DOCSLIB.ORG

Juvenile Delinquents in Federal Criminal Justice System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Juvenile Delinquents in Federal Criminal Justice System U.S. Department of Justice Revised cover 2/19/97 Office of Justice Programs Revised page 2: 12/15/97 Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report February 1997, NCJ-163066 Juvenile Delinquents in the Federal Criminal Justice System John Scalia BJS Statistician Highlights During 1995, 468 juveniles were acts of delinquency were referred for During 1995, U.S. attorneys filed cases referred to Federal prosecutors for prosecution as an adult by a U.S. against 240 persons for alleged acts of investigation 49% of these cases attorney. juvenile delinquency. Of these, 122 cases were adjudicated in Federal were declined for further action. 37% of juveniles adjudicated delin- court, representing 0.2% of the 56,243 quent were committed to a correc- cases (both adult and juvenile) adjudi- During 1995, 122 juveniles were tional facility. The average length cated during 1995. Almost half of adjudicated as delinquent in the Fed- of commitment was 34 months. juvenile delinquency cases involved a eral courts 47% for either a violent violent offense (32%) or a drug offense or drug offense. 61% of juvenile delinquents (15%). Federal prosecutors declined confined by the Federal Bureau of further action against 228 other juve- During the 12 months ending Prisons were Native Americans. niles referred to them. September 1994, an additional 65 persons who allegedly committed Many of the juveniles adjudicated in the Federal system are Native Ameri- Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act there is a substantial Federal interest cans. When Native American tribal in the case and jurisdictions lack resources or jurisdic- An act of juvenile delinquency is a vio- the State does not have jurisdiction tion or when there is a substantial Fed- lation of Federal law committed by a or refuses to assume jurisdiction; eral interest, a U.S. attorney may person prior to age 18 which would the State with jurisdiction does not initiate juvenile delinquency proceed- have been a crime if committed by an have adequate programs or services ings. Further, the Federal Government adult (18 U.S.C. § 5031). Under Fed- for juvenile offenders; or has jurisdiction over certain offenses eral law, a person accused of an act the offense charged is a violent committed in Indian country (18 U.S.C. of juvenile delinquency may be proc- felony, a drug trafficking or importation essed as a juvenile provided the § 1152 and 1153). offense, or a firearms offense (18 person has not attained age 21. U.S.C. § 5032). In Federal courts, juveniles adjudicated delinquent were about half as likely Federal juvenile delinquency Unlike State-level criminal justice sys- as convicted adults to receive a sen- proceedings tems, the Federal system does not tence of confinement (Federal Criminal have a separate juvenile justice com- Case Processing, 1982-93, NCJ- Adjudication of juveniles in the Federal ponent. Juveniles are adjudicated by 160088, May 1996). The average system is limited. Federal law requires a U.S. district court judge or magistrate length of confinement ordered was 34 that prosecutors restrict proceedings in a closed hearing without a jury. months. During 1995 the majority against juveniles to those cases in After a juvenile has been adjudicated which they certify to the court that (59%) of juveniles adjudicated delin- delinquent, a hearing concerning the quent were placed on probation. disposition of the juvenile is held. Revised page 2 on 12/15/97 During the disposition hearing, a juve- describing Federal juvenile transfers, tigation and prosecution. The U.S. at- nile may be ordered to pay restitution, it estimates that during the 12 months torneys declined to proceed against be placed on probation, or be commit- ending September 30, 1994, 65 per- 49% of those juveniles referred to ted to a correctional facility. sons accused of delinquency were them two-thirds of that number referred to the Attorney General for immediately and the remainder Juveniles under age 18 may be placed transfer to adult status. It is not known subsequently. on probation or committed until they how many were charged directly as reach age 21. Juveniles between ages adults based on their prior criminal Juveniles adjudicated 18 and 21 may be placed on probation records. in U.S. district courts for up to 3 years or confined for up to 5 years, depending on the severity of the Juveniles investigated Few cases involving juvenile delin- offense. by U.S. attorneys quents are processed in U.S. district courts because of statutory restric- Transfer to adult status During 1995, 468 juveniles were re- tions. Between 1989 and 1994, the ferred to Federal prosecutors for inves- number of juveniles adjudicated for A person who committed an offense prior to age 18 may be adjudicated Table 1. Juveniles in delinquency proceedings terminated as an adult if in U.S. district courts, 1989-95 the offense charged was a violent felony or drug trafficking or importation Number of Federal delinquency proceedings terminated offense and if the offense was commit- Most serious offense 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 ted after the person’s 15th birthday. Total* 206 217 194 144 124 134 122 the person possessed a firearm Violent offenses 49 66 62 43 41 56 34 during a violent offense and the Property offenses 65 40 37 53 30 18 27 offense was committed after the per- Fraudulent 11 4 42334 Other 54 36 33 51 27 15 23 son’s 13th birthday. Drug offenses 66 52 44 31 28 38 16 the person had been previously adju- Public-order offenses 26 52 49 17 25 17 28 dicated delinquent of a violent felony Regulatory 1 3 2147210 or drug offense (18 U.S.C. § 5032). Other 25 49 28 13 18 15 18 *Total includes cases for which an offense category could not be determined. While the Department of Justice does Data source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, criminal docket data file, annual. not systematically collect information Juveniles in the State courts In contrast to the Federal system, ted to a correctional or other residen- the State courts were waived to adult the State systems frequently charge tial facility and 56% were placed on status. Similar to the Federal sys- juveniles with delinquency. During probation. Almost a third (31%) of tem, approximately 44% of juveniles 1994 there were more than 1.5 mil- those charged with a violent offense transferred were charged with a vio- lion delinquency cases in courts with were committed. lent offense. Drug offenders repre- juvenile jurisdiction. Of these, al- sented few (11%) of the transfers. most 855,000 were formally proc- During 1994 less than 2% of all essed in the juvenile justice system. juveniles charged with offenses in While 12,300 juveniles were judi- Nearly half (49%) of those juveniles cially waived to adult status during formally processed at the State level Delinquency cases in State 1994, others were statutorily ex- were charged with property offenses courts, 1994 cluded from juvenile court jurisdiction (table). Few (9%) were charged with Adult based on their age and offense or Most serious offense Number transfers drug offenses. concurrent jurisdiction provisions. Total 855,200 12,300 In 13 States the upper age of juve- Approximately 58% of those juve- Personal offenses 196,900 5,400 nile court jurisdiction is 15 or 16 niles formally charged at the State Property offenses 415,800 4,600 years. Many States also exclude Drug offenses 73,400 1,300 level were adjudicated delinquent Public-order offenses 169,100 1,000 certain (not shown in a table). Similar to serious offenses such as murder those in the Federal system, ap- Source: Jeffrey A. Butts, Howard N. Snyder, and other violent offenses from Terrence A. Finnegan et al., Juvenile Court proximately 29% of those juveniles Statistics 1994, Office of Juvenile Justice and juvenile court jurisdiction. adjudicated delinquent were commit- Delinquency Prevention (1996). 2 Juvenile Delinquents in the Federal Criminal Justice System acts of delinquency in U.S. district Approximately 35% of those juveniles facility. The average time served courts ranged from 217 during 1990 to committed to a correctional facility was 122 during 1995 (table 1). The District were adjudicated delinquent of a vio- 14 months for all those released of South Dakota (12.3%), the District lent offense. Of those 37 juveniles 21 months for drug offenders of Arizona (10.7%), the District of Mon- committed during 1995, the average 17 months for violent offenders. tana (10.7%), and the Eastern District length of commitment required was 34 of North Carolina (9.8%) accounted for months (not shown in a table). Methodology approximately 44% of the total Federal juvenile caseload during 1995 (not Juvenile delinquents confined by The primary source of data presented shown in a table). the Federal Bureau of Prisons in this report is the BJS Federal Jus- tice Statistics Program (FJSP) data- Offense committed As of September 30, 1994, 124 juve- base. The FJSP database is presently nile delinquents were confined in a constructed from the source files pro- Consistent with the statutory directive, State juvenile correctional facility under vided by the U.S. attorneys, the Fed- juveniles charged with acts of juvenile contract to the Federal Bureau of Pris- eral courts, the U.S. Sentencing delinquency in U.S. district courts were ons (table 3). (The Federal Bureau of Commission, and the Federal Bureau most frequently charged with more Prisons does not have its own facilities of Prisons. Data tabulations, except serious offenses such as drug (15%) for juvenile delinquents.) Most (64%) where otherwise indicated, were pre- or violent (32%) offenses. were adjudicated delinquent of a vio- pared from BJS staff analysis of lent offense. source agency datasets.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zero Tolerance and Exclusionary School Discipline Policies Harm Students and Contribute to the Cradle to Prison Pipeline ® the Problem: Pushing Students out of School
    ISSUE BRIEF November 2012 Zero Tolerance and Exclusionary School Discipline Policies Harm Students and Contribute to the Cradle to Prison Pipeline ® The Problem: Pushing Students Out of School ut-of-school suspensions and expulsions—discipl ine Opractices that exclude children from school—have increased dramatically in the United States since the 1970s. This increase is largely due to schools’ overre - liance on “zero tolerance” policies. The Dignity in Schools Campaign describes zero tolerance as “a school discipline policy or practice that results in an automatic disciplinary consequence such as in-school or out-of-school suspension, expulsion, or involuntary school transfer for any student who commits one or more listed offenses. A school discipline policy may be a zero tolerance policy even if administrators have some discretion to modify the consequence on a case-by-case basis.” 1 Zero tolerance policies impose automatic and harsh discipline for a wide range of student infractions, s s i L including non-violent disruptive behavior, truancy, e v e dress code violations, and insubordination. Even when t S © o school policies don’t impose automatic suspensions for t o h behavior, the culture of overzealous exclusion from P school that is fostered by the zero tolerance mindset school year involved weapons or drugs, while 64% of has created a situation in which children are being suspensions were for “disobedient or disruptive behavi or,” removed from school for increasingly minor behavior truancy, or “intimidation.” 3 These policies are a issues. An October 2011 report from the National Edu - problem for all children, regardless of background or cation Policy Center found that only 5% of suspensions home-life.
    [Show full text]
  • Resilience Matters: Examining the School to Prison Pipeline Through the Lens of School
    Glenn Justice Policy Journal, Spring, 2019 Resilience Matters: Examining the School to Prison Pipeline through the Lens of School- Based Problem Behaviors Jonathan W. Glenn1 Justice Policy Journal Volume 16, Number 1 (Spring, 2019) © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2019 www.cjcj.org/jpj Abstract The school-to-prison pipeline is an expansive issue that impacts the educational and criminal justice systems in the United States. Traditionally, research has linked the prevalence of the pipeline to factors based within school systems. These systemic factors include the use of zero tolerance policies, exclusionary disciplinary practices, and the presence of school resource officers. The present study aims to explore the impact of school-based problem behaviors as a catalyst to the school- to-prison pipeline. A sample of 112 mental health professionals (MPHs) who specialize in working with youth at-risk for justice system involvement were surveyed to assess their perceptions of three theoretical predictors of problem behaviors including parental efficacy, child impulsivity, and child resilience. Results indicate that respondents perceive that child resilience predicts problem behaviors above and beyond any other theoretical predictor. The implications of this finding as well as recommendations are discussed. 1 North Carolina Central University Corresponding Author: Jonathan W. Glenn, [email protected] Resilience Matters 1 Introduction The school-to-prison pipeline refers to the process by which students are funneled from the school system into the juvenile or adult criminal justice system (Winn & Behizadeh, 2011). The pipeline has been an issue for over 20 years, plaguing the education and criminal justice systems in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Sociology of Juvenile Punishment: Treating Juvenile Offenders As Adults
    THE POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY OF JUVENILE PUNISHMENT: TREATING JUVENILE OFFENDERS AS ADULTS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jason T. Carmichael, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2006 Dissertation Committee Approved by Professor David Jacobs, Adviser Professor J. Craig Jenkins Professor Zhenchao Qian __________________________________ Adviser Graduate Program in Sociology ABSTRACT Numerous studies have investigated the determinants of formal social control employed by the state to control its citizens. Only a small number have used explanations derive from conflict theory and political sociology. I follow this research tradition by hypothesizing that the threat produced by racial and ethnic minorities leads to increases in the demand for formal control mechanisms including more punitive responses to juvenile crime through adult sanctioning. I also consider broader political arguments that link the variation in punitive outcomes to differences in political arraignments across jurisdictions. While the punishment of juvenile offenders has increasingly become an issue of major concern to the public, there are few studies that test the governments coercive response to this particular type of offending. This dissertation addresses this issue by examining the treatment of juvenile offenders in the adult criminal system. First, I use pooled time- series negative binomial regression to analyze raw counts of juveniles admitted to adult prisons. Second, I use multivariate regression to predict the length of sentence that violent juvenile offenders receive in adult criminal courts. Finally, I use zero-inflated negative binomial regression to analyze the probability that states used the death penalty against juvenile when this practice was still constitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • Children and Crime: in the Moment
    This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Haines, Kevin, Case, Stephen, Smith, Roger, Laidler, Karen, Nathan, Hughes, Webster, Colin, Goddard, Tim, Deakin, Jo, Johns, Diana, Richards, Kelly, & Grey, Patricia (2020) Children and Crime: In the Moment. Youth Justice. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/199890/ c 2020 The Author(s) This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected] License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420923762 Kevin Haines1, Stephen Case2, Roger Smith3, Karen Joe Laidler4, Nathan Hughes5, Colin Webster6, Tim Goddard7, Jo Deakin8, Diana Johns9, Kelly Richards10, Patricia Gray11 1 Professor of Criminology, University of Trinidad and Tobago.
    [Show full text]
  • ARE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES WORTH IT? the High Cost of Zero Tolerance for Students, Families, and Society’S Pocketbook
    ARE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES WORTH IT? The high cost of zero tolerance for students, families, and society’s pocketbook ASHLEY BARNETT GAUDIANO I. Introduction Varsity high school athletes Graham Dennis and Casey Edsall were suspended for bringing a penknife and a lighter to school, tools used by the young men to repair their lacrosse sticks. Dennis was taken away in handcuffs and charged with possession of a deadly weapon in the juvenile justice system.1 Nick Stuban, a 15-year-old “model student,” was suspended for purchasing a capsule of a legal substance known as JWH-018, a synthetic compound with a marijuana-like effect.2 Stuban took his life two months later. Bronson Clark, 6 years old, was suspended for crying in class and disrupting the educational process.3 In South Carolina, a 10- year old was suspended after his pencil sharpener broke and a teacher found the razor blade inside it.4 Ethan Gray, a 1st grader, was found with a butter knife in his bag and was suspended under the schools zero tolerance polices for weapons.5 What these children all have in common is that they have come in contact with the unfortunate ramifications of today’s system of zero tolerance policies. They all have been suspended or expelled under policies that are void of discretion and fail to take into account purpose, intent, age, or maturity. All of these children, and millions more, will have the notation of “suspension” or “expulsion” on their academic records and many of them will have juvenile or adult criminal records too.
    [Show full text]
  • Turning Bad Girls Into Ladies: Female Juvenile Delinquency In
    TURNING BAD GIRLS INTO LADIES: FEMALE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN TEXAS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of Texas State University-San Marcos in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of ARTS by Allison Leigh Hughes, B.A. San Marcos, Texas May 2012 TURNING BAD GIRLS INTO LADIES: FEMALE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN TEXAS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY Committee Members Approved: Mary C. Brennan, Chair Jessica Pliley Dwight D. Watson Approved: J. Michael Willoughby Dean of the Graduate College COPYRIGHT by Allison Leigh Hughes 2012 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Allison Leigh Hughes, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank first, my family, who has demonstrated unwavering support for my education. My mother is one of the hardest working people I know, and it is her work ethic that keeps me motivated. My father never let me forget the importance of remaining positive and has, on a number of occasions, discussed, reviewed, and edited my work no matter the time of day. My siblings, despite the physical distance between us, have always supported my education.
    [Show full text]
  • Juveniles' Race and Police Relations
    Goshe/ Western Criminology Review 14(1), 39-50 (2013) Online citation: Goshe, Sonya. 2013. "Malleable Mandates: Liberal Ideology and the Politics of Protection and Punishment in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.” Western Criminology Review 14(1): 39-50. (http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v14n1/Goshe.pdf). Malleable Mandates: Liberal Ideology and the Politics of Protection and Punishment in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Sonya Goshe University of California, Irvine Abstract: While the notion that youth warrant special protection has a lengthy and controversial history in juvenile justice dating back to the child saving movement, little research has examined how the idea has played out politically in law- making bodies at the federal level. Further, there is limited attention to how the core ideological foundation of our legal system may have paved the way for politically reshaping the notion of protection in a punitive direction in recent legislative efforts. In this paper, I explore the shifting political meanings of “protection” and “punishment” contained in the evolution of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) and propose that their malleability partially stems from overlooked ideological forces in the liberal legal model including a weak, individualized version of public duty and variable understandings of youth autonomy and culpability. Together the underlying liberal dynamics engender an ideological affinity between protection and punishment that permitted their rhetorical vulnerability and political distortion. Keywords: law-making, legal liberalism, ideological affinity, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, politics, protection, punishment, youth justice INTRODUCTION delinquency, drug abuse and educational drop-out (U.S. Department of Health and Human Service 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and Related Matters
    Order Code RL30822 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Juvenile Delinquents and Federal Criminal Law: The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and Related Matters Updated October 25, 2004 Charles Doyle Senior Specialist American Law Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Juvenile Delinquents and Federal Criminal Law: The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and Related Matters Summary Juvenile offenders of federal criminal law are primarily the responsibility of state juvenile court authorities. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act permits federal delinquency proceedings where state courts cannot or will not accept jurisdiction. In the more serious of these cases, the juvenile offender may be transferred for trial as an adult in federal court. The Act applies to those charged before the age of 21 with a breach of federal criminal law occurring before they reached the age of 18. Given the law enforcement predominance of state officials and the fact that a violation of federal law will ordinarily support the assertion of state juvenile court jurisdiction, most such offenders never come in contact with federal authorities. Many of those who do are returned to state officials to be processed through the state court system. The United States Attorney, however, may elect federal proceedings if the state courts are unwilling or unable to assume jurisdiction, or the state has no adequate treatment plans, or the juvenile is charged with a crime of violence or with drug trafficking. A juvenile may be transferred for trial as adult only at his or her insistence or pursuant to a court transfer of a juvenile, 15 years of age or older, charged with drug trafficking or a crime of violence.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Detention Reduce Recidivism of Youth? an Outcome Evaluation
    CAN DETENTION REDUCE RECIDIVISM OF YOUTH? AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF A JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By Tia Simanovic In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major Department: Criminal Justice and Political Science May 2017 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School Title CAN DETENTION REDUCE RECIDIVISM OF YOUTH? AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF A JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER By Tia Simanovic The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Andrew J. Myer, PhD Chair Amy J. Stichman, PhD James E. Deal, PhD Approved: May 12, 2017 Jeffrey Bumgarner, PhD Date Department Chair ABSTRACT This study is an outcome evaluation of a secure unit of one juvenile detention center in the Midwest. The primary purpose of this study was to elucidate the relationship between a secure detention placement and recidivism on a sample of Midwest juvenile offenders. Besides the examination of recidivism of the total sample, this study examined differences between two subsamples of the institutionalized juveniles, those in a treatment program and those in detention only. The importance of demographics, prior admissions, length of stay, frequency of institutional misconduct, and exposure to treatment was examined. Results suggest a significant negative relationship between the age at admission and recidivism, and a positive one between prior admissions and recidivism. Length of stay, institutional misconduct, and treatment did not reach significance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Juvenile Court for Youth & Parents in North Carolina
    A Guide to Juvenile Court for Youth & Parents in North Carolina YOUTH JUSTICE NORTH CAROLINA Jason Langberg & Patricia Robinson ABOUT YOUTH JUSTICE NORTH CAROLINA YOUTH JUSTICE NORTH CAROLINA (YJNC) is an organization of law and policy experts, practitioners, and advocates committed to ensuring fair, supportive, and effective public education and juvenile justice systems in North Carolina. Beginning in January 2015, YJNC will operate as a project of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. For more information and an electronic version of this guide, visit www.youthjusticenc.org. CREDITS YJNC thanks the following individuals for their valuable input: § Tamar Birckhead—Associate Professor of Law; Co-Director, UNC Youth Justice Clinic § Barbara Fedders—Clinical Associate Progressor of Law; Co-Director, UNC Youth Justice Clinic § Drew Kukorowski—Attorney, Council for Children’s Rights § Kellie Mannette—Juvenile Defense Attorney, Law Office of Kellie Mannette § Hon. Marcia Morey—Chief District Court Judge, 14th Judicial District § Peggy Nicholson—Staff Attorney, Advocates for Children’s Services of Legal Aid of NC § LaToya Powell—Assistant Professor of Public Law and Government, UNC School of Government § Mary Stansell—Juvenile Chief, District 10 Public Defender § Eric Zogry—Juvenile Defender, Office of the Juvenile Defender, Office of Indigent Defense Services Some material in this guide was adapted from the Youth Guide to the Juvenile Court System with permission of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. PLEASE NOTE § Laws, policies, and practices change. This guide is current as of November 2014. § This guide is not intended to cover every detail of your issue or case, nor is it a substitute for legal advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure: Implications for Marriage and Relationship Education
    Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure: Implications for Marriage and Relationship Education Research Brief By Curt Alfrey, J.D. Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure: Implications for Marriage and Relationship Education Background Juvenile delinquency is of perpetual concern in the United States. In 2007, law enforcement agencies reported 2.18 million arrests of juveniles (persons under age 18). There are two types of delinquency offenses. The first type of offense is a behavior that would be a criminal law violation for an adult. The other offense is called a “status” offense. Status offenses are delinquent actions that do not apply to adults, like running away and truancy. They make up only 5 percent of the offenses of juveniles in custody (Puzzanchera, 2009), The other 95 provided by the juvenile justice system. Juvenile percent of juveniles in custody at any point in time delinquent behavior is believed to be under- (excluding those in adult prisons) are held for criminal represented due to the limited methods of collecting delinquency offenses. juvenile crime data. Juvenile arrests accounted for 16 percent of all violent crime arrests (i.e. murder, The types of crimes committed by juveniles are rape, assault) and 26 percent of all property crime compiled through self-reporting or from reports arrests (i.e. burglary, theft, arson) (Puzzanchera, 2009). Other crimes for which juveniles are arrested include simple assault, vandalism, gambling, Juvenile delinquent behavior is disorderly conduct, weapons possession, illicit drug/ believed to be under-represented liquor violation (including DUI) and prostitution. It due to the limited methods of is important to note that a number of misdemeanor collecting juvenile crime data.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Intervention and Preventing Juvenile Delinquency Nancy
    Early Intervention and Preventing Juvenile Delinquency Nancy Harmon Arkansas Highway Police School of Law Enforcement Supervision Session XLV November 11, 2015 Early Intervention and Preventing Juvenile Delinquency Can society prevent juveniles from becoming involved in delinquency and criminal behavior? The juvenile justice system is normally involved in a juvenile’s life once the juvenile has committed an act of delinquency or a crime. The juvenile justice system has made progress over the last decade with the quality and quantity of services it provides to juveniles, parents, and society (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The juvenile justice system is experiencing the lowest youth crime rates in 20 years (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2011). A common perception in the last few years was that the rate and proportion of young juveniles (under age 13) entering the juvenile justice system had increased. (Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime, 2014). This statement is not true. In 1980, there were an estimated 1,259 arrests of persons ages 10-12 for every 100,000 persons in this age group in the U.S. population. By 2010, this arrest rate had fallen to 784, a decline of 38%. In 1980, 9.4% of all juvenile arrests were of persons under age 13; in 2010, this percentage had decreased to 6.6%. While there has been progress made in the juvenile justice system, this progress does not mean that the system has reached its goal or potential. One of the goals of the juvenile justice system should be to develop a way to prevent juveniles from becoming a part of the system.
    [Show full text]