The Issue Of Juvenile Internment

In re Gault¹ stems from a case involving a boy named Gerald Gault who at the time of incident was a 15-year-old boy from Arizona who was charged with making obscene telephone calls to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook. Gerald Gault was sent to a detention facility without notifying his parents, questioned by a Probation officer without having an attorney or parent present, and after a short hearing, was found to be delinquent and sent to the state “industrial school” until he turned 21. After Gault was sentenced, his parents filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state courts to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedures used in their son’s case. The petition was dismissed by both the Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court. The Gault’s not satisfied with either court’s decision sought relief in the United States Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural due process rights of a juvenile criminal defendant².

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

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).

In 1941, the Japanese surprise attacked Pearl Harbor and consequently, the United Stated entered World War II. Thus, in 1942, FDR issued Executive Order No. 9066 which allowed the Secretary of War to designate military areas. The executive order led to Public Law 503 in which Congress made it a criminal offense to violate military orders under Executive Order No. 9066, therefore, allowing the military to begin excluding anyone of Japanese ancestry in the military areas and forcing them to report to internment camps. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American citizen, willingly refused to evacuate under Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 and was arrested and convicted. Korematsu appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court where Korematsu V United States was heard with Korematsu as the petitioner and the United States as the respondent.

The research done for this paper examines different studies of juveniles and their place in the United States’ justice system based on their race, gender, and social class, as well as looks into policing tactics that may be beneficial to the affected youths. By looking at a wide variety of academic journals and books it was clear to see that youths are looked upon and treated differently depending on what their race is, the sex that they were born, or their family’s economic standing. Resulting in the outcome of these youths being treated more harshly than others due to aspects about themselves that are out of their control. Doing further research into the juvenile justice system and how it is structured to help certain youths while neglecting others, it is clear that the treatment of minority youths is entirely unjust and that a reform of this system is, without question, necessary, not only to maintain an even and fair justice system for juveniles, but also to help these minority youths strive in their lifetime rather than fall victim to a life of crime.

December 7th, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Army successfully pulled of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. After this attack the government of Canada used the war measures act to remove all Japanese Canadian citizens that live 160km from the Pacific Coast and put them in internment camps until 1949, four years after WW2. Fast Forward to 1988 and the Canadian government gives an apology to the Japanese, however the apology was for more than just Japanese Internment it was for the pain and suffering, discrimination, and for leaving Japanese citizens with nothing.

Often times, people in America understand that minority youths are excessively represented in the justice system. Unfortunately, this occurs at every level of the justice system. Not only does it occur in from initial contact with the police, it continues through incarceration. In many cases, young juvenile minority are being discriminated, they come from corrupted developing countries with high levels of crime, and the majority of white youths are from wealthy families.

Supreme Court ruling Graham v. Florida (2010) banned the use of life without parole for juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes, and Roper v. Simmons (2005) abolished the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders. They both argued that these sentences violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While these landmark cases made great strides for the rights of minors passing through the criminal justice system, they are just the first steps in creating a juvenile justice system that takes into consideration the vast differences between adolescents and adults. Using sociological (Butler, 2010) and legal (Harvard Law Review, 2010) documents, this essay will explicate why the next such step to be taken is

Proposition 21, California's Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, sought to impose and exact severe punishments on juvenile offenders as young as the age of fourteen for serious and gang related felonies. This paper will analyze and address the impact this legislation has on juvenile offenders since its enactment.

The overall sense that the reader gets from this book is that growing caseloads, inadequate facilities, and arbitrary “get-tough” laws are rendering the juvenile justice system in California and elsewhere in America ultimately ineffective. Redeemable kids are sent to adult prisons to “criminal college” to become more hardened and violent instead of being rehabilitated. Extremely violent kids are kept within the juvenile system to be released at twenty-five, based solely on whether they are over or under the age of sixteen. Abandoned or neglected kids are sent to languish within a broken foster care system, to be raised in group homes with deplorable

By the late 90’s, these policies were detrimental to the youth population. In 1996, California operated nearly eleven CYA facilities with an astounding 10,000 residents housed at one time. (Macallair, 2013) Facilities across the country were overpopulated. Those incarcerated for minor offenses were being exposed to repeat offenders and gang members who committed index level crimes such as murder and rape. In 2001, researchers determined that these policies increased the recidivism rate amongst juvenile offenders. They were also shown to be biased both racially and economically. Black juveniles were disproportionally arrested in comparison to their proportion of the population. In 1998, black youth under 18 made up 15 percent of the population yet made up 42.3 percent of juvenile arrests for violent crimes. (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2001) These policies presented the ineffectiveness of tough legislature.

This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.

Many jurisdictions have responded with so called “get tough” legislation. This type of legislation is a staple in the Crime Control Era that has taken the place of the Juvenile Rights Era, which ended around 1980. One such piece of legislation was Michigan’s Juvenile Waiver Law of 1997. In Michigan, prior to 1988, seventeen year-olds were the only minors automatically tried as adults, all others stayed in juvenile courts that afforded them the benefits discussed earlier. However, in response to rising violence get tough reforms were imposed. Kids, as young as fifteen, were now being tried automatically as adults for serious crimes. Additionally, if convicted of first-degree murder the judge can then choose to sentence the youth to a juvenile facility until twenty-one years of age, or mandatory life in adult prison. Then in 1997, legislation got even tougher. Fourteen year olds were now automatically charged as adults for serious offenses. Additionally, adult courts can no longer chose juvenile sentencing. One senator who helped craft the tougher legislation stated, “it doesn’t matter so much whether it’s 12 or 14 or 50 or 60, the Juvenile justice reform act’s basic finding was that if you do the crime, you do the time” (Barnes 2011). The number of juveniles serving life in adult correctional facilities

In recent decades, juvenile crime has become somewhat of a controversy due to the young age and immaturity of these criminals. Incidences of juvenile crime skyrocketed in the 1980s and 1990s, and policymakers pushed for laws that sent children as young as thirteen years old to trial, and even made them eligible for prison sentences. The general public has expressed a common desire to reduce the incidence of juvenile crime and find effective legislation to discipline these youths, but there are questions about these methods. What is more effective, incarceration or rehabilitation? Does criminal punishment intimidate more youths away from a life of crime, and would productive rehabilitation efforts influence these youths to becoming more valuable members of society?

It may seem shocking that America has one of the highest crime rates per capita compared to other similar industrialized nations. Over the years, there have been many discussions and efforts in order to reduce this problem. Perhaps one of the more sensitive issues when discussing crime in America is the problem of juvenile crime. Recently, juveniles make up 3% of all felonies committed each year and 6% of all violent crimes (criminamerica.net). These statistics have troubled politicians for decades as they have worked to find a solution. Starting in 1994 the Clinton administration started putting stricter punishment on juvenile offenders, but it was quickly realized that this harsh punishment may not be the best solution. Various studies and programs put into action have shown that early prevention in a child’s life is much more effective and more cost efficient in reducing crime. Because of these efforts, juvenile crime has reduced 68% since the violent boom of the 1990s. In light of these discoveries, it is important for states to focus on these results in order to reduce crime.