Sexual Predator Prosecution in Utah
Sexual crimes are rampant in society and continue to pose an alarming threat. It is important for states to implement laws and statutes that support proper punishments for sex offense crimes and help to prevent the further threat of such offenses. The ways in which these crimes are interpreted and punished have much to do with the jurisdiction. Utah is known for implementing tough sex offense laws and criminal codes, continually changing sentencing and penalties as crimes become more evidently dangerous, and maintaining a position of no tolerance towards sexual predators.
Utah has a steadfast approach to punishing sexual predators and the behaviors associated with sex offenses. The Legislature of Utah seemingly recognizes that sexual offenses and the mere threat of these crimes can stifle the physiological, social and emotional well-being of victims. By executing strict codes that protect victims and uphold the highest possible punishment for sexual predators, Utah aims to make sexual offenses serious crimes with major consequences even after the sentencing is imposed. Utah participates in the sex offender registry program in which sex offenders can be located and the crimes they committed can be publicized. Habitual offenders receive harsh punishments in Utah while the criminal codes involving sex crimes are updated and changed to reflect the growing needs of keeping offenders away from society.
Predacious actions seem to be outlined in the codes of Utah and conduct considered to be predatory is punished with harsher sentences reflecting the habitual behavior of offenders. Most crimes involving illegal sexual conduct will impose a felony conviction and in some minor incidents, a misdemeanor. In Title 75, Chapter 5 under Sexual Abuse of a Minor, a class A misdemeanor will result from any sexual abuse against a child over the age of fourteen that does not amount to rape (Utah Criminal Code, 1998). If rape of a child does occur, the penalty is a first degree felony with a punishment of no less than 25 years, and if physical injury or harm results from the rape, life without the possibility of parole is an option (Utah Criminal Code, 2008). In Title 76, Chapter 5 under Object Rape, if a forcible rape occurs with an object against another person, a first degree felony will be the result with a minimum of five years and up to life imprisonment (Utah Criminal Code, 2008). Sodomy will result in a class B misdemeanor and will warrant a minimum of 5 years in prison (Utah Criminal Code, 2007). If a person is convicted of the serious crime of aggravated sexual assault, the penalty will be a first degree felony with a conceivable sentence of life without the possibility of parole (Utah Criminal Code, 2009). Any combination of misdemeanor or felony sexual offenses will result in much harsher punishments that may include life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (Utah Criminal Code, 2001). In 2007, The Legislature of Utah amended many of the already tough laws against sex offenses, particularly inspired by Jessica’s Law (Gordon, 2008). In accordance with House Bill 89 (2008) there is an expansion of the list of offenses which prohibit probation. This ensures that a variety of serious sex offenses are treated aggressively and keeps the offender incarcerated. Additionally, House Bill 89 (2008) includes increased penalties for sex offenses and life without the possibility of parole for serious repeat sex offenders who demonstrate predatory conduct.
Utah currently takes part in indeterminate sentencing in which the judge has discretion in sentencing a defendant to a range of time established by statutes (Utah Sentencing Commission, 2010). While indeterminate sentencing gives the judge more decision making power than mandatory sentencing would, the Board of Pardons and Parole has more discretion than the judge. This Board decides the length of time an offender stays in prison based primarily on the improvements made by defendant while incarcerated and the seriousness of the offense (Utah Sentencing Commission, 2010). Before the adaptation of this type of sentencing, Utah utilized mandatory sentencing for sex offenses against children back in 1983. However, mandatory sentencing was abolished in 1996 because it became apparent that it was ineffective for the goals of sentencing in Utah (Utah Sentencing Commission, 2006). As stated by the Utah Sentencing Commission, “considerable experience and research indicated mandatory minimums for sex offenses were failing Utah’s justice system, its citizens, and most importantly, the vulnerable victims these mandatory minimum sentences were designed to protect” (Utah Sentencing Commission, 2006, p. 3). A main concern was that the defendants had nothing to lose by going to trial and children were forced to re-live the horrific aspects of their alleged assault in court. After repealing mandatory sentencing and adopting indeterminate sentencing, research has shown that Utah is convicting more sex offenders of first degree felonies and first degree felony sex offense admissions are dramatically increasing (Utah Sentencing Commission, 2006). Furthermore, there are fewer trials for sex offenses as defendants seem to be entering pleas before trial due to the unforgiving method of sentencing that has now been acquired (Utah Sentencing Commission, 2006). This cuts costs associated with trying defendants, makes Utah safer with harsher punishments for sexual predators, and reduces the unnecessary strife of victims and their families.
While the Utah Criminal Code clearly has an abundance of codes aimed to punish sexual offenses that include physical contact, some codes also reflect a disdain against solicitation and attempt of illegal sexual contact. In Title 78, Chapter 5 of the Utah Criminal Code, it states that any person who displays sexually explicit conduct through acts or simulation of masturbation, bestiality, sadistic or masochistic activities, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic areas of any person will be punished (Utah Criminal Code, 2001). Moreover, Utah has clearly updated the criminal codes to reflect the times in which we live and match the progressive crimes that can occur with ageless sexual acts. In Title 76, Chapter 4 of the Utah Criminal Code, it is prohibited to attempt to lure, seduce, or entice a minor through text messages or the internet (Utah Criminal Code, 2001). Other sexual acts that may not involve physical contact are punished by the state of Utah through various criminal codes. Most of these codes involve crimes against minors. Within Title 76, Chapter 5 of the Utah criminal code, it states that any person guilty of sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly producing, distributing, possessing or possessing with intent to distribute, child pornography shall receive a felony of the second degree (Utah Criminal Code, 2001). By imposing penalties on crimes that solicit sexual acts, Utah shows that the state looks down upon any actions or behaviors that could cause harm to victims through means other than actual physical contact.
Sexual offenses are horrendous crimes against a person as well as society. Sexual predators continually pose a threat that must be corrected through strong sentencing practices and harsh punishments. Although Utah does impose misdemeanor penalties for some sex offenses, the majority of crimes that can be construed as sexual offenses will bring about a first degree felony and in some cases a possible life sentence. These criminal codes display harsh punishments that fit the crime. By continuing to amend the criminal codes to adhere with the ever-changing crimes that can and do occur, Utah has proven to aim for successful codification and just punishments for the unspeakable acts that are involved with sexually predacious behavior.
References
Gordon, R. (2008). Jessica's law: Utah's approach to sex offenders. Retrieved from http://www.sentencing.utah.gov/Policy/JessicasLawUpdate.
RAINN. (2009). Utah. Retrieved from http://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and-other-
documents/Public-Policy/Legal-resources/2009-Statutes/09UtahStatutes.pdf.
Utah Sentencing Commission. (2006). A statement regarding Utah's indeterminate sentencing system. Retrieved from http://www.sentencing.utah.gov/Policy/IndetermSentPosition.pdf.
Utah Sentencing Commission. (2010). Utah sentencing commission: frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.sentencing.utah.gov/FAQ.html#link3.
Utah Criminal Code Title 76, Chapter 5 Offenses Against the Person (2001).
Utah Criminal Code Title 76, Chapter 5, § 401.1 (1998).
Utah Criminal Code Title 76, Chapter 5, § 402.1 (2008).
Utah Criminal Code Title 76, Chapter 5, § 403 (2007).
Utah Criminal Code Title 76, Chapter 5, § 405 (2009).
Wimmer, C. (2008). Criminal penalties amendments-including Jessica's law. Retrieved from http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/hbillint/hb0256.htm
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Juvenile Delinquency and the Juvenile Mediation Program
Juvenile Delinquency and the Juvenile Mediation Program
Jeannette Villatoro
Crime Prevention BLH1032A
Jennifer Hacker
September 6, 2010
Juvenile Delinquency and the Juvenile Mediation Program
Crime is a matter that has plagued society since the beginning of documented time. Crime originates in vast proportions and alarmingly stems from childhood. Traumatic events and less than ideal life circumstances perpetuate severe damage in juveniles and provide explanation for delinquency. Crimes committed by juveniles pose a distressing threat to society as a whole. Preventing crime continues to be a staple intention within the field of law enforcement. By evaluating the effects that juvenile delinquency has on the community and closely connecting that community with the rehabilitation process of juveniles, programs such as the Juvenile Mediation Program can become a necessary force to eradicate juvenile delinquency and the causes of such a problematic dilemma.
History
Juvenile delinquency has been a serious problem in society throughout the ages. Particularly during the American Revolution, the justice system was stalwartly influenced by England (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). The code in which to punish criminals was unsteady at best without any formal reason governing how to deter and punish crime. Men, women, juveniles, and the insane were commonly thrust together in prisons and jails (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). This haphazard approach led to much disarray within the justice system. Transition proceeded to elicit hope within the broken justice system during the early 1800s when rural life was dissipating and delinquency was on the rise (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008).
Slow-churning change weaved in and out of the justice system in a manic fashion to try and solve the delinquency problem that was spreading among communities. It was quickly realized that life at home bore many consequences for juveniles, as psychological analysis and psychiatry began to advance more quickly. Social reform began to explode in the nineteenth century and this perpetuated many facilities for delinquent and troubled youths (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). This brought a new understanding about the sensitive needs of juveniles and the importance of rehabilitation. The first juvenile court in the United States was launched in Cook County, Illinois in 1899 (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). Cases were handled as non-criminal and programs were put into practice to aid in deterring juveniles from following a criminal path. This encouraged other states to follow suit and the juvenile justice system was flourishing a century later.
The juvenile justice system started to work out the kinks around the 1960s after the Supreme Court began to hear some cases and ruled in ways that would significantly shape juvenile justice. The first case heard by the Supreme Court was Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). This case involved the violation of rights of the defendant and subsequently influenced the activation of due process in juvenile court (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). From this point forward, it has been a dire focus to implement the proper rights to juvenile defendants to ensure justice. Through a glum view of the history of juvenile justice and the many failures that has led to pestilence, it is clear that innovative techniques must be implemented with powerful strategies to combat juvenile delinquency.
According to Mike Castle, the findings of the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention show that “police annually arrest approximately 2.2 million juveniles; 1.7 million cases are referred to juvenile courts; an estimated 400,000 young people cycle through juvenile detention centers; and about 100,000 youth are detained in juvenile jails, prisons, boot camps, and other residential facilities each night” (Castle, 2010, p.1). Additionally, according to Congress, juveniles accounted for 13% of all drug abuse violations in 1999 (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, 2002). These staggering facts show that the effects of juvenile delinquency are plentiful. Juveniles suffer from criminal behavior, as do their families, their victims and the victim’s families, as well as society and the justice system. Therefore, the betterment of the juvenile justice system is a concern for society as a whole, not excluding the individuals affected directly by a particular criminal act or juvenile delinquent.
It is difficult for a young juvenile offender to see the broader picture of their criminal behavior. Yet, society as a whole suffers greatly from the crimes of juveniles. The social and financial repercussions of juvenile crimes are immense. As stated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “allowing one youth to leave school for a life of crime and of drug abuse costs society $1,700,000 to $2,300,000 annually” (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, 2002, p.4). Because influence is a strong factor in the lives of juveniles, siblings of delinquents and other youths associated with a juvenile delinquent may be negatively persuaded to enact similar crimes. When the juvenile exuding criminal behavior becomes an adult, it is highly likely he or she will continue crime if not properly rehabilitated. This will cause more financial burden to society and will perpetuate more generations of juvenile delinquents stemming from the kin of that particular criminal (Taylor, et al., 2010). Therefore, it is quite momentous to develop prevention strategies while a juvenile delinquent is still young and the criminal activity is just beginning as to eradicate the unnecessary but inevitable corollaries that will be a result.
Juvenile Mediation Program
Juvenile justice is a sensitive area because of the nature of the offenders. Juveniles are not fully developed intellectually, socially, or physically and this poses a difficulty for the juvenile justice system. Typically, the United States has been known for utilizing punishment as the general instrument for justice for over forty years. However, studies have shown that punishment alone promotes failure in preventing juvenile crime and even shows a destructive pattern of backfiring (Taylor, et al., 2010). Consequently, it is indispensable to acknowledge the special circumstances that help attract juveniles to criminal tendencies. Preventing these patterns of destructive behavior is surely a difficult challenge.
One simple but effective milestone in defeating this seemingly stringent string of delinquent acts and behaviors is that of mediation. The utilization of mediation particularly among juvenile offenders has shown to be an effective tool for fighting recidivism (Champion, 2007). While some crime prevention programs strictly target preventing crime from all of society, the Juvenile Mediation Program is one of those rare programs that focus on specific deterrence. Each individual offender is the key component to the program and preventing further crime from occurring is the goal of an intervention of mediation. Providing a neutral process that allows individual parties to work out their differences provides much more than mere conflict resolution where juvenile delinquency is concerned. It provides a sense of responsibility, adequate conflict techniques, and it aids in showing juveniles that violence and crime are not the answers to dilemmas. All of these factors have been proven to be necessary tools to avoid juvenile delinquency.
The Juvenile Mediation Program was established in 1997 and continues to flourish in six separate counties and has become promising enough to guarantee an adoption from other jurisdictions in the United States (Champion, 2007). As stated by Champion, “the program staff includes a program director, program coordinator and two case managers” and the staff is made up of volunteers (Champion, 2007, p. 426). Status and nonviolent juvenile offenders are eligible to participate and there are no fees for the juveniles to belong to the mediation program (Champion, 2007). Victims of juvenile crime are encouraged to participate in the mediation process if it is desired and appropriate (Champion, 2007).
Mediation is an element of restorative justice that shows promise and gentle movement. Although it is not a legal process, the Juvenile Mediation Program is an alternative to regular court that allows the offenders to work out issues and decide on a proper course of action (Champion, 2007). Mediation helps to lessen the need for court appearances by juveniles which cuts costs tremendously. In addition, it has been shown that juveniles are both intimidated and discouraged by the formal court system and the presence of a judge, possibly compromising rehabilitation (Cohen & Piquero, 2009). The juvenile must admit guilt of the offense and waive his or her rights which constitute a waiver of legal proceedings and having witnesses or a lawyer present (Champion, 2007).
The objectives of the mediation are to provide counseling, resolution, and rehabilitation measures to the juvenile offender (Dixon, 2010). A dialogue begins about the offense and the consequences that have or will occur because of the infraction. The offender has the ability to participate in the process and this allows the juvenile to understand cause and effect and how to resolve issues without criminal mischief. A written contract is then negotiated for the families of the offender and the mediator monitors the juvenile’s progress of the conditions of the contract (Champion, 2007). Because of the nature of the offenses which can be anything from truancy, curfew violations, drug possession, shoplifting, and assault, the mediation program aims to pursue prevention methods that deal directly with the aspects of the offense (Champion, 2007). Elements such as counseling, substance abuse programs, restitution, community service, and behavior management may be significant aspects of the contract (Champion, 2007). Evaluations are reported on a regular basis to ensure implementation of the necessary requirements of the juvenile offender.
The Juvenile Mediation Program is unique because it relates to specific crime deterrence of each individual after an offense was committed. Moreover, the Juvenile Mediation Program readily associates with techniques utilized by law enforcement agencies to evaluate and prevent future crime. One of these tools is the crime triangle, in which the evolution of crime is easily explained. Three elements are highlighted such as desire, target, and opportunity (Hurtt, 2009). The idea is that if one of these elements is destroyed, the criminal act may cease to happen (Hurtt, 2009). The most effective strategy that mediation aims for is that of reducing desire. When a juvenile offender has a desire to commit an offense, there is usually a lack of understanding of consequences along with a myriad of other underlying issues in that juvenile’s life. Mediation does occur after a crime is committed, but because the likelihood of a juvenile reoffending is great, reducing desire helps to demolish the cycle of crime, thus preventing crime in a most vigorous way.
Analysis of Success
Since inception, mediation programs aimed at juvenile offenses have gathered recognition in the law enforcement community. Although mediation seems to be a mild form of crime prevention, it indeed serves the purpose quite well. In fact, it is purported that nearly 17% of all arrests in the United States in 2002 were juveniles (Koffman, et al., 2009). This alarming statistic generates a major concern as it shows that juvenile crime is a meaty proportion of all crime in the United States. Furthermore, statistics have shown that at least 35% of juveniles arrested for an offense continue criminal behavior in their adult lives (Koffman, et al., 2009). Programs such as mediation help to provide alternative means of crime prevention than formal legal proceedings. It allows the special nature of juvenile issues to be handled in a way that protects and supports the juvenile. Mediation provides incentives for juveniles to do better as the juvenile offender is more directly liable to the victims, families of the juvenile, and the community in which the offense was committed.
According to a study of mediators in the Juvenile Mediation Program, 70% claim they believe they have changed the lives of the juveniles and provided excellent resolutions to the issues that were mediated (Dixon, 2010). Furthermore, in 1997 findings showed that the Juvenile Mediation Program had a 93% successful mediation rate (Champion, 2007). One study assessed the number of court appearances and user satisfaction in comparison to a control group that consisted of traditional litigation (DiPentima, 2009). In these randomly assigned cases, the results showed that the average number of court appearances were lower for the experimental group of mediation cases (DiPentima, 2009). Additionally, the average time to complete the process was much lower for the mediation group with an average of eighteen days less (DiPentima, 2009). The results significantly showed less recidivism for the experimental group consisting of mediation cases rather than traditional litigation for juveniles (DiPentima, 2009). In addition to the staunch success of the program, financial relief is a major component to the Juvenile Mediation Program. Shockingly, it was discovered that $3,227,798 would be saved by instituting juvenile mediation services. Finally, one particular meta-analytic review of an experimental study involving a fusion of intervention and mediation programs showed a 75% diminution of delinquency among the juvenile participants (Piquero, et al., 2009). These statistics show an enormous growth in juvenile crime prevention through mediation.
Effectiveness and Societal Impact
The effectiveness of the Juvenile Mediation Program shines prominently through the statistical analysis of success. Yet the effectiveness reaches far beyond simple crime prevention and specific deterrence. The influence of caring authorities such as mediators and other staff of the Juvenile Mediation Program have a significant bearing on the juvenile’s perception of criminal behavior and future life goals. Mediation is a more personal and impactful experience than a traditional court hearing in which the juvenile may feel more like a number in an assembly line. A juvenile offender in the mediation process is treated with more respect, recognition, and trust that their behavior and actions can and will change. The juvenile offender has a realization that the offense and behaviors he or she adopted has ramifications beyond the scope of justice. Victim participation, family intervention, and probationary follow-up provide a connection of successful rehabilitation in a manner that the juvenile can readily understand and accept.
When a juvenile is recovered from criminal tendencies, a society will continue to flourish in immeasurable ways. Because it has been realized that juvenile delinquency is commonly replicated in communities just by peer initiative alone, the reduction of such behavior is a necessity for a safe community to abound (Castle, 2010). Furthermore, the onset of juvenile crime promises an even more disturbing onset of crime in society. By focusing on specific crime deterrence through one-on-one programs such as the Juvenile Mediation Program, society is taking a responsibility in our youth, the lives of civilians, and the future that we expect to inherit.
Future
Juvenile delinquency has been, and will continue to be a continuous threat to future generations. It is highly important to develop creative techniques to prevent juvenile delinquency. Juvenility is a sensitive time in the life of a person; a time in which comprehensive change is possible and a lack of positive change is detrimental. Predictably, new measures of handling juveniles and guaranteeing juvenile rights will be fine-tuned in the court systems over the next century. The Juvenile Mediation Program is the innovator of such measures and promises a future of better handling of juvenile cases. An expansion of the Juvenile Mediation Program is expected to occur in other counties, districts, and states throughout the United States (Champion, 2007). In order for this development to transpire, there needs to be advancements within the program to ensure success. More comprehensive studies will have to be implemented to continue to monitor and evaluate the success of juvenile mediation. It is predicted that the use of information technology to develop the program further may ensue based on study results and real case analysis (Champion, 2007). Once these advancements can be made, success may be more prominent and obvious when compared with the traditional methods of handling juvenile cases.
For juveniles today, the traditions and patterns that transition a child through adolescence and adulthood are obscured with many negative factors. Because of the nature of juveniles, the way juvenile offenders are handled has been recently recognized as the key component to crime prevention. Juvenile delinquency is a community and societal problem that continues to become an increasingly staggering threat. By connecting victims, families, communities, and offenders together to resolve issues, responsibility and understanding is required and therefore exercised. With careful handling of juvenile offenders, the Juvenile Mediation Program has provided an alternative to court sentencing in a manner that rehabilitates juveniles and the community while initiating recognition that is necessary to prevent crime in the future. The promising future of juvenile mediation is one to be expected, relied on, and fully supported.
References
Bartollas, C., & Millers, S. (2008). Juvenile justice in America (fifth edition). Upper
Saddle River, NY: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Castle, M. (2010). The Safety of our youth. Ripon Forum, 44(2), Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2049603271&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQ T=309&VName=PQD.
Champion, D. (2007). Crime prevention in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Cohen, M., & Piquero, A. (2009). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high
risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1651872701&SrchMode=1&sid=14&F mt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277770183&clien tId=74379.
DiPentima, N. (2009). Useful information about dispute resolution. Retrieved from http://bostonlawcollaborative.com/blc/resources/useful-information-about-dispute- resolution.html.
Dixon, B. (2010). Juvenile victim/offender mediation program. Retrieved from http://www.fccourts.org/drj/juvmed.html.
Hurtt, H. (2009). Crime triangle. Retrieved from http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/personal_safety-042108.pdf.
Koffman, S., Ray, A., Berg, S., Covington, L., & Albarran, N. (2009). Impact of a
comprehensive whole child intervention and prevention program among youths at risk of gang involvement and other forms of delinquency. Children and Schools, 31(4), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1864796221&sid=4&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQ T=309&VName=PQD.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2010). Statistical briefing book. Retrieved from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/default.asp.
Piquero, A., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W. (2009). Effects of
early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1893061531&SrchMode=1&sid=9&Fmt =6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277769306&clientI d=74379.
Taylor, B., Stein, N., & Burden, F. (2010). The Effects of gender violence/harassment
prevention programming in middle schools: a randomized experimental evaluation. Violence and Victims, 25(2), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2033974271&sid=3&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQ T=309&VName=PQD.
Jeannette Villatoro
Crime Prevention BLH1032A
Jennifer Hacker
September 6, 2010
Juvenile Delinquency and the Juvenile Mediation Program
Crime is a matter that has plagued society since the beginning of documented time. Crime originates in vast proportions and alarmingly stems from childhood. Traumatic events and less than ideal life circumstances perpetuate severe damage in juveniles and provide explanation for delinquency. Crimes committed by juveniles pose a distressing threat to society as a whole. Preventing crime continues to be a staple intention within the field of law enforcement. By evaluating the effects that juvenile delinquency has on the community and closely connecting that community with the rehabilitation process of juveniles, programs such as the Juvenile Mediation Program can become a necessary force to eradicate juvenile delinquency and the causes of such a problematic dilemma.
History
Juvenile delinquency has been a serious problem in society throughout the ages. Particularly during the American Revolution, the justice system was stalwartly influenced by England (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). The code in which to punish criminals was unsteady at best without any formal reason governing how to deter and punish crime. Men, women, juveniles, and the insane were commonly thrust together in prisons and jails (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). This haphazard approach led to much disarray within the justice system. Transition proceeded to elicit hope within the broken justice system during the early 1800s when rural life was dissipating and delinquency was on the rise (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008).
Slow-churning change weaved in and out of the justice system in a manic fashion to try and solve the delinquency problem that was spreading among communities. It was quickly realized that life at home bore many consequences for juveniles, as psychological analysis and psychiatry began to advance more quickly. Social reform began to explode in the nineteenth century and this perpetuated many facilities for delinquent and troubled youths (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). This brought a new understanding about the sensitive needs of juveniles and the importance of rehabilitation. The first juvenile court in the United States was launched in Cook County, Illinois in 1899 (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). Cases were handled as non-criminal and programs were put into practice to aid in deterring juveniles from following a criminal path. This encouraged other states to follow suit and the juvenile justice system was flourishing a century later.
The juvenile justice system started to work out the kinks around the 1960s after the Supreme Court began to hear some cases and ruled in ways that would significantly shape juvenile justice. The first case heard by the Supreme Court was Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). This case involved the violation of rights of the defendant and subsequently influenced the activation of due process in juvenile court (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). From this point forward, it has been a dire focus to implement the proper rights to juvenile defendants to ensure justice. Through a glum view of the history of juvenile justice and the many failures that has led to pestilence, it is clear that innovative techniques must be implemented with powerful strategies to combat juvenile delinquency.
According to Mike Castle, the findings of the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention show that “police annually arrest approximately 2.2 million juveniles; 1.7 million cases are referred to juvenile courts; an estimated 400,000 young people cycle through juvenile detention centers; and about 100,000 youth are detained in juvenile jails, prisons, boot camps, and other residential facilities each night” (Castle, 2010, p.1). Additionally, according to Congress, juveniles accounted for 13% of all drug abuse violations in 1999 (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, 2002). These staggering facts show that the effects of juvenile delinquency are plentiful. Juveniles suffer from criminal behavior, as do their families, their victims and the victim’s families, as well as society and the justice system. Therefore, the betterment of the juvenile justice system is a concern for society as a whole, not excluding the individuals affected directly by a particular criminal act or juvenile delinquent.
It is difficult for a young juvenile offender to see the broader picture of their criminal behavior. Yet, society as a whole suffers greatly from the crimes of juveniles. The social and financial repercussions of juvenile crimes are immense. As stated by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “allowing one youth to leave school for a life of crime and of drug abuse costs society $1,700,000 to $2,300,000 annually” (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, 2002, p.4). Because influence is a strong factor in the lives of juveniles, siblings of delinquents and other youths associated with a juvenile delinquent may be negatively persuaded to enact similar crimes. When the juvenile exuding criminal behavior becomes an adult, it is highly likely he or she will continue crime if not properly rehabilitated. This will cause more financial burden to society and will perpetuate more generations of juvenile delinquents stemming from the kin of that particular criminal (Taylor, et al., 2010). Therefore, it is quite momentous to develop prevention strategies while a juvenile delinquent is still young and the criminal activity is just beginning as to eradicate the unnecessary but inevitable corollaries that will be a result.
Juvenile Mediation Program
Juvenile justice is a sensitive area because of the nature of the offenders. Juveniles are not fully developed intellectually, socially, or physically and this poses a difficulty for the juvenile justice system. Typically, the United States has been known for utilizing punishment as the general instrument for justice for over forty years. However, studies have shown that punishment alone promotes failure in preventing juvenile crime and even shows a destructive pattern of backfiring (Taylor, et al., 2010). Consequently, it is indispensable to acknowledge the special circumstances that help attract juveniles to criminal tendencies. Preventing these patterns of destructive behavior is surely a difficult challenge.
One simple but effective milestone in defeating this seemingly stringent string of delinquent acts and behaviors is that of mediation. The utilization of mediation particularly among juvenile offenders has shown to be an effective tool for fighting recidivism (Champion, 2007). While some crime prevention programs strictly target preventing crime from all of society, the Juvenile Mediation Program is one of those rare programs that focus on specific deterrence. Each individual offender is the key component to the program and preventing further crime from occurring is the goal of an intervention of mediation. Providing a neutral process that allows individual parties to work out their differences provides much more than mere conflict resolution where juvenile delinquency is concerned. It provides a sense of responsibility, adequate conflict techniques, and it aids in showing juveniles that violence and crime are not the answers to dilemmas. All of these factors have been proven to be necessary tools to avoid juvenile delinquency.
The Juvenile Mediation Program was established in 1997 and continues to flourish in six separate counties and has become promising enough to guarantee an adoption from other jurisdictions in the United States (Champion, 2007). As stated by Champion, “the program staff includes a program director, program coordinator and two case managers” and the staff is made up of volunteers (Champion, 2007, p. 426). Status and nonviolent juvenile offenders are eligible to participate and there are no fees for the juveniles to belong to the mediation program (Champion, 2007). Victims of juvenile crime are encouraged to participate in the mediation process if it is desired and appropriate (Champion, 2007).
Mediation is an element of restorative justice that shows promise and gentle movement. Although it is not a legal process, the Juvenile Mediation Program is an alternative to regular court that allows the offenders to work out issues and decide on a proper course of action (Champion, 2007). Mediation helps to lessen the need for court appearances by juveniles which cuts costs tremendously. In addition, it has been shown that juveniles are both intimidated and discouraged by the formal court system and the presence of a judge, possibly compromising rehabilitation (Cohen & Piquero, 2009). The juvenile must admit guilt of the offense and waive his or her rights which constitute a waiver of legal proceedings and having witnesses or a lawyer present (Champion, 2007).
The objectives of the mediation are to provide counseling, resolution, and rehabilitation measures to the juvenile offender (Dixon, 2010). A dialogue begins about the offense and the consequences that have or will occur because of the infraction. The offender has the ability to participate in the process and this allows the juvenile to understand cause and effect and how to resolve issues without criminal mischief. A written contract is then negotiated for the families of the offender and the mediator monitors the juvenile’s progress of the conditions of the contract (Champion, 2007). Because of the nature of the offenses which can be anything from truancy, curfew violations, drug possession, shoplifting, and assault, the mediation program aims to pursue prevention methods that deal directly with the aspects of the offense (Champion, 2007). Elements such as counseling, substance abuse programs, restitution, community service, and behavior management may be significant aspects of the contract (Champion, 2007). Evaluations are reported on a regular basis to ensure implementation of the necessary requirements of the juvenile offender.
The Juvenile Mediation Program is unique because it relates to specific crime deterrence of each individual after an offense was committed. Moreover, the Juvenile Mediation Program readily associates with techniques utilized by law enforcement agencies to evaluate and prevent future crime. One of these tools is the crime triangle, in which the evolution of crime is easily explained. Three elements are highlighted such as desire, target, and opportunity (Hurtt, 2009). The idea is that if one of these elements is destroyed, the criminal act may cease to happen (Hurtt, 2009). The most effective strategy that mediation aims for is that of reducing desire. When a juvenile offender has a desire to commit an offense, there is usually a lack of understanding of consequences along with a myriad of other underlying issues in that juvenile’s life. Mediation does occur after a crime is committed, but because the likelihood of a juvenile reoffending is great, reducing desire helps to demolish the cycle of crime, thus preventing crime in a most vigorous way.
Analysis of Success
Since inception, mediation programs aimed at juvenile offenses have gathered recognition in the law enforcement community. Although mediation seems to be a mild form of crime prevention, it indeed serves the purpose quite well. In fact, it is purported that nearly 17% of all arrests in the United States in 2002 were juveniles (Koffman, et al., 2009). This alarming statistic generates a major concern as it shows that juvenile crime is a meaty proportion of all crime in the United States. Furthermore, statistics have shown that at least 35% of juveniles arrested for an offense continue criminal behavior in their adult lives (Koffman, et al., 2009). Programs such as mediation help to provide alternative means of crime prevention than formal legal proceedings. It allows the special nature of juvenile issues to be handled in a way that protects and supports the juvenile. Mediation provides incentives for juveniles to do better as the juvenile offender is more directly liable to the victims, families of the juvenile, and the community in which the offense was committed.
According to a study of mediators in the Juvenile Mediation Program, 70% claim they believe they have changed the lives of the juveniles and provided excellent resolutions to the issues that were mediated (Dixon, 2010). Furthermore, in 1997 findings showed that the Juvenile Mediation Program had a 93% successful mediation rate (Champion, 2007). One study assessed the number of court appearances and user satisfaction in comparison to a control group that consisted of traditional litigation (DiPentima, 2009). In these randomly assigned cases, the results showed that the average number of court appearances were lower for the experimental group of mediation cases (DiPentima, 2009). Additionally, the average time to complete the process was much lower for the mediation group with an average of eighteen days less (DiPentima, 2009). The results significantly showed less recidivism for the experimental group consisting of mediation cases rather than traditional litigation for juveniles (DiPentima, 2009). In addition to the staunch success of the program, financial relief is a major component to the Juvenile Mediation Program. Shockingly, it was discovered that $3,227,798 would be saved by instituting juvenile mediation services. Finally, one particular meta-analytic review of an experimental study involving a fusion of intervention and mediation programs showed a 75% diminution of delinquency among the juvenile participants (Piquero, et al., 2009). These statistics show an enormous growth in juvenile crime prevention through mediation.
Effectiveness and Societal Impact
The effectiveness of the Juvenile Mediation Program shines prominently through the statistical analysis of success. Yet the effectiveness reaches far beyond simple crime prevention and specific deterrence. The influence of caring authorities such as mediators and other staff of the Juvenile Mediation Program have a significant bearing on the juvenile’s perception of criminal behavior and future life goals. Mediation is a more personal and impactful experience than a traditional court hearing in which the juvenile may feel more like a number in an assembly line. A juvenile offender in the mediation process is treated with more respect, recognition, and trust that their behavior and actions can and will change. The juvenile offender has a realization that the offense and behaviors he or she adopted has ramifications beyond the scope of justice. Victim participation, family intervention, and probationary follow-up provide a connection of successful rehabilitation in a manner that the juvenile can readily understand and accept.
When a juvenile is recovered from criminal tendencies, a society will continue to flourish in immeasurable ways. Because it has been realized that juvenile delinquency is commonly replicated in communities just by peer initiative alone, the reduction of such behavior is a necessity for a safe community to abound (Castle, 2010). Furthermore, the onset of juvenile crime promises an even more disturbing onset of crime in society. By focusing on specific crime deterrence through one-on-one programs such as the Juvenile Mediation Program, society is taking a responsibility in our youth, the lives of civilians, and the future that we expect to inherit.
Future
Juvenile delinquency has been, and will continue to be a continuous threat to future generations. It is highly important to develop creative techniques to prevent juvenile delinquency. Juvenility is a sensitive time in the life of a person; a time in which comprehensive change is possible and a lack of positive change is detrimental. Predictably, new measures of handling juveniles and guaranteeing juvenile rights will be fine-tuned in the court systems over the next century. The Juvenile Mediation Program is the innovator of such measures and promises a future of better handling of juvenile cases. An expansion of the Juvenile Mediation Program is expected to occur in other counties, districts, and states throughout the United States (Champion, 2007). In order for this development to transpire, there needs to be advancements within the program to ensure success. More comprehensive studies will have to be implemented to continue to monitor and evaluate the success of juvenile mediation. It is predicted that the use of information technology to develop the program further may ensue based on study results and real case analysis (Champion, 2007). Once these advancements can be made, success may be more prominent and obvious when compared with the traditional methods of handling juvenile cases.
For juveniles today, the traditions and patterns that transition a child through adolescence and adulthood are obscured with many negative factors. Because of the nature of juveniles, the way juvenile offenders are handled has been recently recognized as the key component to crime prevention. Juvenile delinquency is a community and societal problem that continues to become an increasingly staggering threat. By connecting victims, families, communities, and offenders together to resolve issues, responsibility and understanding is required and therefore exercised. With careful handling of juvenile offenders, the Juvenile Mediation Program has provided an alternative to court sentencing in a manner that rehabilitates juveniles and the community while initiating recognition that is necessary to prevent crime in the future. The promising future of juvenile mediation is one to be expected, relied on, and fully supported.
References
Bartollas, C., & Millers, S. (2008). Juvenile justice in America (fifth edition). Upper
Saddle River, NY: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Castle, M. (2010). The Safety of our youth. Ripon Forum, 44(2), Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2049603271&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQ T=309&VName=PQD.
Champion, D. (2007). Crime prevention in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Cohen, M., & Piquero, A. (2009). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high
risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1651872701&SrchMode=1&sid=14&F mt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277770183&clien tId=74379.
DiPentima, N. (2009). Useful information about dispute resolution. Retrieved from http://bostonlawcollaborative.com/blc/resources/useful-information-about-dispute- resolution.html.
Dixon, B. (2010). Juvenile victim/offender mediation program. Retrieved from http://www.fccourts.org/drj/juvmed.html.
Hurtt, H. (2009). Crime triangle. Retrieved from http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/personal_safety-042108.pdf.
Koffman, S., Ray, A., Berg, S., Covington, L., & Albarran, N. (2009). Impact of a
comprehensive whole child intervention and prevention program among youths at risk of gang involvement and other forms of delinquency. Children and Schools, 31(4), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1864796221&sid=4&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQ T=309&VName=PQD.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2010). Statistical briefing book. Retrieved from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/default.asp.
Piquero, A., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W. (2009). Effects of
early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1893061531&SrchMode=1&sid=9&Fmt =6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277769306&clientI d=74379.
Taylor, B., Stein, N., & Burden, F. (2010). The Effects of gender violence/harassment
prevention programming in middle schools: a randomized experimental evaluation. Violence and Victims, 25(2), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2033974271&sid=3&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQ T=309&VName=PQD.
Technology and Law Enforcement by Jeannette Villatoro ©
Technology and Law Enforcement
The development of technology in society has increased dramatically over the last decade. Law Enforcement has progressively taken advantage of the growing industry to better prevent crime. With the implementation of advanced systems, DNA technology, and crime mapping programs, police officers are able to respond to crime more efficiently, proving that the speedy progression of technology within law enforcement enables more productive crime preventing measures.
Technology has pushed police work to new limits. Encroachment in the area of technology is steady and consistently changing for the better. Advanced technology in law enforcement has provided more flexible means of communication and crime prevention in an otherwise stringent field. Technology does more than provide better methods of effective policing; technology keeps law enforcement moving forward with the current times. In fact, law enforcement agencies must consider it a mandate to keep up with technology because the world in which they protect and serve has reached incredible heights in technology that require law enforcement to keep up with the pace (Champion, 2007).
An important advancement in technology is within the systems utilized in several law enforcement agencies. Better technology and revamped systems and programs have enabled officers to communicate more readily with dispatchers and other agencies regarding a particular crime (Reichert, 2001). There has also been great improvement with the system interface that officers utilize. Brighter, more organized screens within patrol units allow for a better visual experience with more pertinent information available in order to contrivance better response times and more effective execution of problem solving strategies (Reichert, 2001).
DNA technology has become increasingly important for law enforcement. Databases of DNA evidence have been expanded and renovated to allow for more inclusive models of application. DNA evidence can be retrieved from databases in order to match potential criminals to similar crimes (Johns, 2000). Because of technological advancements since its inception and growth nearly twenty five years ago, biological matter can be contrived from smaller samples and have a wider ability to produce results (Johns, 2000). Furthermore, DNA can be used in profiling to not only prove guilt but exonerate innocent persons who were convicted of crimes in a time period in which technology was less sophisticated (Johns, 2000).
Technology has also allowed innovative programs related to crime prevention to flourish. Computer crime mapping has provided extensive capabilities to law enforcement agencies and their ability to understand demographics, propensity for crime in certain areas, and ways to measure these crimes while developing a comprehensive strategy for specific crime prevention in specified areas. As stated by Reichert, “advancements in computer technology and Geographic Information Systems have coincided with theoretical and practical innovations in crime analysis, investigation, and crime prevention” (Reichert, 2001, p.2). Crime mapping allows police officers and communities to connect and share concerns for safety, thus opening communication and affording officers the ability to improve public relations. Crime mapping has in essence allowed abstract data contrived by experience in the law enforcement field to be coupled with proper technological systems so that all-encompassing results can be gained to elicit proper action.
With the advancement of technology within law enforcement steadily growing, many concerns have surfaced regarding the hindering probabilities of such technology. Future technology entices the inquisitive mind with promises of biometrics, brain-wave sensors, innovative weapon development, density scanners, and even augmented reality (Reed, 2005). Nothing seems implausible in regards to technology and this notion can be dangerous to law enforcement if technology becomes so advanced that we are more equipped with pioneering crime fighting tools rather than practical crime preventing measures. However, with the advancement of technology in society, it is a necessity for law enforcement to be up to par if not ahead of the game. Similarly, technology has proven to be an effective tool rather than a hindering burden in law enforcement and will seemingly continue to produce better ways of protecting, serving, and enhancing the wellbeing of citizens.
Technology has not only provided extensive abilities for law enforcement agencies, but innumerous possibilities as well. With the advancement of computer systems and databases utilized by law enforcement, police officers are enabled to be more efficient in all areas of crime prevention including public relations. Furthermore, advancements in how law enforcement obtains, stores, and uses DNA evidence have changed the face of the criminal justice system. Although technology must be used as a tool rather than a driving force that replaces humanity, it is nevertheless provided a positive enhancement to law enforcement throughout the years.
References
Champion, D. (2007). Crime prevention in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Johns, C. (2000). Advances in DNA technology. Retrieved from http://www.cjjohns.com/lawpowerandjustice/commentaries/Advance_DNA.html.
Reed, B. (2005). Future technology in law enforcement. Retrieved from http://www.californiapolicechiefs.org/nav_files/technology/pdf/Future_Technology_Law_ EnforcementRedding _PD.pdf.
Reichert, K. (2001). Promising approaches to addressing crime. Retrieved from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/programs/fjc/paper_dec01.pdf.
The development of technology in society has increased dramatically over the last decade. Law Enforcement has progressively taken advantage of the growing industry to better prevent crime. With the implementation of advanced systems, DNA technology, and crime mapping programs, police officers are able to respond to crime more efficiently, proving that the speedy progression of technology within law enforcement enables more productive crime preventing measures.
Technology has pushed police work to new limits. Encroachment in the area of technology is steady and consistently changing for the better. Advanced technology in law enforcement has provided more flexible means of communication and crime prevention in an otherwise stringent field. Technology does more than provide better methods of effective policing; technology keeps law enforcement moving forward with the current times. In fact, law enforcement agencies must consider it a mandate to keep up with technology because the world in which they protect and serve has reached incredible heights in technology that require law enforcement to keep up with the pace (Champion, 2007).
An important advancement in technology is within the systems utilized in several law enforcement agencies. Better technology and revamped systems and programs have enabled officers to communicate more readily with dispatchers and other agencies regarding a particular crime (Reichert, 2001). There has also been great improvement with the system interface that officers utilize. Brighter, more organized screens within patrol units allow for a better visual experience with more pertinent information available in order to contrivance better response times and more effective execution of problem solving strategies (Reichert, 2001).
DNA technology has become increasingly important for law enforcement. Databases of DNA evidence have been expanded and renovated to allow for more inclusive models of application. DNA evidence can be retrieved from databases in order to match potential criminals to similar crimes (Johns, 2000). Because of technological advancements since its inception and growth nearly twenty five years ago, biological matter can be contrived from smaller samples and have a wider ability to produce results (Johns, 2000). Furthermore, DNA can be used in profiling to not only prove guilt but exonerate innocent persons who were convicted of crimes in a time period in which technology was less sophisticated (Johns, 2000).
Technology has also allowed innovative programs related to crime prevention to flourish. Computer crime mapping has provided extensive capabilities to law enforcement agencies and their ability to understand demographics, propensity for crime in certain areas, and ways to measure these crimes while developing a comprehensive strategy for specific crime prevention in specified areas. As stated by Reichert, “advancements in computer technology and Geographic Information Systems have coincided with theoretical and practical innovations in crime analysis, investigation, and crime prevention” (Reichert, 2001, p.2). Crime mapping allows police officers and communities to connect and share concerns for safety, thus opening communication and affording officers the ability to improve public relations. Crime mapping has in essence allowed abstract data contrived by experience in the law enforcement field to be coupled with proper technological systems so that all-encompassing results can be gained to elicit proper action.
With the advancement of technology within law enforcement steadily growing, many concerns have surfaced regarding the hindering probabilities of such technology. Future technology entices the inquisitive mind with promises of biometrics, brain-wave sensors, innovative weapon development, density scanners, and even augmented reality (Reed, 2005). Nothing seems implausible in regards to technology and this notion can be dangerous to law enforcement if technology becomes so advanced that we are more equipped with pioneering crime fighting tools rather than practical crime preventing measures. However, with the advancement of technology in society, it is a necessity for law enforcement to be up to par if not ahead of the game. Similarly, technology has proven to be an effective tool rather than a hindering burden in law enforcement and will seemingly continue to produce better ways of protecting, serving, and enhancing the wellbeing of citizens.
Technology has not only provided extensive abilities for law enforcement agencies, but innumerous possibilities as well. With the advancement of computer systems and databases utilized by law enforcement, police officers are enabled to be more efficient in all areas of crime prevention including public relations. Furthermore, advancements in how law enforcement obtains, stores, and uses DNA evidence have changed the face of the criminal justice system. Although technology must be used as a tool rather than a driving force that replaces humanity, it is nevertheless provided a positive enhancement to law enforcement throughout the years.
References
Champion, D. (2007). Crime prevention in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Johns, C. (2000). Advances in DNA technology. Retrieved from http://www.cjjohns.com/lawpowerandjustice/commentaries/Advance_DNA.html.
Reed, B. (2005). Future technology in law enforcement. Retrieved from http://www.californiapolicechiefs.org/nav_files/technology/pdf/Future_Technology_Law_ EnforcementRedding _PD.pdf.
Reichert, K. (2001). Promising approaches to addressing crime. Retrieved from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/programs/fjc/paper_dec01.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
