1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 1 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

1Juvenile Delinquency: Background and

Measurement

ncognet0/Getty Images

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

Explain the complexity of defining juvenile

delinquency.

Summarize the different types of juvenile

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 2 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

During the summer of 1999, 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick was staying with a friend of her mother. The friend's 12-year-old son, Lionel Tate, and Tiffany were playing while Lionel's mother was in another part of the home. Two hours later, Lionel told his mother that Tiffany had stopped breathing. Lionel indicated that they were playing a wrestling game. He admitted that he had had the little girl in a headlock and her head had hit the table. Tiffany later died of her injuries. The autopsy indicated that Tiffany's injuries included a lacerated spleen, fractured rib cage and skull, and damage to her liver (Canedy, 2001).

Lionel Tate became the youngest person in U.S. history to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Eventually the case was overturned, allowing him to serve three years in prison; however, he continued to have trouble with the law and currently resides in prison on an armed robbery conviction. The case of Lionel Tate captured national attention not only because of the nature of the crime but also because of the young age of the defendant.

Although violent crime among juveniles is cause for serious concern, other forms of delinquency, such as drug and alcohol use among teens, can be equally concerning. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) asserts that alcohol and drug use among teens is a significant public health issue. The CDC monitors drug and alcohol use among teenagers with a national school-based survey (visit http://www.cdc.gov/yrbsshttp://www.cdc.gov/yrbss (http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss) (http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss) for more information). According to the survey, in 2017, 29.8% of high school students reported having at least one drink during the last 30 days before the survey, 19.8% of students reported using marijuana one or more times during the 30 days before the survey, and 6.2% had sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled paints or sprays to get high one or more times during their life (Kann et al., 2018).

delinquency.

Describe how states attempt to define juvenile

delinquency in relation to age.

Evaluate the rates of delinquency and the three

primary techniques for measuring delinquency.

Analyze the benefits of using the three crime

measurements together.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 3 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Defining and measuring deviant behavior among juveniles is more difficult than it might seem.

Flirt/SuperStock

1.1 Introduction

Youth involvement in violent crime is often the subject of intense media coverage. The Tate case illustrates that children can and do commit violent criminal acts. While this case illustrates that juveniles are capable of murder, this type of crime is rare compared to other types of crimes. If we examine arrest statistics, we see that although 682 juveniles were arrested for murder in 2016, this number is lower than that for any other violent crime category (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2017). As a point of comparison, more than 147,000 youth were arrested for property crimes in 2016 (FBI, 2017). This comparison is not to suggest that property crime is comparable to violent crime, particularly murder; however, it does illustrate that an arrest made for a violent crime is a rare event.

People generally agree that a juvenile's violent acts should be considered criminal. However, defining and measuring deviant behavior among juveniles is more difficult than it might seem. For example, if a youth drinks alcohol at a weekend party with friends and does not get caught, is the behavior criminal? It certainly could be argued that underage drinking with friends is wrong, regardless of police action. However, if a youth is given a glass of wine at the family dinner table, does this behavior also represent juvenile delinquency? The context in which the behavior occurs might alter our perspective.

We may see binge drinking at an unsupervised party differently than we see consuming a small amount of alcohol in the context of a family gathering, even though underage drinking is illegal. Similarly, the reasons behind certain behaviors may change our view. Consider a youth who skips school to escape chronic bullying or who runs away from home to escape sexual abuse. Truancy is against the law, but should the underlying cause for the behavior be considered when determining whether to involve the criminal justice system?

As we will see throughout this chapter, juvenile delinquency, which typically refers to the criminal activities of a minor child, is a complex phenomenon. The complexity can be seen in several examples. First, although the age at which a youth is considered a juvenile delinquent is 18 according to federal law, the age varies at the state level. Second, the types of offenses committed by juveniles vary dramatically, and controversy surrounds how different types of offenses should be handled within the justice system. Finally, there are various ways to measure delinquency and each comes to slightly different conclusions about the extent and impact of crime. The complexity surrounding juvenile delinquency should not be interpreted to mean that studying the concept is unproductive or cannot inform public policy. Instead, researchers and practitioners must appreciate and develop theories and policies that account for this complexity. Let's begin by examining the complications and controversies that arise when trying to define juvenile delinquency.

High School Counselor

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 4 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

High school counselors must wear a number of hats. Youth who are truant or drop out of school are far more likely to be involved in the juvenile justice system.

1. What are the benefits of having at-risk youth meet with a high school counselor?

2. What are some other ways counselors could work with at-risk youth beyond what was mentioned in the video?

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 5 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

1.2 What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency?

Defining precisely the types of behavior that should warrant involvement in the juvenile justice system is complicated. For example, although murder is clearly a crime that would invoke court involvement, other forms of delinquency are less clear. Crimes committed by juveniles range from minor violations like vandalism and truancy to more serious crimes like rape and robbery. Should individuals who engage in less serious forms of delinquency be subjected to the same arrest and court processing as those who commit more serious crime? Understanding this issue requires us to examine a brief history of the concept of juvenile delinquency in the United States.

Those born in the 1980s and later have known only a juvenile justice system oriented toward punishment. Historically the juvenile justice system was oriented toward rehabilitation and care of delinquent youth (see Chapter 2). Rehabilitation or reformation is the foundation behind parens patria, one of the core concepts of the system. ParensParens patria patria (Latin for "parent of the nation") refers to the court's focus on the welfare of the juvenile. The court's parenting role becomes particularly important in cases in which a juvenile is a victim of abuse or neglect.

The juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over behaviors that are illegal only for juveniles. These types of crimes are referred to as status offenses and include delinquent acts such as truancy, running away, and violating curfew. Status offenses are considered fairly minor forms of delinquency and in some states may qualify for particular types of services, such as diversion or educational classes, rather than incarceration. For example, some states offer seminars both for youth who engage in chronic truancy and for their parents. The classes might discuss the impact of skipping school on the youth's financial and emotional well-being.

Although the juvenile justice system had long distinguished between delinquent offenses (more serious), abuse and neglect cases (serious but nondelinquent), and status offenses (less serious), it was not until the 1960s that criminal justice reformers questioned how the system should handle each. At the time, the concern was less about whether the system should be more punitive in its handling of delinquent cases than it was about whether the system could be having a negative impact on status offenders and abuse and neglect cases. The controversy surrounding status offenses became particularly important as research suggested that the system's response could influence a youth's chance of becoming involved in more serious delinquency in the future (Raley, 1995). In other words, could the juvenile justice system be doing more harm than good?

The treatment of status offenders was addressed as a primary issue in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. One of the four core protections of this act is the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, which recommends that all juveniles classified as status offenders not be held for any period of time in a detention facility (Holden & Kapler, 1995). The recommendation regarding the treatment of status offenders was based on several concerns. First, although status offenses are less serious forms of delinquency, they could result in severe sanctions, such as institutionalization. Second, studies find that status offenders, particularly girls who run away from home, may be doing so to escape an abusive home life. These girls are often detained and treated as criminals rather than victims of abuse. Finally, studies also find that placing these youth under the control of the system actually increases their risk for future criminal behavior (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; Holman & Ziedenberg, 2007; Sherman, 2005).

To reduce these potential negative impacts, some observers argue that the system should develop labels, guidelines, and even separate criminal codes for status offenders and juveniles who offend as a result of abuse or neglect. In terms of labels, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) have long argued that

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 6 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Underage drinking is a delinquent- type status offense.

Fuse/Thinkstock

status offenders should be labeled as unruly children to reduce the use of the "offender" label (Krisberg & Austin, 1978). More recently, the IACP and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation began a partnership to create innovative policies for handling youth. As a result of this collaboration, jurisdictions across the country have been able to reduce referrals to the juvenile court for status offenses (Bahney, Daugirda, Firman, Kurash, & Phudy, 2014). Some states classify a juvenile who commit status offenses as a person in need of supervision (PINS), a youth in need of supervision (YINS), a juvenile in need of supervision (JINS), or a child in need of supervision (CINS). Still other states limit the types of charges that can be classified as a status offense. For example, North Carolina developed five categories of status offenders (Governor's Crime Commission, 2012):

Undisciplined-type status offender: a juvenile who has committed an undisciplined-type status offense (e.g., truancy, has run away, has been disobedient) Delinquent-type status offender: a juvenile who has committed a curfew, alcohol, tobacco, or motor vehicle offense that is not a crime for adults (e.g., buying tobacco under age 18, consuming alcohol under age 21) Nonoffender: a juvenile who is under juvenile court jurisdiction for reasons of delinquency, neglect, or abuse Civil-type offender: a juvenile who is under delinquency court jurisdiction for an infraction that is civil in nature (e.g., noncriminal traffic or fish and game violations) Alien juvenile: a noncitizen juvenile under age 18 who is not charged with any offense

A concern regarding status offenders that is not addressed by these types of labels and guidelines, however, is how to deal with chronic status offenders or those who commit multiple status offenses (see Chapter 4).

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 7 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

1.3 Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?

One of the challenges of understanding the juvenile justice system is that the system itself is, in fact, not systematic. This is particularly true when it comes to defining who qualifies as a juvenile. The U.S. juvenile justice system is comprised of 51 different entities—one for the federal system and one for each state—and who qualifies as a juvenile differs from state to state. A juvenile delinquent is a minor who commits a criminal act. But at what age is someone considered a minor?

The federal government considers a minor to be under the age of 18. Should everyone in the country who is under the age of 18 be considered a minor? Conversely, is there an age at which someone is too young to form criminal intent and should therefore be exempt from criminal prosecution? Age ambiguity, or uncertainty regarding the age of entry into the juvenile justice system, can be seen by how juvenile delinquent status is defined differently in different states. In Texas, the definition of a juvenile delinquent is a child between the ages of 10 and 17. However, in Massachusetts, the age is between 7 and 16 years (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2018).

If we look state by state, we see considerable variation in both the upper and lower age limits for who is considered a juvenile. The upper age limit in each state is referred to as the age of jurisdiction, or the age that dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult court system has authority over a case. Most states consider a juvenile to be any person under the age of 18 (see Table 1.1).

Support for raising the age of jurisdiction has increased over the past several years as research questioning the effectiveness of transferring youth to adult court has increased. In 2013, both Illinois and Massachusetts raised the age of jurisdiction from 16 to 17, with New Hampshire following suit in 2015. In 2017, New York voters passed legislation to raise the age of jurisdiction from 15 to 18 (starting in fiscal year 2018), and North Carolina raised the age of jurisdiction for nonviolent crimes to age 18 (effective December 1, 2019).

Table 1.1: Upper age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters by state/jurisdiction

Age State/jurisdiction

16 Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin

17 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina*, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

*Effective December 2019

From "Figure: Delinquency upper age, 2016," in Statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2 ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2 )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 & t e x t = n o & m a p l i n k = l i n k 2 )

Some states also set a minimum age of jurisdiction for youth to be involved with the juvenile justice system (see Table 1.2). North Carolina allows the lowest minimum age of jurisdiction, meaning that youth as young as 6 years old are subject to the juvenile court system. The minimum age of jurisdiction is 7 years in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York. It is 8 years in Arizona and 10 years in 11 other states. If a youth

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 8 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

below these ages commits a delinquent act, it would likely be handled informally by the police department and family. Youth under the age of jurisdiction are considered too young to understand that their behavior is criminal.

Table 1.2: Minimum age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters, by state

Age State

6 North Carolina

7 Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York

8 Arizona

10 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin

From "Figure: Delinquency lower age, 2016," in Statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 2 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 )

Not surprisingly, the maximum age of jurisdiction varies by state as well. The maximum age of jurisdiction refers to the oldest age at which a juvenile can be retained in the juvenile system. The majority of states consider the age of 20 as the maximum age of jurisdiction (see Table 1.3). So, for example, if a youth is convicted at age 14 for a crime in Ohio and is sentenced to serve time in a juvenile institution, he can be kept under supervision by the juvenile justice system until he is 20 years old. A few states will allow youth as old as 24 to remain in the juvenile justice system, and some will allow youth to remain as long as their sentence dictates.

Table 1.3: Maximum age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters, by state/jurisdiction

Age State/jurisdiction

18 Oklahoma, Texas

19 Alaska, Connecticut, Mississippi, North Dakota

20 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada*, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming

21 Vermont

22 Kansas

24 California, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin

— Colorado**, Hawaii**, New Jersey** Note: Extended jurisdiction may be restricted to certain offenses or juveniles. *Until the full sentence has been served for sex offenders **Until the full sentence has been served

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 9 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch01…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

From "Figure: Jurisdictional boundaries," in Statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 6 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 6 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 6 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / s t r u c t u re _ p ro c e s s / q a 0 4 1 0 6 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 6 )

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 10 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

1.4 How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

National crime statistics offer a fairly complicated portrait of juvenile offending and victimization. The statistics can sometimes be confusing and contradictory. Let's consider the following facts:

Over 850,000 juveniles were arrested in 2016. This number represents a 58% decrease since 2007 (FBI, 2016). Prevalence of marijuana use and inhalants increased significantly in 2017, although still below peak levels (Johnston, Miech, O'Malley, Bachman, Schulenberg, & Patrick, 2018). Studies show that the rate of violent victimization among juveniles between the ages of 12 and 17 declined to an all-time low in 2015 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2017). In recent years, the percentage of arrests has grown for girls more than for boys, although boys represent 92% of all juvenile arrests (Puzzanchera & Ehrmann, 2018). Up to 60% of U.S. children are exposed to violence, crime, or abuse in their homes, schools, and communities (Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, Hamby, & Kracke, 2009).

After reading these statistics, you may not feel you have any better understanding of juvenile crime than you did before. If so, you are not alone. Crime statistics can be a puzzling array of percentages, rates, and trends. These statistics, and the headlines that accompany them, can lead to confusion regarding how much delinquency occurs each year. This confusion regarding crime was illustrated in a mid-1990s study of college students. Researchers asked participants to indicate the number of murders that occurred in the United States in the previous year. Nearly half of the students indicated that the number was as high as 250,000. In reality, the number of homicides typically hovers around less than 20,000 annually, with 1,700 of those involving juveniles (VanDiver & Giacopassi, 1997). Clearly these students were misinformed, but studies suggest that overall the public often overestimates the amount of crime that occurs each year (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).

One reason for this overestimation is that our views and attitudes are influenced by our personal experiences and by the information we take in about the world around us. This phenomenon is referred to as the availability heuristic, which is the tendency to believe in the probability of an event based on how easily an example can be recalled (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Regarding violent crime, information may come from a person's experience (e.g., knowing someone who was robbed by a delinquent youth), but more often it comes from the news media's excessive coverage of violent crime (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).

There are several other reasons why understanding crime statistics can be difficult. First, crime statistics can be very contextual. For example, arrest statistics can be influenced by numerous factors, one of which is organizational practices within police departments. When a police department decides to crack down on a particular type of crime, such as drug use, the arrests for drug-related crimes may increase even though the crimes themselves have not increased. Second, although we often examine crime statistics from an annual perspective (e.g., the percentage of crime in 2018), crime tends to fluctuate naturally between years. Sometimes the fluctuation turns into a trend (e.g., the crime rate has decreased significantly between 2010 and 2018); other times the fluctuation represents an anomaly or an unusual year. Finally, we use multiple techniques to measure delinquency, and each technique has its own strengths and weaknesses. In particular, the juvenile justice field relies on three primary sources for collecting crime data: arrests, self-report surveys, and victimization surveys. Let's take a look at these three sources and their strengths and weaknesses.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 11 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Arrest Results and Trends

When the news media discuss the increase or decrease in the crime rate, they are most often referring to changes in the number of arrests or the arrest rate. The arrest statistics for both juveniles and adults is most commonly derived from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), whose data are published annually by the FBI. The UCR program began in the late 1920s and collects information from police departments across the country. In the 1940s, law enforcement agencies from nearly 400 cities provided information on arrests in their jurisdictions. By the 1960s, every state provided crime statistics for the UCR. Today, crime statistics included in the UCR are collected by approximately 17,000 different city, county, tribal, and state police agencies across the country. Even crime that occurs on university and college campuses can be part of these crime statistics (FBI, 2004). The statistics account for crimes known to police and arrests made by law enforcement agencies.

The UCR collects arrest data on what are known as Part I and Part II offenses. The Part I offenses, also known as index crimes, include homicide, rape, arson, motor vehicle theft, larceny, robbery, and burglary. They are singled out because of their seriousness, frequency, and likelihood of being reported. The Part II offenses include a broader range of offenses, such as simple assault, forgery, and embezzlement. The annual report published by the FBI focuses on Part I offenses. Both types of offenses are listed in Table 1.4. Several crime categories have been added to the UCR since the 1960s. For example, police agencies began reporting officers killed in the line of duty in 1960, arson was categorized as a Part I offense in 1982, and hate crimes were added in 1990 (FBI, 2004).

Table 1.4: Part I and II offenses

Part I offenses Part II offenses

Murder and nonnegligent homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated assault Burglary Larceny/theft Motor vehicle theft Arson

Other assaults Fraud Embezzlement Stolen property Weapons Prostitution Sex offenses (except rape) Drug abuse violations Runaways Gambling Forgery and counterfeiting Offenses against family and children Driving under the influence Liquor laws Drunkenness Disorderly conduct Vagrancy Suspicion Curfew & loitering

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 12 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

All other offenses (except trafficking)

The data collected for the UCR program include three different categories:

Crimes known to police: Data include crimes reported by victims or witnesses, or those discovered by police. These crimes may or may not be referred to the court system for formal charges. Crimes cleared by arrest: Data include the number of offenses cleared by an arrest. Cleared refers to whether the crime was considered "solved" by the police. Crimes cleared by an arrest do not necessarily indicate the number of people arrested. For example, the arrest of one person may "clear" a number of crimes committed by that one person. Regardless of the number of people involved, an arrest must have occurred and the case referred to court. Number of persons arrested for Part I and Part II offenses: Data include the number of persons arrested for Part I and Part II offenses in any given year. The statistics are collected by age, race, gender, and location.

The data collected result in three annual publications and two semiannual publications. The three annual publications are Crime in the United States, Hate Crime Statistics, and Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. The two semiannual publications provide statistics every six months and report changes since the last reporting period. All of these can be accessed from the FBI's website at www.fbi.gov (http://www.fbi.gov) .

What the UCR Reveals About Crime By examining the data included in the UCR, we can get a sense of who is committing what types of crime. For example, the FBI classifies a juvenile as anyone under the age of 18, regardless of how juvenile is defined by each state. In addition, the UCR does not report circumstances in which youth are brought into custody for their own protection, such as in abuse and neglect cases. Further, comparing the amount of crime committed by juveniles relative to adults, we find that juveniles contribute significantly to the overall crime rate. Specifically, Figure 1.1 shows that, in 2016, just under 14% of property crimes and 10% of violent crimes were committed by juveniles (FBI, 2017).

Figure 1.1: Percentage of crime committed by those under 18, 2016

Of the total crime committed in the United States in 2016, juveniles committed almost 14% of all property crimes and 10% of all violent crimes.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 13 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

From "Table 20: Arrests by age, 2016," in Crime in the United States, by Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n -h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0 ( h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - ( h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0 )u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0 )

Table 1.5 breaks down the arrests of juveniles in 2016 by charge and age, indicating that more than 680,000 juveniles were arrested during that year. Of those juveniles, slightly over 41,000 were arrested for violent offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), and more than 147,000 were arrested for property offenses (burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). A few other pieces of data are notable: just over 31,000 youth were arrested for vandalism, over 78,000 for drug abuse violations, and just over 27,000 for curfew and loitering violations. We also see some patterns regarding age, suggesting that older youth are arrested more frequently than younger youth. For example, the crimes committed by youth under age 15 make up only 28%, or less than a third, of all juvenile arrests in 2016.

Table 1.5: Arrests by charge and age, 2016

Offense charged

Total under

18 Under

10 10–12 13–14 15 16 17

TOTAL 681,701 4,902 42,347 143,326 127,828 164,010 199,288

Violent crime 41,335 198 2,543 8,565 7,860 10,175 11,994

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter

682 0 5 55 93 198 331

Rape 2,952 30 331 829 514 561 687

Robbery 15,339 20 368 2,510 3,123 4,367 4,951

Aggravated assault 22,362 148 1,839 5,171 4,130 5,049 6,025

Property crime 147,350 783 8,512 31,661 29,385 36,501 40,508

Burglary 25,513 193 1,596 5,857 5,243 6,117 6,507

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 14 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Larceny/theft 107,287 476 6,207 22,638 20,954 26,589 30,423

Motor vehicle theft 12,520 15 295 2,514 2,837 3,519 3,340

Arson 2,030 99 414 652 351 276 238

Vandalism 31,181 534 3,253 8,737 5,663 6,457 6,537

Weapons: carrying, possessing, etc.

15,452 203 1,377 3,220 2,734 3,551 4,367

Drug abuse violations 78,330 91 1,737 10,239 12,096 20,639 33,528

Liquor laws 29,073 9 267 2,782 4,404 8,044 13,567

Drunkenness 3,805 14 35 406 521 907 1,922

Disorderly conduct 52,315 498 4,964 14,487 10,521 11,221 10,624

Suspicion 74 0 6 18 14 19 17

Curfew and loitering law violations

27,152 135 1,615 6,046 6,186 7,288 5,882

Adapted from Crime in the United States, by Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e -h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0 ( h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - ( h t t p s : / / u c r. f b i . g o v / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s / 2 0 1 6 / c r i m e - i n - t h e - u . s . - 2 0 1 6 / t o p i c - p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0 )p a g e s / t a b l e s / t a b l e - 2 0 )

What do these numbers tell us about juvenile crime? To begin, they tell us that violent crimes, while important to study, do not represent the majority of crimes committed by juveniles each year. Rather, drug abuse violations and property violations make up the bulk of juvenile crime. Similarly, the overall crime rate among those aged 18 and under has dropped significantly. This type of data could be used to counteract public fears that youth have become more violent over the past decade (Gramlich, 2018; NPR, 2016). Similarly, although status offenses such as curfew and loitering violations involved a fair number of juveniles (just over 27,000) in 2016, they have decreased over time (see Figure 1.6). Could this decrease reflect policies implemented since the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders protection was recommended in the mid-1970s to address the justice system's reach into the lives of juveniles?

Understanding crime statistics also requires an appreciation of how crime rates vary across time. Examining rates across time allows us to see whether any potential patterns or trends are emerging, which can, for instance, inform legislation or departmental policy. For example, the rate of delinquency peaked in the mid- 1990s and since then has declined significantly (see Figure 1.2). In particular, it began to decline in 1995, became fairly stable from 2005 to 2008, and then declined significantly until 2016. In fact, juvenile crime rates are the lowest they have been since the get-tough movement of the 1980s, when the system began implementing policies that led to an increase in arrests. When we examine trends by crime type, we see similar trends. For example, violent crime rates declined steeply from 1995 to 2000, before leveling off and then declining again steeply until 2012 (see Figure 1.3). Compare this trajectory to that of property crime, which declined more gradually from 1995 to 2016 (see Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.2: Delinquency rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980– 2016

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 15 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Delinquency rates peaked in 1995 at around 8,200 juveniles, declined steadily after that, and eventually leveled off at around 5,900 in 2005 before dropping dramatically to around 2,500 in 2016.

From "Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race," by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l sh t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s ( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )

Figure 1.3: Violent crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980– 2012*

Violent crime rates peaked in 1995 at just under 500 juveniles, declined steadily after that, and eventually leveled off below 300 in 2005 before dropping again to around 180 in 2012.

*Data after 2012 is not available.

From "Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race," by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l sh t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s ( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 16 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Figure 1.4: Property crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2016

Property crime rates consistently declined from 1995 to 2016.

From "Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race," by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l sh t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s ( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )

Declines are also seen with drug abuse violations and status offenses. Drug violations rose dramatically, peaking in the mid-1990s. They have declined slowly since then (see Figure 1.5).

When we examine three types of status offenses—liquor law, runaway, and curfew violations—we see similar trends (see Figure 1.6). Examining trends in this way tells us that the decline in juvenile crime has been a consistent trend over a period of years that varies only slightly by offense type. This type of information could inform, say, statewide approaches to allocating law enforcement resources. For example, if the arrest rates for arson were increasing steadily over time while rates for all other offenses were decreasing, a state might devote a greater percentage of its resources to exploring why more juveniles were committing arson each year.

Figure 1.5: Drug violation crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10– 17, 1980–2016

Drug violations saw a rapid increase from just under 300 in 1990 to nearly 700 in 1995. Since then, violation rates have declined slowly to around 295 in the year 2016.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 17 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

From "Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race," by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l sh t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s ( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )

Figure 1.6: Status offense rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2016*

Liquor law violations peaked in 1990 at just under 600, while both runaway and curfew and loitering offenses peaked in 1995 at around 800 and 500, respectively. All three rates declined throughout the 2000s, with both liquor and curfew and loitering violations at nearly 100 by 2016. Runaway offenses peaked in 1995 and then fell rapidly until 2000, after which they leveled off until 2009.

*Data after 2012 is not available.

From "Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race," by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l sh t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s ( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )

Finally, if we examine differences by gender, Figures 1.7 and 1.8 indicate that boys commit substantially more

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 18 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

offenses than girls. Despite this difference, crime rates for both genders followed about the same trajectory over time, peaking in the 1990s and then leveling off.

Figure 1.7: Crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17 by gender, 1980–2016

Between 1980 and 2008, boys committed substantially more offenses than girls did. However, although the rates of crime committed by both boys and girls peaked in the 1990s, the rate of crimes committed by boys has dropped at a more substantial rate since then.

From "Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race," by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l sh t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s ( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )

Figure 1.8: Crime rates for violent offenses only by gender, 1980– 2012*

From 1980 to 2012, boys committed violent offenses significantly more often than girls. However, the decline in the rate of crimes committed by girls was much less substantial after a peak in the 1990s.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 19 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

*Data after 2012 are not available.

From "Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race," by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l sh t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s ( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )( h t t p : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / c r i m e / e x c e l / J A R _ 2 0 1 6 . x l s )

Although the UCR is a useful tool for determining trends, it has both strengths and weaknesses as a measure of crime.

Strengths of the UCR The UCR is a popular and widely used measure of crime. Arguably, it is more useful for examining trends among adults than juveniles; however, the data available on youth are also important. The UCR has several strengths:

The longevity of the program is notable. The UCR program has been in existence longer than any other program of its kind. The amount of data collected through this program over such a long period of time allows us to examine crime trends from a more historical perspective that provides us with a bigger picture view of crime and crime trends. The data collection is national in scope. The UCR coverage area includes 17,000 police departments from every state in the nation. So not only are we able to examine rates and trends, but we also are able to examine how crime may vary by area. The source of the data included in the UCR appears to be a valid measure of serious crime (Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1985). The UCR collects data on crimes that are serious enough to warrant a call to the police, such as murder, motor vehicle theft, robbery, or burglary. So, for example, if we want to examine crimes known to the police, we know that the UCR includes data on crimes for which a victim or loved one would be more likely to contact law enforcement for help.

Weaknesses of the UCR At the same time, the UCR is criticized on a number of grounds:

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 20 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

A key criticism is that the UCR collects data only on reported crimes, and not all crimes are reported to the police. Reasons for not reporting vary but often include reluctance on the part of the victim to report to police because the crime may not seem serious enough, because of feelings that the police may not help them, or because they think the incident is a private matter (Gove et al., 1985). The UCR program also employs a reporting requirement referred to as the hierarchy rule. According to this rule, even when a person has committed multiple crimes, police report only the most serious crimes that person has committed. The FBI provides guidelines on which offenses are the most serious, but the exclusion of any crimes means that the UCR does not capture all crime committed. The crime measure reflected in the UCR may be biased by law enforcement practices. For example, not everyone reports that a crime has occurred. In addition, arrests may be more likely in areas targeted for enforcement. If enforcement occurs in lower-income areas more frequently than in others, low-income residents may be disproportionately represented in the UCR statistics. The UCR does not tap into why a person may have committed a crime or why a crime may have occurred. Although police agencies collect basic information on the person arrested (e.g., age, race, gender), they do not collect other incident-level data (e.g., relationship between victim and offender, alcohol or drug use). Understanding the person's motivation for the crime is difficult to discern without additional information (Farrington, 1994; Gove et al., 1985).

Supplementing the UCR In the late 1970s, law enforcement agencies suggested supplementing the UCR program with additional data and crime categories for several reasons. First, the law enforcement community's proficiency in collecting data had increased. Second, the UCR does not provide the details necessary to fully understand trends in crime. Finally, the hierarchy rule is concerning to those who believe the UCR does not provide an accurate picture of the amount of crime occurring in the United States each year (Maxfield, 1999).

In response to law enforcement's suggestions, a new incident-based data collection system, the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), was approved in 1988. This data collection system is meant to collect data on every incident and arrest throughout the United States. Although participating states began collecting data for NIBRS in the late 1980s, implementation of the program nationwide has been fairly slow. Currently, approximately 6,000 law enforcement agencies, representing only about 25% of the U.S. population, provide data to the FBI on an annual basis. Given this low response rate, the FBI continues to rely on UCR statistics when publishing its annual report on crime in the United States.

The accompanying Spotlight feature lists the offense categories included in the NIBRS.

Spotlight: The National Incident-Based Reporting System

The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) supplements the UCR system by providing incident-level data on crimes reported to the police. The NIBRS greatly expands the types of crimes reported by law enforcement officials to the FBI. It asks police agencies to collect information on incidents involving victims younger than 12 as well as victimizations that occur with individuals, households, and businesses.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 21 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

The NIBRS categorizes crimes into Group A offenses and Group B offenses. Police departments are instructed to collect detailed information on the 22 Group A categories. Only arrest data are collected on the 11 Group B offenses.

Group A Offense Categories

Arson homicide offenses Assault offenses Bribery Burglary/breaking and entering Counterfeiting/forgery Destruction/ vandalism of property Drug/narcotic offenses Embezzlement Extortion/blackmail Fraud offenses Gambling offenses Kidnapping/abduction Larceny/theft offenses Motor vehicle theft Obscene material Prostitution offenses Robbery Sex offenses, forcible Sex offenses, nonforcible Stolen property Weapon law violations

Group B Offense Categories

Bad checks Curfew/loitering/vagrancy violations Disorderly conduct Driving under the influence Drunkenness Family offenses, nonviolent Liquor law violations Peeping Tom offenses Runaways Trespass of real property All other offenses

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 22 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

President George W. Bush takes part in a Charles Dharapak/Associated Press

Self-Report Surveys

A self-report survey is a data-gathering tool that asks participants to report on their own thoughts, behaviors, and experiences. Since the 1950s, self-report surveys have been used in crime reporting and research to address two particular weakness of the UCR. First, the information collected as part of the UCR program is not sufficient to explain why a crime may have occurred. Criminological theories (see Chapter 3) are designed to explain the motivation for crime or the factors that may influence a person's decision to commit a crime. By using UCR data, a researcher can identify that a certain number of arrests occurred among males, or in the summer months, or in a particular geographic region. However, the same researcher cannot say why a man in Texas may have committed a crime in July. Second, the UCR measures only crimes reported to or discovered by the police. Some researchers argue that the UCR captures only 10% of the crime that occurs each year, whereas others put the figure at a more conservative estimate of 50% (Biederman & Lynch, 1991; Klaus, 2004). Regardless of the extent, it is an agreed-upon fact that police are not aware of every crime committed. The number of unreported crimes or crimes undiscovered by police is referred to as the dark figure of crime.

Self-report surveys about crime are able to address these weaknesses of the UCR by asking participants a range of questions about their behavior. For example, a self-report survey about delinquent behavior might ask participants whether they have engaged in delinquency and to provide details regarding the offenses. Self- report surveys can be fairly wide-ranging. For example, a survey can be administered almost anywhere (e.g., schools, prisons, community gatherings) and in many ways (e.g., face-to-face, by mail or phone) and cover a variety of topics (e.g., involvement with cheating, exposure to violence, or attitudes toward punishment).

Self-report surveys became popular for a couple of reasons. First, survey results indicated that some of the assumptions about who commits crime were incorrect. For example, the UCR indicates that disadvantaged neighborhoods have higher arrest rates. Self-report studies showed that people from a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds commit crime (Short & Nye, 1958). Second, researchers began to use self-report surveys to examine why people commit crime. For example, we know that various factors can influence criminal behavior. Self-report surveys allow us to disentangle which factors are particularly important. Risk factors such as family relationships, school environments, and the influence of peers were discovered primarily through the use of self-report surveys. The results of these types of studies led to a dramatic increase in new ideas and theories to explain juvenile delinquency (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000).

Although self-report surveys can give a broader picture of delinquency, survey information is often collected among fairly limited groups of people. For example, often the people completing a survey live in a particular area (e.g., a survey of youth in Denver, Colorado) or are members of a particular demographic (e.g., high school students in a rural area). To address this issue, Delbert Elliott and colleagues (Elliott & Huizinga, 1983) developed the National Youth Survey (NYS) in the mid-1970s to measure juvenile delinquency. The first NYS was a longitudinal household study of 1,700 adolescents. The crime categories measured included all but homicide from the UCR Part I offenses and 60% of the Part II offenses. In addition, the survey questions tapped social issues and

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 23 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

meeting on the Monitoring the Future Study on Teen Drug Use, Tuesday, December 11, 2007, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington.

attitudes. The results of the NYS produced results similar to those of local and regional surveys. In particular, the results confirmed that youth from various socioeconomic backgrounds were committing crimes. The results also confirmed that many of the crimes reported by the youth were not coming to the attention of the police (Elliott & Huizinga, 1983).

Another frequently used survey of crime and youth is called the Monitoring the Future survey (Johnston et al., 2018). The Monitoring the Future survey is a national survey on drug and alcohol use that began in the 1970s and has since been conducted annually. Each year approximately 50,000 students in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades are asked about their exposure to, attitudes about, and access to drugs and alcohol. The accompanying Spotlight feature provides more details about this survey.

Spotlight: Monitoring the Future Survey

The Monitoring the Future survey was developed in 1975 and is facilitated by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. It is a nationally representative survey of adolescents that asks participants about their involvement with and opinions about drugs and alcohol. Initially conducted only with high school seniors, the survey sample was extended to 10th graders and 8th graders beginning in 1991. An additional survey is sent to those participating in the 12th-grade sample for longitudinal follow-up. On average, 50,000 students from across the country participate in the survey each year.

The questions asked in the Monitoring the Future survey fall into four general categories:

Drug and Alcohol Use

"How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in your lifetime?" "How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in the last 12 months?" "How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in the last 30 days?"

Alcohol Use

For alcohol use, the questions regarding drug and alcohol use are used as well as a similar set of questions asking participants how often they have been drunk in their lifetime, in the last 12 months, and in the last 30 days. In addition, participants are asked, "How many times in the last week have you had five or more drinks?"

Perceptions of Risk

Based on a five-point scale (no risk, slight risk, moderate risk, great risk, and "can't say, drug unfamiliar"), participants are asked to rate the degree to which consuming alcohol and various drugs is risky: "How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways), if they . . .?"

Disapproval of Use

Participants are asked to rate their level of disapproval with using drugs and alcohol: "Do YOU

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 24 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

disapprove of people doing each of the following?"

Perceptions of Availability

Based on a five-point scale (probably impossible, very difficult, fairly difficult, fairly easy, and very easy), participants are asked how easily they could obtain various drugs and alcohol: "How difficult do you think it would be for you to get each of the following types of drugs, if you wanted some?" For 8th and 10th graders, the option "can't say, drug unfamiliar" is added to the questionnaire.

We see some interesting trends when we use the Monitoring the Future survey to examine reported drug use among U.S. adolescents. Recall that the UCR told us that juvenile drug offenses in the United States peaked in the mid-1990s and then leveled off, albeit less dramatically than other types of offenses. Figure 1.9 uses Monitoring the Future data to illustrate that in 2016 alcohol was the substance used most among students in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades, with higher rates of use among older youth. When it comes to drug use, the figure shows us that youth were more likely to use marijuana than other illicit drugs. However, nearly 20% of high school seniors indicated that they had used an illicit drug other than marijuana in their lifetime.

Figure 1.9: Lifetime use of drugs and alcohol among juveniles, 2016

From "Table 5: Trends in lifetime prevalence of use of various drugs in grades 8, 10, and 12," in Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975–2017: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use, by L. D. Johnston, R. A. Miech, P. M. O'Malley, J. G. Bachman, J. E. Schulenberg, and M. E. Patrick, 2018, Retrieved from h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d fh t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ( h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ) ( h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ) . L i c e n s e dL i c e n s e d u n d e r u n d e r C C - B Y C C - B Y 4 . 0 4 . 0 ( h t t p s : / / c re a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg / l i c e n s e s / b y / 4 . 0 / ) ( h t t p s : / / c re a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg / l i c e n s e s / b y / 4 . 0 / ) .

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 25 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

As we do with the UCR data, we should also use the Monitoring the Future data to examine the trends over time to see whether the 2016 statistics are part of a trend or are an anomaly. Figure 1.10 indicates that drug and alcohol use among adolescents overall has been declining over time, with the greatest decline in the use of alcohol. The data tell us that the decline is a long-term trend.

Figure 1.10: Lifetime use of drugs among juveniles, 1991–2017

From "Table 1: Trends in lifetime prevalence of use of various drugs for grades 8, 10, and 12 combined," in Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use: 1975–2017: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use, by L. D. Johnston, R. A. Miech, P. M. O'Malley, J. G. Bachman, J. E. Schulenberg, and M. E. Patrick, 2018, Retrieved from h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f -h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d fo v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ( h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ) ( h t t p : / / m o n i t o r i n g t h e f u t u re . o rg / p u b s / m o n o g r a p h s / m t f - o v e r v i e w 2 0 1 7 . p d f ) . L i c e n s e dL i c e n s e d u n d e ru n d e r C C - B Y C C - B Y 4 . 0 4 . 0 ( h t t p s : / / c re a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg / l i c e n s e s / b y / 4 . 0 / ) ( h t t p s : / / c re a t i v e c o m m o n s . o rg / l i c e n s e s / b y / 4 . 0 / ) .

Information like that shown in Figures 1.9 and 1.10 can be useful in several ways, such as helping to assess the effect of law enforcement that targets drug use or reconsidering ways to restrict sales of alcohol to minors.

Strengths of Self-Report Surveys Much like the UCR, self-report surveys have their strengths and weaknesses. The self-report method is very useful for criminological theory development. A self-report survey can include virtually any type of question about a variety of subjects. The survey can ask participants various questions about family, neighborhoods, peers, teachers, and thoughts about the crime. Through this method, the researcher can ask participants why they chose to (or not to) engage in the behavior. For example, if surveying youth about binge drinking, the survey can not only ask them whether they engaged in binge drinking in the last 30 days, but it may also ask the participant who they drank with (e.g., peers), in what environment (e.g., home, school, community), and at what time of day (e.g., evenings, weekends). The results can lead to a better understanding of the individual and environmental factors that come into play when someone engages in delinquency.

In addition, self-report survey results allow us to expose and understand the dark figure of crime. Crimes that are underreported to the police are equally important to understanding delinquency. Several areas of inquiry

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 26 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

become important in this regard. In particular, it begs the question whether law enforcement agencies are likely to target certain areas more than others. Not that targeted enforcement is an automatic indication of discrimination but that targeted enforcement has consequences. Those consequences include the lack of enforcement in other areas. Researchers find that the UCR is a valid measure of serious crime, but if less serious crime, say recreational drug use, is not as likely to result in a call to the police, then crime rates as measured by the UCR do little to help us understand the extent of drug use among teens. Examining only drug possession arrests clearly misses a tremendous number of people who use drugs but are not detected by the police. Recognizing this issue allows us to understand the limits of the UCR and better contextualize the results. Self-report surveys provide insight into delinquent behavior that the UCR cannot.

Although early self-report surveys were criticized for being too limited in scale (e.g., just a few questions were asked) and population (e.g., high school students), current surveys continue to improve and are considered a reliable and valid measure for a range of offense types (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000).

Weaknesses of Self-Report Surveys Although improvements in the self-report method continue, several weaknesses remain. For example, although a few national surveys are available (e.g., Monitoring the Future), the measures are not comparable to the UCR in terms of its scope. For example, with UCR data we can make comparisons between cities, states, and regions. Even the national self-report surveys are unable to provide these types of data. Although national surveys do exist, the measures are not comparable to the UCR and do not consistently provide comparisons by year and across populations. For example, some of the most popular self-report surveys are with high school students. However, surveying high school students misses important target populations: those who drop out of school or who are chronically truant and may not be in school at the time the survey is administered.

The self-report method can be influenced by the participants themselves. For example, recall is an important issue for self-report surveys. People may have difficulty recalling certain events, particularly when exploring the factors that may have motivated someone to commit a crime. Another area of concern is deception. Juveniles may over- or underreport certain offenses for various reasons. For example, some juveniles may exaggerate their involvement in drugs and alcohol in order to be seen desirably by their peers. Others may not report delinquency out of embarrassment or fear of being caught.

Victimization Data

The third most common way to measure crime is through victimization surveys, which supplement what is known about crime from the UCR and self-report surveys by asking victims to report whether they have been victimized. The most commonly utilized data source on victims is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS is collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and provides a national portrait of victimization experienced each year.

As seen in the accompanying Spotlight feature, the NCVS mirrors many of the crime categories of the UCR. If individuals indicate that they (or someone in the household) experienced victimization, they are asked to report details of the crime. The victimization data include situational characteristics, such as month, time, and location; victim characteristics, such as age, race, and relationship with the offender; and impact of the victimization, such as loss of money and property. The survey also asks victims whether they reported the victimization to the police and whether they felt targeted due to personal factors such as religion, race, or

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 27 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

sexual orientation.

Spotlight: National Crime Victimization Survey

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) began in 1973 under the name National Crime Survey. The survey was redesigned and changed names to its current moniker in the early 1990s. The NCVS samples households twice a year. Only those who are 12 and older can participate as respondents. Each household is interviewed on seven separate occasions. In 2016, the sample covered 135,000 households and approximately 225,000 people.

The NCVS measures both crimes that happen to individuals (personal and property) and crimes that occur to other members living at the residence (household). The survey includes all the Part I UCR offenses except for murder and arson.

Victimization Categories

Rape and sexual assault Robbery Aggravated and simple assault Purse snatching and pickpocketing Burglary Theft Motor vehicle theft Identity theft Vandalism

Respondents are asked to report details about victimization. Questions include the following:

Whether the respondent was the victim of a crime How many times in the last six months the respondent was the victim of a crime The month, time, and location of the victimization Whether the respondent knew the person(s) who victimized him or her Whether the incident was reported to police The extent of damage or whether there was a loss of money, property, or other items Whether the respondent felt targeted due to his or her race, religion, ethnic background, disability, gender, or sexual orientation Whether the respondent felt targeted in the ways mentioned above due to the people with whom he or she associated

These questions help us understand criminal acts from the victim's perspective, which helps us to better understand the nature and consequence of crime.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 28 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

There are differences between the types of data collected through this survey and the data collected through the UCR. Two important differences include the age cutoff (the youngest age captured in the NCVS is 12) and the types of crimes recorded. By asking victims to report experiences with crime, we are able to understand details about the commission of the crime, the relationships between victims and offenders, and even the impact of the crimes.

Like self-reports, victimization data should also tap into the dark figure of crime and allow us to examine instances of delinquency that may not have come to attention of the police. Even further, if the victim did not report the incident to the police, it allows us to examine why the victim may have chosen not to do so.

The NCVS can be administered to anyone 12 years or older who resides in the household. If we examine these results we see that the pattern is similar to the UCR. For example, Figure 1.11 shows that the rate of reported victimization is also declining. The Bureau of Justice Statistics published a report in 2005 that pulled out only youth ages 12–17 to illustrate additional details about juvenile victimization. For example, in terms of the victim and offender relationship, Figure 1.12 illustrates that 52% knew their victimizer, followed by 37% who indicated that the offender was a stranger. Finally, when examining the location of the victimization, 43% of victimizations occurring during this time happened at school (see Figure 1.13).

Figure 1.11: Rate of violent victimizations among juveniles per 1,000, 1980–2015

From "Victimizations per 1,000 juveniles ages 12–17," in OJJDP statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / v i c t i m s / q a 0 2 5 0 1 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 5h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / v i c t i m s / q a 0 2 5 0 1 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 5 ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / v i c t i m s / q a 0 2 5 0 1 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 5 )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / v i c t i m s / q a 0 2 5 0 1 . a s p ? q a D a t e = 2 0 1 5 )

Figure 1.12: Relationship between victim and offender

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 29 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Adapted from Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993–2003, by K. Baum, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 1.13: Most common locations of violent crime incidents

Adapted from Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993–2003, by K. Baum, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

We can see from these results that victimization surveys help us understand the crime puzzle even further. By examining victimization in terms of characteristics, relationships, and location we can understand the circumstances in which victimization is likely to occur. Understanding the circumstances and issues of child victims is very important, as is the relationship between victimization and delinquency. For example, statistics show that abused or maltreated children are at significant risk for later delinquency. Maltreatment can include physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Studies estimate that nearly half of children who become delinquents report childhood abuse or neglect (Teague, Mazerolle, Legosz, & Sanderson, 2008).

The NCVS is not the only victimization survey in existence. Like self-report surveys, researchers can use victimization surveys with a variety of populations. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys incarcerated youth each year to examine their experiences with victimization in institutional settings. As with self-report surveys, researchers can tailor questions to tap into a variety of circumstances. Because the

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 30 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

victimization surveys are methodologically similar to self-report surveys, they share many of the same strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths of Victimization Surveys The first strength is the level of detail victimization surveys provide. The NCVS includes detailed information about victims that allows for more informed policy creation regarding how best to prevent crime and similar victimization in the future. Similarly, details of the incident such as location, time of day, and the victim- offender relationship help inform the general public on how to protect themselves against victimization. Unlike self-report surveys, the NCVS measures serious crimes on an annual basis and closely parallels the UCR. In 1992, it was revamped to improve reporting of such things as non-stranger crimes and rape. Finally, the NCVS employs a national sample and annual statistics for year-by-year comparisons.

Weaknesses of Victimization Surveys However, like self-report surveys, there are some weaknesses with this approach. People may forget the exact details of their victimization, which could lead to misleading or erroneous reporting. In addition, people may answer in socially desirable ways to either exaggerate or not tell the truth (Gove et al., 1985). Bias can also be an issue with victimization surveys. The NCVS can be quite extensive and take up a significant amount of time to fill out completely. Consequently, there is concern that people will underreport victimization during the later phases of the survey to avoid the lengthy questionnaire (Sykes & Cullen, 1992).

Another weakness with this type of survey is the population sampled. The NCVS is a national sample of households; however, it is not feasible to break down the data by state or city because the sample is not drawn to represent each city or state, although region comparisons are feasible in some circumstances.

The most important weakness for understanding juvenile delinquency is the age cutoff for the NCVS. The NCVS asks only about victimization experiences among those 12 and older. The survey may be underrepresenting juveniles if they are not the respondent or do not wish to talk about victimization due to embarrassment. The juvenile may be fearful of discussing victimization in the home if the perpetrator of the abuse (e.g., caregiver or sibling) is present in the home.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 31 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

1.5 Measuring Crime: Putting It All Into Perspective

Given that all three measures of crime have both strengths and weakness, the question becomes which do we use and when? The short answer is all three. If we wish to examine serious crime such as homicide, the UCR is likely our best measure. If we wish to examine drug and alcohol use among teens, we are better off using self-report surveys. Finally, if we wish to examine the victim-offender relationship more clearly, we are better off using victimization surveys. In other words, each measure can help us understand a different facet of crime. However, there remain benefits and disadvantages of comparing the three measures when trying to understand delinquency.

The benefits of using all three measures include the following:

The UCR and the NCVS cover many of the same types of crime. Studies have also found that the two measures are comparable with regard to burglary and robbery (Gove et al., 1985; Lauritsen & Schaum, 1998). As such, these two measures tend to validate each other, which makes them useful in examining crime trends. Both the NCVS and self-report surveys find that the UCR is underestimating the amount of crime occurring each year (Kirk, 2006; Wells & Rankin, 1995). This revelation is important for understanding the relationship between socioeconomic status and delinquency. As such, the findings should remind us to be cautious of the latest headlines regarding arrest rates. Victimization and self-report data help identify risk factors for delinquency such as peers, family, and school performance. The more we know of victims of crime and how victims experience crime, the more we can do to help prevent crime in the first place and also help those who have suffered a traumatic experience. Combining the measures provides additional details on the characteristics of offenders and victims— in particular, why victims may not report crime and how situational factors influence victimization.

However, there are also reasons to be cautious when combining the three measures of crime:

The UCR and NCVS may not be directly comparable because they use different samples and work with different time spans. The UCR and NCVS report rates in different metrics—the UCR is a rate per 100,000 persons, and the NCVS is a rate per 1,000 persons. Self-report surveys often focus on minor crimes, making direct comparisons to the UCR or NCVS difficult.

Overall, what do these measures tell us about juvenile delinquency? First, all three agree that the juvenile crime (and victimization) rate has declined significantly over the past decade. Second, all three measures show differences by gender, race, region, and crime type, although all show similar rates of decline. Finally, the three measures have been able to identify certain risk factors that are known to be strong and consistent predictors of crime.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 32 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Summary of Learning Objectives

Explain the complexity of defining juvenile delinquency.

Juvenile delinquency is a complex phenomenon. Defining who is a juvenile and what behaviors represent juvenile delinquency can vary by state. National statistics can provide us with an understanding of the rates of delinquency over time.

Summarize the different types of juvenile delinquency.

Juvenile delinquency refers to unlawful acts of a minor child. The juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over behaviors that are illegal only for juveniles. These types of crimes are referred to as status offenses and include delinquent acts such as truancy, running away, and violating curfew.

Describe how states attempt to define juvenile delinquency in relation to age.

The upper age of jurisdiction refers to the age that dictates whether a youth's case is handled by the juvenile court or the adult court system. The majority of the states consider anyone 17 years or younger as under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system. The minimum age of jurisdiction refers to the youngest age at which a youth can be sent to the juvenile court system. The majority of states consider 10 years of age as the youngest, although North Carolina sets the age at 6 years old.

Evaluate the rates of delinquency and the three primary techniques for measuring delinquency.

National crime statistics offer a fairly complicated portrait of juvenile offending and victimization. The statistics can sometimes be confusing and contradictory and must be analyzed closely with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of how we measure delinquency. The three measures of juvenile crime include arrest data, self-report surveys, and victimization surveys. The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) is the primary source of arrest data. The UCR is collected annually by police departments all across the United States and provides a solid measure of serious crime among juveniles. Self-report surveys have been popular for several decades and allow researchers to examine crime from various angles. Self-report surveys have evolved over time and are a meaningful way to collect crime data, particularly minor offenses not collected by the UCR. The National Crime Victimization Survey is the primary source of victimization data. Similar to the UCR, the NCVS is published annually and provides a national portrait of victimization. The results of the three measures show that crime and victimization have declined significantly during the past decade.

Analyze the benefits of using the three crime measurements together.

All three measures of crime have strengths and weaknesses. Combining the three measures gives us a deeper understanding of crime.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 33 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

The three measures of crime show congruence when analyzing trends over time.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Do you think the federal government should mandate that all states agree upon the age at which

someone is considered a minor? Discuss the problems with this approach. 2. Do you believe status offenses should be illegal? Do you think they should be handled by the juvenile

justice system or an alternative system? 3. If you were interested in studying rape, which measure of crime would you use? 4. Why do you think boys are overrepresented in the system?

Key Terms Click on each key term to see the definition.

age ambiguity (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

Uncertainty surrounding the age of entry into the juvenile justice system.

age of jurisdiction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

The age that dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult court system has authority over a case.

availability heuristic (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

The phenomenon that our view and attitudes are influenced by the world and information around us. The tendency to believe in the probability of an event based on how easily an example can be recalled.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 34 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

dark figure of crime (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

Refers to crimes not brought to the attention of the police.

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

The statute that protects status offenders and recommends that all juveniles classified as status offenders not be held for any period of time in a detention facility.

juvenile delinquency (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

Unlawful activities of a minor child.

Monitoring the Future survey (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

A national youth crime survey on alcohol and drug use.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 35 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

r#)

The most common victimization survey; collected yearly by the U.S. Census Bureau.

National Youth Survey (NYS) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

A self-report survey that measures juvenile delinquency using all the crime categories from the UCR Part I with the exception of homicide offenses and 60% of the Part II offenses; the survey questions also dig into social issues and attitudes.

parensparens patria patria (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

(Latin for "parent of the nation") Refers to the court's parenting role that focuses on the welfare of the juvenile.

self-report surveys (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

Data-gathering tools that ask participants about their criminal behavior.

status offenses (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

Behaviors that are illegal for juveniles but would be legal for adults.

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 36 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

Official arrest statistics for juveniles and adults compiled by the FBI.

victimization surveys (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r#)

Surveys that supplement what is known about crime from the UCR and self-report surveys by asking victims to report whether they have been victimized.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 37 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

2The Historical Context of Juvenile

Justice

BOSTON GLOBE/Associated Press

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 38 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

News stories ran with the headline "Beating Children for Jesus?" (Schiffer, 2001). The case involved a small church in Atlanta, Georgia. The church, named the House of Prayer and led by the Reverend Arthur Allen Jr., advocated for tough discipline of the congregation's children. The tough discipline took the form of frequent and often public whipping of children for misbehavior, often under the watchful eye of the congregation. The abuse came to the attention of authorities after the children's schoolteachers began noticing bruises and welts on their arms and chests. As the case unfolded, stories of abuse began to emerge. The most noteworthy included two boys, ages 7 and 10, being held in the air by adults while family members beat them with a wooden switch. Stories of children being beaten for more than 30 minutes with a belt or other devices with full support from the reverend and family members ultimately led to his arrest and the removal of more than 40 children from their homes.

The reverend and church members excused the beatings as "tough love" and argued that beatings instilled discipline in children. The reverend was quoted by news agencies as saying, "If we can use milder punishment, then I'm for it. But sometimes it doesn't work, and I can't let them just take over the house" (Bryant, 2002). Eventually, most of the children were returned to their homes in exchange for the parents' agreement that they would not beat their children in the future. Even with police involvement, however, some parents were not swayed. One parent in particular struggled with the authorities' concern over the beatings, saying, "The Bible told me, 'whip them, it won't kill them.' So, you know, how can you tell me not to whip my children when they need it, you know. But, I'll never compromise with the devil. That's like compromising my soul" (Bryant, 2002). Reverend Allen served a two-year prison sentence for orchestrating the beating of the children in his congregation.

Summarize how early philosophies and religion

shaped the treatment of children both before and

during the Colonial Period.

Describe the shift in juvenile justice during the

Colonial Period.

Identify the key features of the Refuge Period.

Explain how the juvenile and adult courts became

distinct during the Juvenile Court Period.

Analyze the evolution of juvenile rights during the

Juvenile Rights Period.

Describe the rationale and policies of the "get-

tough" movement during the Crime Control Period.

Evaluate the current changes that are taking place in

the juvenile justice system.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 39 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

The civil rights movement, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was realized in its time due to political and social forces at play in the 1950s and 1960s. Similarly, social forces have historically dictated trends and philosophies within the juvenile justice system.

akg-images/SuperStock

2.1 Introduction

The scenario just described may be rare today, but the role of religion in punishing deviance is deeply rooted in the history of juvenile justice. Throughout history we see policies repeat themselves. For example, policies or punishments used in the past commonly come full circle into the future. Think, for example, about how fashion or music repeats itself. Those industries take from what "worked" in the past and attempt to recreate it for a new generation. At the same time, we hope that the industry learns from its failures and avoids those pitfalls in the future. However, as we will see in this chapter, juvenile justice often experiences policy cycles that repeat both the good and the bad.

The policy cycles experienced by the juvenile justice system are often influenced by the social context of the time. Consider, for example, the social context of the 1960s. The 1960s was a period of great social upheaval as our society became more invested in the civil rights of minorities and women but also led to more rights for youth in the juvenile justice system. Changes associated with the civil rights and women's rights movements came about in part because the political will and social forces existed to make them possible. When examining juvenile justice, we see that social forces of the times have also influenced the philosophy of the system. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s the political and social climate shifted to one that was retributive. As such, punitive interventions like boot camps flourished. Understanding the historical context behind the juvenile justice system movement toward punitiveness is crucial. The history of juvenile justice shows that certain policies and ideologies seem to reemerge over time.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 40 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

The Code of Hammurabi is the earliest collection of laws addressing criminal punishment, business, and the treatment of juveniles by their parents through legal procedure. This is a piece of the tablet itself from Babylon in 1750 BCE.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

2.2 The Early Years (to 1600)

The current juvenile justice system includes a fairly comprehensive set of laws defining the criminal behavior of juveniles. In addition to delinquency, a series of laws exist that govern the abuse, neglect, and abandonment of children. Abuse may be physical, sexual, or emotional. However, young people have not always been afforded rights and considerations. In fact, the earliest set of laws governing children didn't include protections for youth.

The Code of Hammurabi

The first comprehensive set of recorded laws is referred to as the Hammurabic Code. This code was developed by King Hammurabi of Babylon in 1750 BCE. Although some disagree about whether the code represents the first formal set of laws, the code is considered to be the most comprehensive attempt at categorizing behavior. The laws were designed to regulate not only blatant criminal behavior (e.g., murder, violence) but also business and property transactions (e.g., "If a patrician [nobleman] has stolen ox, sheep, pig, or ship, whether from a temple, or a house, he shall pay thirtyfold"), marital relations (e.g., "If a man's wife be caught lying with another, they shall be strangled and cast into the water"), and also parent-child relationships (e.g., "if a son has struck his father, his hands shall be cut off"). The laws specific to parent-child relationships are the earliest laws governing the behavior of juveniles. For example, the laws set forth a clear

delineation of parent and child. Children who disobeyed their parents could be abandoned, maimed, or even killed. (Visit http://www.commonlaw.com/home/legal-history-and-philosophy/code-of-hammurabi (http://www.commonlaw.com/home/legal-history-and-philosophy/code-of-hammurabi) for specific examples.)

The spirit of these laws is compatible with the early view of children as property of their parents. This concept of ownership is referred to as patriapatria potestas potestas. Patria potestas gives the father control over all family matters. Parents, especially fathers, were granted the right to do as they wished with their children. As a general rule, children were seen as laborers who would work for their families, or they were often sold into servitude. During this time, children who were not physically well or were of a "bad temperament" were put to death (deMause, 1974). Boys were given a higher status than girls, and girls were more likely to suffer abandonment and abuse as a result of this philosophy. The practice of favoring boys is a trend that unfortunately continues in many countries today.

The Role of Religious Institutions

Religious institutions, particularly of the Christian faith, were a dominant force in the regulation and punishment of criminal behavior in Europe. In the 1300s and 1400s, the church was considered the most

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 41 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

important social institution, with criminal behavior characterized as a sin against God. The punishments, which included drowning, hanging, or being burned alive, were intended to rid the criminal of evil. The medieval punishments, used on juveniles as well, often had one thing in common: brutality. Some of the more torturous policies are listed in Spotlight: Torture Devices. Although there are few accounts of how many juveniles were put to death or tortured through these means, historians indicate that death sentences were not uncommon for juveniles found guilty of minor criminal behavior (Sanders, 1970).

Spotlight: Torture Devices

Burned or Boiled Alive: Being burned or boiled alive were common methods used for hundreds of years. Historians indicate that boiling was frequently used in Europe and Germany from the 1300s to the 16th century. Boiling typically involved being dunked into boiling liquid. Others were tied down and placed in vats that were then brought to a boil slowly. Rack: The individual would be tied by each ankle and wrist to a wooden wheel or axle. When the axles were turned, the individual would be stretched four ways. The individual would eventually be pulled apart limb from limb.

Primitive forms of incarceration existed during this time as well. Confinement as a form of punishment could be accomplished through a variety of mechanisms, including underground mines, cages, or deteriorated buildings. Historians indicate that these early forms of incarceration housed men, women, and children together in deplorable conditions. Disease and abuse were common but often ignored or overlooked as those who were punished were considered sinners, and so their suffering was considered justified. What's more, the confined were required to fight for food and basic needs for survival. Wardens were not seen as providers but rather managers or keepers of the captured. For the most part, incarceration was akin to a death sentence, given the neglect of basic needs and unsanitary conditions that existed in most facilities (Geltner, 2008).

Another commonly used form of confinement was referred to as transportation. As the name suggests, transportation involved transferring criminals to other countries via ships. This form of banishment for criminal behavior is also deeply rooted in religion. Used most frequently in the 1600s, transportation was used to move deviants from Europe to North America via ships. Once they arrived in North America, the convicts were used as slave labor. According to some estimates, thousands of convicts were shipped from England to American colonies each year (Spierenburg, 1995). After the American Revolution, the newly formed United States began rejecting the shipments of convicts from England, which then shifted transportation to Australia. Eventually, every country began to reject the shipments of criminals. At that time, the transportation concept evolved to holding criminals in ships indefinitely. These ships were often anchored off shore and referred to as hulks (Hughes, 1987). There are few estimates of the number of juveniles transported during this time, but evidence suggests that it was common for children to be sentenced to transportation for life (Sanders, 1970).

Religious influences are not as apparent in today's juvenile justice system, but the church continues to play a role. For example, faith-based programs have become popular in prisons. For example, a program launched in

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 42 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

a Texas prison in 1997 called the InnerChange Freedom Initiative teaches inmates values and life skills (see https://www.prisonfellowship.org/about/reentry-support/innerchange-freedom-initiative/ (https://www.prisonfellowship.org/about/reentry-support/innerchange-freedom-initiative/) for more information). These programs teach youth to rely on religion to cope with pressures such as drugs and alcohol (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Similarly, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are founded on the principles of a higher power and God.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 43 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Rather than torture criminals for revenge, deterrence theory promoted the use of sanctions and imprisonment. This new stream of thought was made possible by the Age of Enlightenment and led to the Penitentiary Act of 1779.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

2.3 Colonial Period (1600s–1800s)

During the American Colonial Period, two influences remained constant: the authority of the parent and the role of religion. In many respects, this makes sense in light of the influence of the Puritans in early colonial days. Parents continued to be given wide latitude in dealing with their children by any means including abuse.

Consider, for example, the Stubborn Child Law passed in 1646. The Massachusetts law dictated that if a 16- year-old child was rebellious and stubborn, the parents could bring the child to court where the child could receive a death sentence. The spirit and wording of this law is very similar to biblical verses found in Deuteronomy 21:18–21, which states that a child can be put to death for being stubborn or rebellious. Moreover, there are numerous accounts of juveniles still being put to death during this time for minor crimes such as stealing clothing or food (Rothman, 1970).

Although the notion that children were parental property persisted in the Colonial Period, some improvements were made to the practices of incarceration across Europe during this period. For example, the house of correction, or workhouse concept, developed. The workhouse concept refers to the idea that people in prisons should engage in hard work and discipline. The workhouse concept retained religious undertones, but the treatment of incarcerated people did improve. For example, the emphasis of these institutions rested with the importance of repentance and hard work. During work periods, sinners were to consider their transgressions and repent for their sins (Hirsch, 1992). The institutions were a vast improvement over the earlier institutions in terms of cleanliness; however, more significant reforms were on the horizon.

The Age of Enlightenment

An intellectual revolution occurred in the 1700s, particularly in England and France, but eventually in North America as well. The revolution, referred to as the Age of Enlightenment, began a seismic shift in the philosophy of how lawbreakers should be punished. The scholars (also referred to as reformers) leading this movement questioned the intended goal of the system of punishments of the time and whether a just and "enlightened" society should be deploying torture and brutality on its citizens. They argued that people, particularly those accused of less serious crimes such as theft, could be dealt with through a graduated system of sanctions with the same effects (i.e., a reduction of crime). In other words, they argued that less severe sanctions could reduce crime without the social costs that resulted from brutality.

This utilitarianist concept eventually gave way to an influential theory of crime: deterrence theory (see Chapter 3). Deterrence theory originated from the work of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. They argued against the use of brutal punishments that were often justified based on society's want for revenge rather than prevention of future crime. They proposed that crime could be reduced by making punishments proportionate to the criminal act. Deterrence theory is based on the following main principles (Devine, 1982; Geis, 1973):

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 44 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Laws must be developed for crime to be prevented. Specifically, people must understand laws in order to understand the behaviors society values. The purpose of punishment is crime prevention, not revenge. Punishment must be swift, certain, and with a degree of severity that simply offsets the gains of crime. Prisons, which housed people of all genders, ages, and crimes committed, should be abolished in favor of a system that separates people based on these characteristics.

The Penitentiary Act of 1779 One of the more notable prison reformers of the Age of Enlightenment was John Howard, a sheriff in Bedfordshire, England. In the 1770s, Howard inspected local prisons and wrote a book titled The State of Prisons in England and Wales. In this book, he outlined the deplorable conditions of the prisons. The book's publication, among other events, provided the catalyst for the Penitentiary Act of 1779. The act called for a prison system that was secure, sanitary, subject to inspection, and intended to reform rather than simply punish. To that end, prisoners were expected to work and receive religious instruction, and were subjected to periods of solitary confinement to repent for their sins. Although these goals overlapped with the original intent of the workhouse concept discussed earlier, the legislation's focus on inspection and provisions for prisoners (e.g., diet, hygiene, medical care) provided a better context for reformation through hard work (Devereaux, 1999).

In America, the prison system was limited relative to Europe at the time. Punishment in America was more likely to rely on corporal punishment (public hangings, whipping, etc.). That began to change in the mid- 1700s, however, when many of the colonial states began adopting policies championed by reformers in England. In particular, several states used the workhouse concept as a means of engaging youth in hard labor and repentance (Hirsch, 1992). Other forms of punishment to emerge for juveniles at this time included indentured servitude, poorhouses, orphanages, and jails.

Although some improvements were made during this time in the American system, reformers remained concerned about the treatment of juveniles in the workhouses. Reformers were concerned that youth were still housed with adults and that the focus of incarceration remained highly punitive. The reformers, often referred to as child savers, ushered in a new philosophy of juvenile justice and eventually led to the creation of a House of Refuge. Both the child-saving movement and the House of Refuge are key features that emerged in what's known as the Refuge Period.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 45 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

During the Refuge Period, the child-saving movement strove to improve rather than punish juveniles. This photo captures North Market Hall Mission School in London, 1850, which sought to reform children and keep them off the streets.

©Bettmann/Corbis/AP Images

2.4 Refuge Period (1800s–1899)

Prior to the 1800s, American society was largely agricultural in nature. Youth worked family farms and were given a tremendous amount of responsibility at a fairly young age. However, with the Industrial Revolution, families left the farms to work in the factories predominately found in the cities. As children began working in factories, they were taken away from the watchful eyes of their parents. The situation created many issues for juveniles, ranging from exposure to deviance (e.g., accounts indicate that juvenile street gangs flourished at this time; see Johnson, 1979, for discussion) to abuses in the factories where they worked. Child labor laws were not well developed, and children were often forced to work long hours in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. The increase in deviance and the concerns about the welfare of children led to the child-saving movement (McNally, 1982).

Child-Saving Movement

The child-saving movement was not limited to the Refuge Period. In fact, the movement extended into the Juvenile Court Period as well. The child savers were led by a group of middle-class women who advocated for the welfare of children. In particular, they wanted to give poor children better opportunities and guide them into a better life. They argued that the system should consider the needs of the child and focus services on rehabilitation rather than rely on the punitive and adversarial nature of the punishment system of the time. Child savers also wanted to save children from the negative environments found in many cities. As a result, they advocated for the use of reformatories or institutions that would house juveniles and "save" their souls (Platt, 1969). The reformatories represented a significant shift in how juveniles were being treated and led to substantial prison reforms.

Prison Reform

The New York House of Refuge is considered the first juvenile reformatory in the United States. According to the New York State Archives, the New York House of Refuge opened January 1, 1825, with nine children (six boys, three girls) but grew to house nearly 1,700 inmates within a decade. The youth were remanded to serve time indefinitely, and by most accounts the youth often remained at the facility until they reached adulthood. The youth were required to spend most of their time working, developing literacy skills, and receiving religious instruction. You can read more at https://nyprisonorigins.com/nicholas/house-of-refuge-and- reformatory-life/ (https://nyprisonorigins.com/nicholas/house-of-refuge-and-reformatory-life/) .

Another famous reformatory, referred to as the Elmira Reformatory, was designed for first-time felony offenders ages 16 to 30. The Elmira Reformatory opened in 1876 and used a mark system, with three levels of classification. The person would begin at a level 2. From there, the residents were required to progress to level

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 46 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

1 in order to gain release. However, they could be demoted to level 3 for poor behavior. So, in order to move from level 2 to level 1, inmates were required to follow the rules, attend school, and work for a period of at least six months. If they refused to follow the rules, residents were moved from level 2 to level 3. At that point, residents would be required to exhibit positive behavior for at least three months before they could progress to level 2 and start the process again (Pisciotta, 1994).

The opening of the Elmira Reformatory came on the heels of the Declaration of Principles, which were outlined by the National Prison Association meetings in 1870. The Declarations were as follows:

Prison should be for reformation and rehabilitation of the inmate; sentences would be indeterminate rather than fixed to allow for an assessment of whether rehabilitation occurred; and classification of the inmate's character and problems would take place and guide reformation. (Cullen, 1995)

Although these reformatories were an improvement over the earlier facilities that simply warehoused juveniles with adults, they came with unintended consequences. For example, much like the earlier interventions for offenders, a central belief for these institutions was that hard work and discipline would rehabilitate the person. Some accounts indicate that the New York House of Refuge used a militaristic regimen of discipline, with children required to engage in strict, long hours of work and corporal punishment given for failure to abide by rules. Similarly, the Elmira Reformatory, though initially heralded as wildly successful, eventually came under intense scrutiny for its use of corporal punishment and brutality against the residents (Singer, 1971).

The child-saving movement itself also came under criticism for subjecting youth to the same harsh treatments the movement claimed to want to protect them from. Critics argued that many of the juveniles placed in these institutions or under the control of the juvenile court were not necessarily better off for the exposure. The saving of the child typically meant that youth (regardless of their status as either dependent [i.e., abused, neglected and/or abandoned] or criminal) would be subjected to long periods of incarceration. As noted by Ventrell (1998),

It is a mistake to assume that the House of Refuge served as a haven for youth otherwise guilty of serious crime. Those youth were still maintained in the adult system. In the first two years of operation of the New York House of Refuge, approximately 90% of the children were housed as a result of vagrancy or minor offenses. And it is unlikely that these children would have been consequented without a House of Refuge as such minor offenses tended to go unpunished by the law. (p. 13)

In addition, critics argued that upper-class youth were not treated in this manner; rather the child-saving movement was simply a mechanism of religious control asserted over poor youth by the middle and upper classes (Platt, 1969; Ventrell, 1998).

During this period, the courts increasingly enforced the parens patria doctrine (from the Latin, meaning "parent of the nation," as mentioned in Chapter 1). This doctrine granted the system the right or authority over children whom it deemed in need of its care. Such children could include those who were delinquent, but also those children who were abused, neglected, or abandoned by their parents. The increased involvement of the court system led to the next significant period for juvenile justice, referred to as the Juvenile Court Period.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 47 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 48 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

2.5 Juvenile Court Period (1900–1960)

Reforms continued well into the 20th century. In this era, the reform movement was referred to as the Age of Reform or the Progressive Era. The child savers' reform efforts continued under the Progressive Era. Although they focused primarily on juvenile delinquents and "saving" them from their poor environments, the Progressives were focused on the individualized treatment of the juvenile delinquent. They argued that biological and psychological problems (as well as those in the environment, such as poverty) should be addressed in order to rehabilitate troubled youth. Most significant, however, was the shift away from moral or religious explanations of crime to a focus on the individual's biological or psychological health.

Several Progressive reforms emerged in the early 1900s. These reforms include four major interventions, all of which remain in the system today:

Probation Parole Indeterminate sentencing Establishment of a separate juvenile court

The Progressives believed that rehabilitation would be effective only if the system had mechanisms in place to ensure the state could gauge what was appropriate for each youth. For example, they advocated for the increased use of community-based probation that would allow delinquents to remain in the community to receive services. Borrowing from the Elmira Reformatory, the reformers argued that release from institutions should be based on good behavior. In that vein, they argued that indeterminate sentencing was needed so that the state could better gauge its progress. For example, indeterminate sentences of varied lengths (e.g., two to four years versus a flat sentence of three years) would enable the state to assess whether juveniles were rehabilitated before they were released (Cullen & Gilbert, 2012).

The creation of a separate court for juveniles represented another significant shift in treatment. Although a few states were already processing juveniles separately from adults (e.g., Massachusetts began using separate dockets and trials for juveniles by the late 1870s), the first juvenile court was not formally established until 1899 in Illinois. The creation of this court was authorized under the Juvenile Court Act of 1899. The act provided several guidelines to regulate the behavior of abused, neglected, and deviant youth, including the following (Sanders, 1970):

A delinquent youth was defined as a child under the age of 16 who violated the established laws of the state, county, or local government. A dependent or neglected child included one who was homeless or abandoned, or who did not have proper parental care. A child under the age of 8 who had to sell or peddle items would also be considered under this category. The judge should act as a parent or advocate for the child rather than rely simply on punishment. Juveniles and adults should be separated for all proceedings. Juveniles and adults should be kept in separate institutions. There would be prohibitions on the detention of children under the age of 12. Probation officers would be appointed who would investigate the youth's background and provide case management services.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 49 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

In 1934 Katharine Lenroot (left) was head of the Children's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor, and Dr. Martha M. Eliot (right), as assistant chief, was devoted to the child and maternal health division of the bureau. The Children's Bureau was founded by President Taft in 1912 to review the juvenile court system.

Associated Press

The juvenile court movement became increasingly popular over the next several decades. By 1925, nearly every state had developed separate processes for juveniles. As a result, more youth were processed through the system than ever before.

At the same time, President Taft established the Children's Bureau in 1912. The Children's Bureau was designated to oversee the health and welfare of children, which included issues such as infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, exploited and abused children, and family preservation (Lindenmeyer, 1997). The organization provided grant funding to states in order to tackle some of these important issues. A survey the organization conducted in the early 1920s on the effectiveness of the new juvenile court system, however, found that the courts were not necessarily operating as designed (Roberts, 2004).

Although the juvenile court movement spread rapidly— and maybe because it spread so rapidly—many of the ideals suggested were not realized. For example, the original juvenile court concept was intended to provide separate treatment and rehabilitative services to juveniles in an informal court setting. However, many jurisdictions were unable to provide separate services. For example, separate facilities for juveniles simply did not exist in some jurisdictions, and the Great Depression led to even further cutbacks for services. Judges were often not well trained on how to handle and rehabilitate youth, and many others were simply not interested in presiding over these cases. As a result, the range of services was inadequate, and most children were subjected to the traditional punishments used before implementation of the juvenile court (Roberts, 2004).

Although initially criticized and challenging to implement, rehabilitation remained a central focus throughout the mid-1900s. The focus makes sense if we consider the social context of the time. Sociological theories of crime predominated during the early 1900s, arguing that the environmental conditions of inner cities and the exposure to delinquent peers could account for most of the criminality occurring at this time. In addition, the advent of the psychological tests used for soldiers after World War I led to the increased use of classification tools to diagnose and prescribe treatment, popularizing the notion that positive behavioral changes were attainable with thoughtful and measured methods. Finally, California developed the California Youth Authority (CYA) in 1941. The CYA was proposed as a radical change in juvenile corrections at the time with a focus of prison being used to rehabilitate youth rather than punish them (Greenwood & Turner, 2010).

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 50 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

2.6 Juvenile Rights Period (1960–1980)

The Juvenile Rights Period emerged at a time when there was a great deal of social change and unrest in the United States. The 1960s ushered in a movement focused on the rights of individuals. Many people began to question the reach of the juvenile court and whether the parens patria model truly benefited the juvenile. People became increasingly concerned about whether the system (both adult and juvenile) violated the rights of the accused. First, there was apprehension over whether the system's reach extended too far. In particular, status offenders, dependent and neglect cases, and criminals were still processed through the same mechanisms in the court system. Second, youth were being processed through the court system without the due process afforded to adults. Finally, there was concern that the system's response to serious juvenile delinquents was inadequate. This section examines each of these issues in detail.

Net widening refers to the system's reach. By criminalizing minor offenses, such as the status offenses, the system casts a wider net over the delinquent behavior of youth. For example, critics questioned the need to treat those who skip school (i.e., truancy) in the same manner as youth who commit more serious delinquent acts. In the 1960s, states began to take significant steps toward decriminalizing status offenses and better delineating noncriminal behavior such as dependency and neglect. For instance, California and New York were the first states to create separate terms to delineate children who commit criminal acts from status offenders and those who are classified as dependent or neglect cases. For example, New York began using such terms as person in need of supervision (PINS). Other states adopted similar terms, including minor in need of supervision (MINS); child in need of supervision (CHINS); juvenile in need of supervision (JINS), and youth in need of supervision (YINS). These terms identify youth who should be considered noncriminal and in need of rehabilitative services rather than punishment.

With regard to status offenses, in 1971, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973) made recommendations for the entire criminal justice system. The commission disseminated recommendations for each institution within the system, including the police, courts, and corrections. The specific recommendations pertaining to juveniles included the following:

Diverting juveniles to treatment programs Decriminalizing certain offenses, particularly those relating to juveniles Unifying services for both adults and juveniles

Concerning status offenses, the commission argued that five categories should be given the most priority. In each case, the commission recommended judicial involvement only in cases where the juvenile exhibited a pattern of behavior. For example, the first category, school truancy, should invoke court involvement only when a pattern of truancy warrants a need for services. Similar logic was applied to underage drinking among youth: The court would be involved only if the youth exhibited the need for services. Running away from home is the third category. The commission argued that the court should intervene only when youth are unable to support themselves or have not benefited from other services or intervention attempts. The fourth category, disregard of parental authority, would invoke court involvement only when the family's capabilities to resolve the issue had been exhausted. Finally, the commission recommended that the court not be involved in delinquent acts by a juvenile younger than 10 years of age. Although this is still the case in many states, recall that in Chapter 1 we identified six states that do allow for the prosecution of juveniles under the age of 10.

Juvenile Rights and the Courts

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 51 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

In addition to net widening, due process rights for juveniles also came under scrutiny. Critics argued that the informality of the juvenile court model, thought to protect the child from harsh formal proceedings, actually deprived juveniles of many of the rights provided in adult courts. For example, juveniles could be kept in the juvenile court system indefinitely under the logic that the system was protecting them. When overcrowding occurred in juvenile facilities, youth were simply housed in adult facilities. As a result, several landmark Supreme Court cases changed how juveniles were processed through the system.

Due Process for Juveniles The first set of cases outlined the due process rights of juveniles.

Kent v. United States (1966), 383 U.S. 541 A 16-year-old male defendant was arrested for burglary, robbery, and rape. The juvenile court decided to waive the case to the adult system for processing. Kent's attorney requested a hearing on the matter of the waiver; however, the court did not grant the hearing and remanded the case to the adult court. The juvenile was subsequently found guilty of burglary and robbery but was found not guilty by reason of insanity on the rape charge.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court violated the defendant's rights. The Court noted that juveniles could not be deprived of core due process rights that should be granted to them under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In particular, the justices were concerned that juveniles could be remanded to adult court without a fair hearing. The decision granted juveniles the right to a formal hearing, representation at the hearing, and access to the records that would be reviewed by the judge prior to the hearing. The decision also granted juveniles the right to a written justification for the order. The justification should outline issues that the judges could consider in waiving a juvenile case to the adult court, including seriousness of the crime, violence, maturity of the defendant, and treatment resources available (Carmen, Parker, & Reddington, 1998).

In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1 A 15-year-old defendant was accused of making a lewd phone call. After a brief hearing before the juvenile court, the defendant was remanded to a state reformatory for delinquents. The lawyers argued that the defendant's rights were violated, given that he received a punitive sanction such as incarceration after an informal hearing.

In this case, the Supreme Court further defined the due process rights guaranteed to juvenile defendants. The Gault decision led to four basic rights. First, defendants have the right to a notice of the charges so that they have adequate time to prepare for the trial. Second was the right to counsel. Defendants have the right to private counsel, or if they are unable to afford counsel, they have the right to a public defender. Third, defendants have the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Finally, the Gault decision confirmed that juveniles should be granted the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination (Carmen et al., 1998).

Standards of Evidence In the next case, the courts expressed concern over the informal nature of the juvenile court.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 52 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

In the re Winship case, a 12-year-old stole $112 from a woman's purse and was found guilty. This ruling made it clear that juveniles must be convicted only if the standard of evidence is the same as an adult court case would require.

Belinda Images/SuperStock

In re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 358 A 12-year-old defendant stole $112 from a woman's purse. He was subsequently found guilty in juvenile court and sentenced to a state reformatory for a minimum of 18 months that could be extended to his 18th birthday.

The Supreme Court ruled that juvenile court should have to consider the same standard of evidence required in adult criminal cases. At issue was the informal nature of the juvenile court system, which led to cases being handled comparably to civil cases. In particular, the standard of evidence used in juvenile court was one of a preponderance of the evidence rather than burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The preponderance of the evidence standard is considered a lower standard by which the plaintiff must prove that there is more than a 50% chance that the crime was committed. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard means that the evidence suggests there is no doubt the person committed the crime. The Court ruled that, in cases where the potential of incarceration existed, evidence against the juvenile defendant must meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard (Carmen et al., 1998).

Preserving the Distinctions Between Adult and Juvenile Courts In the next set of cases, the Court ruled for maintaining the informality of the juvenile court. The rulings suggest at least partial support for maintaining the juvenile court's parens patria role.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971), 403 U.S. 528 In this case, a group of appellants claimed that their request for a jury trial was denied under Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court was asked to review whether juvenile defendants should have the right to a jury trial.

In this case, the Court preserved one facet of the informal nature of the juvenile court system. In the McKeiver decision, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles did not have the right to a jury trial. That being said, the Court did not suggest that there should be an absence of jury trials in juvenile court but that the jury trial is not a constitutional right granted to juveniles. Requiring a jury trial, according to the Supreme Court, would alter the inherent nature of the parens patria doctrine, lessening the informal nature of the juvenile court system. The right to bail and the right to a grand jury indictment are other rights not extended to defendants in juvenile court (Carmen et al., 1998).

Breed v. Jones (1975), 421 U.S. 519 A 17-year-old male defendant was convicted in juvenile court of a robbery with a weapon. At the dispositional hearing, the case was waived to the adult court system because the judge felt that there were no suitable

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 53 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

facilities for the care of this particular defendant. The juvenile was subsequently found guilty in the adult system on the same charges.

In Breed v Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles could not be tried in the juvenile court and then be tried again in adult court. This provision against what is referred to as double jeopardy simply means the juvenile cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

Juvenile Rights and Legislation

While all of these landmark court decisions highlight the rights of juveniles, several other relevant legislative and executive initiatives developed around the same time. First, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act, passed in 1968, detailed standards that the juvenile justice system should follow. The act covered the police, courts, and corrections and argued for the preservation of rehabilitation as the guiding philosophy of the juvenile court. Second, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 called for the deinstitutionalization of status offenders and nonoffenders. In particular, the act called for a "sight and sound separation" provision, meaning that juveniles cannot be detained in an institution where they can see or hear adult offenders. This right extended to jails with several exceptions, including the recognition that, on occasion, temporary provisions are needed. This act was also amended in the early 1990s to mandate that states receiving funds reduce the overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system (referred to as disproportionate minority contact). Finally, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), created in 1974, acts as a clearinghouse for information related to juvenile justice issues. The agency provides grant funding for a wide range of juvenile justice initiatives.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 54 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

To truly "get tough on crime," incarceration became the preferred remedy for criminal activity because many researchers argued

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

2.7 Crime Control Period (1980–2000s)

The Crime Control Period represented a significant shift away from the rehabilitative nature of the juvenile justice system from the Juvenile Rights Period. During the 1980s, the political and social climate in the United States shifted away from rehabilitation to one of punitiveness. This period is often referred to as the "get- tough" or "penal harm" movement. Some observers would suggest that this movement actually began to recycle long-forgotten policies of the early philosophy of justice for juveniles. History was beginning to repeat itself.

Typical policies included an increase in mandatory arrest and sentencing policies, removal of treatment programs in prison, and the use of punitive strategies such as boot camps and chain gangs. The get-tough policies led to an increase in the use of confinement for juveniles. These punitive policies were justified on the grounds of deterrence. As noted earlier, deterrence rests on the notion that the system can prevent crime by increasing the certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment. Proponents claim that people make rational choices based on how much pleasure versus pain they will receive by committing a crime. Logically, then, if the expected pleasure can be offset by punishment, we should be able to deter future crime.

Social trends leading up to the 1980s provided a climate ripe for a punitive approach to crime. For example, violent crime rates increased during the late 1960s and 1970s (Blumstein & Wallman, 2006), and self-report surveys indicated that drug use among teenagers was on the rise (Alberts, Miller-Rassulo, & Hecht, 1991). During this time, counterculture movies about drug use also led people to fear that marijuana use among teens would lead to a life of chronic addictions.

Due to these trends, researchers began to examine the efficacy of rehabilitation. Robert Martinson (1974) argued that "nothing works" when it comes to rehabilitation. He and his colleagues reviewed studies published in the late 1960s and 1970s and concluded that few showed a treatment effect. In other words, few studies showed that rehabilitation programs were lowering recidivism rates. Although Martinson later indicated that some studies showed that certain treatment strategies were effective in reducing recidivism, his "nothing works" statement was championed by those who felt the system coddled the offender rather than focusing on the victim (Cullen & Gilbert, 2012).

In addition to questions of efficacy, the establishment of due process rights (see Section 2.6) spurred a group of reformers called the justice model liberals to argue that the system should abandon treatment in favor of preserving the rights of juveniles. In particular, they argued that indeterminate sentences and parole boards should be abolished. Justice model liberals were concerned about the ability of the system (including parole boards and officials who worked in prison) to accurately assess when someone should be released. They felt that the discretion given to correctional officials meant that people were being kept incarcerated longer and, as a result, were having their rights violated (Cullen & Gilbert, 2012). Conservatives agreed, not necessarily out of concern for juvenile rights, but because they felt the system did not sufficiently focus on victims' rights.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 55 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

rehabilitation did not work. By the 1990s, Princeton researcher John DiIulio went so far as to declare that society must prepare for and against the coming "super-predator": the teenage male involved in gangs and public violence.

John DiIulio (1995), a Princeton researcher, argued that the system should brace itself for a new kind of juvenile delinquent he termed the "super-predator." These juveniles were thought to be gang-involved, intensely violent boys who would roam the streets inflicting mayhem and brutality on the public. As a result of these factors, the juvenile justice system (and the adult system) became increasingly punitive.

The punitiveness of the system could be seen in many ways but especially in the increased use of confinement, which rested on three primary arguments. First, advocates believed that the confinement of juveniles would prevent and therefore reduce social costs associated with delinquency. Second, proponents felt selective incapacitation could be used to reduce crime. For example, if the system could confine the small portion of juveniles who were responsible for a high proportion of criminal behavior, the overall crime rate would drop significantly. Third, juvenile predators were assumed to be unlikely to respond well to community-based treatment programs and as a result were good candidates for confinement.

A cost-benefit study by Edwin Zedlewski (1987) supported this view. Specifically, he calculated that the average offender commits 187 crimes per year at a social cost of $430,000. He then estimated that if we locked up 1,000 more offenders, it would cost the criminal justice system $25 million but prevent 187,000 crimes, which would equate to a social cost savings of $430 million, per his original estimate. Hence, he resolved that it was far more costly to keep criminals in the community than to prosecute and confine them through the criminal justice system.

The get-tough movement also spurred a number of policies such as boot camps, Scared Straight programs, supermax facilities for juveniles, and shock incarceration. One of the changes with the greatest impact was a shift to the frequent use of waivers to adult court. States began to enact legislation to make it easier to transfer juvenile cases to the adult criminal court system, resulting in a dramatic increase in transferred cases.

This shift to punitive policies had its critics. For example, critics of the cost-benefit analysis suggested that the estimates of social cost savings were too high and did not consider the possibility of diminishing returns in that there is no guarantee that confinement would stop a criminal career in its tracks (Zimring & Hawkins, 1988). Others worried that juvenile institutions could act as crime schools and that for certain delinquents (particularly drug traffickers) a replacement effect would be likely, by which a new delinquent would be immediately replaced by another (Petersilia, 1992).

Still others argued against selective incapacitation on the basis of fairness and ethics. For example, it would be unethical to confine some people for longer periods of time for something they might do in the future. Further, they argued that confined individuals are not given the opportunity to show they would have done no harm. Von Hirsch (1976) argued that the worst outcome would be to incapacitate people who are not a threat and thereby deprive them of their freedom. Regardless, given the public and political will that existed at the time, the get-tough movement churned on.

In recent years, however, these policies appear to be softening. It is difficult to say whether the system will revisit the bygone years of rehabilitation as a guiding philosophy, but mounting evidence suggests that the pendulum may be swinging back in that direction.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 56 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

2.8 The Current System: Changing Times?

The current system has experienced several important shifts in how we treat and respond to juvenile delinquency (see Table 2.1). Today cracks appear to be emerging in the get-tough or penal harm movement. As noted by Listwan, Jonson, Cullen, and Latessa (2008), "Despite the wildly punitive shift that has occurred in American corrections, ideological and policy space exists to bring about alternative initiatives that emphasize social welfare and challenge the effectiveness of inflicting pain on offenders" (p. 425). In other words, the justice system (for both juveniles and adults) appears to be softening its approach to crime and punishment once again. The shift appears to be partly due to the costs of confinement and the ineffectiveness of punitive policies.

Evidence suggests that incarceration can lead to a host of problems, including increases in recidivism and psychological distress, and that it continues to destabilize already disadvantaged communities and family units (Clear, 2007; Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew, Cullen, & Colvin, 2013). Studies suggest that policies and programs geared toward rehabilitation are not soft on crime but are smarter ways to reduce delinquency. The criminal justice field has learned a great deal throughout the years about designing and implementing effective correctional programs. If implemented appropriately, effective interventions potentially have a payoff far greater than what we have seen from the correctional system in the past.

Table 2.1: The history of juvenile justice

Period Colonial period

Refuge period

Juvenile court period

Juvenile rights period

Crime control period

Changing times?

Basic philosophy

Corporal punishment; role of religion

Separate confinement; discipline; reform of individual

Formalized process for juveniles; rehabilitation remained as a goal

Concern over due process rights, net widening, and the reach of the system

Movement away from rehabilitation to a punitive philosophy

Potential movement toward rehabilitation

Major policies

Age of Enlightenment; Penitentiary Act

Child-saving movement; House of Refuge

Progressive Era; Juvenile Court Act

Landmark court cases; Uniform Juvenile Court Act; OJJDP creation; Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act

Mandatory minimum sentences; determinate sentencing; boot camps

Abandonment of many punitive policies; death penalty ruling; research supporting treatment services

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 57 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

To illustrate, several get-tough policies directed toward juveniles have become less popular. Boot camps (see Chapter 10) were popular for a number of years on the basis of deterrence theory and retribution. However, documented abuses and research by MacKenzie and colleagues (MacKenzie, Brame, McDowall, & Souryal, 1995; MacKenzie, Wilson, & Kider, 2001) questioning the effectiveness of boot camps led most states to dismantle these programs. Similarly, studies show that Scared Straight programs, D.A.R.E. programs, and other similarly situated policies have little effect on recidivism (Lipsey, 1992). At the same time, however, support has increased for treatment interventions such as multisystemic therapy, Functional Family Therapy, and a variety of prevention efforts (Andrews et al., 1990; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).

In addition, policymakers and researchers have been reexamining the effectiveness and appropriateness of treating juveniles as adults. Studies find that transferring juveniles to adult courts is not effective in reducing recidivism through a potential deterrent effect. In fact, juveniles transferred to adult court were more likely to recidivate, were less likely to have access to treatment services, and were at greater risk for victimization (Applegate, King Davis, & Cullen, 2009). Regarding the ultimate punishment, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision on the use of the death penalty for juveniles. The Court recognized that juveniles lacked the full maturity of adults and are more amenable to treatment than adults. It also argued that there appeared to be a national consensus on the issue after a number of states moved to abolish the death penalty for juveniles even after the Court ruled in the 1980s that the death penalty was not unconstitutional for juveniles. Time will tell if the pendulum continues to swing toward rehabilitation.

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 58 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

Summary of Learning Objectives

Summarize how early philosophies and religion shaped the treatment of children both before and during the Colonial Period.

The juvenile justice system has experienced many philosophical cycles over the years. The earliest set of laws governing children were not concerned with the care and well-being of children. Religion has continually played an important role in the juvenile justice system as a justification for both punishment and rehabilitation.

Describe the shift in juvenile justice during the Colonial Period.

The Age of Enlightenment led to a fairly significant shift in the philosophy of how criminals should be punished. A movement away from retribution and deterrence led to significant prison reforms. These reforms were intended to provide safe environments where juveniles could be rehabilitated.

Identify the key features of the Refuge Period.

The child savers were reformers who wanted to provide children better opportunities and guide them into a better life. The New York House of Refuge was the first juvenile reformatory in the United States.

Explain how the juvenile and adult courts became distinct during the Juvenile Court Period.

The Progressive Era reforms focused on individualized treatment of the person by examining both biological and psychological issues. In 1899, the first juvenile court was established in Illinois through the Juvenile Court Act. The Juvenile Court Act provided several guidelines for how juvenile courts should work, including the notion that the juvenile court should be informal in nature under the parens patria doctrine.

Analyze the evolution of juvenile rights during the Juvenile Rights Period.

In the 1960s, the system began to take steps to decriminalize status offenses. The Juvenile Rights Period ushered in a number of key court cases all focusing on the due process rights of juveniles. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 called for the deinstitutionalization of status offenders. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was created in 1974 and is designed as a clearinghouse of information related to juvenile justice issues.

Describe the rationale and policies of the "get-tough" movement during the Crime Control Period.

Relying on increasingly punitive strategies as a way to deter youth from committing crime is the central feature of the Crime Control Period. Notable policies during this time included mandatory minimum sentences; transfers to adult court; and increased use of prison, boot camps, and chain

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 59 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

gangs. The get-tough movement led to significant increases in the juvenile justice population.

Evaluate the current changes that are taking place in the juvenile justice system.

There appears to be a softening of the punitive policies of the Crime Control Period, although it remains to be seen whether the juvenile justice system returns to its focus on rehabilitation. Researchers and policymakers now support using evidence-based strategies to reduce delinquency.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What is meant by the term parens patria? Does it still exist in today's juvenile justice system? 2. Do you think we should have a separate juvenile justice system or simply handle the most serious

juvenile criminals through the adult system and divert the rest? Justify your answer. 3. Are you in favor of a return to a philosophy of rehabilitation for the juvenile justice system? Why or

why not? 4. Should the incarceration of juveniles be limited to only a certain age group (e.g., 16 years or older)?

Should juveniles who are very young (e.g., 12 years old) be incarcerated with those who are older (e.g., 17 years old)? Why or why not?

Key Terms Click on each key term to see the definition.

Age of Enlightenment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A philosophical revolution in England and France in the 1700s.

child savers (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

American reformers who were concerned that youth were still housed with adults and that the focus of incarceration remained highly punitive.

Elmira Reformatory

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 60 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Established in the 1870s, this reformatory was designed for first-time felony offenders between the ages of 16 and 30.

Hammurabic Code (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The set of laws developed by King Hammurabi of Babylon in 1750 BCE. The first comprehensive set of laws to be developed.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The 1974 law that called for the deinstitutionalization of status offenders and nonoffenders and for a "sight and sound separation" provision by which juveniles cannot be detained in an institution where they can see or hear adult offenders.

net widening (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Growth of the juvenile justice system's reach through criminalizing of minor offenses.

New York House of Refuge (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 61 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The first juvenile reformatory in the United States, opened in New York in 1825.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The federal office created in 1974 that functions as a clearinghouse for information related to juvenile justice.

patriapatria potestas potestas (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

An early notion of law that viewed children as property of their parents.

Penitentiary Act of 1779 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

An English law that called for a secure, sanitary prison system that was subject to inspection and intended to reform and not just punish.

Progressive Era (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Reform movement of the early 1900s.

Stubborn Child Law

1/29/21, 6(51 AMPrint

Page 62 of 62https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=840e5552-9e5f-c60d-4b27-ceadc733ab34&np=cover

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Enacted in colonial Massachusetts in 1646; stated that if a child of 16 years of age was rebellious and stubborn, the parents could bring the child to court where the child could receive a death sentence.

transportation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

An old form of confinement in which criminals were moved to other countries by ship.

Uniform Juvenile Court Act (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The 1968 law that detailed standards the juvenile justice system should follow, including the police, courts, and corrections, and that argued for the preservation of rehabilitation as the guiding philosophy of the juvenile court.

workhouse concept (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/boo ks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/bo oks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/b ooks/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/ books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cove r/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The idea that people in prisons should engage in hard work and discipline.