Diversionary Programs for Juvenile Offenders Essay

Pros and Cons: Juvenile Justice

Introduction

There are pros and cons to indeterminate sentencing. As Portman (2018) points out, prison officials like the idea of indeterminate sentencing because they feel it provides prisoners with an incentive to behave, show progress towards reform, and serve time quietly with the hope of getting an early release from the parole board. While this may be true, it also places a great deal of power into the hands of the parole board, the members of which essentially determine the fate of the incarcerated every time the individual is up for review. If the board holds any sort of prejudice or if the individual has few supporters on the outside to intervene on his behalf before the board, it could mean that there is less chance of early parole. For these reasons, it is important to weigh the pros and cons of indeterminate sentencing, especially when it comes to juvenile justice. An indeterminate sentence for a juvenile offender could potentially and theoretically mean a sentencing of life behind bars prior to the offender’s even reaching 18 years of age (ACLU, 2018). This paper will provide an analysis that covers (a) the current state of juvenile criminal recidivism, (b) whether, in general, existing prevention, punishment, and rehabilitation efforts appear to be successful, (c) the pros and cons of indeterminate sentencing and its appropriateness for different types of juvenile offenders, (d) the impact of indeterminate sentencing on recidivism, (e) the effectiveness of diversion programs for juvenile offenders, and (f) the effectiveness of restorative justice efforts with a focus on whether they reduce recidivism and whether they provide victims with greater satisfaction than traditional punishments.

The Current State of Juvenile Criminal Recidivism

Walsh and Weber (2014) note that only 39 of the 50 U.S. states actually track recidivism and half of them only track it by using rearrest or reincarceration as the signal event. Half of U.S. states use analytics to assess juvenile offenders’ risk levels of recidivism, with factors such as the needs of the juveniles, their length of juvenile detention, and their enrollment in service programs (Walsh & Weber, 2014). The point is that tracking recidivism and the risk of recidivism among juveniles is not a top priority for half of U.S. states. The justification for this is that juvenile arrest rates have dropped by 50% over the past 20 years (Walsh & Weber, 2014).

The statistics indicate that there should be more focus given to tracking recidivism: the reason being that in 2011, by way of example, when the study cited by Walsh & Weber ended, there was still a 53% recidivism rate for boys and a 46% rate for girls in the state of Washington. In short, virtually half of all juvenile offenders became repeat offenders (Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2008). The demographics of juvenile recidivists are indicated in the table below.

To continue with the example of the problem of recidivism in Washington, most juvenile recidivists were between the ages of 15 and 17 while the most common type of offense among juvenile recidivists was gross misdemeanor, followed by misdemeanor, property offenses, and then assault, as shown in the table below. Gross misdemeanor offenses were committed by 2,600 juvenile recidivists, misdemeanors by 1,397 recidivists, property offenses by 1,145 recidivists and assault by 315 recidivists. Drug offenses, while only committed by 184 recidivists, had the highest rate of recidivism among juvenile offenders with 59.55% of these offenders repeating the offense again prior to becoming adults (Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2008). However, with the recidivism rate at nearly 50% for juveniles committing gross misdemeanors, there is clearly a need to address the situation for all types of offenders. Even juvenile sex offenders have nearly a 23% recidivism rate.

On Whether Existing Prevention, Punishment and Rehabilitation Efforts are Successful

Existing prevention, punishment and rehabilitation efforts, as the recidivism rates indicate, are only approximately half-helpful. Some states like have shown that alternative solutions are helpful in reducing juvenile crime. For example, Texas and California began limiting juvenlie corrections juveniles who had serious convictions and the money these states saved in reducing incarceration rates was sent to local districts “to fund local solutions to youth offending”—and the outcome was that “both states experienced marked declines in youth incarceration and offending” (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark, 2016, p. 18). In other words, states that support programs that focus on prevention and rehabilitation as opposed to punishment (incarceration) indicate through declining rates of juvenile crime that prevention and rehabilitation have been effective in reducing juvenile crime and by extension juvenile recidivism. The statistics indicate as much: between 2001 and 2013, a 53% drop in juvenile incarceration throughout the U.S. occurred and the reason was “steep reductions in youth crime rates” thanks to the type of programs facilitated by states like Texas, California, New York and others (McCarthy, Schiraldi & Shark, 2016, p. 18).

Pros and Cons of Indeterminate Sentencing

The pros and cons of indeterminate sentencing depends largely upon the population being sampled. Corrections officers view indeterminate sentencing as a good thing because they believe it incentives inmates to reform so that they can obtain an early release. Critics, such as prisoner advocates, view it as a con because it places too much power in the parole board. Regardless of perspective, below are the pros and cons of indeterminate sentencing, as all sides…