Ashley Naraine

April 2016

HJS 415

Prof. Kavey

Thesis Paper

Juvenile delinquency is a category describing those children who commit crimes

while under eighteen that are bad enough to warrant an arrest and a judge’s hearing.

This category has been a long time in the making and reflects many of the significant

changes that have occurred in our thinking about the causes of crime and what

constitutes a criminal. Throughout the early years of America and all the way through

the late 1800’s, when juveniles were sent to prison they were housed in the same

institutions and subject to the same sentences as adults. It was not until the late

nineteenth century that children and adolescents who committed crimes were put into a

different category and subject to a very different system. “At the dawn of the juvenile

court era in the late nineteenth century, most youths were tried and punished as adults.

Much had changed by 1909 when Judge Julian Mack famously proposed in a Harvard

Law Review article that a juvenile offender should be treated ‘as a wise and merciful

father handles his own child.’” (Scott & Steinberg, p. 16) This version of the juvenile

justice system, in which the judge acts parens patriae, reflects the progressive idea that

young people committing crimes often do so out of desperation brought about by

circumstances that are out of their control. In the late nineteenth century, this justice

model gave the judge the opportunity to meet with an offending juvenile’s parents or

guardians, assess the home situation, and address whatever problems may be going on

there. It sometimes meant that juveniles living on their own were placed in institutions

such as orphanages where their basic needs were met and they were educated for a

trade they could enter as adults. The assumption behind this system of justice is that

children have greater potential for reform than adults and can be put on a non-criminal

path if their needs are supplied and they are given social support and an education that

will allow them to be self-supporting in a non-criminal trade. It was only in the mid-

twentieth century that this model of the juvenile justice system was challenged, since it

gave judges tremendous leeway resulting in high variation in treatment of similar

crimes.

Throughout the early years of the United States, there were very few differences

between how a child was treated in a court of law and how an adult was treated for the

same crime. It was not until 1825, when the New York House of Refuge first opened its

doors, that there was an institution set aside for the sole purpose of rehabilitating

troubled youth. Before the house was opened, there was very little backing to help out

children who may have been heading down the wrong path. This was essentially a

precursor to the first juvenile court, which was founded in 1899 in Illinois. It took an

incredibly long time for the idea of separating the actions of adults and children to

become a prevalent ideology in the United States. The idea itself was, however, first

introduced to the country way back in the 1700’s. “The political philosopher John Locke

argued that children’s lack of reasoning capacity, which disqualified them from

participating in government, also made them less culpable for their criminal acts.”

(Zimring & Tanenhaus, p. 1) Locke was making an original point that children should not

be held to the same high standards as adults. Just as children are restricted from acting

in government or are not able to perform other such age restricted acts, so too they

should not be held accountable for their criminal actions to the same extent that adults

are. This groundbreaking philosophy brought to light the now implemented idea that

children should be treated in a different manner than adults who may have committed

the same or even similar crimes.

There are many different ways to implement this type of ideology in a courtroom.

There could be minimal sentences for crimes committed by children. Children could be

put away in special institutions that catered to their specific needs as opposed to locking

them up with adult criminals. The system needed to be set up in a manner that allowed

the state to have control over the children while still allowing a certain semblance of

freedom for the juvenile delinquents because of the young age and the specific

sensitivities of those who committed the crimes. For these reasons, this court system

was originally “founded on the ancient legal of doctrine parens patriae (the State as

Parent) which declared the King to be the guardian of all his subjects, the new court

assumed the right to intervene on behalf of youth deemed to be in need of help based

on their life circumstances or their delinquent acts.” (Center on Juvenile and Criminal

Justice) As a result, the state could get involved with children who may need help with

correcting mistakes they have made in their lives. This allows the state to help

rehabilitate children and to act in a manner it deems appropriate for someone living

within their borders. With the implementation of these ideas, the juvenile justice system

was born.

There was a great amount of debate regarding the efficacy and ethics of the

system up until the 1960’s. This was due to the large variation of punishment that was

doled out depending on which judge happened to preside over each individual case.

“Similarly situated youths could receive vastly different sentences based on the mood,

temperament, or personal philosophy of individual judges.” (Center on Juvenile and

Criminal Justice) At this point in time, consistency was one of, if not the biggest, issue

prevalent within the juvenile justice system. There was no reason that there should be

such a wide range of punishments for the same crime. There needed to be some form

of legislation that set precedence over the range of punishment that was appropriate for

each crime. The next decade saw a large number of laws passed that helped protect

the rights of adolescents who found themselves in the incredibly intimidating halls of the

courtroom. Throughout the 1960’s there were numerous policy changes that helped

organize and regulate the proceedings. These changes were made to ensure that

judges did not have the right to place extraordinarily harsh judgements on children due

to the way they may have felt on a particular day or due to how the judge felt towards

certain non-criminally based specifications of the child e.g. race, gender, religion, or

socioeconomic class. The changes that were made by the Supreme Court were put into

effect in order to “introduce more due process protections such as right to counsel.

Formal hearings were required in situations where youth faced transfer to adult court

and or a period of long-term institutional confinement.” (Center on Juvenile and Criminal

Justice)

The Supreme Court case that allowed children their basic rights in a court room

was Kent v. United States. This was the case that said that a “decision to waive a

juvenile to adult court requires first providing the young person with basic due process:

a hearing, effective assistance of counsel, and a ‘statement of reasons’ for the

decision.” (National Juvenile Defender Center) Another major Supreme Court decision

that was made during this time was in response to the case of Gerald Gault. “It was the

first time that the Supreme Court held that children facing delinquency prosecution have

many of the same legal rights as adults in criminal court, including the right to an

attorney, the right to remain silent, the right to notice of the charges, and the right to a

full hearing on the merits of the case.” (National Juvenile Defender Center) These are

just a few of the changes that were made in order to protect the rights of children in a

court of law.

The 1960’s were a groundbreaking time for juvenile legislation and gave children

rights that they did not previously have. Many of the basic rights granted to all United

States citizens, such as the right to an attorney, were not available to children involved

in the legal process. Formal hearings were another right that was now given to children.

After years of being forced into corrupt and unjust courtrooms, children were given

many rights that should have been granted many years previously. After much

legislation by the Supreme Court, there was finally some regulation to a largely

ineffective and incompetent system.

The 1980’s and 1990’s are known as the “get-tough” era in the world of juvenile

delinquency. The public was growing increasingly concerned about the rising rates of

juvenile crime. There was much talk about the “softness’ of the juvenile courts and the

contention that children who commit particularly heinous crimes could be tried in a

regular court of law. The public’s perception of the juvenile courts were especially

negative due to the media latching on to several high-profile cases which led the

masses to believe that juvenile delinquency, and especially violent crimes, was at an all-

time high. (Dziedic, p. 16) Statistics prove that there was, in fact, a rise in violent crimes

among teenagers. Much of the data presented, however, was skewed due to the

incredibly high rates of violence in certain regions of the country. In addition, this

perception was exacerbated because this particular time period was the first to feature

graphic media coverage of horrendous crimes committed by children. Media outlets

were enthralled at the idea of being able to gain viewership by showing children as

criminals. High-profile cases, such as the murder trials of Kipland Philip Kinkel and

Sean Richard Sellers or the school shooting in Columbine, showed the violence

teenagers were capable of committing and highlighted the ineffectiveness of the juvenile

justice system to deal with them. This caused many to call for harsher punishments on

children who committed especially violent crimes, while some people even campaigned

for a complete and total disbandment of the juvenile justice system, asserting that it had

failed at doing its job. This movement led to a very large increase in children being

removed from centers that catered towards their specific needs and getting incarcerated

in adult prisons. Some states appeared to believe that, “if young offenders were now

entitled to receive the same Constitutional protections as adults, then they were also

liable to be subjected to the very same institutions and sentencing procedures as the

adult criminal population.” (Dziedic, p. 16)

The “get-tough” era may have taken steps backwards in differentiating between

child and adult offenders in terms of punishment. This was the toughest that the law

treated children since the 1960’s when there was very little precedence on how

adolescents should be handled for their criminal actions. Many statistics, however, back

up the idea that children may have needed harsher punishments for the violent crimes

that they committed. As James Alan Fox writes for the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

“from 1990 to 1994, for example, the overall rate of murder in America changed very

slightly, declining a total of four percent. For this same time period, the rate of killing at

the hands of adults, ages 25 and over declined 18 percent and that for young adults,

ages 18-24 rose barely two percent; however, the rate of murder committed by

teenagers, ages 14-17 jumped a tragic 22 percent.” (Fox, p. 3) It is statistics like these

that make it plausible to assume that something needed to be done to mend the

problems that were prevalent with the juvenile justice system. The rise in criminal

violence among adolescents was incredibly clear during this time. This was especially

true when comparing the increase in juvenile violence to the decrease in violent crimes

that were committed by the rest of the American population. However, to completely

eradicate the system as a form of reprimanding children for their actions is surely not

the right response. Many of these rising statistics were brought about because of a few

outlying counties that significantly raised the number of homicides and assaults among

teenagers. (Dziedic, p. 16) Those who argued that the system should be done away

with were not thinking about the consequences of putting children in the same category

as adults. Putting children in the same high security confines as adults has an incredibly

negative effect on the offenders’ psychological development. While the system may

have needed some reform to fix some its problems, the answer was definitely not to get

rid of the system completely.

The “get tough” movement led to a large increase in the number of incarcerated

children. The hysteria caused by media outlets portraying children as heartless

murderers as well as some of the raw data suggesting that crime among teenagers had

skyrocketed led to harsher restrictions on children convicted of particularly violent

crimes. The next few years focused more on the prevention aspect of the juvenile

justice system. While locking up a child for committing a crime is necessary in many

cases, to stop that child from performing that crime in the first place is definitely a better

solution. Prevention focused on community based activities that stop adolescents from

ever entering the juvenile justice system and can include after school programs,

subsidized meal programs, and tutoring. These programs have been around since the

first reform school was opened in 1825, but it has become an increasingly prevalent

ideology in recent years. This is due to much research that has come out against the

incarceration of children who commit non-violent crimes. “Many youth who are arrested

for low-level offenses, including acts that are typical yet undesirable adolescent

behaviors, are inappropriately referred to the justice system. Research shows that

sending such youth into our courts and correctional facilities increases the risk that they

will re-offend in the future. These youth do much better when they are able to stay in

their communities.” (Juvenile Law Center) This research shows that keeping kids in their

communities could have a much greater and more positive impact on their actions than

if you take them away and put them in far-off correctional facilities. This idea of

prevention goes back to the tough love aspect that Judge Julian Mack first spoke of

when the idea of the juvenile courts was first put into action back in 1909. This is the

idea of treating adolescents in a court of law in the manner that a “wise and merciful

father handles his child.” A wise and merciful father would not lock up his child next to

hardened criminals for committing a petty crime. The whole idea of rehabilitation is that

the child learns to function as a normal member of society. How is that possible when

this child is taken away from his or her home and community and locked away with life-

long criminals? The whole idea of prevention is that these children can be rehabilitated

before they ever end up needing to go to the extreme case of incarceration. The idea of

giving at-risk and low level delinquent children after school programs as well as job

training is not a new ideology. It recently took off, however, due to the fact that studies

have shown that the United States has the highest incarceration rate, especially among

teenagers, of any developed country. If it is possible to keep children within the confines

of their neighborhoods while still being able to monitor their actions, then this is the best

way to look out for the best interests of the children, their families, and their

communities. “In essence, intervening early not only saves young lives from being

wasted, but also prevents the onset of adult criminal careers and reduces the likelihood

of youth becoming serious and violent offenders.” (youth.gov)

In the historical context of juvenile justice, there have been many advocates for

completely getting rid of the system. Many believe that children should be held

accountable for actions in the same way that adults are held accountable for theirs. This

ideology is prevalent among those who feel that the system is a waste of money. They

may also believe that the system does not work and that children need to be

incarcerated with adults in order so that they can see the true ramifications of their

actions. Others may believe that these children are beyond hope and it is a waste of

time and money to try rehabilitate them into productive members of society. To approve

of this ideology is to essentially throw away any belief of differentiating children from

adults and in the potential of rehabilitation for children who have strayed from

appropriate behavior into criminality. This is not to say that children should be

completely free of punishment if they commit a criminal act. They should, however, be

treated differently than a hardened criminals who had adult intellectual development and

judgment before they chose to commit a crime.

The juvenile justice system has taken major strides since its conception in 1899.

Many changes have been made to accommodate the issues that have become

prevalent over the years. Despite all the necessary changes, however, the main mission

of the system remains the same. “Today’s juvenile justice system still maintains

rehabilitation as its primary goal and distinguishes itself from the criminal justice system

in important ways.” (Juvenile Law Center) This is where people who support the system

make their greatest point. The primary objective of any justice system is to rehabilitate

the “participants” to the point where they can participate in normal social functions. The

juvenile justice system is set up to do exactly this. Children definitely need to be treated

differently than adults in a court of law. The rest of this paper will set out to show why

there needs to be a juvenile justice system in place and why it is better to hold children

to a different standard in a court of law than it is to classify their criminal actions in the

same manner as adults. In addition, it will highlights some of the more effective ways

that rehabilitation can occur within the juvenile justice system and make sure that

children receive proper care within their communities.

To have children incarcerated with other children can only work if the system is

run properly. While not having adolescents imprisoned with adults is key to ensuring the

proper care of these kids, necessary steps need to be taken to ensure the overall safety

and health of the children in the juvenile justice system. There have been many

instances where poorly run juvenile institutions have caused a lot more harm than good.

One such example is the case of the Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys. Dozier is a now-

closed reform school in Florida with a long and terrible history of abuse and neglect of

the children who were imprisoned there. There have been stories of children being

beaten and attacked by staff members and guards at the institution. Details of the

attacks and abuse are gruesome. The boys “are kept behind fences topped with razor

wire, at a place where kids have been abused for 100 years. Over the years boys have

been beaten here, shackled here, hog-tied here. Kept in isolation, driven so crazy they

ate glass. Eight died in a fire here, neglected by guards. Hundreds of men who were

beaten here in the 1950s and '60s have sued the state. Dozens of boys are buried here

on a little hill, their graves unidentified, the details forgotten.” (Montgomery & Moore,

2009)

One specific case at Dozier is the case of Thomas Varnadoe. He was sent to

Dozier in the 1930’s and within a month of entering the program, he was dead from the

vicious abuse that he received during his time in the school. He was buried in an

unmarked grave as an anonymous casualty of a justice system that could not protect

nor help him. His family, close to eighty years later, is now working tirelessly to find his

remains and to give him a proper burial. This was just one of the horrifying cases that

occurred in an institution’s failed attempt at juvenile justice. Another former student of

the Dozier School is Jerry Cooper. He claims that what happened at the school was not

a case of properly implanted repercussions for poor behaviors. As he says, "these were

not spankings. These were beatings, brutal beatings." (Allen) The neglect and abuse

shown in Dozier is a clear example of what can happen when vulnerable children are

put in a position where they cannot defend themselves. Many of these children came

from abusive homes and grew up in areas that glorify violence and crime. To put these

children in reform schools that at best treat them as objects and at worst abuses them

does not create a warm environment for growth could be just as bad, if not worse than,

putting them into prison next to hardened life-long criminals. An effective juvenile justice

system can only work if children are put in an environment that fosters growth and

rehabilitation. With this in mind, a juvenile justice system is incredibly important in

making sure that troubled youth do not wander down the same treacherous paths that

many incarcerated adults have gone down before them. Reform centers need to include

education, psychological help, and occupational training, as well as clear oversight of

staff to prevent abuse, so that graduates will be capable of operating in lawful society.  

A perfect literary example that helps to explain the need for a properly-run

juvenile justice system is the classic nineteenth century novel, Oliver Twist by Charles

Dickens. Oliver is an English orphan forced into very poorly run and abusive homes.

After one particular case of abuse, Oliver runs away to London where he meets Fagin

the Jew. Fagin is a life-long criminal who trains vulnerable children to pickpocket. Once

Oliver is trained and ready to go out on to the streets to make a “living” he is quickly

apprehended by law enforcement. He narrowly avoids being sent away for his criminal

activity. In the times of Oliver Twist, there was little to no discerning between children

and adults in the court of law. Dickens makes this point very clear. When Oliver is

brought to trial, there is initially a very swift and harsh decision brought upon the orphan.

The conversation in the court room goes as follows:  “‘How do you propose to deal with

the case, sir?’ inquired the clerk in a low voice. ‘Summarily,’ replied Mr. Fang. ‘He

stands committed for three months—hard labour of course. Clear the office.’ The door

was opened for this purpose, and a couple of men were preparing to carry the

insensible boy to his cell.” (Dickens, pp. 118-119)

Cooler heads prevailed and Oliver was thankfully spared from this very harsh

punishment, however many of his pickpocketing counterparts were not as fortunate.

During this time, the judicial system was set up in a way that there was no precedent set

to differentiate the actions of minors versus the actions of adults. Thievery performed by

a youth was viewed in the same way as the same crime performed by someone who

was much older. Many children were victimized by the courts and were forced to stand

trial for offenses that should have warranted no more than a slap on the wrist.

Furthermore, many of these children, including Oliver, were truly good people who were

put in a horrendous situation and had no legal way to get out of it. Oliver “symbolizes

prepotency for decency and right living, just as Fagin the Jew represents the very

embodiment of the Evil One.” (Chatham Squires, p. 184) Dickens is proposing that,

although he committed theft, Oliver is not necessarily a bad person; he is simply a

product of his environment. With this in mind, Dickens makes an extremely strong case

for the use of a juvenile justice system. Oliver epitomizes the idea of a child brought up

in a terrible situation who does not know any better than to use the art of thievery as a

means to survive. In his vulnerable state, he was trained by a life-long criminal to

perform deviant acts. To make Oliver go through the same process as hardened

criminals would be nonsensical. This is in no way condoning Oliver’s behavior or saying

that he is not at fault. It is clear, however, that treating a child manipulated into crime

like an adult who chose criminal activity makes no sense.

The idea that children can be transformed into criminals and that they are not

necessarily born with an inner tendency to do wrong is expressed by what Fagin says

about Oliver. “Once let him feel that is one of us, once fill his mind with the idea that he

has been a thief; and he’s ours! Ours for his life!” (Dickens, p. 147) Fagin is expressing

the idea of how simple it is to manipulate vulnerable children. Once Fagin convinces

Oliver to commit one small act of thievery, it is as if he has convinced him to commit to a

life filled with crime. This expresses the idea that it is very difficult for children to change

after they begin to commit acts against the law. Dickens also expresses this idea

through Nancy, another one of Fagin’s disciples. “Even when she is offered a safe

escape to a new life–even knowing that she is headed for a very bad end if she doesn’t

accept the offer–she is incapable of leaving behind her old attachments.” (O'Hear)

O’Hear also mentions that Dickens was one of the first authors to give credibility to the

idea that children were not necessarily born evil and that many of them are just products

of their environment or culture. He clearly expresses this idea through the creation of

Oliver and Nancy. Each child did not have a history of delinquency before they met an

older “role model” who made them believe that this was the right path to go down. Fagin

is the prime example given by Dickens of what can go wrong if children are put in the

hands of people who do not have their best interest in mind. With an evil person in their

lives, Oliver and Nancy wandered down a path of thievery and crime. This gives great

proof as to why there needs to be some form of juvenile justice system that offers

delinquents education and occupational training so they have other options.

Many times children do not have the ability to make their own rational decisions.

This is evident from the actions of Nancy. When Nancy is given an opportunity to get

away from a life of crime, she chooses to stay with what she knows best and blindly

follow her leader, Fagin. This is because she has not been exposed to other options nor

does she have a social support network outside of the criminal underworld. For her to

leave Fagin and her friends would constitute a blind leap of faith that she would not

have had to take if she had been institutionalized in a reform school that educated her

and prepared her for a normal life. A juvenile justice system sees and adjusts for many

of these issues. The system creates laws and boundaries that are sensitive towards the

needs of these children. Children are not born evil and a lot of what they do is due to the

environment or culture that they are surrounded by. Dickens clearly shows this idea

through the characters that he creates.

The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform put out a report highlighting various ways

to improve the effectiveness of the juvenile justice programs. “Dealing effectively with

juvenile delinquency involves two distinct but overlapping endeavors—prevention and

intervention—each of which has somewhat different purposes and requires the efforts of

somewhat different agencies and actors.” (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, p.

11) Prevention includes community based activities that stop adolescents from ever

entering the juvenile justice system and can include after school programs, subsidized

meal programs, and tutoring. The goal of these programs is to ensure that children do

not end up going to prison or throwing away their lives committing crimes.

Since prevention is not perfectly effective, especially since it is rarely given the

funding it needs by punishment-oriented state and federal officials, intervention is

required.  Intervention is where the juvenile prisons and reform homes come into play.

Juveniles who commit crimes must be made aware that their actions have

consequences. To not put children in jail with hardened criminals is one thing, but to

allow them to walk without properly explaining that they cannot act in whatever manner

they please is another. This system is in place to ensure that these children can grow

up to be functional members of society. The question is what institutions best perform

these services and how can we ensure they are run by well-qualified individuals who

are under consistent oversight. Juvenile reform homes are intended to rehabilitate

young offenders, provide them with the same education they would be receiving if they

were not in custody, and provide the extra services (psychological, drug rehabilitation,

career training, occupational training) they need to rehabilitate.

A major component ensuring the success of juvenile justice systems is the

supervisory aspect. “The supervisory component constrains the juveniles’ freedom to

act and his/her access to social and personal amenities in varying degrees, with

incarceration representing the most extreme form. On the one hand, this impedes

additional delinquent behavior and thus provides a means of protecting the public from

a juvenile viewed as an immediate threat to persons, property, or self.” (Lipsey, Howell,

Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, p. 11) Aside from incarceration, supervision could be

provided in the form of less secure homes, or weekly meetings with counselors. The

positive side of incarceration is that it allows for a child to be taken off the street if s/he

is deemed dangerous to him/herself or to others. The negative effects of being locked

up could be detrimental to the psychological development of a child. To have your

“freedom” taken away due to your actions is incredibly hard for a person of any age to

swallow. Especially in the pre-rational state of childhood, incarceration could exacerbate

the psychological problems that originally caused the criminal behavior and deviance.

Many adolescents take very poorly to being locked up and will only rebel to an even

greater extent once they are released from the confines of prison. This is evident from

the high number of children who end up back in the juvenile system once they are

allowed back on to the streets. As a result, it is very important to use extremely careful

judgement when deciding the amount of supervision necessary in each particular case.

For example, a child who bootlegs movies or is caught writing graffiti would likely do

well with less supervision and more social support and access to job training, while a

child convicted of a violent crime warrants closer supervision in a more secure setting.

“When the level of control goes beyond what is proportionate to the offender’s risk to

public safety, the supervisory component is being used punitively.” (Lipsey, Howell,

Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010, p. 11)

The biggest question that must be asked is how we can make changes to the

juvenile justice system that allows children to be reprimanded for their actions while still

addressing the individual needs of the communities and the children. One thing that can

be done is that they can stop placing children in adult prisons. The get-tough movement

passed laws that made it easier for states to transfer children who commit certain

crimes from the juvenile system into adult prisons. As mentioned previously, the JLC

has done studies that show that kids rehabilitate better if they are around other children

and if they are kept closer to their own communities. “During the 1990s, 45 states

passed laws that made it easier to transfer youth from the juvenile system to the

criminal system, dramatically increasing the amount of juveniles who were charged as

adults.” (Knefel) Even if some children need to be placed in adult prisons for security

reasons, there is no excuse for not allowing these kids to receive the basic protections

allotted to minors who go through the juvenile justice system. Major strides could be

taken with the passing of the Grassley/Whitehouse bill. This bill allows for minors to

receive different and less strict rights even when they are charged as adults in a court of

law. In particular, this legislation would protect the rights of minors by “requiring the

Justice Department to offer training and technical assistance to states on best practice

and protocols; strengthening provisions to help children with mental health and

substance abuse issues; and call for states to consider alternatives to detention for

nonviolent youth who enter the criminal justice system.” (Barr) This legislation allows for

common sense to overtake judicial precedence in a lot of the cases that come before

the courts. By entertaining the idea of alternative solutions to prisons, this inevitably

gives children better and safer options other than going to maximum security adult

prisons for their crimes. This could include juvenile detention centers, prevention

programs, or less supervised living facilities. Even if some extreme cases are deemed

necessary for adult prisons, this allows for more children to go through the juvenile

system and extends the chance for them to rehabilitate and become functioning

members of society.

Another way to fix the juvenile justice system is to upgrade the prevention

aspect. In New York, there is a specific “district” set aside for the education of juvenile

delinquents. District 79 is an alternative form of education that is set aside specifically

for incarcerated or troubled youth. The main issue is that district 79 has its own

problems when it comes to funding and the lesser quality of education that these

children receive when they are in the system. “Too often, however, alternative schools

are educational backwaters. Students in these settings have more intense needs but

frequently want for the cornerstones of quality education: High expectations, great

teachers and curriculum, and adequate resources. Their needs are not debated

alongside No Child Left Behind, vouchers, or other hot-button education issues. To the

extent these students are discussed the conversation often turns on diminished

expectations or futility.” (Rotherham) Many of these children are given the short end of

the incredible opportunity to get the great education that comes without being

incarcerated. Part of the rehabilitation process for these kids is that they should be able

to receive a proper education like the rest of the children their age. However, it has

become increasingly difficult to find quality and certified educators who are willing to be

placed in these types of systems. With regards to the difficulty that these educators

face, it is hard to find qualified teachers who would take a similar or lower pay grade to

regular Department of Education jobs to teach children who are, as a general rule,

much more difficult to control in a classroom setting. As a result, many of these children

are not receiving the education that they need in order to succeed once the leave the

confines of prison.

A few organizations have taken it upon themselves to help out with ending

education inequality for children in juvenile detention centers. One such program is

Youth for Tomorrow. “Joe Gibbs, the former Washington Redskins coach, founded the

program in 1986 and remains instrumental in efforts to meet the school's constant

fundraising needs. Most alternative programs do not have public champions, especially

not three-time Super Bowl winning coaches. Still, despite this, Youth for Tomorrow

struggles to meet its budget, especially in tough economic times.” (Rotherham) Even

with the backing of a wealthy individual who is trying his best to change the system for

the better, it is incredibly difficult for these schools to receive necessary funding. While

this particular institute, and others like it, has plenty of success stories, there has also

been a lot of tragedy associated with the school. Students have been killed on the

streets, sent back to prison, or, in better cases, never ended up realizing their full

potential. Teach for America is another private organization that attempts to make a

difference in the education quality of these children. Their goal is to put recent college

graduates in these schools in hopes that they can be relatable and can make a

difference in the lives of these children. Even putting the brightest young minds in front

of these classrooms can have major issues. Many of these teachers flame out as a

result of the difficult nature of the job or are ineffective due to their lack of teaching

experience. There needs to be a higher priority of putting effective and qualified

teachers in front of these classrooms so that these children can rehabilitate and grow up

to live as normal functioning members of society. As Rotherham points out in his article,

these kids are not the adorable ones that sell adopt-a-school initiatives. Due to this,

more needs to be done to provide funding or to achieve fundraising goals from private

investors for these alternative educational facilities to be successful. This is not to say

that the public school system is flawless and can afford to lose a large chunk of its

funding to these other school systems, but there definitely needs to be more funding

given to children who also need to receive a quality education while they are confined to

the prison system.

There is plenty that can be done to improve the prevention aspect of the juvenile

justice system. Peter Greenwood writes in his article that, “researchers have identified a

dozen ‘proven’ delinquency-prevention programs. Another twenty to thirty ‘promising’

programs are still being tested.” (Greenwood, p. 185) Greenwood, like many other

researchers, found that the most effective ways to keep children out of jail and to ensure

their overall well-being is to intervene before the children are ever introduced to the

intervention portion of the prison system. Greenwood states that, “the most successful

programs are those that emphasize family interactions, probably because they focus on

providing skills to the adults who are in the best position to supervise and train the

child.” (Greenwood, p. 198) On the contrary, intervention processes that attempt to

frighten youth into behaving well have been shown to be the least effective way to

prevent children from committing crimes. With these findings, it appears that the money

spent on scared straight intervention programs should probably be reallocated to other

more effective programs. Greenwood points out that one program that has shown

positive results is Functional Family Therapy. This type of prevention attempts to

reassess and correct how families interact with one another and tries to improve the

families problem-solving and communication skills. This could be incredibly helpful since

most of a child’s character traits comes from inside the home and has a direct impact on

how that child behaves when he is out on the streets. “The effectiveness of the program

has been demonstrated for a wide range of problem youth in numerous trials over the

past twenty-five years, using different types of therapists, ranging from

paraprofessionals to trainees, in a variety of social work and counseling professions.”

(Greenwood, p. 198) With social help from these qualified professionals, major strides

could be taken to ensure that these children remain on the right path and do not get into

any additional trouble with the law. Keeping these kids out of prison is the overall goal

and if helping out with family programs does that then funding should be put into that

area. In addition, reducing the amount of money put into scared-straight programs could

provide a higher utility if these funds are reallocated to other more effective prevention

programs.

To ensure that children can achieve success after their time spent in the juvenile

system, there must be a system in place that allows these kids to learn proper skills

necessary to get post-incarceration employment. In 1998, Congress passed the

Workforce Investment Act. “This legislation combined the short-term youth summer jobs

program and the year-round programs previously provided through the Job Training

Partnership Act into a more comprehensive vocational program.” (Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention) This provided children with more long-term options

for employment as opposed to jumping from temporary position to temporary position

without any real career goals or, even worse, remaining unemployed altogether. This

also allows for the vocational system to steer children without any set goals in life into

positive, productive, and need-based areas of the labor force. This could be done by

applying children with specific skills into certain jobs that they may be more inclined to

enjoy or be good at. These children will development many necessary skills that could

be helpful to future employers. “Programs built on a developmental approach help

young people avoid high-risk behavior and promote academic and work-readiness skills

as well as the personal attributes employers seek.” (Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention) Even if these kids are not academically successful, this

program gives them greater options for what they can do with their lives. These

programs are also known to have an incredibly high success rate. When evaluating four

different vocational job training programs, data found “that 85 percent of those who

were convicted of felonies before they entered the program had not reoffended since

completing the program. In addition, two thirds of the program graduates who had been

involved with the criminal justice system before entering the program had not been

arrested, convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, or spent one or more nights in jail or in

prison since completing the program.” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention) This is incredibly high considering that a much higher number of previous

offenders generally end up facing incarceration again after their original run-in with the

law. Programs like this could help to stop juvenile offenders from committing crimes and

could also give these misguided children a new direction in life when they did not

previously have any guidance.

Another area that needs improvement with the juvenile justice system is the

supervision that is provided in some of these detention centers. Many detention centers

are fine and have respectful and well-trained supervisors that adhere to strict guidelines

that help the children that are incarcerated there. There are, however, a few cases that

demonstrate abuse has been a huge problem and has led to the injuries or deaths of

the incarcerated children. As mentioned previously, once such example is the now-

closed Dozier School for Boys in Florida. Dozier had a horrendous and prolonged

history of abuse and neglect when it came to those individuals in charge of supervising

the students. The lucky residents of the institution were abused and hurt simply for

being there. The unlucky ones ended up losing their lives. While Dozier is an extreme

example of what can go wrong if there is not proper supervision of these kids, there

does need to be some form of accountability for the guards or supervisors who commit

overly-physical acts against these children. In recent years, some legislation has been

passed to ensure that guards and supervisors of these institutions are trained in a

manner that allows them to know what to do in particularly violent or sensitive situations.

One piece of legislation was the aforementioned Grassley/Whitehouse bill which

required the “Justice Department to offer training and technical assistance to states on

best practice and protocols” (Barr) With proper training we can ensure that there is not

going to be another case that was as out of control as the one that was present with

Dozier. To completely eradicate abuse in the juvenile system is a nearly impossible

task. In any position with authority, there are going to be people who are going to abuse

their power. However, a higher degree of accountability for the supervisors allows for

the state and federal government to monitor the status of these institutions and make

sure that these children are being treated in a way that allows them to be rehabilitated

and ensures that they are in an environment that fosters their growth.

To say that the juvenile justice system is flawless would be incorrect. Many

portions of this system have problems that need to be corrected. To say that we should

eliminate the system altogether is ludicrous and would cause far more harm than good.

There needs to be some form of middle ground that allows these children to be

punished for their actions while still being treated in a manner that is appropriate for

their age group and with rehabilitation as the goal. To put these children in prison with

life-long criminals is not fair to these kids who do not have the ability to make rational

decisions at their young age. There needs to be a separate system for this reason.

Oliver Twist provides a literary account of why there needs to be a system in place

specifically for children. Most, if not all, of these kids are not born with evil tendencies.

They are, however, misguided. Charles Dickens proves this by showing Oliver’s

relationship with Fagin. Fagin is the older instigator that shows innocent Oliver the ways

of the streets and trains him to be a crook. With this story, Dickens was making a very

strong argument for the use of a juvenile justice system. However, there are things that

need to be improved within the justice system. The way it is handled now, there are too

many issues that cause children to not be rehabilitated in the most effective way

possible. In addition, too many ineffective programs are geared towards helping these

kids when they should be disbanded and give way to other more effective programming

to become available. The funds associated with these ineffective programs need to be

reallocated to programs that work to keep this kids off the streets and out of the prison

system. For example, taking funds from the proven ineffective scared-straight programs

and putting them into educational and family oriented therapy sessions could go a long

way in ensuring that these kids receive the proper care that they need and deserve. Too

many misguided children grow up to be life-long criminals due to a lack of resources

made available to them. There needs to be more done to ensure that these kids receive

the proper care so that we can clean up the streets and drive down crime in this

country.

ReferencesAllen, G. (2012, October 15). Florida's Dozier School for Boys: A True Horror Story. Retrieved from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/15/162941770/floridas-dozier-school-for-boys-a-true-horror-story

Barr, S. (2015, July 23). Senate Judiciary Committee Approves JJDPA Update. Retrieved from JJIE: http://jjie.org/senate-judiciary-committee-approves-jjdpa-update/119262/

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. (2016). Juvenile Justice History. Retrieved from Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice: http://www.cjcj.org/education1/juvenile-justice-history.html

Chatham Squires, P. (1938). Charles Dickens as Crininologist. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 170-201.

Dickens, C. (1837). Oliver Twist. Richard Bentley.

Dziedic, K. M. (2008). The Evolving Policymaking Process of the Juvenile Justice System. University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects, 1-31.

Fox, J. A. (1996). Trends in Juvenile Violence: A Report to the United States Attorney General on Current and Future Rates of Jevnile Offending . Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1-9.

Greenwood, P. (2008). Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Future of Children Vol. 18, 185-210.

Juvenile Law Center. (2016). Keeping Kids in the Community. Retrieved from Juvenile Law Center: http://jlc.org/current-initiatives

Juvenile Law Center. (2016). Youth in the Justice System: An Overview. Retrieved from Juvenile Law Center: http://jlc.org/news-room/media-resources/youth-justice-system-overview

Knefel, M. (2015, January 22). Trying to Fix America's Broken Juvenile Justice System. Retrieved from Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trying-to-fix-americas-broken-juvenile-justice-system-20150122

Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., Kelly, M. R., Chapman, G., & Carver, D. (2010). Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs. Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, 1-60.

Montgomery, B., & Moore, W. A. (2009, October 9). Florida juvenile justice: 100 years of hell at the Dozier School for Boys. Retrieved from Tampa Bay Times: http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/florida-juvenile-justice-100-years-of-hell-at-the-dozier-school-for-boys/1042880

National Juvenile Defender Center. (n.d.). United States Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence. Retrieved from National Juvenile Defender Center: http://njdc.info/practice-policy-resources/united-states-supreme-court-juvenile-justice-jurisprudence/

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (n.d.). Vocational/Job Training. Retrieved from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Vocational_Job_Training.pdf

O'Hear, M. M. (2013, September 14). The Criminology of "Oliver Twist. Retrieved from Marquette University Law School: http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2013/09/13/the-criminology-of-oliver-twist/

Rotherham, A. J. (2009, December 22). Prison Students Illustrate the Shortcomings of Public Schools. Retrieved from US News: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/12/22/prison-students-illustrate-the-shortcomings-of-public-schools

Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent Development and the Regulation of Youth Crime. Juvenile Justice, 1-33.

youth.gov. (2016). Prevention & Early Intervention. Retrieved from Youth.gov: http://youth.gov/youth-topics/juvenile-justice/prevention-and-early-intervention

Zimring, F. E., & Tanenhaus, D. S. (2014). Choosing the Future for American Juvenile Justice. New York: NYU Press.