The Effects Of Reintegration On Juvenile Crime Policies

The “get tough approach” to crime control has been prevalent since the 1960s. This approach takes the stance to a more firm and no tolerance policy against crime, hence the term “tough” in the actual title. “"Tough" crime control normally denotes more emphasis on police resources, faster apprehension of criminals, quick trials, and more severe sentences for guilty offenders” (Skoler 1971:29). The “get tough approach” emphasizes the need to arrest and punish criminals over rehabilitation and addressing the social factors that underlie criminal behavior (Barkan and Bryjak 2011). Deterrence of other criminals through severe punishments is the primary focus. The “get tough approach” of criminal justice institutions has been under scrutiny due to the outcomes that we will discuss further on. The purpose of this paper is to simply present the pros and cons that have resulted from the “get tough approach” on crime. The paper will try and remain completely unbiased to the “get tough approach” and solely focus on results that have come from said approach. We will begin by discussing the background and history of the “get tough approach” and what led to its development. We will then discuss things such as incarceration rates (US Department of Justice), crime rates (Dilulio 1995) juveniles in prison (Hinton 2015), policies that have been implemented (Shephard 2002), correctional costs, and destabilized urban neighborhoods (Barkan & Bryjak 2011; Black 2007; Mauer 2006) that result

In 2011, California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed Assembly Bill (AB) 109 into law. The purpose of this historic legislation, was to enable California to finally close the revolving door policy for lower-level convicted felons coming in and out of the state’s 33 prisons. AB 109 was also the key piece of legislation for California’s solution to abide by a federal court order. The order mandated the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to reduce the amount of inmates in the state’s prisons system to 137.5 percent of capacity by 2013 (Caudill 2015).

This book written by Bert Todd R. Clear, a distinguished Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, was published in 2007 at the Oxford University Press being a summary of a number of sources. Clear is an accredited source because he is the founding editor of the journal Criminology & Public Policy and an author of eleven books, numerous articles, and book chapters on criminal justice. The intended audiences are for people that are in interested in the justice system but you do not need to be knowledgeable to understand the context of this article. This text is very argumentative, Clear makes the claim that mass incarceration effects poor neighborhood in negative ways. The date that this book was written is not that many years ago so will still have usefulness towards the research.

Evidence-based studies imply that youth of color are being placed in detention at a higher rate all throughout juvenile justice system not only in Kentucky but, nationwide. Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in juvenile justice alludes to youth of color being place into the system at a greater rate than their Caucasian counterparts. All races break the law at about the same rate; however, youth of color are arrested, charged and institutionalized at a higher percentage than Caucasians for similar offenses. African-Americans made up 16 percent of all youth in the United States, but constituted 28 percent of youth arrests, 30 percent of referrals to juvenile court, 37 percent of detained youth, 34 percent of youth formally processed by juvenile court, 30 percent of youth adjudicated delinquent, 35 percent of youth judicially waived to criminal court, 38 percent of youth in residential placement, and 58 percent of youth sent to state adult prisons. (Grieshop et al 2009)

The past quarter century has seen an enormous growth in the American incarceration rate. Importantly, some scholars have suggested that the rate of prison growth has little to do with the theme of crime itself, but it is the end result of particular U.S. policy choices. Clear (2007) posits that "these policy choices have had well-defined implications for the way prison populations have come to replicate a concentrated occurrence among specified subgroups in the United States population in particular young black men from deprived communities" (p. 49).

The act’s framers were concerned with the framework of the juvenile justice system. Believing that they could restrain juvenile delinquency through prevention rather than punishment, they increased the quality of the juvenile justice system. Policy specified that, “kids should be treated as kids” (Ravenell, 2002). However, rising crime rates throughout the late 1970s and 1980s lead to disillusionment with the system. The public became concerned that juvenile justice policy was too lenient. Practitioners scrambled to enact harsher penalties in an effort to slow the rising juvenile crime rates. The new policies restricted lenient punishment such as probation and lead to an increase in incarceration rates (Meade & Steiner, 2010).

These rates guide spending and funding decisions aimed to effectively combat crime. While there is no standard rate that is aimed for, the idea is to try to reduce the recidivism rate or even keep it the same opposed to raising it. When the recidivism rates are not progressing in the manner expected, these agencies must try to find other avenues and strategies that will make a positive impact on the recidivism rates, and in the long run, these juvenile’s lives. (CJCA, 2011)

The Black youth is over represented at every stage in the United States juvenile justice system. Ten years ago, Black youth were more than two times more likely to have a delinquency case before the juvenile court than white youth. Dr. Shook and Dr. Goodkind examined three possible avenues to prove if black youth, are more likely to be detained than similarly situated white youth. “Three possible avenues have begun to be examined—the first is related to youths’ attitude and character as assessed by justice system personnel, the second is related to judgments about adequate parental supervision and/or school and work involvement, and the third is related to what some have called ‘‘justice by geography.’’ To conclude Dr. Shook’s and Goodkind findings, Black youth are treated

Minority youth are disproportionately represented throughout juvenile justice systems in nearly every state in the nation. Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in juvenile justice occurs when minority youth come into contact with the system at a higher rate than their white counterparts. African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Native Americans comprise a combined one-third of the nation's youth population. Yet they account for over two-thirds of the youth in secure juvenile facilities (Armour & Hammond, 2009).

Not only this but, “offenders who commit new offenses after court contact are at risk for a variety of poor developmental and life course outcomes, including school failure, out of home placements, occupational marginality, and long-term involvement in criminal activity” (Schwalbe 2004). As seen here, this is a downward spiral. Active reform has never before been at such a demand. As recidivism and juvenile delinquency continues to increase, not only will national crime rates and juvenile prison populations inflate, but the diminishing of an educated, safe, and economically stable society will also be affected regrettably. If juveniles whom continue to commit repeat criminal offenses lack school initiative, family support, and job exposure, than relatively as recidivism and juvenile criminal activity increases, our nation’s standard of living will consequently lower.

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

The United States leads the world in the incarceration of young people, there are over 100,000 youth placed in jail each year. Locking up youth has shown very little positive impact on reducing crime. Incarcerating youth have posed greater problems such as expenses, limited education, lack of employment, and effect on juveniles’ mental and physical well-being.

Over 1/3 of the 11,000 index crime arrests were juveniles under the age of 16.

The United States features a prison population that is more than quadruple the highest prison population in Western Europe (Pettit, 2004). In the 1980s, U.S. legislation issued a number of new drug laws with stiffer penalties that ranged from drug possession to drug trafficking. Many of those charged with drug crimes saw longer prison sentences and less judicial leniency when facing trial. The War on Drugs has furthered the boom in prison population even though violent crime has continued to decrease steadily. Many urban areas in the U.S. have a majority black population. With crime tendencies high in these areas, drugs are also prevalent. This means that a greater percentage of those in prison are going to be black because law

It may seem that incarceration rates are high for minorities at the federal level, but the rates are even higher at the state levels. African Americans are 5.6 times, and Hispanics are 1.8 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. Young African American and Hispanic males are leading incarceration rates for robbery, drug offenses, followed by murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. Whites show a significant lower number than of the Hispanics and blacks for the violent crimes, but lead incarceration rates for rape and sexual abuse. Whites also exceeded minorities in property crime (108,560), compared to blacks (78,197) and Hispanics (38,264) (E. Ann Carson and Daniela Golinelli, 2013). The demographics show that young minority males are being incarcerated at higher rates for majority of the main crimes