African-American Youth in The Juvenile Justice System

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Proposed Reforms Many scholars stress the importance of reforming the juvenile justice system to increase its effectiveness and avoid discrimination. Finley argues for early intervention in juvenile delinquency, and advocates for the development of programs that are more centered on rehabilitation rather than punishment. James C. Howell et al. argue that zero tolerance policies overwhelm the juvenile justice system with low risk offenders and should be eliminated. They also argue that the most effective ways to reform the juvenile justice system would be to reduce the overrepresentation of minorites and eliminate the transfer of juveniles to the criminal justice system. Zimring and Tannenhaus also discuss the future of the juvenile justice system in the United States. They argue that educational reentry programs should be developed and given high importance alongside policies of dropout prevention. Reentry programs focus on providing care and support to juveniles after being released from detention facilities, and encouraging family support to help adolescents during this adjustment period. They also argue for the elimination of juvenile sex offender registration requirements, and the reform of criminal record information for juvenile offenders. Some popular suggested reforms to juvenile detention programs include changing policies regarding incarceration and funding. One recommendation from the Annie E. Casey Foundation is restricting the offenses that are punishable by incarceration, so that only youth who present a threat to public safety are confined. Other suggestions include investing in alternatives to incarceration, changing economic incentives that favor incarceration, and establishing smaller, more humane and treatment-oriented detention centers for the small number who are confined. Positive Youth Development and The Juvenile Justice System Positive Youth Development (PYD) encompasses the intentional efforts of other youth, adults, communities, government agencies and schools to provide opportunities for youth to enhance their interests, skills, and abilities. The justice system offers specific services to youth facing significant mental health and substance use challenges, but the majority of youth do not qualify for these targeted programs and interventions. Butts, et al. suggest that the integration of positive youth development into the juvenile justice system would benefit youth charged with nonviolent, less serious offenses. Widespread implementation of PYD approaches in the juvenile justice system faces many challenges. Philosophically however, the PYD framework resembles the progressive era ideals that informed the creation of the first juvenile court. As Butts, Mayer and Ruther describe, "The concepts underlying PYD resemble those that led to the founding of the american juvenile justice system more than a century ago. [...] Organizers of the first juvenile courts saw the solution to delinquency in better schools, community organizations, public health measures, and family supports. They believed Page 24 of 114
an improved social environmental would encourage youth to embrace pro-social norms." Integration of PYD into the juvenile justice system is informed by social learning theory and social control theory. Taken together, these theories suggest that "youth are less attracted to criminal behavior when they are involved with others, learning useful skills, being rewarded for using those skills, enjoying strong relationships and forming attachments, and earning the respect of their communities". This is in stark contrast to the theories of deterrence and retributive justice espoused by the current justice system. Youth Court Youth Courts are programs in which youth sentence their peers for minor delinquent and status offenses and other problem behaviors. The program philosophy is to hold youth responsible for problem behavior, educate youth about the legal and judicial systems, and empower youth to be active in solving problems in their community. Youth courts function to determine fair and restorative sentences or dispositions for the youth respondent. Youth court programs can be administered by juvenile courts, juvenile probation departments, law enforcement, private nonprofit organizations, and schools. Youth court programs operate under four primary models: Adult Judge, Youth Judge, Peer Jury, and Youth Tribunal Models. Under the adult judge model, an adult volunteer serves as the judge while youth volunteers serve as prosecuting and defense attorneys, jurors, clerks, and bailiffs. Under the youth judge model, youth volunteers fill all roles, including judge. Under a peer jury model, youth jurors question the respondents and make sentencing determinations. Under a youth tribunal model, youth serve as prosecuting and defense attorneys, and present their cases to a panel of youth judges, who then make a sentencing determination. To date, there are no comprehensive national guidelines for youth courts, but rather, courts operate under and are tailored to their local jurisdictions. To date, there are more than 675 youth courts in the United States. East Palo Alto and Boston have both implemented youth courts. The East Palo Alto youth court is based on restorative justice principles. Eligible youth must admit the facts of the case, after which youth attorneys explain the facts of the case to a youth jury. In Page 25 of 114
Page 2 and 3: Turning the Improbable Into the Exc
Page 4 and 5: Page 4 of 114
Page 8 and 9: 6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publi
Page 12 and 13: death their hostility. 17 He came a
Page 18 and 19: eceive the death penalty. Early deb
Page 20 and 21: punishment. The increased ease in t
Page 22 and 23: According to the Office of Juvenile
Page 26 and 27: Boston, youth court is available to
Page 28 and 29: Types of Incarceration Some inmates
Page 30 and 31: populations relative to their repre
Page 32 and 33: unrelated to crime rates. That is,
Page 34 and 35: targeted media campaign to shift pu
Page 36 and 37: Promoting Alternatives: The JDAI Mo
Page 38 and 39: Nationally, the youth rate of incar
Page 40 and 41: The percentage of black arrests and
Page 42 and 43: Working with Police The OJJDP data
Page 44 and 45: Next, the County Attorney's staff w
Page 48 and 49: Both selective inattention (ignorin
Page 50 and 51: FIGURE 6-1 Involvement of juveniles
Page 52 and 53: comparable across states, and analy
Page 54 and 55: assault (51 percent for NCVS and 57
Page 56 and 57: FIGURE 6-2 Child risk indicators by
Page 58 and 59: lack youth. The next section examin
Page 60 and 61: one of the few studies of black cit
Page 62 and 63: Huizinga and Elliott (1987) compare
Page 64 and 65: controlling only for present offens
Page 66 and 67: of their sentences (Carroll and Mon
Page 68 and 69: whites. The relative risk for a bla
Page 70 and 71: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Ove
Page 72 and 73: Gase, one of the study’s authors,
Page 74 and 75:
The Cook County, Illinois, Dispropo
Page 76 and 77:
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania redu
Page 78 and 79:
Break Down Language Barriers Even t
Page 80 and 81:
Page 80 of 114
Page 82 and 83:
Notes _____________________________
Page 84 and 85:
Page 84 of 114
Page 86 and 87:
African American Youth and the Juve
Page 88 and 89:
Attachment B Minority Youth in The
Page 90 and 91:
Minority Youth in the Juvenile Just
Page 92 and 93:
4 In t r o d u c t i o n Minority y
Page 94 and 95:
6 the community’s service provisi
Page 96 and 97:
8 In Iowa, a Youth Race and Detenti
Page 98 and 99:
10 References Arizona Juvenile Just
Page 100 and 101:
The National Conference of State Le
Page 102 and 103:
Attachment C Racial Disparities in
Page 104 and 105:
POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DISPARITIES IN
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
APPENDIX C. POLICY BRIEF: RACIAL DI
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Advocacy Foundation Publishers Page
Page 122 and 123:
Issue Title Quarterly Vol. I 2015 T
Page 124 and 125:
Issue Title Quarterly Vol. V 2019 O
Page 126 and 127:
LI Nonprofit Confidentiality In The
Page 128 and 129:
Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy LXXVI
Page 130 and 131:
Racial Profiling June 2019 … Page
Page 132 and 133:
The e-Advocate Journal of Theologic
Page 134 and 135:
Issue Title Quarterly Vol. I 2015 I
Page 136 and 137:
The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Rep
Page 138 and 139:
2018 - The Theological Law Firm Aca
Page 140 and 141:
Page 111 of 114
Page 142 and 143:
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org Page
show all

African-American Youth in The Juvenile Justice System

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?