Juvenile Offense: Connecting Theory, Practice, and Statutory Law

Comprehending Juvenile Offense

The term "juvenile delinquency" can be confusing. It roughly refers to referring to children and teens in trouble with the law. The United States Justice System does not recognize a widely accepted definition of "juvenile delinquency". However, it often says it applies to antisocial and criminal behavior of youth at an early age.
Juvenile delinquency breaks down into two main subcategories: delinquent acts and status offenders. A delinquent act refers to an offense or crime that could result in an arrest or incarceration if committed by an adult. Meanwhile, status offenses are activities that are illegal at the youth’s age but are not necessarily unlawful for an adult. A common example of a delinquent act for a youth is stealing a car. The example of status offense would be running away from home or not attending school.
According to a report from a Washington-based research center named Child Trends , adolescents in the U.S. are as much as 10 times more likely than adults to be arrested for crimes. The reasons are varied and can be both personal and environmental. More often than not, children and teens commit crimes under the influence of their friends. They are also highly vulnerable to being arrested for things they did not do out of misunderstanding or simple mistakes.
Juvenile delinquency prevention addresses the following:
The Justice System routinely gives children that are convicted of crimes a second chance by providing special programs for them. Both the parents and youths must attend regular appointments to a rehabilitative program. This system attempts to steer the youth away from the Court System by providing them guidance.

The Central Theories of Juvenile Offense

The major theories explaining juvenile delinquency include social learning theory, strain theory, and labeling theory. Social learning theory posits that children learn delinquent behaviors from their peers. Once a child exhibits some initial delinquent act, the rewards and acceptance from peers for that act reinforce further delinquent behavior. For example, if a child shoplifts and is invited to go along with older peers who have more opportunities to steal, that may set a pattern of criminal activity into motion. A cycle begins and grows more difficult to stop if addicted to drugs. Social learning theory is helpful as an explanation because it helps society understand the importance of parenting and parental supervision. If parents model healthy behaviors, there may be less chance for delinquency. So, the theory also explains the importance of peer education in curbing criminal behavior.
Strain theory posits that people commit crimes because they are strained (or stressed). Some youths feel strain due to poverty, lack of parental control and poor quality of schools. This theory also notes that risk of delinquency has increased because of disparity between the American dream and the reality of many children. The theory recognizes that some people turn to crime as a way to cope with financial strain. According to the Economist, U.S. News and World Report, Forbes, CBS news and other sources, the "American dream" is getting further and further away from many children’s grasp and there is a legitimate concern about growing economic inequality in America. Strain theory helps explain why children from lower-income brackets often attend poor schools, have less parental support and supervision and have limited opportunities to expand their horizons.
Labeling theory basically suggests that labeling a child "a delinquent" can actually lead to a child living up to that label. Labeling theory also notes that children’s friends are often those who have the same socioeconomic background, educational levels, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and likely would have the same label of "delinquent." Once labeled, the child feels the pressure to live up to the delinquent label and only hang out with others who are labeled "delinquent." According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, labeling theory helps explain the cause of gang-related activities in cities across America. Gang members, themselves, are often from unstable families and might feel added pressure because they have become "gang bangers." These factors in their lives in turn negatively influence their peers. Then, gangs become the only place to turn. Children in gangs may express their delinquency through: illeagl drug use, homicide, theft, violence and sexual abuse.

Roles of Family and Society in Juvenile Offense

The nexus between juvenile delinquency and the family unit is inescapable. Parental involvement in a child’s life can act both as catalyst for juvenile delinquency or as protective factor against it. Data shows that youth from single parent households are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior than those who come from two parent households. The chances for delinquent behavior increase further when an additional risk factor such as socioeconomic disadvantage is present.
Not only does socioeconomic status affect the likelihood of delinquent behavior, it affects the extent of parental involvement, which can further increase the risk for delinquency. According to current data, 40.8% of children from single parent, low income households will experience at least one parent change, barring other major environmental changes.
Family structure alone, however, does not hold the key to understanding juvenile delinquency. Children that do not interact with peers socially are just as likely (11.1%) and even more so to commit delinquency when compared to children with lower family quality (9.3%).
Of course, we all know the saying, "kids will be kids" and this holds true as the majority of juvenile delinquents are adolescents, ages 10 to 16. Delinquency is not just a key feature of adolescence, it requires the confidence of exclusionary parties to them, such as parents and schools that must collect information on delinquent behavior. The act of excluding juveniles from their normal environments, through incorrigibility statutes, school disciplinary action, or after school detention, can cause adolescents to seek other, more comforting environments that may be removed from parents, schools and the law.

The Law and Juvenile Offense

The legal system governing juvenile delinquency operates on principles and laws distinct from their adult counterparts. Due to the unique nature of development and behavior in juveniles, the law recognizes that children do not have the same capacity for culpability and just desserts as adult offenders. Schall v. Martin, 467 US 204 (1984). As such, those under the age of 18 present a complex legal picture in that many states have separate courts, probation officers, and facilities to deal with youthful offenders. In addition to the different systems, there are inherent differences determined by the age of the child and the severity of the crime. Over the years, many arguments have been made to reform the system, most notably how to deal with violent juvenile offenders. This article will touch on some key laws and cases regarding delinquency, but the idea is this is a complex system that has been put to the test through many generations and is changing.
Due to the individualized nature of the legal system of juvenile delinquency, the leading cases are state mandated. One case that has been deemed the "magna carta" of juvenile justice by the Supreme Court is the Kent v. United States, 383 USC 541 (1966). In Kent, the Supreme Court established that due process and right to counsel were necessary for a juvenile offender in the waiving of jurisdiction between juvenile and adult courts. The Supreme Court set out 6 "minimum" procedural safeguards intended to replace what had been an accused’s unbridled right to waive counsel and trial by jury. In the ruling, the court remanded the case to a lower court to determine if the trial court erred, and then ultimately determined that the due process requirements had been violated on constitutional grounds.
In addition to establishing the right to counsel for juveniles, Kent helped to define what was to become the "parens patriae" approach to delinquent minors. The parens patriae doctrine allows the government to step in and assume the role of a parent, without the government being a party to the litigation. Further, many courts have treated juveniles as if they were adults, which has led to many critical case rulings on the matter. In the course of the past 100 years there have been a number of important state and federal rulings on the matter.
Connecticut Set Statutory Scheme No Exclusionary Rule Applied to Prosecutor
Baker v. Carroll, 171 Conn. 659 (1990): Following the youngest son’s arrest at age 13 for murder, Carolyn Baker sought a writ of habeas corpus alleging sexual abuse, a plea based on substantive due process being applied to a pre-adjudication refusal to release and/or treatment.
Pennsylvania Minimum Age Limitation
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Davis, 849 A.2d 3 (Pa. Super. 2004): The juvenile court case was appealed pursuant to the sentencing scheme, the defendant argues that the statutory scheme imposes an ex post facto punishment; the court determines that the absence of a minimum age to treat a juvenile as an adult is not an ex post facto act.

Working Practices in Juvenile Offense Rehabilitation

Reducing juvenile delinquency is at the core of efforts to prevent future crime. While deterrence is one approach, another strategy for reducing recidivism rates is rehabilitation. Broadly speaking, the aim of rehabilitation is to help youth offenders develop skills and strategies for becoming productive members of society.
In an era of austerity, many scholars have argued that rehabilitation is often the most cost-effective approach for dealing with juvenile offenders. But even when the economic case prevails, the success of any rehabilitative effort hinges on effective practice design, implementation, and follow-up.
The search for effective practices to improve juvenile recidivism rates has occupied jurisdictions throughout the country. One innovation, exemplified by the Mesa Youth and Family Services Bureau (MYFSB), is the integration of information about juvenile offenders and their families into a single computerized centralized data system. Such a system makes it possible to track the criminal behavior of adolescents and their siblings, as well as parents/guardians. By tracking not only juvenile offenders but also their families, the system can: The MYFSB example also illustrates an important principle in effective practices: addressing adolescent behavior requires more than treating the symptoms. A key feature of successful programs is that they also address contributing environmental factors including issues at home and school.
Implementing a new system can present obstacles such as competing interests, inter-agency rivalries and budget constraints. However, MYFSB’s experience suggests that incorporating an explicit commitment to share information into the foundation of the initiative is an effective means of overcoming some of these challenges . Of course, creating a central information clearinghouse presupposes collecting and standardizing data from different agencies, which may require changes in laws, regulations, and standard operating procedures.
One particularly interesting program in terms of its use in conjunction with existing criminal justice initiatives is Project Fresh Start. A collaborative effort by law enforcement, schools, and mental health professionals in Los Angeles County, the program targets young people who have not yet been formally charged but have committed a crime such as shoplifting and criminal trespass.
In the program, a youth breaking the law is apprehended, photographed, fingerprinted, and driven to a police station where he is processed in the same way a serious offender would be. The youth then meets with a specially-trained, volunteer member of the clergy in a private, confidential room where the pastor helps her understand the seriousness of what she has done and the consequences associated with a repeat offense. The pastor also ensures that the youth is aware of existing community services. The pastor and the youth make a plan that includes contacting parents and church members who can assist with family struggles and ensue that the youth gets back on track at school.
The goals of the program are to prevent repeat offenses, ease the burden on the criminal justice system, and reduce poverty, homelessness, and substance abuse. There is no public funding for the effort, although churches support the pastors’ travel costs. While not yet evaluated, it offers an example of innovative approaches to juvenile delinquency prevention.

Problems with the Juvenile Offense System

Despite decades of legal evolution designed to address the unique needs of America’s youth, challenges still lurk around the corner. Consider the deep-rooted racial disparities that still impact our communities, the lack of adequate funding, the availability of effective intervention programs, and the ideals that push for either punishment or rehabilitation—often at the expense of the other.
The racial disparities facing the juvenile justice system are widely disputed, though a 2015 report from the Sentencing Project conveys some relevant statistics. Despite comprising only 16% of the country’s population, African American youth count for 28% of those arrested and over 40% of those sentenced to out-of-home placement. Likewise, Native American youth are more than twice as likely to be incarcerated as their white peers.
These disparities have sparked a nationwide conversation about affirmative action, funding, and where to put limited resources to rehabilitate as many youth as possible. Some groups argue that we shouldn’t just focus on race, and that kids deserve second chances no matter where they live.
"There is one study that looks at the connection between unemployment in the community and juvenile delinquency," said Holt. "There is a clear connection, statistically speaking, between juvenile delinquency and a community that has high rates of unemployment."
At the same time, other experts argue that race-based affirmative action is a fundamental necessity to upend the systemic biases that permeate America, taking root before children even reach school age.
Yet even with funding and resources, many of these programs continue to lack the teeth to make a lasting difference. In 1997, "zero tolerance" policies emerged, fundamentally reshaping the juvenile justice system and its approach to misbehavior in school. Despite research indicating that such policies were often unnecessary (and ineffective), schools maintained their zero tolerance stance. But what does that mean for the effectiveness of partnerships with the juvenile justice system?
"It places pressure on the juvenile justice system to come down hard on youth that don’t belong there," said Scott-Hayward, who particularly takes issue with the broad scope of what zero tolerance policies cover. "We are pushing kids into incarceration who don’t need to be incarcerated."
Against this backdrop, many critics continue to argue that the juvenile justice system is overreaching and over-punishing youth. During his December 2018 address to the ABA House of Delegates, Congressman Bobby Scott suggested that instead of throwing more money to the system to pursue longer sentences and harsher sentences for kids, lawmakers should devote more money in a more constructive way, such as to start early by investing in early childhood education and counseling.
"The questions we have to ask are how do we build better communities?" asked Holt. "We need to ask ourselves what do we need from our federal and state level laws, from policy, what do we need to do in order to address this issue?"

Juvenile Offense Reform Moving Forward

In order to paint a picture of the future of juvenile justice we should look at the evolution of past reform efforts. Diversion programs, which are designed to keep low-level offenders out of the justice system, have proven successful in both juvenile and adult systems. A 2014 study reported a 20% behavioral improvement rate among juveniles who participated in diversion programs. Narrowing processing to a state or county level (i.e., those who live in a community and are arrested in the same community), as opposed to a system wide approach, reduces the number of cases entering the juvenile justice systems.
Though implemented on a small scale, specialized courts, such as juvenile drug treatment courts, yield more promising results in recidivism rates than general ‘youth courts’ that offer alternative punishment. In a study of 49 such programs conducted by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), a division of the U.S. Department of Justice, it was concluded that juveniles who go through specialized problem-solving courts get better results. Interestingly, the OJP study also showed that in drug treatment courts, early graduation from the program decreases recidivism.
As the number of adolescent drug abuse cases increases , specialized protocols should be adopted across the board. Integration of drug treatment into juvenile facilities is one reform already being implemented on a small scale in the midset of the country. The Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that the number of drug courts created nationwide has tripled in the last 10 years, with more than 2,200 drug courts currently in operation, including juvenile, family, DWI, and treatment courts. In fact, 36 states require that drug treatment be integrated in juvenile facilities.
At the core of juvenile delinquency is prevention. Community improvements in early childcare education (ECE) for children age 0-5 are the most effective preventative measure against juvenile delinquency. Early childhood education (ECE) positively impacts social-emotional development, cognitive progress, and academic performance in adolescence. Access to affordable, high-quality ECE should become more widely available, especially in low-income areas with higher concentrations of families below the poverty line.
Reforming the juvenile justice system offers the most potential in lowering rates of juvenile delinquency. There are many ways to improve the current system, and states have begun to innovate and move toward specialized procedures. It is time to further refine this system for the betterment of both juveniles and society at large.