Incarcerating teens–a punishment that is meant to prevent crime–often tends to push youth away from schools and into even more crime. This revelation comes from a recently published study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which found a new connection between juvenile incarceration and troubles later in life. The study’s conclusions might not come as a surprise, but it helps explain an all-too-familiar pattern in which offenders return to prison shortly after their release. These findings also point to a larger question: is it time to abandon juvenile incarceration for other alternative methods such as counseling and restorative justice?

In the study, researchers examined the outcomes of more than 35,000 juvenile offenders in Chicago over a 10-year period. They found that incarceration lowered graduation rates by 13 percent and increased the chance of adult incarceration by 23 percent. The incarceration of these juveniles, especially those around the age of 16, significantly decreased the likelihood that they would return to school and graduate.

Researchers compared groups of juveniles who–for the same offense–received either an incarceration sentence or some alternative form of punishment. Doing so helped the researchers understand the direct effects of incarceration, particularly because the likelihood of such a punishment varies between judges. Joseph Doyle, who co-authored the study, further explained this point in a press release,

Some kids get a judge who will place them in juvenile detention, other ones get a judge who will be less likely to do so, and comparing the outcomes of the kids across the judges, we can actually say what the causal outcome is of placing the kids in juvenile detention.

Doyle believes that during periods of incarceration, teens meet others who are in trouble, which could lead them to form social groups that are not beneficial to already struggling juveniles. Doyle also says that, “there could be a stigma attached to it, maybe you think you’re particularly problematic, so that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.” This is known as labeling theory in the criminology world, where an offender’s actions are influenced by the way he is described and classified. Labeling theory argues that by incarcerating an individual, he begins to see himself as a criminal and will likely commit more crimes in the future.

Juvenile incarceration creates a vicious cycle where an incarcerated teen eventually becomes imprisoned as an adult, which can often lead to the loss of federal assistance benefits such as loans, food stamps, and welfare. As a result, they have a harder time finding a job, which further incentivizes crime as a source of income. With 75 percent of state prisoners and 69 percent of federal prisoners having not finished high school, education seems essential to preventing criminal offenses. Incarcerating teens takes them out of school and dramatically increases the likelihood that they will not return later on.

In light of this research, alternative measures to combating juvenile delinquency might be the wave of the future. Alternatives like restorative justice, which focuses on repairing harm caused by the offender instead of simply punishing him, have already proven to be effective in combating delinquency.

A restorative justice program often involves both the offender and the victim through counseling, victim-offender conferencing, restitution, and community service. In victim-offender conferencing, both parties are encouraged to discuss their issues in the hopes of finding a resolution and punishment. This is often a more attractive alternative to putting the punishment and resolution process in the hands of a judge, who might be inclined to incarcerate the offender. Restitution simply involves showing remorse and paying the victim back for what was taken.

For more information on restorative justice check out Law Street’s explainer.

In an effort to find an alternative to juvenile incarceration, Barron County, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Edward Brunner helped form what would become the Barron County Restorative Justice Program back in 2000. The program employed incarceration alternatives including victim-offender conferencing and teen court, both of which gave juvenile offenders the opportunity to make things right with their victims and the community.

By 2007, Barron County saw a dramatic decrease in juvenile offenses relative to the rest of the state. Barron County’s juvenile arrest rate was 34.2 percent lower in 2007 than it was in the year before the program’s inception, meanwhile the rest of the state only saw a 21.7 percent decrease in the same time span.

Other places, both inside and outside the United States, also experienced decreases in juvenile crime after implementing restorative justice programs. New Zealand saw drastic reductions in juvenile offenses and recidivism after instituting a similar system, and its satisfaction rates among the victims and offenders rose as high as 90 percent.

This recent study shows that juvenile incarceration may not be the best solution for deterring future crime. Kids who are introduced to the juvenile prison system tend to commit more crimes and carry their high recidivism rates into adulthood, and as a result, the vicious cycle of a “career criminal” begins to emerge. If the goal is to prevent crime and help juvenile offenders, perhaps it is now time for society to seek an alternative to incarceration.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Juvenile Incarceration Actually Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Earlier this week a 15-year-old girl and her 11-year-old sister were involved in a shooting at their rural Florida home. The older girl fatally shot her brother while he slept.

My first question when reading about this was, where are the parents? I bet you are wondering, too. Well the father is a truck driver who had to work from Sunday until Tuesday. That makes sense, so then where was the mother? She apparently went with her husband, leaving their 16-year-old son in charge of the household. I’m sorry, that doesn’t sound like good parenting to begin with. I would not let my children be supervised by my 16-year-old son, I would have a babysitter come or maybe only one parent should’ve gone. Perhaps the one with the job? I don’t see why the mom felt the need to leave her children. Not only did these parents decide to leave their son in charge of these girls, but also their three-year-old daughter. That’s a lot of responsibility for a teenager, and not the best idea on the parents’ part.

Reports claim that the boy locked his 15-year-old sister in her room and then fell asleep. The girl talked her 11-year-old sister into letting her out as he slept. Once freed from her room she headed into her parents’ bedroom where she knew they kept a gun; however, this young girl did not just walk through the door into the parents’ bedroom, oh no, she had to go to the outside of the house with a knife and remove the air conditioning unit that was installed in the bedroom window in order to get in, as they apparently had locked their bedroom door before they left.

The girl headed straight to the location where her parents kept their pistol, loaded it, and went into the room where her brother slept, pulling the trigger. The scary part is that the 15 year old knew what she was doing and told her 11-year-old sister to hide in a closet before she killed their brother.  After shooting her brother she buried her head in a pillow before returning to the living room to find her three-year-old sister trying to wake up her dead brother. Upon seeing this, the two older girls fled the house, leaving the three year old to fend for herself next to their dead brother. It was only after the 11 year old called a friend for a ride that police were able to find the girls.

The parents were notified and have admitted to locking up the 15 year old for up to 20 consecutive days in her bedroom for “misbehaving.” Through police reports and interviews it has also been discovered that the 15 year old had a single blanket and a bucket to use the bathroom when she was locked up.

Things make a bit more sense when you realize how neglectful and irresponsible the parents were. It’s hard to know what possibly happened to lead to being locked in the bedroom. Did the brother beat his sister before locking her in her bedroom? She could have just snapped and felt like she needed to protect herself and her siblings. Although I understand that, I feel like it was also premeditated. She knew where the gun was located, that it needed to be loaded, and to protect her little sister from seeing what was about to happen.

The 15- and 11-year-old girls are being held at a juvenile detention center while a prosecutor decides whether they should be tried as adults or not. The parents are also facing charges of child neglect and failing to supervise.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Young Florida Sisters Held in Fatal Shooting of Older Brother appeared first on Law Street.

Paterson, New Jersey erupted last month after a 12-year-old girl was shot and killed. People rallied for an end to the recent violence, demanding a safer city in the wake of Genesis Rincon’s death. The tragedy comes shortly after Jerry Speziale was appointed as the new police director. Advocating community policing, Speziale and Mayor Jose Torres think that dynamic approaches can help with the crime problem in Paterson. This may seem like a interesting new strategy for fighting local crime and violence, but successful community policing programs were successfully used in Paterson not that long ago.

One such community policing program, the Village Initiative, operated from 1998 to around 2010 and had some measurable benefits for local youth. What did the Village Initiative accomplish, can community policing prevent further deaths like Rincon’s, and what can other cities learn from Paterson?

Paterson has long been plagued by high crime rates. The year that the Village Initiative launched, its violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants was roughly 67 percent higher than the national average. The Village Initiative responded to the crime problem in Paterson by bringing the community to at-risk juvenile probationers, making them responsible for their court orders, and reducing their chances of committing a crime again.

In an interview, Dr. James Pruden said that it’s important “for [juveniles] to see the government functioning positively in their lives.” An emergency medical specialist at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson, Pruden was an active contributor to the Village Initiative who rode along with officers to visit at-risk probationers. Along with police, teachers, and other community leaders, he saw the program in action and witnessed its effects firsthand.

The Village Initiative

The Village Initiative offered important opportunities to minors such as vocational courses; from business training to cosmetology and automotive repair, the courses gave them opportunities to build marketable skills. In addition, there were components that set juveniles up for part-time jobs. These are no longer available, though. Around 2010, the Village Initiative lost much of its funding, likely related to the city’s other budget cuts during the midst of the national recession. Fortunately, the “ride along with a medical evaluation” that Pruden participated in continued after the funding stopped, along with a few other pieces of the program.

“They had this educational piece, they had the medical piece, they had the business piece, all designed to turn these kids in a different direction and to show them that the interest in them was not only because they were misbehaving,” said Pruden. The community was not simply responding to the negativity surrounding the juveniles’ lives, it was about instilling something positive in them. This should be the central tenant of all community policing initiatives.

“It’s not like I’m providing much of a medical service. What I would do was go to the house, find out what was going on, talk to them about their health issues… At the end of it, I would go back with the data the next day and talk to a case manager at the hospital. She would call them up and make sure they made their cardiology appointment, or she would cut through the red tape to facilitate their entry to the teen pregnancy program. And we would do this not only for patients that came to our hospital, we do this for people who go to free-standing clinics or to other hospitals.”

– Dr. James Pruden

The Results

St. Joseph’s Hospital sometimes treats rival gang members simultaneously, and the hospital could become a spot for continued dispute between them. As that conflict can be detrimental to the doctors and families there, Pruden was tasked with making the hospital a neutral zone. Through the social infrastructure of the Village Initiative, he reached out to community leaders to establish correspondence and set up meetings with gang members. After eight months of work,Pruden succeeded in negotiating with the gangs so that St. Joseph’s would be a safer space.

Anecdotes like that help illustrate the positive community relationships formed by the Village Initiative. But what do statistics tell us about its effects? Despite sharing some criticism about how data on the program was collected, Dr. Pruden said that the available information shows impressive results. Prior to the Village initiative, juveniles with first-time probation had a 37 percent recidivism rate; however, kids involved in the Village Initiative had recidivism rates of only 5 percent. But, he reminded me, “then the funding went away!”

As Pruden says, maybe the effects of the Village Initiative could be judged solely by the difference between a 37 percent and five percent recidivism rate. Maybe it could have only made changes in the lives of the specific juveniles who were involved in the program. But it could also be judged by the potential, immeasurable impact that ripples throughout the community, starting with those juveniles.

Lessons from the Village Initiative

From local advocates to national movements, community policing is in high demand now. For instance, more cops are patrolling neighborhoods on bicycles as a part of a community policing initiative in Lowell, Massachusetts. Nationally, the Obama Administration has ramped up the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office under the Department of Justice. A COPS report, Community Policing Defined, states that the approach “promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques.”

However, COPS is sometimes criticized for pushing policing in the opposite direction; reporter and author Radley Balko said that COPS supports many police chiefs who consider SWAT raids “to be a core part of a community policing strategy.” As police aggression only divides the police and the community, there is even more need to prescribe the Village Initiative. If Balko is correct and many have misconceptions, the country should find a model for community policing in the success of Paterson’s project.

Pruden’s work through the Village Initiative was not just a medical house call, but a social checkup. This should be how community policing looks, with community leaders working with one another. Police supervise medical evaluations, doctors help police at-risk youth, and the force of the community creates something positive together. Let’s prescribe the Village Initiative’s community policing in New Jersey to other cities in need.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [City of North Charleston via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Community Policing in New Jersey: A Model for Stopping Local Violence appeared first on Law Street.

A slew of recent crimes committed by minors has prompted debate over whether or not they should be tried as adults in court. Earlier this year in Wisconsin, two preteen girls brutally stabbed their classmate in the name of a mythical being known as Slenderman. Due to the severity and the premeditated nature of their heinous act, the girls have been charged as adults. In a case this month, three Albuquerque teenagers brutally attacked and killed homeless men. Two of the perpetrators, aged 15 and 16, will likely be charged as adults.

The process by which a minor’s case is transferred to adult criminal court is called a waiver, because the judge “waives” the typical protections provided by juvenile court. Many protections afforded to juveniles are the same as those offered to adults. As held by the Supreme Court, these protections include advance notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and the right to remain silent. Perhaps the most significant difference between juvenile and adult courts is that minors in court do not have the right to trial by a jury. This is in order to provide a more intimate and diagnostic experience for juveniles.

When Can Minors be Tried as Adults?

A multitude of factors can lead a minor to be tried in adult court. Most states do not have any age limit for charging minors as adults if they have committed a particularly serious crime such as murder. However, to be handed the death penalty, a juvenile must be 16 years old in 18 states, 17 in 5 states, and 18 in 15 states. According to fairsentencingofyouth.org, the cost to keep one minor in prison for life could educate 169 children for a year.

According to a report by the U.S. Department of Justice, it is estimated that as many as 250,000 youth annually are prosecuted as adults. The United States is the only country in which minors can receive life in prison. Currently, there are 2,570 minors serving life sentences without parole. Twenty-two juveniles, all aged 17, have received the death penalty in the United States since 1973. In Iraq, 46 minors received the death penalty between 1990 and 2009; however, Iraq’s numbers are a vast outlier, as only 17 juveniles in total were sentenced to death in every country besides the United States and Iraq.

Due to the rising crime rate among youths and the recent violent crimes committed by children, many states are working to lower the age at which juveniles can be tried as adults. Generally, there are five factors that can cause a minor to be charged as an adult. If the perpetrator has committed a serious crime, has a lengthy prior record, is an older teenager, did not improve with prior attempts at rehabilitation, or if future rehab attempts seem unrealistic, he or she may be tried as an adult.

If a judge or prosecutor in a juvenile case wishes to try the offender as an adult, the first step is to hold a waiver hearing. In this situation, the prosecutor must argue his or her case as to why the juvenile should be tried as an adult by providing probable cause that the minor committed the crime. Afterwards, the judge considers if the minor has a good chance to succeed at rehabilitation.

Occasionally, minors who are tried as adults receive greater sympathy from juries in adult criminal courts, which may seem favorable. However, a trial in adult court can lead to far more severe sentences, and even the death penalty or life in prison. Juveniles charged as adults can also end up in prisons as opposed to juvenile detention centers.

The Debate

Does doling out adult sentences to juveniles make a difference, though? Some studies claim that there is no evidence to date that doing so reduces criminal activity among minors.

Those in favor of trying minors as adults argue that a crime is a crime, and just because a child commits it does not impact the victim’s suffering. There is also the claim that sentencing minors to less-severe punishments for their actions will not deter them from future criminal activity. Not treating minors who commit serious crimes as responsible for their actions will, arguably, turn them into irresponsible adults as well.

Those against minors being tried in adult court believe that they lack the ability to fully comprehend the nature of their crimes. Yet while many argue that children cannot mentally plan and execute a crime and understand its consequences, the case of the Wisconsin teens disproves this thought. The two preteens spent substantial time plotting the murder and how to hide the evidence of their crime.

Of course, children are capable of committing very serious and violent offenses that can cause tremendous suffering,” she continued. “But children are also uniquely capable of growth and change, and a sentence that gives them no opportunity to show their capacity to change is a sentence that denies the differences between children and adults.

-Alison Parker, the U.S. director for the advocacy group Human Rights Watch

It is difficult to know how to properly punish underage criminals for their sometimes heinous crimes. At the moment, the trend leans in the direction of ensuring that they take responsibility for their actions by trying juveniles as adults.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Rawle C. Jackman via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Minor” Offenses? Trying Juveniles as Adults is on the Rise in the US appeared first on Law Street.

Joseph Hall’s life to date can be summed up in one word: tragedy. This January, at 13, Hall was  convicted in the 2011 murder of his father, Jeff Hall. This October, Hall received his sentence—approximately 10 years in a juvenile detention facility.

Joseph Hall was born into an abusive household with a neo-Nazi father and a mother who may have done drugs while her son was in utero. The Halls divorced when Joseph was very young, but the custody battle over him and his younger sister waged for years. Court filings during these proceedings indicate the extreme instability in the young boy’s life and a psychologist he saw as a boy determined that he had most likely been sexually abused. As a boy, he had some learning and developmental issues, such as ADD and PTSD. There were also instances in which he exhibited violent and inappropriate behavior towards other students. As a result, he was kicked out of a few different schools. Eventually he was homeschooled by his father, who had only completed 11^th grade himself.

Jeff Hall was a man with extremist beliefs. He was a part of the “National Socialist Movement,” or NSM, a neo-Nazi organization that has been labeled a hate group by institutions such as the Southern Poverty Law Center. They refer to themselves as a “white civil rights union.” They are active in the area in which the Halls lived: Riverside, CA. Riverside is located fairly close to the Mexican-American border, and is about 50% Hispanic. The city also had a very high unemployment rate—about 15%. Racism, desperation, and demographical changes create a fertile ground for a hate group like NSM. Jeff Hall used to take Joseph with him on “patrols” of the border when the boy was as young as 9. He taught his son how to operate a sophisticated gun with night-vision and a scope. He taught his son how to hate.

In addition to his position as a rising leader in the Riverside neo-Nazi movement, Jeff Hall was a neglectful and abusive father and husband. The house in which the family lived was full with empty beer cans, and according to police officers at the scene, multiple rooms smelled like urine. Joseph reported to the police that his father had recently broken a glass on his stepmother Krista, who he referred to as his mother. Evidence from Jeff’s phone shows that he was cheating on Krista and that the two had a rocky relationship probably headed for divorce. Joseph also claimed that his father had threatened to kill the family by setting a fire while they were all asleep.

The story about what exactly happened that night is shaky at best, but one thing is certain. After his father passed out on the couch, Joseph took the family’s loaded .357 and shot his father in the head. At times, Joseph has said that he just had the idea to scare his father the way his father scared Joseph and his siblings. He hoped maybe that would put an end to the abuse. He talked about seeing an episode of Law and Order: SVU in which a boy killed an abusive family member and was let off on the grounds of self-defense. At the same time, he didn’t seem to know exactly what he had done. He asked a police officer, Officer Foster, on the scene, “do people get more than one life?”; Officer Foster also stated, “he was sad about it. He wished he hadn’t done it.” During the trial, other possible stories also came out, such as the defense’s claim that Krista actually encouraged him to kill Jeff.

There’s no way to know exactly what happened that night. Quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. The conditions that put a 10-year-old boy in this position are significantly more important than the child’s motivations. The debate of nature vs. nurture is very important in this case. If Joseph Hall had been born into a more stable environment, would he still have the same kind of violent impulses? We can’t possibly know, we can just try to prevent this from ever happening again.

Joseph was found guilty in January of murder. This October, he was sentenced to juvenile hall for what will amount to the next ten years. (He was sentenced for longer, but you cannot remain in juvenile detention for more than 10 years.) He will be in the system with older, violent, children. He will have limited interaction with his family. Despite his defense team’s fight to place him in a group home or other institution that would be able to provide him with care and help that he needs, he will be in a juvenile institution for the next decade.

The prosecutor on this case, Riverside County Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Soccio, summarized this case best when he pointed out that it was less about blame and more about finding the right thing to do for Joseph. Soccio did believe that Joseph was dangerous and was guilty, but also recognized that how the next 10 years will determine whether Joseph can rise out of the tragedy into which he was born. After the conviction, he actually went over and apologized to the boy. He told him to be strong, but that, “you’re going to be in some places now that people are going to want you to be tough, and you’ve got to try to resist the worst part of being tough.”

There’s no winning this case. There’s no good side, no silver lining. There’s just a sad young boy who has been mistreated his entire life. The best that Joseph can hope for is that he is placed in a facility that is instructive, that provides structure his family claims he needs, and is filled with people who truly try to help him. But even if juvenile detention does work out for him, he will still leave as a young man who killed his father at 10. He will be a young man who was imprisoned his whole life, albeit it in different ways.  Again, Soccio put it better than I could hope to: “depending on where the courts puts him, he’s either going to be a predator or prey.”

There’s no winning this case, but maybe there’s hope for the future. Maybe this will spark a conversation about the awful juvenile judicial system in this country where a child must decide whether or not to be predator or prey. Maybe we’ll talk about gun control, and the ramifications of having a loaded gun in a house of angry, abused children. Maybe we’ll talk about the abuse inherent in exposing a child to a hate group. And maybe, just maybe, we’ll be able to prevent a tragedy like Joseph Hall from ever happening again.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brian Stansberry via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Sad Story of Joseph Hall appeared first on Law Street.