9.5: Juveniles in the Justice System

All crime is deviant but not all deviant behavior is criminal. Noted sociologist Howard Becker (1963) argues, “The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied, deviant behavior is behavior people so label” (p. 9). A Crime is a violation of the more repugnant rules and enacted by those currently holding social and political power. Offenders are subject to sanctions by state authority, social stigma, and loss of status (Siegel, 2008).

The ethical and political implications through policy development to detect and prevent crime also are pervasive in legislative enactments such as: Three Strikes you’re out, Mandatory/Minimum sentencing, Faith in Sentencing, or rehabilitative/reformative programs endorsed by Positivist designed to rejuvenate or reform an offender discouraging him/her from recidivism (Lilly, Cullen & Bell, 2007, Siegel, 2008). The conservative approach tends to favor longer sentencing while the liberal view centers on treatment and rehabilitation (Marion & Oliver, 2012:2006). There is similarities between the Military Industrial Complex and the Prison Industrial Complex and the attached link provides information critical to this discussion. https://pointsforponder.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/gilmore-nd2.pdf

The Supreme Court through a series of decision culminating in the Roper v. Simmons (S.Ct., 205 WL 464890) backed the Missouri’s Supreme Court ruling that the execution of a person less than 18 years old was a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Further a litany of court cases evolving since the 1960’s have provided safeguards provided an adult and the juvenile offender (Marion & Oliver, 2012:2006).

At the heart of this discussion are two differing theories of crime, first Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) self-control theory which is “for all intents and purposes, the individual-level cause of crime” (cited by Cauffman, Steinberg & Piquero, 2005, p.232). Those with low self-control lack diligence, tenacity, and persistence, find a lack of determination to forego gratification, resolve matters in more physical rather than verbal fashion, usually do not possess or value higher education nor have cognitive abilities requisite to skills or training and lack interest in preparation for long-term pursuits and are more self-indulgent (Cauffman, Steinberg & Piquero, 2005), Second, T.E. Moffitt, (1993), provides an interesting area of study specifically with two variances of delinquency, echoing the imitation aspect in the first distinction of behavior, adolescence-limited (AL) which is antisocial mimicking, gaining instruction through peers beginning with adolescence and terminating with adulthood. The second distinction of behavior is the life-course persistent (LCP) delinquency which deals with hereditary psychiatric disorders that have worsened with age. A third group emerged from this study, albeit small, yet significant is referred to as abstainers that refrain from antisocial behavior all together (Cauffman et al., 2005).

As asserted by Cauffman et al., (2005) “Gottfredson and Hirschi claim that a single factor, low self-control, when coupled with opportunity for antisocial activity, underlies antisocial behavior over the life course” (p. 142). They further draw a distinction between theories of Gottfredson and Hirschi, self-control and Moffitt’s AL and LCP theory claiming “that although self-control is an important individual-level characteristic which should be incorporated into models of criminal activity. It is not the only crime generating factor (especially among serious offenders). More specifically, biological and psychological/personality factors should also be directly and independently related to offending, above and beyond the impact of poor self-control” (p.139).

Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington & Milne, (2002) provides a longitudinal study relative to AL and LCP consisting of 1,037 children (52% males and 48% females) which suggests that LCP are few and persistent and AL is temporary and more common and near normative behavior. The LCP antisocial behavior began early on in life and the social environment and inherited or acquired neuropsychological severely manifests further behavioral problems. The transaction of poor family environment, poor relations with people in the form of peers and teachers emerge creating a deeper infinity for more aggressive behavior of which the inverse is purported for the AL delinquent.

The evolutionary path for understanding criminal behavior has often been misjudged, misguided or misplaced by political/partisan ideologies or through policies that have developed as a result of the era or its influences (Akers & Sellers, 2009, Akers, 1990, Lilly, Cullen & Bell, 2007, and Walsh, 2000). Society has provided numerous explanations of crime, cause and effect and to date there is no silver bullet or singular causation of criminal behavior that survives. Scholars will agree that crime does not have a specific cause in the brain nor is there a single explanation for criminal behavior (Rowe, 2002, Siegel, 2008, Fagin, 2007, Bartol & Bartol, 2008).

Regardless of society’s attempts to prevent juvenile crime through the use of a juvenile justice system developed for rehabilitation and treatment of an offender, juveniles sometimes commit very serious offenses. Their act demands prompt and even handed justice taking into account all available variables (Marion & Oliver, 2012: 2006). A justice system is in place to safeguard the rights of the juvenile offender and in order to transfer a case from the juvenile section to adult criminal courts generally requires a separate hearing to determine the merits. With this established there still resides the controversy of how much punishment and for how long. It has been suggested that with the newer technology perhaps the brain studies may become more useful in the criminal justice field and particularly in the juvenile sector (Dolan & Anderson, 2002).

At this juncture it is critical to think over the influences of policy on crime such as money, politics, ideology, social influences and media. The lack of funding for support of families with an incarcerated member or a domestic violence situation or the children involved. Take a moment and reflect on ethical issues that pertain. What questions may arise at this juncture?