Abstract
A separate justice system for juveniles has existed in the USA for over 100 years. It was originally intended to unction as a social welfare system with dual aims: to shield young delinquents from the corrupting influence of seasoned adult offenders, and to provide delinquents and status offenders1In the USA, the juvenile justice population is classified into delinquents—those who commit crimes—and status offenders—those who commit special juvenile offenses like truancy, running away from home, and “being beyond parental control” that would not be crimes if committed by adults. The jurisdiction over status offenders has historically been justified on the grounds that these are youth at-risk for delinquency.with the guidance and treatment necessary to make the often difficult transition through adolescence to become law abiding adults. Over the last century, and most especially since the 1960s, juvenile justice policy has shifted dramatically, undergoing a series of reforms that have reshaped the system and challenged the principles on which it was founded.
In this chapter we examine trends in juvenile justice policy and practice in the USA, with a special focus on changes that have taken place in the last 20 years. Our analysis is presented in several parts. In the first, we set the stage for what follows by providing some background on the context within which juvenile justice operates in the USA. We explain that juvenile justice in the USA varies greatly across state and local jurisdictions. Since the 1970s, there has been a considerable degree of “federalization” of juvenile justice policy, resulting in somewhat lesser heterogeneity across systems than was true in the past. Nevertheless, the US tradition of federalism—which recognizes the autonomy of its 50 states—continues to guarantee wide variation in policy and practice. In this first section, we also present a picture of juvenile crime and juvenile court processing to further contextualize the challenges presented to those who work in the juvenile justice field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In the USA, the juvenile justice population is classified into delinquents—those who commit crimes—and status offenders—those who commit special juvenile offenses like truancy, running away from home, and “being beyond parental control” that would not be crimes if committed by adults. The jurisdiction over status offenders has historically been justified on the grounds that these are youth at-risk for delinquency.
- 2.
It is important to observe at the outset of this essay, that the use of the word “system” is a misnomer. There is no juvenile justice system in the USA. Indeed, some argue that it was not possible to speak of an adult criminal justice system in the USA until the 1960s (Klein, 1984).
- 3.
An excellent website that maintains much of these data, and that allows for individual queries of the data, can be found at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/index.html. Data for much of this section of the paper are drawn from Snyder and Sickmund (1999) and Puzzanchera, Stahl, Finnegan, Tierney, and Snyder (2003).
- 4.
At least half of all crimes are not reported to law enforcement agencies.
- 5.
Reflecting this trend, the juvenile arrest rate for murder dropped to 74% between 1993 and 2000 (Snyder,2002).
- 6.
In the interests of space, arrest rates for Asians and American Indians are not presented. However, it can be noted that arrest rates for Asians are lower than those for Whites. Arrest rates for American Indians fall between those for Whites and Blacks.
- 7.
For an excellent description of the juvenile justice system in the USA and the numbers of case processed at each step of the system, see Lundman (2001: 24).
- 8.
The number of cases transferred at this point is unknown because they are not counted in Juvenile Court Statistics, nor are they classified separately from cases involving adults in criminal court statistics.
- 9.
One-day counts differ from and substantially underestimate the number of annual admissions.
- 10.
These include juveniles in placement for abuse or neglect, mental retardation, and emotional disturbance, and those “voluntarily” admitted by their parents.
- 11.
Decker and Curry (2001) report that in St. Louis, Missouri more than half of all 15 and 16 year olds black males will be referred to the juvenile court and have an intake hearing.
- 12.
In the 1990s this led to the identification of “the young and the ruthless,” “a new breed of young killers,” and “super-predators” (Bennett et al., 1996).
- 13.
Actually, the process is anything but “automatic” because it is dependent on what charges prosecutors choose to file.
- 14.
For example, in Florida, prosecutors may choose to treat 16-year-olds charged with any felony as either juveniles or adults. They can also transfer youths as young as 10, although the criteria are more restrictive.
- 15.
The dissent in the case objected to taking guidance from foreign law and supported state's rights to make decisions on the use of capital punishment. The decision also provoked a backlash against using international law as a benchmark in the interpretation of the US Constitution. Indeed, a nonbinding resolution was introduced into Congress instructing the judiciary to ignore the laws of other countries. The representative who introduced the resolution commented that “[I]t is improper for them [the Supreme Court] to substitute foreign law for American law or the American Constitution. To the extent they deliberately ignore Congress’ admonishment, they are no longer engaging in ‘good behavior’ in the meaning of the Constitution and they may subject themselves to the ultimate remedy, which would be impeachment.”
- 16.
Public Law 93–415: 42 U.S.C. Section 5601 et seq.
- 17.
Public Law 107–273.
- 18.
Its legacy includes net widening, “bootstrapping” (relabeling status offenders as delinquents to render them eligible for formal intervention), and “transinstitutionalization” (displacement of status offenders from juvenile correctional institutions to mental health facilities).
- 19.
The only penalty for failure to comply is the reinstatement of charges.
- 20.
Minnesota and Pennsylvania have emerged as leaders in the use of family group conferencing. The state of Vermont has made community reparation boards a centerpiece of its juvenile justice system for youth who admit guilt. However, Vermont's program has recently been criticized for low levels of victim participation, the composition of the boards (i.e., civic and business leaders) and, most important, for the tendency to be more punitive than reparative.
- 21.
Drug prosecutions increased 15.2% over the decade, consistent with the “war on drugs.”
- 22.
This trend is entirely consistent with adoption of the “graduated sanctions” approach, about which we will have more to say shortly.
- 23.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the traditional criminal law standard.
- 24.
In research conducted by one of the authors, a youth arrested for throwing a piece of fruit at another was charged with “throwing a deadly missile,” one who stole a clown statue from a restaurant play area was charged with” “burglary of an occupied structure,” and a youth who took a pickup truck for a brief “joyride” was charged with “armed burglary” because a toolbox containing a hammer and screwdrivers was found in the back of the truck. All of these charged offenses are serious felonies that carry lengthy maximum sentences.
- 25.
Initiated in 1998 (Public Law 105–119), its annual funding level authorization is $500 million. Compare this to the Title V prevention program discussed earlier, which has an annual funding allocation of $27 million. While prevention is a priority, punishment of past actions clearly takes precedence.
- 26.
We see little potential for the transformation of juvenile justice around principles of restorative justice. Existing bureaucracies (court, probation, prosecutorial, and defense systems) are entrenched, and do not easily accommodate a central role for victims and community members, nor relinquish their focus on adversariness and due process.
- 27.
Interest in rehabilitation waned in the 1970s, following the release of the highly publicized “Martinson Report” (Martinson, 1974; Lipton et al., 1975), which concluded that “nothing works.” Critics of the report responded that the negative results could be explained by methodological problems and weak evaluations, rather than by the absence of effective treatments, but these responses—and even the subsequent retraction of the Martinson Report's conclusion by its authors—fell on deaf ears. Instead, the idea of rehabilitation was increasingly viewed with skepticism. Subsequent increases in juvenile crime, especially juvenile violence, contributed to the view that treatment was ineffective.
References
Ainsworth, J.E. (1991). “Re-Imagining Childhood and Reconstructing the Legal Order: The Case for Abolishing the Juvenile Court,” North Carolina Law Review, 69:1083–1133.
Allen, F. (1981). The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal. New Haven, CT: Yale.
Andrews, C. and Marble, L. (2003). “Changes to OJJDP's Juvenile Accountability Program.” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, June 2003 Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Bazemore, G. and Umbreit, M.S. (2001). “A comparison of four restorative justice conferencing models.” Juvenile Justice Bulletin (February). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Bazemore, G. and Walgrave, L. (1999). “Introduction: Restorative Justice and the International Juvenile Justice Crisis,” in G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave (eds.), Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 1–13.
Bennett, W.J., DiIulio, J.J., Jr., and Walters, J.P. (1996). Body Count: Moral Poverty and How to Win America's War Against Crime and Drugs, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Bernard, T.J. (1992). The Cycle of Juvenile Justice. New York: Oxford.
Beyer, M. (2003). Best Practices in Juvenile Accountability. JAIBG BULLETIN, April 2003. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Online available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/184745/contents.html.
Bishop, D.M. and Frazier, C. (1992). “Gender Bias in Juvenile Justice Processing: Implications of the JJDP Act,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82:1162–1186.
Bishop, D.M. and Frazier, C. (2000). “Consequences of Transfer,” in J. Fagan and F. Zimring (eds.), The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 227–276.
Butts, J.A. and Mears, D.P. (2001). “Reviving Juvenile Justice in a Get-Tough Era,” Youth and Society, 33:169–198.
Butts, J., Hoffman, D., and Buck, J. (1999). “Teen Courts in the United States: A Profile of Current Programs” OOJDP Fact Sheet No. 118. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Butts, J.A., Buck, J., and Coggeshall, M. (2002). The Impact of Teen Court on Young Offenders. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Caliber Associates. (2002). 2002 Report to Congress: Title V Community Prevention Grants Program, NCJ 202019. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Carlsson, Y. and Decker, S.H. (2005). “Gang and Youth Violence Prevention and Intervention: Contrasting the Experience of the Scandinavian Welfare State with the United States,” in S. Decker and F. Weerman (eds.), Gangs and Troublesome Youth Groups in Europe: Results from the Eurogang Research Program, San Francisco, CA: Alta Mira.
Carter, R.M. (1984). “The United States,” in M. Klein (ed.), Western Systems of Juvenile Justice, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 17–38.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Online available at http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/.
Dawson, R.O. (1988). “The Third Justice System: The New Juvenile-Criminal System of Determinate Sentencing for the Youthful Violent Offender in Texas,” St. Mary's Law Journal 19: 943–1015.
Decker, S.H. and Curry, G.D. (2001). JAIBG, St. Louis. Third Year Evaluation Report. University of Missouri-St. Louis: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Feld, B.C. (1999). Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court. New York: Oxford University Press.
Finckenauer, J.O., and Gavin, P. W. (1999). Scared Straight: The Panacea Phenomenon Revisited. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Hawkins, D. and Catalano, R. (1992). Communities that Care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, J.C. (2003). Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Irwin, J. and Austin, J. (1994). It's About Time: America's Imprisonment Binge. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., and Schulenberg, J.E. (2005). Monitoring the Future. National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2004, NIH Publication No. 05–5726. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Klein, M.W. (1984). “Introduction,” in M. Klein (ed.), Western Systems of Juvenile Justice, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 1–16.
Klein, M.W. (1995). The American Street Gang. New York: Oxford.
Lab, S.P. (2004). “Crime Prevention, Politics, and the Art of Going Nowhere Fast” [Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Presidential Address], Justice Quarterly, 21: 681–692.
Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C.E., Lane, J., and Bishop, D.M. (2002). Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court Study: Final Report. Online available at http://nicic.org/Library/017540.
Lauritsen, J., Sampson, R.J. and Laub, J. (1991). “The Link Between Offending and Victimization Among Adolescents,” Criminology, 29: 265–292.
Lipsey, M.W. (1999a). “Can Intervention Rehabilitate Serious Delinquents,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564:142–166.
Lipsey, M.W. (1999b). “Can Rehabilitative Programs Reduce the Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders? An Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Practical Programs,” Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 6:611–641.
Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (1998). Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Synthesis of Research, in R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington (eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 313–345.
Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B., and Cothern, L. (2000). Effective Interventions for Serious Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R., and Wilks, J. (1975). The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies. New York: Praeger.
Loeber, R. and Farrington, D.P. (2000). “Young Children Who Commit Crime: Epidemiology, Developmental Origins, Risk Factors, Early Interventions, and Policy Implications,” Development and Psychopathology, 12:737–762.
Lundman, R.J. (2001). Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Oxford.
MacKenzie, D.L. (2000). “Evidence-Based Corrections: Identifying What Works,” Crime and Delinquency, 46:457–471.
Martinson, R. (1974). What Works? Questions and Answers About Prison Reform, Public Interest, 35:22–54.
Patterson, G.R. and Yoerger, K. (1993). “Developmental Models for Delinquent Behavior,” in S. Hodgins (ed.), Mental Disorder and Crime, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 140–172.
Peters, M., Thomas, D., and Zamberlan, C. (1997). Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Pisciotta, A.W. (1984). “Parens Patriae, Treatment and Reform: The Case of the Western House of Refuge, 1849–1907,” New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 10: 65–86.
Pisciotta, A.W. (1991). “A House Divided: Penal Reform at the Illinois State Reformatory, 1891– 1915,” Crime and Delinquency, 37: 165–185.
Pisciotta, A.W. (1993). “Child Saving or Child Brokerage? The Theory and Practice of Indenture and Parole at the New York House of Refuge. 1825–1935,” in A. Hess and P. Clement (eds.), The History of Juvenile Delinquency: A Collection of Essays, Germany: Scientia Publishers, pp. 533–555.
Pisciotta, A.W. (1994). Benevolent Repression: Social Control and the American Reformatory-Prison Movement. New York: New York University Press.
Platt, A.M. (1977). The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A.L., Finnegan, T.A., Tierney, N., and Snyder, H.N. (2003). Juvenile Court Statistics 1999. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
Rothman, D.J. (1971). The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Sanborn, J.B., Jr. and Salerno, A.W. (2005). The Juvenile Justice System: Law and Process. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Sarri, R. and Shook, J. (2005). “Human Rights and Juvenile Justice in the United States,” in M. Ensalaco and L. Majka (eds.), Children's Human Rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Lit-tlefield, pp. 218–240.
Scott, E.C. (2001). “The Legal Construction of Childhood,” in M. Rosenheim, F.E. Zimring, D.S. Tanenhaus, and B. Dohrn (eds.), A Century of Juvenile Justice, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 113–141.
Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. (1998). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What's Promising. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Sickmund, M. (2004). Juveniles in Corrections: Juvenile Offenders and Victims National Report Series Bulletin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Snyder, H.N. (2002). Juvenile Arrests 2000. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Snyder, H.N. (2003). Juvenile Arrests 2001. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Snyder, H.N. and Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sridharan, S., Greenfield, L., and Blakley, B. (2004). “A Study of Prosecutorial Certification Practice in Virginia,” Criminology and Public Policy, 3:605–632.
Tanenhaus, D.S. (2004). Juvenile Justice in the Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
U.N. General Assembly. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, U.N. General Assembly, Document A/RES/44/25 (12 December 1989) with Annex. Online available at http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-convention/.
Zimring, F.E. (1998). American Youth Violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zimring, F.E. (2001). “The New Politics of Criminal Justice: Of ‘Three Strikes,’ Truth-in-Sentencing, and Megan's Laws,” Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1999–2000 Lecture Series. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Online available at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/184245.pdf.
Cases
Kent v. United States, 383 US 541 (1966)
Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 US 361 (1989)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bishop, D.M., Decker, S.H. (2006). Punishment and Control: Juvenile Justice Reform in the USA. In: Junger-Tas, J., Decker, S.H. (eds) International Handbook of Juvenile Justice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4970-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4970-6_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4400-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-4970-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)