenders. As stated, many promised multiple success measures. However, if an individual who was revoked
because of a technical violation due to an increase in control, they were not seen as a failure. Rather, they
were seen as a success because of the way the public was served by the recidivism. However, this went
directly against the notion that ISPs could save money. Because of these problems, the earlier forms of
ISPs may have become less popular. In the 1980s, a newer model of the ISP was created in Georgia. More
emphasis was placed on the control aspect rather than on treatment. Further, less emphasis was placed on the
reduction of money saved.
ISP and regular probation are similar, except for the frequency of contacts with POs, the increases in
surveillance and monitoring, and usually the volume of conditions. Rather than meeting a PO once a
month in regular probation, a person on ISP would likely be meeting with their PO weekly, or even more
frequently. Additionally, individuals on ISP normally are submitting drug screens weekly. The increased
conditions of supervision more frequently include more substance abuse treatment, either in the form of AA,
NA, or some other residential or outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. Thus, the core difference is
about the increased level of surveillance and control over the offender.
ISP Success
While initial praise of the newer model for its increase on control was evidenced by its rapid spread
through the States, some researchers questioned their effectiveness. In one of the largest studies of ISPs, in
conjunction with the RAND Corporation.
3 They examined the effectiveness of ISPs in reducing recidivism
and saving costs. In a random sample of 14 cities across 9 States, they evaluated the reductions of recidivism
against a sample of regular probationers. Their findings suggested that there were higher amounts of
technical violations, which were probably substance violations, but there were no significant differences
between control-centered ISPs and regular probation, as far as new arrests. Moreover, when looking at
outcomes over 3 years, they found that recidivism rates were slightly higher for these ISPs (39%), vs. regular
probation (33%). Also, there were no substantive cost savings. Other studies have produced similar findings
as to the effects of non-treatment oriented ISPs. While these findings might be better than prison recidivism
rates, there were no reductions in prison overcrowding, which was also one of the intents of ISP.
3. Petersilia, J. R., & Deschenes, E. (2004). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) for drug offenders. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP168.html
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
356 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.4. Boot Camps/Shock Incarceration
DAVID CARTER
Another form of intermediate sanction may be seen in the creation of boot camps, also known as shock
incarceration facilities. Again developed in the 1980s in Georgia, boot camps were targeted to youths and
adults and seen as a way to alter individuals through a “shock” effect. Essentially, boot camps are programs
designed to change the recidivism rate through a physical change. That is, designed on a militaristic ideal,
boot camps valued that a regimen of strict physical exercise would teach structure and discipline in youths.
Once again, because of a high level of face validity (this looks like it will work, so it must work), boot camps
flourished in the 1980s and 1990s. Below is an example of one of the few remaining boot camps, Moriah,
NY.
Boot Camp Success
While there some positive results, generally, boot camps fail to produce the desired reductions in
recidivism.
1 For prosocial individuals, structure and discipline can be advantageous. However, when
individuals of differing levels of antisocial attitudes, antisocial associates, antisocial temperament (personality),
and antisocial (criminal history) are all mixed together, the reductions in recidivism generally do not appear.
As we have discussed in the section on rehabilitation, criminogenic needs are often not addressed within
boot camps. Thus, boot camps fail to reduce recidivism for several reasons. First, since boot camps fail
to address criminogenic needs, they tend not to be effective. Second, because of the lower admission
requirements of boot camps, individuals are generally “lumped” together into a start date within a boot
camp. Therefore, high-risk offenders and low-risk offenders are placed together, building a cohesive group.
Thus, lower-risk offenders gain antisocial associates that are high-risk. Finally, when boot camps emphasize
the increase of physicality, rather than behavioral change, it generally does not reduce aggressive behavior
(antisocial personality & recidivism). A recent meta-analysis (a study of studies of a topic) found this to be
the case.
2 For more information on the status of boot camps, please see https://www.crimesolutions.gov/
PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=5 .
Platoon Formation in a Boot Camp
1. Parent, D. G. (2018). Research for practice: Correctional Boot Camps: Lessons from a decade of research. U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (June 3rd), NCJ 197018 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdf
2. Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2005). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic
Reviews, 6, 1-42.
357 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Moriah
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
358 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.5. Drug Courts
DAVID CARTER
Drug Courts were also developed in the mid-1980s in Dade County Florida. They are unique in the sense
that – the courtroom works in a non-adversarial way for a more supportive program. Judges, prosecutors,
caseworkers, and program coordinators all work together in a drug court. As with other intermediate
sanctions, the use of drug courts flourished in the United States rapidly, to the point that they are now in
every state. Currently, there are almost 3500 drug, treatment, or specialty courts operating in the United
States. This includes Veterans Courts, Mental Health Courts, DUI Courts, Hybrid Courts, and Juvenile Drug
Courts. For a detailed account of these, see the map at the National Drug Court Database: https://ndcrc.org/
database/. For the purposes of assessing Drug Courts, only materials referencing Drug Courts only are
addressed.
Drug Court Success
While the results on Drug Courts are mixed, as a whole, they are more favorable than boot camps. They
are mixed, largely to how they are assessed. If only talking about the cost savings, versus jail or prison, they
are seen as an effective community alternative. If looking at recidivism, it depends if the metric is looking
solely at drug charges, any arrests, or persistence models (length of time before arrest). As a whole, the
risk of being rearrested for a drug-crime for individuals from drug courts was lower than a comparison
group. For a more detailed report, see Fluellen and Trone (2000). Other have demonstrated that graduates
of drug court program were half as likely to recidivate (10% vs. 20%).
1 While more research is still required,
drug courts are not seen as ineffective control oriented ISPs or boot camps. For an in-depth review of the
overall rating of Drug Courts, which includes over 30 studies of Drug Courts across the United States, see
https://www.crimesolutions.gov/topicdetails.aspx?id=238.
1. Fluellen, R., & Trone, J. (2000). Do drug courts save jail and prison beds? The Vera Institute. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/vera/
drugcourts.pdf
359 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.6. Halfway Houses
DAVID CARTER
Halfway Houses have long been used to control/house offenders. Dating back to the early 1800s from
England and Ireland, halfway houses began around 1820 in Massachusetts. Initially, they were designed to
help an offender “get back on their feet,” and were generally funded in benevolent ways by non-profit
organizations like the Salvation Army.
Currently, halfway houses are typically used as a stopping point for offenders coming out of prisons but
have also recently been used as more secure measures of monitoring probationers in lieu of going to prison.
They are even used as a test measure of parole. With the creation of the IHHA in 1964, halfway houses have
become an integral part of every state, with mixed but more promising results than ISPs or boot camps. The
core design of a halfway house is meant to be a place where individuals can get back on their feet, half-way
out of prison. However, as stated, their uses have evolved, becoming residential, or even partial residential
places where individuals under correctional control can check-in, find reprieve or assistance, in order to
rejoin society as a normal functioning member.
There are some issues regarding the examination of halfway houses. The IHHA break down halfway
houses into four groups along two dimensions. As discussed, halfway houses were initially funded by
private non-profit organizations. However, many halfway houses today (in part, due to the IHHA) are both
privately and federally (and State) funded. Additionally, halfway Houses are also divided into supportive
and interventive groups. That is, halfway houses that serve only a minimal function (a place to stay while
reintegrating back into society) are generally labeled supportive. Interventive halfway houses typically have
multiple treatment modalities and may have up to 500 beds. However, most halfway houses fall somewhere
in the middle of these two continuums.
Halfway House Success
Because of the variations of halfway houses, researchers find them difficult to assess. For instance, it may
be difficult to generalize because of the variability. Second, gathering a representative comparison may also
prove difficult. That is, halfway houses may have increased recidivism, reduced recidivism, or had no effect.
Although clouded, one could argue that halfway houses are at least useful in the sense that these offenders,
who received more treatment faired no worse than individuals who needed less treatment.
As a whole, HWH studies show mixed results. That is, some studies yield reductions in recidivism, while
some show no difference, and others show almost equal increases. When disaggregated by type, programs
using the principles of effective interventions, these halfway houses generally have better reductions in
360 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | recidivism. One difficulty with understanding the effectiveness of halfway houses may be within their
funding. As stated, there are numerous revenue streams for the creation and management of a halfway
house, to include for-profit agencies. This design may override the design of providing the level of care
comprehensive enough to match the level of need by the individuals in the halfway houses. As with the other
intermediate sanctions, it is important to note that using the principles of effective intervention are among
the driving causes of their success.
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
361 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.8. House Arrest
DAVID CARTER
House arrest is where an individual is remanded to stay home for confinement, in order to serve a
punishment, in lieu of jail or prison. There are built-in provisions where individuals are permitted to attend
places of worship, places of employment, and places for food. Otherwise, individuals are expected to be
home. It is difficult to assess how many are on house arrest at any given time, as these are often short stents
given during early stages of probation.
House Arrest Success
As mentioned above, house arrest is often joined with electronic monitoring(EM). Many of the studies
incorporate both sanctions at the same time. Given the difficulty in separating EM from house arrest
in studies, less is known about the independent effects of house arrest. However, it is certainly a cost
saving mechanism, over other forms of sanctions. There is a relatively no-cost to low-cost for house arrest,
not coupled with electronic monitoring, especially when comparing house arrest to intensive supervised
probation. In all, house arrest would probably best serve individuals with low criminogenic risks and needs.
However, it is also argued that those individuals need little sanctions already, in order to be successful. Thus,
the utility of house arrest is debatable.
362 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.9. Community Residential Facilities
DAVID CARTER
Moving up in the continuum of correctional sanctions, CCCs would be considered the last stop before
a lengthy jail or prison sentence, as they can have the highest level of containment. These are often
called CCCs (Community Correctional Centers), TCs (Transition Centers), or CBCFs (Community-Based
Correctional Facilities), and other names. From this point, these variations will all be considered as CBCFs,
as there is a blending of the names to the variety of missions that are within these facilities. However, even
two community residential facilities with the same name can be different, as the functions of CBCFs can
be multifaceted. CBCFs can function similarly to a halfway house, it can provide a stop for individuals
just checking in for the day before they go off to their jobs, they can be used for outpatient services, even
residential services where there is a need for public control/safety.
The overall benefit of CBCFs is their ability to have an increased focus in rehabilitation, at a lower
cost than a State institution. This is where their greatest effect can materialize if there is adherence to the
principles of effective intervention. As we touched on in the first section on punishment, the principles
of effective intervention have been demonstrated to have the best impacts on reductions in recidivism.
Collectively, we call these the PEI. These include concepts like proper identification of criminogenic risks
and needs of offenders, using evidence-based programs that address these items, matching and sorting clients
appropriately, and responsivity in terms of programs and services. For a detailed account of how the PEI
integrates into community corrections, see a very detailed report by the National Institute of Corrections,
under the U.S. Department of Justice: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/019342.pdf .
CBCF Success
What should come as no surprise, as is the theme with correctional practices in the community, CBCFs
have mixed results. This is largely dependent on the composition of the facility, the individuals within the
facility, and the programs offered. When individuals are lumped together, in non-directive programs that do
not adhere to the PEI, the outcomes of CBCFs are not favorable over the jail, prison, or probation. However,
when CBCFs separate offenders based on risk, putting more programming with the higher risk clients, and
little programming on the low-level clients, the outcomes are substantially better. For example, in a study
on CBCFs, Lowenkamp and Latessa (2004) found that when the offenders were separated by their risk,
targeting higher-risk individuals, much larger reductions in recidivism can be achieved.
1
1. Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2004). Residential community corrections and the risk principle: Lessons learned in Ohio. Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Research Compendium, 2: 245-254.
363 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Unfortunately, many CBCFs do not adhere to these principles, and thus, their effectiveness is not as
positive. As stated, this is the case for many of these agencies within community corrections. When
programs do not follow the principles of effective intervention, they do not fare as well. For a recent
report on the status of Community-Based Correctional Facilities, see a question and answer session with
the PEW Foundation and Dr. Joan Petersillia: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/
wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/sentencing_and_corrections/qacommunitycorrectionspdf.pdf
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
364 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.10. Restorative Justice
DAVID CARTER
The process of restorative justice programs is often linked with community justice organizations and is
normally carried out within the community. Therefore, RJ is discussed here in the community corrections
section. Restorative justice is a community based and trauma-informed practice used to build relationships,
strengthen communities, encourage accountability, repair harm, and restore relationships when
wrongdoings occur. As an intervention following wrongdoing, restorative justice works for the people
who have caused harm, and the victim(s), and community members impacted. Working with a restorative
justice facilitator, participants identify harms, needs, and obligations, then make a plan to repair the harm
and put things as right as possible. This process, restorative justice conferencing, can also be called victim-
offender dialogues. It is within this process that multiple items can occur. First, the victim can be heard
within the scope of both the community and within the scope of the offense discussed. This provides the
victim(s) an opportunity to express the impact on them, but also to understand what was happening from the
perspective of the transgressor. At the same time, it allows the person committing the action to potentially
take responsibility for the acts committed, directly to the victim(s) and to the community as a whole. This
restorative process provides a level of healing that is often unique to the RJC. Pictured, the different processes
that can occur during the different types of dialogues within RJC.
Restorative Justice Processes
365 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Restorative Justice
Restorative Justice Success
For over a quarter century, restorative justice has been demonstrated to show positive outcomes in
accountability of harm, and satisfaction in the restorative justice process for both offenders and victims. This
is true for adult offenders, as well as juveniles, who go through the restorative justice process. Recently, there
have been questions whether there is a cognitive change that occurs in the thought process of the individuals
completing a restorative justice program. There is a growing body of research that demonstrates that change
in cognitive distortions that may occur through successful completion of restorative justice conferencing
(RJC). This will be an area of increasing interest for practitioners, as restorative justice continues to be
included in the toolkit of actions within community justice and community corrections.
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
366 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.11. Parole
DAVID CARTER
While the process to get onto parole is unique to all of the other community sanctions we have discussed
so far in this section, individuals on parole are in the community. Thus, parole is often placed within the
concepts of community corrections. Parole is the release (under conditions) of an individual after they have
served a portion of their sentence. It is also accompanied by the threat of re-incarceration if warranted. As
with most concepts in our legal system, their roots of parole can be traced back to concepts from England and
Europe. However, parole today has greatly evolved based on American values and concepts. Parole in the
United States began as a concept at the first American Prison Association meeting in 1870. There was much
support for the ideals of reform in corrections in America at the time. Advocates for reform helped to create
the concept of parole and how it would look in the U.S., and plans to develop parole went from there. Parole
authorities began establishing within the States, and by the mid-1940s, all States had a parole authority.
Parole Boards and State parole authorities have fluctuated over the years, but the concept is still practiced, in
varying degrees today. It is different than probation, which often operates under the judicial branch. Parole
typically operates under the executive branch and is aligned with the departments of corrections, as parole
is a direct extension of prison terms and release. Many states operate a post-prison supervision addendum to
their sentencing matrix for the punishment of individuals.
Oregon Sentencing Guidelines
367 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Oregon Sentencing Guidelines Grid
As you can see from the graph, the PPS section in gray represents the recommended times for parole
(post-prison supervision). Today, there are three basic types of parole in the United States, discretionary,
mandatory, and expiatory.
Discretionary parole is when an individual is eligible for parole or goes before a parole board prior to their
mandatory parole eligibility date. It is at the discretion of the parole board to grant parole (with conditions)
for these individuals. These prisoners are generally well-behaving prisoners that have demonstrated they can
function within society (have completed all required programming). Discretionary parole had seen a rapid
increase in the 1980s but took a marked decrease starting in the early 1990s. In more recent years, it is
continuing to return as a viable release mechanism for over 100,000 inmates a year.
1
Trends in State Parole, 1990-2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. ODJ.
Mandatory parole occurs when a prisoner hits a particular point in time in their sentence. When an inmate
is sent to prison, two clocks begin. The first clock is forward counting and continues until their last day. The
second clock starts at the end of their sentence and starts to work backward proportional to the “good days”
an inmate has. Good days are days that an offender is free from incidents, write-ups, tickets, or other ways to
describe rule infractions. For instance, for every week that an offender is a good prisoner, they might get two
days taken off of the end of their sentence. When these two times converge, that would be a point in which
mandatory parole could kick in for them. This must also be conditioned by truth in sentencing legislation,
or what is considered an 85% rule. Many states have laws in place that stipulates that an inmate is not eligible
for mandatory parole until they hit 85% of their original sentence. Thus, even though the date for the good
1. Hughes, W., & Beck (2001).
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
368 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | days would be before the 85% of a sentence is served, they would only be eligible for mandatory parole once
they had achieved 85% of their sentence. Recently, States have begun to soften these 85% rules, as another
valve to reduce crowding issues. The Hughes et al. (2001) article also provides their proportions, indicating
a direct inverse relationship to discretionary parole during the 1990s
2. As discretionary parole went down,
mandatory parole went up. This is logical though, as once they had passed a date for discretionary parole,
the next date would be an inmate’s mandatory parole date. As you can see from the image below, these
proportions of releases switched in the 1990s.
Parole Releases
Parole Releases
Perhaps most troubling is the Expiatory Release. We see a slow increase of expiatory release in the chart,
and this has continued to climb in the 2000s. Expiatory release means that a person has served their entire
sentence length (and sometimes more). Based on the need to release individuals to accommodate incoming
prisoners, this usually means that an inmate has misbehaved enough to nullify their “good days.” This is
unfortunate, because of the three types of release, it could be argued that these are the inmates that need the
most post-prison supervision. And yet, these are the inmates that are typically receiving the smallest amounts
of parole.
2. Hughes, T., Wilson, D., & Beck, A. (2001). Trends in State parole, 1990-2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special
Report, NCJ 184735 https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tsp00.pdf .
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
369 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Parole Success
It should again come as no surprise as to the effectiveness of parole, considering how many of the other
community-based sanctions are operating. Successful parole completion rates hover around 50%, given a
particular year. In the Hughes et al. (2001) article just mentioned, successful completion was roughly 42%
in 1999. The same issues for failure that are found in probation completion are found in parole completion,
to include: revocation failures, new charges, absconding, and other infractions. This lower than expected
success rate has prompted many critics to argue parole. It is suggested that we are being too lenient on
some while keeping lower-level inmates in prison too long. It is also argued that we are releasing dangerous
individuals out into the community. Whatever the criticisms are, it is certain that we are bound to use parole
as a function of release, even if it is only on paper. For example, California has a concept called non-revocable
parole. The basic premise of this is: as long as you do not violate your terms of parole, your parole will be
solely on paper, with no parole office check-ins. Additionally, no one will come out to your dwelling to
monitor you. Effectively, this version of parole is not enforceable, hence why it is considered as parole on
paper only. But, the questions around parole still remain. What are we to do with the hundreds of thousands
of offenders we let out of prison each year? Do they need more assistance than a bus ticket back to their
county of residence? How should we be doing parole in the United States? A more modern term for parole is
called re-entry. The next section covers current issues within corrections, to include what we do for inmates
who are re-entering society.
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
370 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.12. Current Issues in Corrections
DAVID CARTER
Learning Objectives
In this final section on punishment, we review some of the contemporary special issues that are occurring in our
American jails and prisons. Our decisions to incarcerate on a large scale as a solution to many issues does have
significant impacts. These impacts not only affect the individuals in the justice system, but also community members
as a whole. Some of these issues include overcrowding, gangs, aging prisoners, and substance abuse. This section
will provide a report on some of the more pervasive issues facing corrections today. By the end of this section,
students should be able to:
•
Understand what are some current issues within the world of corrections
•
Recognize the different concepts of how we view these issues
•
Understand how punishment has increased and what are the outcomes of large scale incarceration
Critical Thinking Questions
1.
What are some of the reasons we have so many people in jails and prisons?
2.
What impacts these levels of people under corrections?
3.
Can we solve these issues?
4.
What has been our approach to this point? Has it worked?
371 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.13. Current Issues in Corrections: Mass Incarceration
DAVID CARTER
The section on punishment started with a discussion about feeling safe and secure in our homes. Feeling
safe and secure in person and home is arguably one of the most discussed feelings in our nation today. Our
fear of crime influences how we think and act day to day. This has caused great fluctuation in the United
States, in regards to how we punish people who are convicted of violating the law. In part, punishment
comes from the will of the people, which is then carried out by the legislative process, and converted into
sentencing practices. However, has our desire to feel safe and secure been taken too far by policy? And, have
these policies created even bigger problems for us as citizens? This final section on corrections attempts to
answer how we as America are doing, in order to solve our crisis in corrections.
To give an idea about America’s use of prisons, here is a comparison of the United States to other countries
around the world. As one can see, America uses punishment fairly well. In fact, one could argue that we are
the best at it.
International Imprisonment Rates
372 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | The United States wasn’t always this punitive. As we have discussed, the context of eras that we have moved
through, our underlying philosophy of punishment constantly evolves, even if it is rather slow at times.
Unfortunately, in the 1970s, there was a confluence of events that kicked us off on a path of incarcerating
many types of individuals, more so than we had done in the past. This path of imprisonment or mass
incarceration has had lasting effects. Below, you can see when the expansion of the correctional system
began.
Mass Increase in Incarceration
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
373 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Mass Increase in Incarceration
The United States had just gone through a large scale amount of civil unrest, which leads to a civil rights
movement of many Americans. As a country, we were not happy with how subpopulations were being
treated, and it was during this that many positive changes in the country were being adapted into law. This
also corresponded with a massive influx of men that were returning from the Vietnam war. The disapproval
of the war, increased our growing distrust of the government to provide programs that could help individuals
within the justice system. Many State-funded operations were seen as intrusive on the public, to include
mental health facilities. There was also a large scale importation of drugs occurring in America. All of these
items and more shifted our ideology rather abruptly in the United States, and we turned toward a more
punitive approach to people in society that were getting into trouble. Collectively, we would consider this
the “get tough era” on crime. This included the war on drugs (gang involvement), tougher sentencing
legislation across the country, transinstitutionalization or transcarceration (the removal of many individuals
from state mental health hospitals), and others. Collectively, these all had a large-scale increase in the prison
population.
Full Jails?
It is 3:00 AM on a Sunday morning and Terry is getting force-released from jail because the jail is full. Force
Releases occur when a facility is at its maximum capacity and a more serious offender is coming in. The decision has
to be made in order to protect the community the facility is supposed to protect, but still, maintain the constitutional
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
374 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | rights of the individuals it is required to secure. Like many others in the community, Terry made some poor
decisions, was arrested for a lower level of crime and has started the process of going through the justice system.
However, for Terry, and unfortunately many others, now Terry is being pushed back out onto the street, prior to
receiving some basic services that may help him change his behaviors. This is not his fault, it is only due to the fact
that a more dangerous offender is coming into the jail, and a decision had to be made.
To make matters more complicated, Terry is a dually diagnosed individual. This means that he has both a
substance abuse problem and a low-level mental health issue. Terry has been managing his mental health issue with
medications that he is able to afford because of his job at the local Wal-Mart. Now Terry will probably lose his job
because he hasn’t shown up for two shifts, due to him being in jail. While not excusing any of Terry’s actions that
got him in jail, Terry is now out on the street, without his medication. He is nervous that he is not sure what he is
going to do.
This story is more common than you think. It happens to tens of thousands of individuals a year. What
should the community do?
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
375 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.14. Current Issues in Corrections: War on Drugs and Gangs
DAVID CARTER
The war on drugs, initiated by President Nixon in 1971, was framed as an all-out war to eradicate drugs in
the United States. The massive expenditures on the curtailment of the drug epidemic also shifted our views
on drug use. We became much more punitive towards drugs, treating it as more of a criminal justice issue,
rather than as a substance dependence issue. Good or bad, drug use was demonized in the public and media,
which aided in the development of much tougher sanctions on drug use in America. The Drug Enforcement
Agency was created in 1973, to provide another arm of the government to tackle a specific issue, drugs.
By the 1980s, lengthy sentences for drug possession were also in place. One to five-year sentences for
possession were increased to upwards of 25 years. There was also an increased focus on gangs, which were
held responsible for the majority of the drug trade in the United States.
Gang activity in the United States was prevalent long before the enactment of the war on drugs. However,
once the linkages between our fear of crime, and the drug trade by gangs became more pronounced due to
the war on drugs, the conflict escalated. While there are hundreds of different gangs in many neighborhoods
and communities in the United States today, gangs in prison have converged into four main gangs, or
what corrections call security threat groups. These four basic gangs include the Whites, the Blacks, the
Southerners (Surenos, or EME), and the Northerners (Nortenos). Not only are these STGs considered violent
inside and outside of prison, but they are also actively involved in the continuing drug trade in the United
States today, even behind bars. In fact, many of the leaders of all of the gangs on the streets are held in one
prison in California, Pelican Bay State Prison.
Within the prisons in the United States, gangs actively recruit members, communicate with gangs on the
streets, run the drug trade, and are also at war with each other over the power within the institutions, from
their perspective. There have been numerous documentaries on gangs in the U.S., and even mainstream
films about gangs and gang life, both inside and out. A few notable examples of films to watch on this subject
include Felon (2008), Shot Caller (2017), and American Me (1992).
Transcarceration
At the same time, the proliferation of gangs was occurring in prisons in the United States, there were
another sizeable increase of prisoner type, mentally ill inmates. This is due to the transinstitutionalization
that occurred for thousands during the late 1970s, 1980s. Transinstitutionalization, or transcarceration is a
process that occurred for many with mental health issues when State-run mental health facilities began to
close their doors. Having few choices of where to go, many became homeless or destitute. Ultimately, these
376 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | individuals wound up in America’s jails and prisons. This is also compounded by how we have shifted our
views on the mentally ill within the courts and justice system. While insanity is a defense that is used in
court, it is rare (roughly 1% of cases), and even more rarely does it conclude in success. This shift occurred
within our understanding of guilt surrounding mental illness. In the past, an individual would be held not
guilty by reason of insanity. However, this shifted to guilty, but legally insane. The guilt would be grounds
to still incarcerated individuals. Changes in policy like this also contributed to the increase in offenders in
the 1980s.
Get Tough Policies
Another reason for the large scale increases can be found in our changes to policies surrounding sentences
and sentence lengths. Get tough policies flourished in the latter half of the 1980s and into the 1990s.
This included truth in sentencing legislation three-strikes policies, and drug crime minimums. Truth in
sentencing, also known as the 85% rule, is where mandatory minimums of sentences would be forced to
be served by incarcerated individuals. Thus if an individual was sentenced to prison, a mandatory minimum
of 85% of the sentence would have to be served before the individual was eligible for release (parole). This
added to the average length of sentences served in American prisons, which meant that individuals were not
being released as early as in prior years. Thus, as more individuals were coming in due to increases in other
legislation, there were already more people in the prisons.
Three strikes policies were enacted in many States. In 1993, Washington overwhelmingly passed (75%
voted yes) to approve initiative 593
1 This policy increased sentence lengths for 40 felonies, which included
life imprisonment. Perhaps the largest 3 strikes policy was in 1994, in California, with Proposition 184,
commonly called the Three Strikes and You’re Out policy. It mandated a minimum of 25 years of prison
for individuals committing 3 felonies. What made this policy more pervasive than others was the way in
which it could be applied. If a person had two previous strikes for violent, or serious felonies (not necessarily
violent), any new felony was life imprisonment, with a minimum of 25 years. For a more detailed view of
this policy, see https://lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm
Drug laws were also changing at this time. The Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (1970),
started the increases for drugs in the U.S. under federally mandated minimums found within the federal code
21 U.S.C. § 841. For a detailed reporting of these minimums, see https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/
pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171025_Drug-Mand-Min.pdf
One of the most debated issues within the drug sentencing laws was the differential between cocaine (in
powder form) and crack ( also form of cocaine, diluted and in a hardened paste form). During the increases
in sentencing, there was a disparity in the lengths of sentences for comparable weights of these two drugs.
There has been much debate whether this targeted poorer individuals more harshly, as crack was seen as a
poor man’s cocaine. However, with additional mandatory minimum increases in the 1980s, differences in
sentence lengths began to widen. In a detailed report, Barbara Meierhoefer (1992) detailed how the average
sentence lengths for African Americans (for similar weights of crack v. cocaine for Whites) was roughly 50%
higher, supporting this assertion that drug sentences were not equal.
2
With over a million arrests per year for drugs, it does add to the prison system as a whole. While the
proportion of drug offenders in State prisons hovers around 20-25%, it is much larger at the federal level. As
seen below, it makes up over half of the federal prisons. In all, the drug seriousness went up (how drugs are
1. Wright, P. (1995). Three strikes racks ‘em up. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 6(2), 3-6. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/
abstract.aspx?ID=162918
2. Meierhoefer, B. (1992). The general effect of mandatory minimum prison terms: A longitudinal study of federal sentences imposed.
Federal Judicial Center. https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/GenEffMM.pdf
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
377 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | scheduled within federal guidelines), and sentence lengths for drugs went up; certain drugs more than others
also went up.
Federal Drug Inmates
Federal Drug Inmates
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
378 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.15. Current Issues in Corrections: Aging and Overcrowding
DAVID CARTER
One of the side effects of lengthier sentences is that: the individuals in prison get older, in prison. Thus, the
amounts of individuals in prisons over 55 years old has dramatically increased. As McKillop and Boucher
(2018) relate in the graphic below, based on BJS data, there has been a 280% increase in prisoners, age 55
and older.
1
Aging Prisoners
1. McKillop, M., & Boucher, A. (2018). Aging prison populations drive up costs. Older individuals have more chronic illnesses and other
ailments that necessitate greater spending. Available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/02/20/aging-
prison-populations-drive-up-costs
379 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Aging Prisoners
And as the title of their article depicts, there is a growing cost within this subpopulation of inmates. McKillop
and Boucher (2018) relay that the cost of this group of inmates can be upwards of three times the cost of the
normal inmate (30k to 100k per inmate).
2
Beyond just the cost of these inmates, a more philosophical question has risen, in regards to how to treat
prisoners as they enter their last phase in life. Some have articulated for compassionate releases for individuals
that are entering hospice care or in need of assisted living conditions. Other articulate that this is unfair to put
the burden on the inmate, as they have been incarcerated for long periods of time and have few self-support
options available. In a powerful documentary on this matter, Edgar Barens details these issues. Information
about this film, The Prison Terminal (2013), can be seen here: https://www.prisonterminal.com/.
Overcrowding
These issues and others have all contributed to the rising correctional population in the United States. It
is estimated that we have over 8 million people in correctional control, and that number does not seem to
be subsiding. Yes, there are reductions in certain areas, such as a decline in the prison population in the last
2. McKillop, M., & Boucher, A. (2018). Aging prison populations drive up costs. Older individuals have more chronic illnesses and other
ailments that necessitate greater spending. Available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/02/20/aging-
prison-populations-drive-up-costs
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
380 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | few years, but this does not mean that they are not still under control. In one of the more detailed examples
of just where individuals are at in corrections, Alexi Jones (2018) of the Prison Policy Initiative provides a
graphic, based on State and Federal data to demonstrate this impact.
Rates of Correctional Control
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
381 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Aging Prisoner Graphic
Not only does this graphic demonstrate the overall volume of correctional control, but it also highlights
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
382 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | how states are handling their populations differentially. The second half of Jones’ (2018)
3 report details
the volume of individuals with each state. Please take a moment to review the last portion of this report
to see how many are under correctional control, found here: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/
correctionalcontrol2018.html#statedata
Prison overcrowding is problematic for multiple reasons. First, when there are too many individuals
(especially antisocial ones) within a facility, there are more assaults and injuries that occur within the
institution. Moreover, there is a safety concern for not only the inmate on inmate violence but also inmate
on staff crimes. Second, the more people you have in a facility, the faster that facility wears down. Operating
a jail or prison at maximum (or over maximum) capacity causes more items to break or wear out within
the facility at a fast rate. Finally, when individuals are unable to access adequate health care because of the
excessively long waits, due to overcrowding, it is a violation of their constitutional rights.
As prisoners, we (the public and the State) have a responsibility to house and properly care for the prisoners
overseen. This is not to say that offenders are getting premier care, but that they are at least receiving a
modicum of care. When this low level of care is deliberately denied due to excessive volumes of individuals,
it is a violation of a person’s 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. As was found in
the case of Estelle v. Gamble, (1976).
4 This similar issue was presented in California over ten years ago. A
three-judge panel ruled with the prisoners, citing the need for California to reduce its prison population to
a level where the individuals could effectively be managed, and cared for [emphasis on the latter]. Dealing
with overcrowding is a constant issue for most prisons and jails. Some have resolved to release more out into
the community at a higher volume, on parole or just release. However, this too has its own set of problems,
as reentry is now becoming the current issue within corrections.
3. Jones, A. (2018). Correctional control 2018: Incarceration and supervision by state Prison Policy Initiative. Available at:
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/correctionalcontrol2018.html#statedata .
4. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
383 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 9.16. Current Issues in Corrections: Reentry and the Future of
Corrections
DAVID CARTER
Reentry and the Revolving Door
Parole, as discussed in the previous chapter, has had mixed reviews. Overall, the effectiveness of parole
hovers around 50% success. It is estimated somewhere between 600,000 and 800,000 parolees are on parole
in any given year over the last 3 decades. Additionally, several hundred thousand are exiting parole in each
of these years. This brings up questions about what happens to these individuals. The reality is that most
of them will be rearrested. In one of the more comprehensive studies on recidivism, Alper, Durose, and
Markman (2018) discussed the recidivism rate of individuals tracked over a 9-year follow up period. What
they found was that rearrest occurred for about 70% in the first three years, and by year 9, 83% of the
individuals released has been rearrested. Many of these individuals return to prison, hence the concept of
the “revolving door” of justice. In order for reentry programs to be more successful, individuals returning to
society need assistance to get back on their feet and stay on their feet. This includes items such as education
and training, employment assistance to get a job, legal services, education on public benefits, and housing
assistance. Interestingly, it appears as though many of the items here are the same items that many of them
had deficits in that landed them in trouble in their lives before
1 That is – many of these items are those same
predictors of offending that were discussed in the first section (known as the know predictors of recidivism).
Unfortunately, it appears as though they are not getting these while they are incarcerated. Again, creating a
cycle of release and catch again.
Situations and circumstances that compound these problems for many ex-offenders is the difficulty faced
with trying to get a job once released. Over the last 20 years, there was an overwhelming push to include
items on employment applications that asked questions about prior incarceration history. Not only were
there questions about prior incarcerations and prior convictions, but many employers also have questions
about ever being arrested. If an individual told the truth (which is what they should do), the reality is
that their applications would be discarded, or overlooked for others without an arrest/conviction. If an
ex-offender lied about it, and it was discovered during a background investigation, the application was
1. Alper, M., Durose, M. R., & Markman, J. (2018). Update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014). U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf
384 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | certainly discarded. In either scenario, it became increasingly difficult for an individual to obtain legitimate
employment.
This is also true on apartment rental applications. Again, when individuals would put down prior arrests,
their applications would often be placed at the bottom of the pile. If someone were to lie about it, and it
was discovered, it could be used as grounds for not selecting an individual for tenancy. Once again, society
was making it difficult for ex-offenders to even function as a normal citizen, based on a sentence that they
had served, which is when the punishment should have ended. Collectively, these items are included in the
concept of collateral consequences. That is – items that are barriers to successful integration that are remnants
of prior punishment.
Future Outlook of Corrections
Based on the major issues presented, overcrowding and reentry, the problems faced in corrections are not
likely to go away anytime soon. We have seen an increase in the overall correctional population for years
now. While there are some reductions in prisons, this is not likely to stay this way, unless changes are made.
Additionally, while there is space for growth in the area of community corrections, the functions of CC need
to be supported and done based on evidence-based practices if it is to be more successful. It too has limits, and
without the support, it is more likely to be another failure. If it is not supported, then the prison population is
likely to increase even more, due to the eventual placement of too many failures of individuals in community
corrections. Most offenders are in need of some basic assistance to get themselves back to a functioning level
in society, including addressing their education, their substance abuse, their employment, and general and
mental health. Our correctional system needs to change its habit of treating substance abuse and mental
health issues as legal and punish-oriented issues if we are going to curb the tide of the growing problems
we face in corrections. If not, our 8 million individuals in all forms of correctional control can quickly turn
10 million. According to a 2016 report from the U.S. Department of Education (p. 13), “from 1979–80 to
2012–13, state and local government expenditures on corrections rose by 324 percent (from $17billion to
$71 billion).”
2 Keep in mind that is taxpayer money. We are funding this issue. It is time to address these
problems from a more holistic approach if we are going to see a change in our current correctional practices.
2. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/expenditures-corrections-education/brief.pdf
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
385 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10: Juvenile Justice
Learning Objectives
In this section, you will be introduced to juvenile justice. This section is designed to be a broad overview of the
juvenile court system, to examine the pros and cons of the juvenile justice system, examine the various stages in the
juvenile justice system, and discuss contemporary issues facing juvenile justice. After reading this section, students
will be able to:
•
Summarize the history and purpose of the juvenile court
•
Explain the pros and cons of the juvenile justice system.
•
Briefly examine the stages of the juvenile justice system
•
Examine the reasons supporting and criticizing the process of waiver to adult court
•
Explain how due process has evolved through the juvenile court.
Critical Thinking Questions
1.
What impact did the child savers have on juvenile justice reform?
2.
Explain how due process has been used throughout the history of the juvenile justice system.
3.
How has the juvenile justice system evolved since it was created?
4.
What are the different types of waiver?
5.
What four areas changed the juvenile court?
387 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.1. Youth Crime
ALISON S. BURKE
Since the early 1990s, America has witnessed an increase in the fear of youth crime.
1 Sensationalized media
exposure in the 1990s facilitated the public’s fear of youth crime, which resulted in get tough legislation and a
perceived need to “do something” about juvenile crime.
2 The juvenile court was criticized for its inability to
control youth crime and, as a result, policies shifted from rehabilitation to punishment of juvenile offenders.
3 This punishment included an increase in the number of states that adopted new legislation or revised their
previous statutes to facilitate the transfer of youthful offenders from juvenile court to criminal court to be
tried as adults.
4
Ted Talks: Jeffrey Brown An architect of the “Boston miracle,” Rev. Jeffrey Brown started out as a
bewildered young pastor watching his Boston neighborhood fall apart around him, as drugs and gang
violence took hold of the kids on the streets. The first step to recovery: Listen to those kids don’t
just preach to them and help them reduce violence in their own neighborhoods. It’s a powerful talk
about
listening
to
make
a
change. https://www.ted.com/talks/
jeffrey_brown_how_we_cut_youth_violence_in_boston_by_79_percent?language=en#t-24954
1. Benekos, P., & Merlo, A. (2004). Controversies in juvenile justice and delinquency. Anderson Publishing.
2. Myers, D.L. (2001). Excluding violent youth from the juvenile court: The effectiveness of legislative waiver.New York: LBF Scholarly Press.
3. Feld, B.C. (2001). Race, youth violence, and the changing jurisprudence of waiver. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(1), 3-22.
4. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
389 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.2. Juvenile Justice
ALISON S. BURKE
The contemporary juvenile justice system operates under the premise that juveniles are different than adults
and require special attention and treatment. The juvenile justice system believes that juveniles are malleable
and can be rehabilitated. The juvenile court is based on the premise that public safety is best served by
emphasizing the rehabilitation, rather than the incapacitation and punishment of juveniles.
1 Unfortunately,
sensationalized media exposure of violent youth has led to exaggerated public fear of juvenile crime, get
tough legislation, and a perceived need to “do something” about juvenile crime.
2 This punitive position
is nothing new. Before the inception of the juvenile justice system a mere 100 years ago, youth were
treated the same as adults. They were considered culpable for their actions and housed alongside adult
offenders in jails and prisons. Recent research has utilized neuroscience to support the need to treat juveniles
differently because they are different. The sections of the brain that govern characteristics associated with
moral culpability do not stop maturing until the early 20s. Therefore, it is assumed that someone under age
20, such as a juvenile delinquent, has an underdeveloped brain.
When addressing juvenile delinquency in America, the pendulum swings from punitive policies to
rehabilitative policies and then back again depending on media, politics, and the current climate. There is
no magic bullet approach to preventing juvenile delinquency, but as the court evolves, changes, and utilizes
best practices, it gets closer.
Ted Talks: Stephen Case The youth crime ‘problem’ is examined as a social construction and moral
panic created by institutions in Western societies. The talk traces the evolution of youth crime into a
phenomenon persistently misrepresented as an escalating social epidemic. The developmental life stages of
‘childhood’ and ‘adolescence’ as inventions are explored, highlighting differences between young people
and adults. In this way, ‘youth crime’ can be identified as a social problem requiring distinct responses.
A running theme is a child as a source of adult anxiety and fear, motivating societies to create structures,
1. Cox, S. M., Conrad, J. J., & Allen, J. M. (2003). Juvenile justice: A guide to theory and practice. McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences
& World Languages.
2. Benekos, P., & Merlo, A. (2004). Controversies in juvenile justice and delinquency. Anderson Publishing.
390 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | processes, theories, and images of youth crime that punish lawbreakers. The ‘solution’ is the ‘positive youth
justice’ model. Children should not be punished as if they are adults but their criminal behavior should be
seen as a normal part of growing up. Instead, they should be worked with to meet their needs, to embrace
their human rights and to promote their life chances. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYWPyiZIpV8
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
391 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.3. History of the Juvenile Justice System
ALISON S. BURKE
The juvenile court was created in Cook County Illinois in 1899, but the concept dates back to seventeenth
century Europe. The term pparens patriae
arens patriae originated in the 12th century with the King of England and literally
means “the father of the country.” Applied to juvenile matters, parens patriae means the king is responsible for
and in charge of everything involving youth.
1 Parens patriae was often used by royalty in England from their
homes in the name of the king. Children were often seen as property and were thus subject to the wishes of
the king or his agents.
2 This was especially relevant when they violated the law.
Within the scope of early English common law, parents had the primary responsibility of raising their
children in any manner they deemed fit. However, when children reached 7 years of age or committed a
criminal act, chancellors, acting in the name of the king, adjudicated matters concerning the youth. The
youth has no legal rights and were essentially wards of the court. As such, the courts were tasked with
safeguarding their welfare. While parents were merely responsible for childbearing, the state had the primary
and legitimate interest in the upbringing of the children.
3
The concept of parens patriae had a substantial influence on events in the United States, such as the child-
saving movement, houses of refuge, and reform schools. The persistent doctrine of parens patraie can be seen
evolving from “king as a father” to a more general ideology, that of the state “acting in the best interest of
the child.” Subsequent matters involving youth revolve around this notion of acting in the best interest of
the child, whether children were taken away from wayward parents, sent to reform schools for vagrancy,
or even held in institutions until they read the age of majority, or 18 years old. The idea is that the state is
acting in their best interest, protecting the youth from growing up to be ill-prepared members of society.
Thus, the courts are intervening for the youth’s own good.
In the nineteenth century, children were gradually seen as vulnerable and in need of special care and
supervision. One illustration of this concept was the establishment of a house of refuge in New York City
in 1825. These were urban establishment used to corral youth who were roaming the street unsupervised or
who had been referred by the courts.
4
These houses were not intended to house criminals, but rather at-risk youth, or youth who were on the
1. Merlo, A., & Benekos, P. (2019). The Juvenile Justice System, Delinquency, Processing, and the Law (9th ed.) Pearson.
2. Shoemaker, D. (2018). Juvenile Delinquency (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
3. Merlo, A., & Benekos, P. (2019). The Juvenile Justice System, Delinquency, Processing, and the Law (9th ed.). Pearson.
4. Merlo, A., & Benekos, P. 2019. The Juvenile Justice System, Delinquency, Processing, and the Law (9th ed.). Pearson.
392 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | verge of falling into a life of crime because of their social circumstances. Because of the notion of parens
patriea, many of the parents of these youth were not involved in the placement of their children in these
houses. The case of Ex Parte Crouse
Ex Parte Crouse is an example.
5
In 1838, a girl named Mary Ann Crouse was sent to a Philadelphia house of refuge at the request of her
mother. Her father petitioned to have her released since she was committed without his consent. However,
on the grounds that the state has the right to remove children from their home, in their best interest and
even sometimes over parental objection (because of parens patriae), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied
the father’s petition. The court declared that failed parents lose their rights to raise their children. Parental
custody and control of their children is natural, but not an absolute right. If parents fail to care for their
children, educate, train, or supervise them, then the children can be taken by the state. The state is acting in
the best interest of the child.
Reform Schools:
Reform Schools: The 1850s ushered in the development of reform schools or institutions used for the
housing of delinquent and dependent children. The schools were structured around a school schedule
rather than the work hours that defined the workhouses and houses of refuge. Many reform schools
operated like a cottage system where the youth were divided into “families” with cottage parents who
oversaw the day to day running of the family, discipline of the youth, and schooling. The structure is
still used in some youth correction institutions today, however, back in the nineteenth century, children
were often exploited for labor and many of the school de-emphasis formal education.
6 Additionally, the
emphasis of the reform school was on the strength of the family and they believed that by reinserting a
strong family presence in the lives of the youth, they would be deterred from further criminal pursuits.
7 Regardless of the lack of evaluations as to the effectiveness of these institutions, the popularity of
reformatories continued to grow.
The state had the legal authority to commit children and youth to reform schools based under parens
patriae. However, in 1870, a boy named Daniel Turner was considered a “misfortunate”, or someone who
was in danger of becoming delinquent because his family was poor and unable to care for him. He was
remanded to a Chicago house of refuge for vagrancy, not a delinquent act. His father filed a writ of habeas
corpus and the court ruled that the state has no power to imprison a child, who has committed no crime,
on the mere allegation that he is “ destitute of proper parental care, and is growing up in mendicancy,
ignorance, idleness, and vice.”
8 People Ex Rel. O’connell v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280 (Ill. 1870). This effectively
closed the reform schools in Illinois since they could no longer house non-criminal children. This case
challenged the practice of parens patriae and ruled that the state can only take control of children if the
parents are completely and utterly unfit and/or the child had committed some act of “gross misconduct.”
9
5. Ex Parte Crouse (1839)
6. Mennel, R.M. (1973). Thorns & Thistles: Juvenile Delinquents in the United States from 1825–1940. Hanover, NH: University Press of New
England.
7. Shoemaker, D. (2018). Juvenile Delinquency (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
8. People Ex Rel. O’connell v. Turner, 55 Ill. 280 (Ill. 1870).
9. Fox, S.J. (1970). Juvenile Justice Reform: An Historical Perspective. Stanford Law Review, 22:1187–1239
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
393 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Child Saving Movement:
Child Saving Movement: By the end of the ninetieth century, cities were experiencing the effects of
three major things: industrialization, urbanization, and immigration. Industrialization refers to the
shift in work from agricultural jobs to more manufacturing work. This led to a greater number of people
moving from the country to the cities, and the cities increasing exponentially in population without the
infrastructure to support the increase. Immigration refers to the internal migration of people in America
and the external movement of people from other countries. Within America, people were moving from
the southern states (remember, this is not long after the end of the Civil War, which ended in 1865) and
immigrating from European countries such as Ireland (the potato famine lasted from 1845-1854 and killed
an estimated 1.5 million people). Millions of Germans and Asians also immigrated to America during this
time lured by Midwest farmlands and the California Goldrush.
10
The influx of people into cities weakened the cohesiveness of communities and the abilities of
communities and families to socialize and control children effectively.
11 Nonetheless, the child-saving
movement emerged during this time in an effort to change the way the state was dealing with dependent,
neglected, and delinquent children. The child savers were women from middle and upper-class
backgrounds.
There is some debate as to the motives of the child savers. The traditional view is that they were
progressive reformers who sought to solve problems of urban life, while others contend that they used
their station and resources as an effort to preserve their middle-class white way of life by overseeing the
treatment of the immigrant children. Regardless of their motives, it is safe to say that child-savers were
prominent, influential, philanthropic women, who were “generally well educated, widely traveled, and had
access to political and financial resources.”
12
Creation of the Juvenile Court
The juvenile court was created in Cook County, Illinois in 1899. The Illinois Juvenile Court Act of
1899 was the first statutory provision in the United States to provide for an entirely separate system of
juvenile justice. The court was created to have jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to youth- dependent,
neglected, and delinquent youth.
A 1905 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, Commonwealth v. Fisher
13Commonwealth v. Fisher, 213
Pennsylvania 48 (1905)
14, conveyed the legal authority of the new juvenile court under parens patriae:
"To save a child from becoming a criminal, or from continuing in a career of crime, . . . the
legislatures surely may provide for the salvation of such a child, if its parents or guardians be unable or
unwilling to do so, by bringing it into one of the courts of the state without any process at all, for the
purpose of subjecting it to the state's guardianship and protection."
In this case, a juvenile was given a seven-year sentence for a minor crime which would have received a
10. History (n.d.). US immigration before 1965. https://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965
11. Feld, B.C. (1999). Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Platt, A. (1977). The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency (2nd ed., pp.83). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13.
14.
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
394 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | much lesser sentence in adult court. The court upheld the sentence and deemed it was in the best interest
of the child. As a result of the case, parens patriae was back. The court ruled that “importance to the
commonwealth which is vitally interested in rescuing and saving its children, wherever rescue, care and a
substitute for parental control are required, to the end that they may, in the enjoyment of sober, industrious
and happy lives, fill the full measure of good citizenship.”
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
395 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.4. Delinquency
ALISON S. BURKE
Before the creation of the juvenile court, there was no such thing as “delinquency.” Youth were convicted
of crimes, the same as adults. Just as the concept of “childhood” is socially constructed, scholars also say that
“juvenile delinquency” is likewise socially constructed as a result of social, economic, and religious changes.
1 The juvenile court oversees cases for youth between the ages of 7 and 17. Seven is considered the lower
limit of the reaches or protections of the juvenile justice system, while 17 is the upper limit. At 18, youth
are considered adults and are tried under the laws of the adult criminal justice system. However, some states
have differing upper age limits. For example, in Oregon, the Oregon Youth Authority houses youth until
the age of 25. Other states have similar provisions and although the lower limit is seven years of age, most
states do not intervene in cases under nine.
Youth Processing Ages
After the creation of the juvenile court, the child savers and reformers were worried that restricting the court
1. Feld, B.C. (1999). Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York: Oxford University Press.
396 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | to only deal with criminal youth would make the court function like an adult criminal court rather than a
rehabilitative parental figure. Within a couple of years of its founding, amendments to the Illinois Juvenile
Court Act broadened the definition of delinquency to include incorrigible youth, or otherwise unruly and
out of the control of their parents.
2 The definition of juvenile delinquency now included status offenses or
offenses that are only illegal because of the age of the offender. Examples include: drinking alcohol, running
away, ungovernability, truancy (skipping school), and curfew violations. Overall, the juvenile justice system
is responsible for youth who are considered dependent, neglected, incorrigible, delinquent, and/or status
offenders.
Podcast: Caught
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/589480586/caught
The purpose of the original court was to act in a rehabilitative ideal. The main function was to emphasize
reform and treatment over punishment and punitive action.
3 Terminology in the court is even different,
to denote the separate nature from the adversarial adult processes. To initiate the juvenile court process, a
petition is filed “in the welfare of the child,” whereas this is called an indictment in the adult criminal process.
The proceedings of juvenile courts are referred to as “hearings,” instead of trials, as in adult courts. Juvenile
courts find youths to be “delinquent,” rather than criminal or guilty of an offense, and juvenile delinquents
are given a “disposition,” instead of a sentence, as in adult criminal courts.
2. Feld, B.C. (1999). Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Feld, B.C. (1999). Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York: Oxford University Press.
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
397 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.5. Juvenile Justice Process
ALISON S. BURKE
Did you know that there is no uniform juvenile justice system in the United States? It is quite surprising!
Matters concerning minors and children who break the law are left to the discretion of individual states and
their legislative bodies. States have different priorities, and legislators enact new laws and revise legislation
according to their own needs at the time. Although every state operates independently, they manifest
common trends and respond to certain issues in a similar manner. For example, the increasing fear of youth
violence in the 1990s precipitated more specific and punitive legislation in almost every state.
1 Some states
with very specific and real gang problems devised targeted gang suppression laws and legislation, while other
states did not. The fear of youth crime led states to create mandatory minimum legislation (like Measure 11
laws in Oregon), waiver and transfer laws, and zero tolerance policies.
The juvenile justice system has two main responsibilities: to oversee cases involving (1) juvenile
delinquency (criminal law violations and status offenses) and (2) dependency, neglect, and child abuse.
2 Due
to the loose definitions of parens patrea and the court’s attempt to act in the best interest of the child, after
World War II, the juvenile court was criticized for disregarding due process.
Due process refers to the procedural rights established in the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. It
includes rights such as the right to legal counsel, right to call witnesses, and right to be notified of charges
(which will be revisited in In re Gault). The original juvenile court did not implement due process rights
because it was intervening in the lives of youth for their own good, not in such a formalized adult way where
they would need constitutional protections. However, because of the abuse of power, this changed in later
decades.
Beginning in the 1960s, four areas drastically changed in the juvenile court:
(1) the juvenile due process revolution from 1966 to 1975
(2) the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
(3) a growing emphasis on punishment and accountability in the 1980s and 1990s
(4) contemporary juvenile justice reform that is driven by evidence-based practices and empirical research
on adolescent development, which in turn leads us back to rehabilitation
1. Feld, B.C. (2003). The Politics of Race and Juvenile Justice: The ‘Due Process Revolution’ and the Conservative Reaction. Justice Quarterly
20:765-800.
2. Rubin 1985
398 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.6. Due Process in the Juvenile Court
ALISON S. BURKE
As discussed, the juvenile court was created with rehabilitation and individualized treatment in mind.
However, between 1966 and 1975, the court became more formalized and started “adultifying” the process.
Landmark cases for establishing due process rights in the juvenile justice system include.
Kent v. United States
Kent v. United States (1966)
1
Morris Kent was a 16-year-old boy living in Washington DC who was on probation for burglary
and theft. He was arrested again and charged with three burglaries, three robberies, and two counts of
rape. Due to the seriousness of the changes and Kent’s previous criminal history, the prosecutors moved
to try Kent in adult court. However, because of his age, he was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
juvenile court. Kent’s lawyers wanted his case to be heard in juvenile court. Without a hearing or a full
investigation, the judge sided with the prosecutors and Kent was tried in adult court. He was found guilty
and sentenced to 30 to 90 years in prison. On appeal, Kent lawyers argued that the case should have to stay
in juvenile court and it was unfairly moved to adult court without a proper hearing.
The Supreme Court ruled that while minors can be tried in adult court, the original judge needed to
conduct a full investigation and an official waiver hearing where the merits of the case were weighed,
such as the juvenile’s age, prior charges, and mental state. Essentially, Kent was entitled to a hearing
that provided “the essentials of due process and fair treatment.” This standard includes the right to a
formal hearing on the motion of waiver and a written statement of the reasons for a waiver, the right to
counsel, and the defense’s access to all records involved in the waiver decision. It also ruled that “The parens
patriae philosophy of the Juvenile Court ‘is not an invitation to procedural arbitrariness.'”
2
1. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045 (1966).
2. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, pp. 554-556 (1966)
399 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | In re Gault
In re Gault (1967).
3
Gerald “Jerry” Gault, a 15-year-old Arizona boy, was taken into custody for making obscene calls to
a neighbor’s house. After the neighbor, Mrs. Cook filed charges, Gault and his friend were taken to the
Juvenile Detention Home. At the time he was taken into custody, his parents were at work and the
arresting officers made no effort to contact them nor did they leave a note about the arrest or where they
were taking their son. They finally learned of his whereabouts from the family of the friend who arrested
with him.
When the habeas corpus hearing was held two months later, Mrs. Cook was not present, no one was
sworn in prior to testifying, and no notes were taken. He was released and scheduled to reappear a few
months later for an adjudication hearing. In the following hearing, again, Mrs. Cook was not present and
again, no official transcripts of the proceeding were taken.
The official charge was “making lewd phone calls.” The maximum penalty for an adult charge with this
was a $50 fine or not more than two months in jail. Gault was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years in
juvenile detention.
Gault’s parents filed a writ of habeas corpus which was eventually heard by the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court ruled that juveniles are entitled to due process rights when the court proceedings may result
in confinement to a secure facility. The specific due process rights highlighted in this case include (1) fair
notice of charges; (2) right to counsel; (3) right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; and (4) privilege
against self-incrimination.
The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to juvenile
defendants as well as adult defendants. “Juvenile court history has again demonstrated that unbridled
discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure.”
In re Winship
In re Winship (1970)
4
Samuel Winship, a 12-year old boy living in New York, was charged with stealing $112 from a woman’s
purse in a store, a charge that “if done by an adult would constitute the crime or crimes of Larceny.” Since
he committed a crime, the charges of juvenile delinquency were justified. Winship was found delinquent
in a New York juvenile court, using the civil law standard of proof, “preponderance of the evidence.”
Winship was committed to a state training school for an initial period of 18 months with the annual
extension of no more than six years.
Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
3. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967)
4. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970)
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
400 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | requires “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court acknowledged that juvenile proceeding is designed
to be more informal than adult proceedings, but if charged with a crime, the juvenile is granted protections
of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Winship expanded the constitutional protections established in Gault.
Breed v. Jones
Breed v. Jones (1975)
5
A 17-year-old boy named Gary Jones was charged with armed robbery and found guilty in a California
juvenile court. At the dispositional hearing, the probation officer assigned to the case testified that Jones
was not amenable to treatment. After the hearing, the court determined that Jones should subsequently
be tried as an adult. Jones’ lawyers filed a writ of habeas corpus and argued that waiving the case to
adult court after it was already adjudicated in juvenile court violated the double jeopardy clause in the
Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that, yes, Jones had been placed in double jeopardy. This
further formalized the juvenile court, however, The Court moved, “Giving respondent the constitutional
protection against multiple trials in this context will not, as petitioner claims, diminish the flexibility and
informality of juvenile-court proceedings.”
6
5. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779 (1975)
6. 27 Raley, Gordon. 1995. "The JJDP Act: A Second Look." Juvenile Justice Journal, 2:11–18.
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
401 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.7. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
ALISON S. BURKE
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 reformed and redefined the philosophy,
authority, and procedures of the juvenile justice system in the United States. This was the first major federal
initiative to address juvenile delinquency across the nation.
1 While historically, the overseeing of juvenile
matters fell on the states, the JJDP Act established some oversight at the federal level.
The JJDP Act attached to state funding to reform efforts. For example, one major reform effort involved
revising policies around secure detention, separating juvenile from adult offenders, and deinstitutionalizing
status offenders. Status offenders were no longer to be held in secure facilities with delinquent youth.
2 In 1992, as part of the reauthorization of JJDPA, states were encouraged to identify gaps in their ability
to provide appropriate services for female juvenile delinquents (42 U.S.C. 5601; OJJDP). The federal
government expected states to provide specific services for the prevention and treatment of female
delinquency and prohibit gender bias in the placement, treatment, and programming of female delinquents.
Campaign for Youth Justice
http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/
1. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1998). Juvenile female offender: A status of the state's report.
2. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1998). Juvenile female offender: A status of the state's report.
402 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.8. Getting Tough: Initiatives for Punishment and Accountability
ALISON S. BURKE
The 1980s saw a huge shift in the way states and federal laws were addressing juvenile law. Gangs, gun
violence, and drugs drew attention to the identification, punishment, and prevention of violent and chronic
youth offenders. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) focused research on
youth violence and state and local programming. Attention focused on the identification and control of
serious, violent, and chronic offenders.
1
At the state level, lawmakers enacted policies to crack down on youth crime. In the mid-1990s the idea of
the juvenile superpredator– youth so impulsively violent, remorseless, and have no respect for human life-
led to widespread reform and more punitive approaches to juvenile crime and delinquency. This included
more punitive sentences, lowering the age at which a juvenile could be tried as an adult, and loosening the
provisions for trying juveniles in adult court. The motto “adult time for adult crime” drove accountability
initiatives and get-tough campaigns. A youth was no longer seen as vulnerable minors in need of protection
and treatment. Instead, the narrative changed and they were seen as violent monsters acting “with no
conscience and no empathy”, a statement Hillary Clinton has publicly regretted saying.
Rethinking zero tolerance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZDFs-EmP74
Waiver and Adult Time
All states have enacted laws that allow juveniles to be tried in adult criminal courts. There are several
mechanisms by which a juvenile can be transferred to adult criminal court: prosecutorial, legislative,
and judicial waiver. The prosecutorial waiver also is referred to as “Direct File” and “Concurrent
Jurisdiction.” With this waiver mechanism, the legislature grants a prosecutor the discretion to determine
1. Krisberg, B., & Austin,J. (1978). History of the Control and Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency in America. In B. Krisberg & J. Austin
(Eds.), The Children of Ishmael: Critical Perspective on Juvenile Justice (pp. 7-50). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
403 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | in which court to file charges against the juvenile.
2 The prosecutor, or district attorney, can choose to file
charges in juvenile court or adult criminal court. This procedure does not require a transfer hearing, so the
defense is not accorded the opportunity to present evidence in an attempt to avoid the transfer
3
Legislative waiver, or statutory waiver, identifies certain offenses which have been mandated by state
law to be excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction. It is utilized as a method to decrease or eliminate
the discretionary powers of judges and prosecutors. For example, the number of state statutes specifies that
violent felony offenses such as homicide, rape, and robbery, when committed by older adolescents, are
automatically sent to adult criminal court.
In the News: Raising the Age and Raising the Bar
As part of the “Raise the Age” legislation passed in 2017, all minors on Rikers Island awaiting trial or
otherwise, have to be moved out of the notorious New York City jail in October 2018. Rikers Island is
famed for abuse, corruption, and violence and has begun the 10 years shut down a plan to close the scandal-
ridden jail complex. The jail houses some 9,000 inmates, more than 2,000 who are juveniles. The plan is to
reduce the jail population while moving the inmates to other facilities throughout New York’s boroughs.
Part of the reduction in the number of inmates stems from the recent law which mandates that 16 and
17 year-olds in New York State will no longer automatically be charged as adults in criminal courts. And
the age raises even more, to 18, on October 18, 2 019.
Rikers Island has a sordid history of brutality and inhumane treatment of prisoners. Perhaps the most
well-known case in recent history is the story of Kalief Browder, a 16-year-old kid from the Bronx, who
was charged with stealing a backpack. Although he claimed he was innocent, he ended up spending
three years at Rikers Island, and more than two years were spent in solitary confinement. The charges
were eventually dismissed and Browder was released, but the time spent in solitary caused significant and
detrimental mental health issues. Tragically, he committed suicide in 2015, just two years after his release.
His case garnered national attention prompting New York to ban the use of solitary confinement for
inmates under the age of 18.
Research shows that solitary confinement is linked to mental health problems like depression, anxiety,
psychosis, and even suicidal ideation. For these reasons, all federal prisons ban solitary confinement for
juveniles and most states don’t allow the use of solitary in juvenile facilities. However, solitary is still used
in adult prisons. Each year around 200,000 youth are tried as adults and many are sentenced to time in
regular, adult prisons. Many of these state jails and prisons still use solitary confinement for the “safety” and
“protection” of juveniles housed with adults (Resitvo, 2019).
Raising the age legislation is a step in the right direction and will prevent more juveniles from beginning
sent to adult facilities. New York and North Carolina were the last two states in the nation to charge 16
and 17 year-olds as adults up until last year when both amended their laws. The legislation will have a
2. Feld, B.C. (2001). Race, youth violence, and the changing jurisprudence of waiver. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(1), 3-22.
3. Steiner, B., Hemmens, C., & Bell, V. (2006). Legislative waiver reconsidered: General deterrent effects of statutory exclusion laws
enacted post-1979. Justice Quarterly, 23(1), 34-50
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
404 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | profound impact on New York’s criminal justice system and is seen as a massive win for reformers who
have been pushing for better treatment of children at Rikers Island for years.
Listen to the story and read more at:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/raise-age-new-york-minors-rikers
4
Judicial waiver affords the juvenile court judge the authority to transfer a case to adult criminal court.
5
There are three types of judicial waiver: discretionary, presumptive, and mandatory.
The discretionary (regular) transfer allows a judge to transfer a juvenile from juvenile court to adult
criminal court.
6 With this type of transfer, the burden of proof rests with the state and the prosecutor must
confirm that the juvenile is not amenable to treatment. As discussed previously, in Kent v. United States (383
U.S. 541, 566-67 [1966]), the Supreme Court outlined threshold criteria that must be met before a court
can consider waiving a case. These waiver statutes typically include a minimum age, the specified type of
offense, a sufficiently serious prior record, or a combination of the three.
Presumptive waiver shifts the burden of proof from the State to the defendant. It is presumptive because
it is presumed that it will occur unless the youth can meet the burden of proof and provide a justifiable reason
to remain in juvenile court. If the youth is unable to show just cause or sufficient reason why the case should
be tried in juvenile court, the case will be transferred and tried in adult court.
The third type of judicial waiver is a mandatory waiver. Mandatory waiver means that a juvenile judge
must automatically transfer to adult court juvenile offenders who meet certain criteria, such as age and
current offense. In these cases, the role of the judge is simply to confirm that the waiver criteria are met and
then to transfer the case to adult court. Mandatory waiver attempts to remove all discretionary powers from
the juvenile court judge in transfer proceedings.
7
4. Restivo, E. (2019, Feb 14). Stop putting juveniles in solitary confinement. Daily News. https://www.greensburgdailynews.com/
opinion/columns/stop-putting-juveniles-in-solitary-confinement/article_d438d7bc-4e3d-5a9e-97da-22706d6037c8.html
5. Hemmens, S., & Bell, C. (2006). Legislative waiver reconsidered: General deterrent effects of statutory exclusion laws enacted Post 1990.
Justice Quarterly, 23(1), p34-59.
6. Sanborn, J. (2004). The adultification of youth. In P. Benekos & A. Merlo (Eds.), Controversies in juvenile justice and delinquency (pp.
143-164). Anderson Publishing.
7. Burke, A. (2016). Trends of the time.
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
405 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | State juvenile courts with delinquency jurisdiction handle cases in which juveniles are accused of acts that would be crimes if adults
committed them.
In 45 states, the maximum age of juvenile court jurisdiction is age 17. Five states– Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, and
Wisconsin–now draw the juvenile/adult line at age 16.
However, all states have transfer laws that allow or require young offenders to be prosecuted as adults for more serious offenses,
regardless of their age
In addition to increasing transfer mechanisms, at least 13 states lowered the age of majority to 15, 16, and
17, which allowed the youth of these ages to be automatically tried in adult criminal courts. These were
supposed to provide procedures that curbed only the worst of the worst offenders, however, these
provisions increased the prosecution of all juvenile offenders and youth of color in particular.
Ted Talks: Alice Goffman In the United States, two institutions guide teenagers on the journey to
adulthood: college and prison. Sociologist Alice Goffman spent six years in a troubled Philadelphia
neighborhood and saw first-hand how teenagers of African-American and Latino backgrounds are
funneled down the path to prison — sometimes starting with relatively minor infractions. In an
impassioned talk she asks, “Why are we offering only handcuffs and jail time?” https://www.ted.com/talks/
alice_goffman_college_or_prison_two_destinies_one_blatant_injustice?language=en
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
406 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.9. Returning to Rehabilitation in the Contemporary Juvenile
Justice System
ALISON S. BURKE
Empirical research drives recent reform efforts. The past decade has witnessed the identification of key
developmental processes associated with delinquent behavior, such as brain development research. Ergo,
evidence-based practices, which utilize the scientific method to assess the effectiveness of interventions,
policies, and programs. In looking at what works, what doesn’t, and what is promising, researchers and
policymakers alike assess the implementation of interventions to best meet the needs of the individual
youth.
Additionally, several noteworthy Supreme Court cases exemplify society’s evolving standards of decency
and treatment of youth. These key cases demonstrate a move back to rehabilitation and acknowledge the
fundamental differences between children and adults.
Key Supreme Court Cases
Roper v Simmons (2005)
Roper v Simmons (2005)
In 2005, a landmark decision by the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to impose a death penalty
sentence on any youth who was under the age of 18 when they committed their offense (Roper v. Simmons).
Although Christopher Simmons planned and committed a capital offense (he murdered his neighbor,
Shirley Cook), the court ruled that 18 years of age is where criminal responsibility should rest. That is
to say, if a child is too young to vote, sign contracts, or do a number of other things (because society
deems them not responsible enough), then they are too young to receive the death penalty. The court
stated,“the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to determine which
punishments are so disproportionate as to be “cruel and unusual.” Simmons received life in prison. It was
ruled that imposing the death penalty on a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the crime
constituted cruel and unusual punishment. At the time of the Roper v Simmons verdict, the U.S. was only
407 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | one out of a handful of countries that still imposed the death penalty on juveniles (among other countries
were Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Iran).
Graham v Florida (2010)
Graham v Florida (2010)
While the death penalty was taken off the table for youth under the age of 18, they were instead being
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP). This was until the 2010 case of
Graham v. Florida. Terrance Graham received life in prison for a felony offense (armed burglary) when he
was only 16 years old. Since Florida does not have parole, his sentence de facto became a life without the
possibility of parole. The Supreme Court heard his case and ruled that it was unconstitutional to sentence
a minor to life without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide offense.
Miller v Alabama (2012)
Miller v Alabama (2012)
Two years later, juvenile law again rested in the hands of the Supreme Court. Even though Graham
v. Florida abolished life without the possibility of parole for non-homicide offenses, youth under the age
of 18 were still receiving that sentence for crimes of murder. In 2012, Evan Miller was 14 years old
when he killed his neighbor by severely beating him with a baseball bat while attempting to rob him.
With contemporary research about brain formation and juvenile culpability, the Supreme Court ruled
that youth are not as responsible as adults for their actions because their brains have not fully formed.
In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that “mandatory life without parole for those under
age of 18 at the time of their crime violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishments.” “Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological
age and its hallmark features – among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and
consequences,” Justice Kagan said. “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment
that surrounds him – and from which he cannot usually extricate himself – no matter how brutal or
dysfunctional.”
This seemed like a huge win for juvenile justice reformers. Juveniles could no longer receive the death
penalty, life without parole for non-homicide, nor mandatory life without parole for homicide. However,
there were still so many people serving LWOP sentences who were juveniles when they committed their
crime.
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
408 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | Montgomery v Louisiana (2016)
Montgomery v Louisiana (2016)
In 2016, the Supreme Court heard the case of Henry Montgomery, who was 17 years old in 1963 when
killed a sheriff’s deputy. He initially received a death sentence, but this was overturned because of the
racial tension of the time (Montgomery was black youth who killed a white law enforcement officer.) He
instead received a life sentence and appealed this sentence after the Miller v. Alabama ruling. Montgomery v.
Alabama barred mandatory life without parole sentences retroactively. This meant that all youth sentenced
prior to 2012 with LWOP sentences needed to be retried.
These four major Supreme Court cases identify the differences between adults and juveniles. They recognize
the difference in brain formation and culpability, owning the ability for rehabilitation of youth and moving
step by step away from a retribution/punishment model for youth.
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
409 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.10. The Structure of the Juvenile Justice System
ALISON S. BURKE
The juvenile justice process involves nine major decision points: (1) arrest, (2) referral to court, (3) diversion,
(4) secure detention, (5) judicial waiver to adult criminal court, (6) case petitioning, (7) delinquency finding/
adjudication, (8) probation, and (9) residential placement, including confinement in a secure correctional
facility (see Juvenile Justice Process flow chart).
1
The majority of cases are first referred to the juvenile justice system through contact with police. Probation
officers, school officials, or parents usually refer to the remaining cases. The most common offenses referred
to court are property offenses (roughly 92%), followed by person offenses (89.5%), drugs (88.2%), and
general delinquency charges (81.6%). Other referrals come from schools, family, or social workers or
probation officers.
At the intake stage, probation officers or attorneys determine whether or not the case needs the attention
of the juvenile court or if it can be handled informally, such as diversion to probation or a drug treatment
program. If the case progresses to court, the authorities need to determine if the youth can be released to a
parent/guardian or if the youth needs to be held in a secure detention center. When determining this, the
court needs to assess the risk the youth poses to society and if the youth poses a flight risk. In some cases, the
parent cannot be located or, if located, refuses to take custody of the youth. In these cases, the juvenile is
remanded to custody. The decision to detain or release the juvenile will be made by the judge at a detention
hearing.
If the case is handled in court, the county attorney needs to file a petition. When the youth has a formal
hearing, it is called an adjudication rather than a trial in adult court. The adjudication of youth as delinquent
can result in either dismissal of the charges or confinement at a secure institution. In most juvenile cases, the
least restrictive option is usually sought, so the youth is usually put on probation or some sort of community
treatment. Formal processing is less common than informal processing involving diversion or community-
based programming.
1. Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report.
410 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | The Juvenile Justice Process. The major decision points in this process are: (1) arrest, (2) referral to court, (3) diversion (at multiple
points in the process), (4) secure detention, (5) judicial waiver to adult criminal court, (6) case petitioning, (7) delinquency finding/
adjudication, (8) probation, and (9) residential placement, including confinement in a secure correctional facility
Working With Youth
When I graduated from college with a BA in psychology, I applied for a job working with the Division of
Youth Corrections in Denver, CO. I worked in a Residential Treatment Facility (RTC), which used behavior
modification techniques, assigned case-workers to each youth and their families, and attempted to help the kids
learn problem-solving skills and accountability. Youth were confined for a variety of reasons, from committing
gang affiliated drive-by shootings, to youth who were designated dependent youth through social services and had
nowhere else to go. We had high-risk kids, low-risk kids, conduct disorder and mental health kids all together on
the same unit. Having the mix of all these different kids is not a great formula; the low-risk kids learn negative
behavior from the high-risk kids, and the conduct disorder kids victimize the mental health kids. In an ideal
institution, these different populations would all be on separate units.
Working with youth is hard. They push boundaries, are angry, try to manipulate those around them, and reject
authority. However, working with youth is exceptionally rewarding. They are kids. They come from abusive and
neglectful homes and are yearning for approval and love. For example, one boy in our facility was named Josh. He
was a super angry and violent sixteen-year-old who was sentenced for committing aggravated assault. Through
working with counselors and caseworkers, we discovered his anger was hiding immense sadness. He lashed out at
those around him when he was sad because he had no way to show his feeling other than through aggression. Many
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
411 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | months of working with him, encouraging him to journal, express his feelings, talk with others, use other tools to
help him with his sadness led to amazing results. He left our facility after more than a year, graduated from high
school and even went to college! Getting the individualized attention helped Josh change. He became a success
story of the juvenile justice system.
Working with youth takes patience, consistency, and compassion. It is one of the most difficult jobs there is, but
it is possible to be a very positive influence in the lives of kids who need it the most. If you are interested in working
with youth, plan on committing to at least a year. Incarcerated kids are used to having people give up on them
and disappoint them, so you do not want to add to their negative experiences. Show up, follow through, and be
optimistic about a better future for justice-involved youth.
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
412 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | 10.11. Juvenile Institutions
ALISON S. BURKE
Just as the juvenile court has different practices, so too does the correctional side of the juvenile justice
system. Since the aim of the juvenile justice system is rehabilitation, the treatment of youth is somewhat
different than the treatment of adults. For example, justice-involved youth can be sent to detention centers,
group homes, boot or wilderness camps, residential treatment centers, long-term secure facilities, or other
institutions.
Detention: In the first stages of the justice system, the court must decide if it will detain the youth.
If a youth is detained, he/she is sent to a detention center, which is a short-term, secure facility. These
are comparable to adult jails. Youth are often kept in detention facilities while waiting for disposition or
transfer to another location. The average length of stay is 2-3 weeks. Factors that increase the likelihood
of detention include prior offenses, age at first offense and current age, and the severity of the current
offense. Research also suggests that race, gender, and socioeconomic status also play a role in deciding
whether to detain a youth.
Group Homes: Group homes are long-term facilities where youth are allowed and encouraged
to have extensive contact with the community. Youth attend regular school, hold jobs, take public
transportation, etc. In many group homes, youth learn independent living skills that prepare them for
living on their own. These are similar to adult halfway houses.
Boot Camps and Wilderness Camps: Boot Camps are secure facilities that operate like military
basic training. They focus on drills, manual labor, and physical activity. They are often punitive and
overly strict. Despite popular opinion, research shows that these are ineffective for preventing future
delinquency. The length of stay is generally for several weeks. On the other hand, ranch/wilderness
camps are actually prosocial and preventative. These are long term residential facilities that are non-
restrictive and are for youth who not require confinement. These include forestry camps and wilderness
programs.
Residential Treatment Centers: RTCs are long term facilities that focus on individual treatment.
They include positive peer culture, behavior modification programming, and helping youth develop
healthy coping mechanisms. Many have specific targeted populations, such as kids with histories of
substance abuse or issues with mental health. They are often considered medium security, and the
average stay is often six months to a year.
Long-term Secure Facilities: Long term facilities are strict secure conferment. These include
413 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | training schools, reformatories, and juvenile correctional facilities. These facilities are often reserved
for youth who have committed serious offenses. They are similar to adult prisons but operate under a
different philosophy. For example, incarcerated youth are still required to attend school, which is within
the facility.
Disproportionate Minority Contact: Considerable research on disproportionate minority contact
has been conducted over the past three decades. Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) “occurs
when the proportion of youth of color who pass through the juvenile justice system exceeds the
proportion of youth of color in the general population.”
1 It can be assessed at every stage of the juvenile
justice system, from arrest to adjudication. Research shows minority youth are over-represented in
arrests, sentencing, waiver, and secure placement. States receiving federal grant money are required to
address DMC “regardless of whether those disparities were motivated by intentional discrimination or
justified by ‘legitimate’ agency interests.”
2
In the News: The Prison Pipeline
6-year-old Zachery Christy, a first grader in Newark Delaware, was suspended for 45 days for bringing
a spork to school. The camping utensil, which contains a spoon, fork, knife, and bottle opener was a gift
for Cubs Scouts. The first grader brought the camping utensil to school although the “dangerous weapon”
violated zero tolerance rules at the school.
“Spurred in part by the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings, many school districts around the
country adopted zero-tolerance policies on the possession of weapons on school grounds. More recently,
there has been growing debate over whether the policies have gone too far.”
3
Zero Tolerance policies are strict adherence to regulations and bans to prevent undesirable behaviors.
The idea behind them is to promote student safety and to be fair and consistent with all children. The idea
behind them is to promote a one size fits all approach, so as to treat all children equally, however, research
suggests that minority youth are unfairly targeted by such practices, which counters the purposes of them.
However, Zero Tolerance policies contribute to the school to prison pipeline. Children who interact
with law enforcement at earlier ages are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system.
What was thought to remove discretion from school administrators in issues of discipline, actually results
in African American students being more likely to be suspended or expelled than other students for the
same offenses? Additionally, the suspension or expulsion from school severs ties and harms the relationship
youth have with school, making it harder for the youth to return and engage.
For Zachary and his spork, it’s more than breaking his attachment to school and his teachers. He fears
being teased by the other students. If his parents choose not to home school him, he must spend the next
45 days in the district’s reform school.
1. Short, J., & Sharp, C. (2005). Disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of
America.
2. (Johnson, 2007, p. 374).
3. (Urbina, 2009, para 4).
ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL
SANCHEZ
414 |
SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System.pdf | An in-depth look at zero tolerance policies.
https://sites.duke.edu/education303final/an-in-depth-look-at-zero-tolerance-policies-and-racial-biases/
4
Conclusion
The juvenile court has its own philosophy, the court system, and correctional institutions that differ
from the adult criminal justice system. The major difference between the juvenile justice system and the
adult system is its focus on rehabilitation. The juvenile justice system uses private, informal hearings, and
individualized justice to act in the best interest of the delinquent youth.
The past century has witnessed a marked change in the way the law deals with youth. From the inception
of the juvenile justice system in 1899 to the ruling of Mongomery v Louisiana in 2016, the pendulum of
juvenile justice swings from a parens patriae model of protection of youth to juvenile waiver, fear of youth
crime, and punishment, back to incorporating brain research in assessing rehabilitation. The juvenile justice
system was designed to treat juveniles differently from adults and take their unique needs and circumstances
into consideration. Youth are malleable and can change their trajectories with the right treatment and
intervention at the right time.
4. Urbina, I. (2009, Oct. 1). It’s a fork, it’s a spoon, it’s a….weapon? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/
education/12discipline.html
Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System
415 |
Subsets and Splits