Issue
Analysis
Ashley Cloutier
“Palm Beach County, Fla. -- On May 26, 2000,
13-year-old Nathaniel Brazill shot his teacher, Barry
Grunow, with a .25 caliber handgun in school. Palm Beach County prosecutors tried Brazill as an adult for first degree murder. The jury found Brazill
guilty of second-degree murder and the judge sentenced him to 28 years in an
adult facility. After his release, Brazill will face two years of house arrest and five years
of probation.” (Klug)
Does
this sentence seem too harsh, or perhaps too lenient? Without knowing all of the details involved
in the case, it may be harder to decide what would be the best thing to do with
13-year-old Brazill.
What specific details would a person need to know in order to sentence
him properly? Has he ever done this
before? What were his motives? Is he from a rough neighborhood, living in a
bad family situation? Maybe all of these
things don’t matter in determining Brazill’s
sentence, and he should just be punished according to his crime.
If
you’re having a hard time deciding, you’re not alone. Since the juvenile court’s introduction in
1899, there have been debates over whether or not the court is effective in treating
juveniles. Brazill’s
case demonstrates the view that the juvenile court is not working, or is not
sufficient to deal with cases as serious as Brazill’s. This is evident in the fact that he was sent
to adult court as a 13-year-old as opposed to being tried in the juvenile
court.
The
recent shift toward trying more juveniles as adults is a plain indicator that
the juvenile justice system is not working.
No one will disagree with that.
However, people will disagree on what the system is supposed to be doing
in the first place, and how we as a nation should go about fixing it. There are many different approaches to how
juveniles should be dealt with, and each approach is extremely complex. One of the main factors that causes the
complexity is that with each approach comes certain doctrines on the
differences between juveniles and adults.
But more importantly, how these differences should affect legal
policies. It will be up to voters,
legislators, and communities to decide what steps we will take to curb the
growing trend of juvenile crime and violence.
Imagining
juvenile delinquents as our own younger siblings, or perhaps our own children
gone astray will help us to make the tough decisions involved in treating
juvenile delinquents. As college
students, we are the next generation of voters, legislators, and community
leaders. In order for us to make the
best decisions for troubled adolescents we must be informed of the many ways we
can go about treating juvenile delinquents.
Each method of treatment is quite complicated so we must take care to
understand the issues to the fullest possible extent. To ensure that juveniles delinquents are
being treated fairly, we must make our decisions with as much consideration for
their well being as we can, as well as keeping in mind the best interests of
society. As voters, we can begin to
shape policy in the ways we see fit for fighting juvenile crime and
violence. Maybe some of our own
preferred methods for treating children are reflected in the current views of
the public toward this issue.
Presently,
there is a growing trend toward treating juveniles using more punitive
measures, known as the punitive approach to juvenile crime. The punitive approach is the approach that
appears to be the most popular in the nation today. This isn’t surprising as the approach shares
many values with our society, such as: public safety, retribution for victims
of crime, and the idea that our actions should carry like consequences. Sheriff Joe Arpaio
demonstrates some of these values when he says, “You commit that serious crime,
you have to pay the consequences.”
Federal
legislation is a primary source of support for this approach. Recently, there has been a push toward
punitive legislative action as a response to the rise in juvenile crime, better
known as the “get tough” movement.
Advocates of the punitive approach claim that juveniles need to be shown
that their actions have consequences and will not be excused. They argue that the way to show juveniles
this is through harsher punishment.
Supporters are more likely to see juveniles as adults as far as
culpability goes, how responsible or blameworthy a person is for their
actions. Punitive supporters are the
people who agree with the motto: “adult crime, adult time.” They are likely to support juvenile transfer
to adult systems so that they might receive stricter punishment, including
incarceration in adult prisons.
Advocates of the punitive approach feel that the juvenile justice system
has failed to teach kids that they are responsible for their actions. It is important to note that the punitive
approach sees teaching kids this lesson as a significant purpose of the
juvenile justice system.
The
punitive approach embraces punishment of juveniles as the solution to juvenile
crime. Advocates believe that if the
juvenile justice system joins the “get-tough” movement, the nation will see a
decrease in crime rates. The decrease
will occur because adolescents will finally see that if they commit serious
crimes they will face serious consequences.
As Russell Van Vleet expresses, “Rather than
reducing the role of juvenile justice on the punishment end of juvenile
offending, that role should be acknowledged, welcomed, and expanded.”
A
direct challenge of these views and a response to their increasing popularity
comes from the rehabilitative approach to solving the juvenile crime
problem. Rehabilitators claim, “Punishment
suppresses behavior; it doesn’t change it” (Roush & Dunlap). They believe that a more effective
alternative to punishment and a better solution to juvenile crime is
rehabilitation. Rehabilitation can be
defined as, making one capable of becoming a useful member of society again.
The
rehabilitative approach also asserts that the rehabilitative method of judgment
that the juvenile court was founded on is still valid, effective, and
necessary. Supporters stake their claim
on the fact that the juvenile court was established when people realized that
youthful offenders needed an alternative system of judgment that would allow
them to be rehabilitated instead of just punished for their crimes. Russell Van Vleet
admits, “The historical mission of the juvenile justice system has primarily
been to rehabilitate offender, not to punish them.” Those that agree with this approach (“child
savers” as they are often called) say that it is our moral obligation to
rehabilitate juveniles.
The “child
savers” also believe that children are very different from adults and should
therefore be treated accordingly. They
say, “Many youthful offenders do not understand the difference between right
and wrong and are not able to accurately assess situations. This may cause them to get into trouble
and/or have a despondent outlook on life” (Klug). It is clear that child savers see adolescents
as less cupable than adults for their actions which
is in direct opposition to the punitive approach.
Another
one of the main issues the rehabilitators bring up is the idea that children
are more amenable to treatment than adults. Amenability in legal practice means “the
likelihood of an individual desisting from crime and/or being rehabilitated
when treated with some sort of intervention.”
The meaning of the word changes slightly in the field of developmental
psychology where it refers to “the extent to which an individual’s nature has
the possibility of changing regardless of his or her exposure to an
intervention and regardless of the type of intervention that is applied”
(Steinberg & Cauffman). Science seems to support the rehabilitative
approach. Developmental psychologists
have found that adolescents are in fact more amenable to treatment than adults
(Steinberg & Cauffman). Child savers say that this is enough evidence
to justify the rehabilitation of juveniles, so every effort should be taken to
accomplish this goal. “Our nation’s
leaders must work with advocates and key
stakeholders on the national, state, and local level to incorporate the concept
of rehabilitation and detention alternatives back into a juvenile justice system
that has come to represent a system of hopelessness and despair for too many
people” (Finley & Schindler).
Because
of these beliefs, rehabilitators disagree with recent legislation that
encourages punitive responses to juvenile crime, and sends kids to criminal
court where they can receive harsher punishments and be placed in adult
prisons. They believe that this kind of
punishment is too harsh for most juveniles and ineffective at lowering
recidivism rates, (the rate at which juveniles continue to commit crimes after
leaving the juvenile justice system).
Supporters of this belief argue, “Placing juveniles in adult prisons
does not restore the victim, the community or the offender, nor does it express
concern for anyone’s future. It simply
reinforces the popular notion of ‘out of sight, out of mind.’” Supporters also say that, “Sending juveniles
to the adult system denies the juvenile system the chance to address young
offender’s needs” (Roush & Dunlap).
However,
some would say that the juvenile justice system is incapable of meeting the
needs of juvenile offenders as it currently operates. There are two approaches to this
position. The first is the localization
approach. Advocates of this approach
value a decentralized government with a lot of community involvement, so they
are likely to be Republicans. They
believe that the juvenile justice system is struggling because of too much
federal involvement. Shay Bilchik recognizes the value of localization. He states, “The implementation of an effective
juvenile justice system, one that complements effective prevention with early
intervention and graduated sanctions and that uses the tools that are available
to improve system operation, can be supported and strengthened by a state and
local statutory and administrative framework” (Bilchik). The localization approach does not directly
support more rehabilitation or more punishment for juveniles, but instead more
freedom for each state to choose what is best for its own people. “The national approach toward juvenile crime
is far too convoluted and weighted with bureaucratic layers to address juvenile
crime properly on a local level” (Bradshaw).
Localizers are pushing for more involvement and social work in each
community as a solution to the rise in juvenile crime. Wendy Kaminer shows
her dislike of federal involvement when she criticizes a bill that was being
debated in Congress in early 2000. She
describes it as “[expanding] federal jurisdiction over juvenile crimes,
continuing a dangerous trend of federalizing criminal prosecutions,” and “[subjecting]
juveniles to harsh mandatory minimum sentences.” Localizers would likely agree with Kaminer’s position on the bill and add that in order to get
juveniles the treatment they need, the federal government needs to step back
and let communities tackle their own delinquency problems in their own
way. Localization advocates would also
be sure to note that in order for states to take control of their crime situations,
they will need financial support. Judy A
Bradshaw recognizes this need and explains what should be done about funding
when she states, “Rather than being used to induce state and local agencies to
comply with national goals and mandates, funding should be allocated to support
effective programs developed at the state and local level.”
The
second approach to the perceived inability of the juvenile court to meet the
needs of its offenders is the abolition approach. This approach contends that, “No compelling
reasons exist to maintain separate from an adult criminal court, a punitive
juvenile court whose only remaining distinctions are its persisting procedural
deficiencies” (Feld).
Abolitionists believe that the juvenile justice system has failed
because it has forgotten its historical commitment to rehabilitation and has
instead turned to retribution and punishment, making it too much like our
criminal system only with more flaws and inequality. Their solution is to combine the juvenile and
criminal court to eliminate the confusion, complication, and injustice that
comes from having two separate systems.
They believe that juveniles often fall through the cracks of the two
systems, so a combination would keep juveniles from getting away with crimes and
get them the treatment they deserve. Katherine Hunt Federle
adds, “[A]bolishing the juvenile court may enable us
to see that children should have status as rights holders. The juvenile court’s emphasis on
rehabilitation and reform not only masks the coercive effects of state
intervention but also permits the state to do things to children on the grounds
that it is in the children’s best interests.”
She believes that combining the courts would actually be better for
juveniles, which may seem like an absurd statement to many rehabilitators and
children’s advocates until they understand the conditions.
According
to the abolitionists’ design, the criminal court would have a “youth discount”
giving juveniles more lenient sentencing options solely on account of their
age. Juveniles would also continue to
have the option of rehabilitation as an alternative to punishment in many cases
(Feld). Federle adds a caveat to her support of the abolition of
the juvenile court: “It is important that we do not make the same mistakes with
the criminal court that we made with the juvenile court.”
The
last approach to the problem of juvenile crime is the preventative
approach. Supporters of this approach
are looking at the problem from outside of the court system. They say that “the only effective long-term
response to the problem of juvenile delinquency and violence lies in improving
the juvenile justice system and preventing delinquency before it occurs” (Bilchik). Prevention
advocates want to see a shift in focus from the treatment of juveniles after
they’ve already committed a crime, to preventing crimes from happening in the
first place. “Beyond programs designed
to deal with youngsters after arrest, students of juvenile crime remain
fascinated with the idea of intervening in the lives of children and teenagers ‘at
risk’ of delinquency in hopes of averting criminal behavior before it starts”
(Anderson).
Prevention
advocates are fed up with the focus on juvenile justice instead of juvenile
education. As former sheriff James A. Gondles notes, “It’s about trials and not about schools or
discipline. It’s about punishment and
not about mentoring. It’s about dropping
mandates and not about day care.”
Prevention supporters want to save at risk juveniles from a life of
crime by emphasizing education, counseling,
and social work. They recognize that
children are our future and need to be protected.
All
of the other approaches: rehabilitative, punitive, localization, and abolition
would agree with the preventative approach but they might say that it does not
go far enough and therefore, cannot stand alone. They may say that in our society, kids will
likely continue to commit crimes no matter what preventative measures are
taken. Something must also be done
inside of the court system that is in the best interest of juveniles as well as
society as a whole. Everyone agrees that
the juvenile justice system isn’t stopping kids from committing crimes,
regardless of whether or not they think this should be the system’s primary
purpose. Something needs to be done to
keep today’s youthful offenders from becoming tomorrow’s adult criminals. Understanding each approach and the beliefs
and values held by each one, will better equip us to find a method for dealing
with juvenile delinquents. It’s up to us
to look at what works and what doesn’t in the juvenile justice system, examine
our own values and beliefs, and then decide which road is the best to take in
order to prevent and decrease the rate of juvenile crime.