Juvenille Justice

Written by QuiQue on March 17, 2009

Theory:

“If we could take every kid and surround the kid with full-time staffs of psychologists and child advocates and drug and alcohol counselors, then perhaps no kid should be in adult court. But the fact is, there are only a limited number of resources in the juvenile justice system, and they can only perform a limited number of functions. To optimize those services for the kids that can benefit the greatest amount from them, you have to make the hard call, sometimes, as to whether or not the high-end offenders--and again, we are only talking about the one or two percent of kids who ever come into the system--whether those kids really are the just recipients of the resources that the juvenile justice system has available to it. . .”

Kurt Kumli

The supervising deputy district attorney for the Juvenile Division of the Santa Clara County's District Attorney's office, he's practiced exclusively in juvenile court for the past six years. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/adulttime.htm)

The conflict theory best captivates the essence of the particular study on juvenile justice because it reflects the struggle of all delinquent youth to be rehabilitated and the recent trend of prosecuting more kids as adults (punishment/deterrence).  Since there are limited resources (i.e. community based programs, counseling services, etc.) the ability to rehabilitate every delinquent becomes extremely difficult.  A diversity of factors may explain this shift of rehabilitation to punishment as a solution.  Primarily, the conflict theory proposed by Karl Marx best describes the limited access and lack of resources necessary to successfully rehabilitate all delinquent youth.  The youth in a sense are powerless because they do not have the sophistication or the formal operational thinking to make critical choices becoming more vulnerable to exploitation in criminal courts.  For example, if a child is judicially waived to be tried as an adult, a child must now consult with his/her attorney about what to admit depending on the degree of legal punishment.  Essentially, it is easy for those in power to punish and exploit the youth, simply ‘giving up’ on guiding them to be productive members of any social class. 

Two important terms come to mind when discussing the macro level theory of conflict.  They are the following:

-       Social conflict: struggle between segments of society over valued resources.

-       Social conflict paradigm: a framework for building theory that sees society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and change. (Macionis, 1999)

Over the past 20 years, the juvenile justice system has become more efficient and economical.  There is not enough services, programs, staff to counsel a ‘delinquent youth becoming a decisive factor to “transferring” or “waving “ a juvenile to the criminal courts.  Since the juvenile justice system simply does not have the capacity to accommodate all youth offenders it’s created an outlet for youth to be legally validated as an adult and punished accordingly, which may increase criminal recidivism.  Conflict theory is appropriate to study judicial transfers and the increase of punishing youth.  It examines the inequalities between social classes (racial disparities) and how they are dealt with based on socioeconomic status and other factors like education, sex, & race.  In any case, the juvenile justice system is a formal bureaucracy that has benchmarks and rules that are meant to protect society but at what cost. 

In order for the justice system to prosper it purposefully exploits the troubled youth, giving a sentence of punishment that ‘fits’ the crime.  When a youth breaks the law he/she comes to a cross road that can lead one into two different directions, one leading to rehabilitation and the other leading to punishment.  It is easier to process a youth from a delinquent youth to ‘unfit’ because a judge, bench officer, prosecutor understand the limited availability of resources to juvenile offenders, hence, influencing their decision and perhaps the future or salvage ability of a troubled juvenile. 

            The limited availability of rewards also must be rationed, in consequence affecting the substantive rational or decision-making process for the responsible adults on the case.  “Conflict theorists did not claim to present any general theory of society but emphasized coercion rather than consensus as the cause of social order” ().    To illustrate, it is easier to restrain a child from society and exercise the power of retribution than it is provide a comprehensive counsel (reward) for the child.  According to Steven Spitzer (1980), he argues that deviant labels are applied to people who interfere with the operation of capitalism, for instance, when the poor steal from the rich it is deviant, however, when the rich exploit the poor they are unlikely considered as deviant, rather as simply “doing business” (Macionis, 1999) In other words, more kids are in adult court because it is efficient and encourages a criminal recidivism. Specifically, the elite help keep children in the penal system when they design ways to streamline the judicial process for youth offenders.  Furthermore, it promotes the “get tough” attitude when children are tried as adults.

“Conflict theory is based upon the view that the fundamental causes of crime are the social and economic forces operating within society. The criminal justice system and criminal law are thought to be operating on behalf of rich and powerful social elites, with resulting policies aimed at controlling the poor. The criminal justice establishment aims at imposing standards of morality and good behavior created by the powerful on the whole of society. Focus is on separating the powerful from the “have-nots” who would steal from others and protecting themselves from physical attacks. In the process the legal rights of the poor might be ignored. The middle class are also co-opted; they side with the elites rather the poor, thinking they might themselves rise to the top by supporting the status quo”.  The delinquent youth must be responsible for their actions and be taught a lesson, however, to just (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/conflict.htm)

Other examples of inequalities exist in “street crimes, even minor monetary ones are routinely punished quite severely, while large scale financial and business crimes are treated much more leniently. Theft of a television might receive a longer sentence than stealing millions through illegal business practices. William Chambliss, in a classic essay “The Saints and the Roughnecks,” compared the outcomes for two groups of adolescent misbehavers. The first, a lower class group of boys, was hounded by the local police and labeled by teachers as delinquents and future criminals, while the upper-middle class boys were equally deviant, but their actions were written off as youthful indiscretions and learning experiences.” ()  This pattern reflects the historical tendency to view poor people as less worthy than those whose wealth and power confer “respectability” (p.222 Macionis, 1999)