Preventing Academic Failures in School Systems Today
Jeannette Villatoro
Learning and the Brain BOJ1047A
Cindy Hopper
December 20, 2010
Preventing Academic Failures in School Systems Today
Education is one of the most important aspects of a healthy, productive life. A valuable education promotes personal growth and success. Students must be able to express themselves readily in a learning environment in addition to having positive stimulation encourage the motivation that is necessary for a good education to commence. However, the school systems today are failing and the students are failing along with it. In order to elicit improvement in the school systems and prevent academic failures in school systems today, brain-based learning must be implemented to uphold an innovative curriculum, incorporate impactful instruction, induce a favorable environment for students, and create more effective assessments to measure these mechanisms within the school.
An ominous reality is that despite the acceptance of the importance of education, school systems are failing in dramatic numbers. According to Basken, “at least 24,470 U.S. public schools, or 27 percent of the national total, did not meet the federal requirement for "adequate yearly progress" in 2004-2005” (Basken, 2006, p.1). These daunting statistics are gauged by the overwhelming failure of student assessments in many states. Less than a third of fourth grade students in our country are proficient in reading, math, science, and history (Basken, 2006). Low-income students have a less chance of being proficient in these subjects and schools with less resources are in dire distress in terms of student scores (Basken, 2006). It is a significant dilemma that the United States is facing and one that cannot be ignored. If our schools continue to fail, we will be producing uneducated, ill-prepared adults. The school systems must be revamped through a severe deconstruction process so that the understanding of how and why the school systems and students are failing can be understood and a new method of execution can be developed.
Curriculum
The curriculum objective in schools today do not reflective the needs of the brain. Learning is based solely from the intent of the lesson plans and the teaching maneuvers that aid in incorporating these lessons into the classroom. This is why curriculum, the prescribed course of studies, is the most important element in the classroom. Within the environment of a school, the curriculum serves as the foundation for assisting students to meet the learning and developmental standards of that school (Braskamp, et al., 2006). The curriculum holds the learning objectives of the school along with the necessary values needed to produce successful students (Braskamp, et al., 2006). What the students learn and how this information is learned is directly related to the curriculum and the execution of this curriculum within the school. Because the school systems are perceptibly failing, the curriculums of most schools need an extreme evaluation and possible overhaul.
The brain is essentially programmed to seek out new and exciting information and apply it appropriately. According to Jensen, the brain is on a “quest for curiosity, affiliation, challenge, and creature comforts” (Jensen, 2008, p.203). A brain-based curriculum allows this kind of learning to take place within the classroom. The workings of the brain and how it functions, learns, and adapts to new information is vital to providing an effective curriculum.
In order to restore a structure of better curriculum within a school setting, the school must recognize the importance of professional development and how this is directly associated with any curriculum. Teachers must have resources to continually develop curriculum standards that meet the goals of the school. Furthermore, support must be provided to help new teachers reach the expectations of students and highly-skilled teachers should be available to mentor these new teachers throughout this process (Ali, et al., 2010). Keeping an ideal of professional development centered on curriculum will manufacture the most desirable results for the school, professionals, and especially the students.
The brain can process information in various ways. Although brain dominance is a theory that is readily accepted, studies have shown that most learners use both sides of the brain to process specific information (Jensen, 2008). The right-side of the brain is perceived to handle emotions, creativity, and intuition (Gibson, 2010). It is highly important for these aspects to be integrated with the more analytical processing that goes on in the left side of the brain. Strategies that are brain-based will ensure that all processing is congruent and working synonymously. Because artistic expression is an area of learning that is significant with the brain’s functioning, any successful curriculum will involve artistic components. As stated by Spears and Wilson, “art is an important part of brain-based education in that it provides many learners with avenues of expression and emotional conduits for learning and retaining information” (Spears & Wilson, 2009, p.4). Art should be offered as an impartial learning experience, but art should also fit into to a basic curriculum of study. Enhancing typical subjects with art will entice the brain to accept the information more readily. This can be done through writing, drawing, painting, or musical art. By integrating art into the curriculum, students will be allowed to express themselves in a creative manner through their own personal talents (Jensen, 2008). This will not only boost the confidence of each student, but also makes the absorption of the curriculum more possible.
Social fluency and personal development are key aspects to any curriculum. Most schools fail to recognize the social and personal components to a successful learning process. The students must be able to learn interactively because of the social aspect of the brain. Allowing students to learn with one another as well as from one another will stimulate a learning growth that welcomes more diverse and innovative ways of processing information and integrating the environment within the learning process. Additionally, the personal development of students must be at the forefront of any curriculum. Self-actualization is a need of each human being that must be realized throughout the stages of growth and learning (Jensen, 2008). Helping the students learn how to manage stress, be physically active, and reflect the learned skills in a classroom with personal motivation and experience will provide the necessary elements of a well-received curriculum.
Information fluency and scientific inquiry are important mechanisms of a successful curriculum. Students must be able to access comprehensive information and be able to apply this information in everyday life. Cognitive manipulation is a strong contender for successful information processing within the brain (Jensen, 2008). Students should be taught how to critique, analyze, sort, and synthesize the information being presented. Likewise, the ability to rationalize gives students the capability of processing the information given. Scientific inquiry involves questioning information, developing experiments, and strategizing solutions (Jensen, 2008). The assimilation of these processes is essential for a well-rounded curriculum to succeed through brain-based learning strategies.
Instruction
In addition to curriculum and what is being taught, how it is being taught is an important ingredient to successful learning. Failing schools do not have enough focus on the instruction that is given to students and the delivery in which it is being made. The teacher is a bridge between the information and how it is perceived by the students. Therefore, the way in which the information is instructed makes a huge impact on the way the student learns. How the brain receives and processes information must be understood and intertwined with the instructional techniques of the teacher.
Instruction should lead the students to motivational learning. Learning in a peripheral setting is encouraging to the brain. Taking a class outside of the classroom to learn as well as allowing students to formulate groups in the classroom are positive instructional techniques. Classroom instruction that is infused with brain-based strategies goes beyond the traditional approach of teaching. Instruction is provided in a manner that excites the students, prepares them for learning, and aids the students in retaining the information and using it in the most purposeful manner possible. Teachers must be leaders who are relatable to the students and effective presenters of information (Waren-Gross, 2009).
Orchestrated immersion is a way in which the instructor can create an environment in which each student is fully immersed in the learning experience and responds positively to this way of teaching (Cohen, 2008). The overall educational experience is the crux of the brain-based learning process. Each student must be comfortable in their surroundings and those surroundings should be stimulating to the brain.
Relaxed alertness is another requirement for brain-based instruction to be regarded by students in the intended method (Cohen, 2008). This ensures that all students are content and unperturbed in the learning environment. Students should have no fear of social pressures or academic failures. Fear can be a dilapidating force in any student’s life, hindering the progression of learning. Studies have shown that fear is a strong factor in the perceptions of most students as to why they do not get better grades in school (Ali, et al., 2010). Students should have challenging instruction that arouses the natural processes of the brain.
Active processing must also take place for brain-based learning to proceed in any classroom environment. Teachers must formulate brain-based instruction that revolves around the concepts of how the brain processes information (Cohen, 2008). Students must be able to consolidate the instructions given and to internally process this information as necessary to understand the material and eventually apply it in the proper format.
Environment
The environment that a student is thrust into is an aggressive aspect of the learning process. A student is expected to learn in and from their school environment. This environment is an important part of a student’s life, as they are an active participant in this environment for most of their life. A student will spend over four thousand hours in kindergarten through third grade classrooms (Bullard, 2010). Yet, in most schools in the United States, this environment is more difficult to adjust to than it is a positive stimulation to learning. In order for schools to change the failing rates for students, the environment needs to be critically assessed.
One’s environment and perception of their environment can affect mood, stability, health, social relationships, and attitudes about self (Jensen, 2008). In order to encapsulate a positive learning environment that produces successful learners, schools must understand how the environment is directly responsible for failing schools and students. Social pressures, inability to fit in, incapacity to understand the curriculum, and failed support are all unfortunate realities in today’s schools. Making the learning environment balanced with positive social and academic influences is the foundation for brain-based learning.
Children’s brains are rapidly developing throughout the growing process (Bullard, 2010). Furthermore, children’s experiences are limited to their surroundings. Consequently, the environment we provide for students has an incredible impact on how that child’s brain develops (Bullard, 2010). The developmental process of a student is coupled with the environment that student is learning in. A student must have an environment free from socially and academically related stress and fear.
Social stressors are rampant in schools everywhere. This is not an issue that can be completely eradicated, as social pressures are a common factor of socialization, particularly in the educational environment. It is estimated that twenty three percent of students in elementary school have been bullied several times or more (Zhang, et al., 2009). This alarming statistic shows that the school environment that students of today are accustomed can be abusive and disorderly. Students must cope with this social depression while trying to achieve academic goals. Most likely, the latter objective is not met and the student suffers and eventually fails as reflected in school assessments nationwide. Schools must continually present support for students that are having difficulty fitting in to the social spectrum. There are several ways in which this can be attained. Schools should present solutions to social dilemmas and promote an environment of encouragement, kindness, and success. Students within a classroom should be equipped with real life tools that combat bullying, aggressiveness, name-calling, or hateful behavior. Students should be fortified with the desire to get along with other classmates. Teachers should regularly incorporate group learning and interactive study within the classroom to aid in social harmony.
Academic peril is a reality in most schools in the United States. What is being taught is not efficient for the needs of the students and seemingly does not reflect the importance of brain-based learning in most school settings. Students are not simply not learning and this perpetuates a lack of achievement that will only hinder the academic and personal growth of each student. This dilemma is marked by the importance of an academically rich environment in school. To achieve such an environment, teachers and students must be able to vigorously synchronize learning goals. Students must be fully prepared to receive information while also having support with how to manage this information. Because not every student learns identically, attention needs to be paid to each student and their unique way of learning. The students should also have understanding of their learning style and how to implement this style within the classroom. A student’s shortcomings should be sensitively challenged and their talented attributes should have the ability to steadily progress and shine throughout the brain-based learning process. Overall, understanding that a student’s surroundings manipulate the learning process will help schools to prevent any inhabitants from affecting brain-based learning to ensue.
Assessment
Perhaps one of the most concerning issues in the school systems today is the method of assessing progress and achievement. Although it is clear that many variables are involved with failing schools and students, it is also evident that the techniques used to measure the productivity and achievements within a school are lacking. Assessments of students are generalized and rarely improved, thereby creating a negative impact on the entire school system. If assessments are not effective, damaging outcomes will result that impacts all areas of the learning spectrum. Individual student assessments will be compromised as well as classroom, teacher, and school valuations.
Accountability is a first step in analyzing the assessment process. According to Michigan State University, “establishing accountability standards for policymakers, teachers and administrators, community members, and parents, as well as students” will help progress the quality of assessments (Michigan State University, 2008, p. 2). Assessment standards should be high but attainable, and alternative testing methods should be in place for students in need. District-wide transformation is necessary to align the common goals of schools and the scores that are desired as well as required on the state level. There should be a cohesiveness that trickles down the hierarchy of formal education. As Michigan State University purports, it is strictly an overall issue of “establishing accountability systems that provide schools with explicit goals for increasing student achievements, incentives to take on challenging reforms, and consequences for persistent low performance” (Michigan State University, 2008, p.2). In doing so, quality assessments will be in place to correctly measure the progress of students and schools throughout the nation.
All students do not learn equally, yet all assessments seem to reflect this fallacy. Assessing the advancement of students should be a carefully assembled procedure in which the school, educators, and students have an active participation. Students should be aware of the goals that are imposed upon them and should have support in formulating personal educational goals of their own. This allows each student to have power over their own achievements and actively work toward those goals. Parents need to participate in the education of their children more readily. Teachers must welcome parent involvement in a more aggressive way that does not deflect the importance of family support nor diminish the role that parents play in the education of their children. Assessments should reflect the abilities of the child accurately. Pre-assessments will help to decipher any inconsistencies that may be apparent when assessing a student on information they have retained. Many factors can affect a student’s score such as health, personal issues, and confidence. By implementing brain-based learning techniques throughout the learning process, educators have more access to a student’s needs and more knowledge about each student and what issues may arise.
Because brain-based learning implements the way in which the brain functions and processes information, assessments and testing should ideally focus on the brain. Ultimately, students need to be exposed to multiple assessment methods (Spears & Wilson, 2009). Self-assessments will jumpstart student’s brains and provide unwavering preparation for continued evaluations. A brain-friendly environment requires brain-focused assessments to allow for the continual improvements that brain-based learning endorses.
Disparagingly, schools nationwide are on a path of failure despite the acceptance of educational importance in the United States. Education is pressed upon a child early on in life and continues throughout adulthood, closely interwoven into all areas of life. Schools must recognize these daunting failures and incorporate lesson plans that stimulate the learning process. With brain-based learning as the main objective in schools, incredible improvements can be made. Through providing a challenging curriculum, powerful and penetrating classroom instruction, and a nurturing environment combined with effective assessments, failing school system can be recovered while reviving the integrity of education for our country, school systems, and most importantly, the students we thrive to educate.
References
Ali, R., Hukamdad, Ghazi, S., Shahzad, S., & Khan, H. (2010). The impact of brain based learning on students academic achievement. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business, 2(2), 542-556. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2129002581&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309& VName=PQD.
Basken, P. (2006). States have more schools falling behind. Bloomberg News, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801794.html.
Braskamp, L., Trautvetter, L., & Ward, K. (2006). Putting students first: how colleges develop students purposefully. Retrieved from http://www.northwestern.edu/studentaffairs/conference/chapters/Chapter_4.pdf.
Cohen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.funderstanding.com/content/brain-based-learning.
Gibson, K. (2010). Learning styles and hemispheric dominance - right or left brain: which is dominant in your family? Retrieved from http://www.leapingfromthebox.com/art/kmg/learningstyles2.html.
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.
Michigan State University (2008). Turning around failing schools. Retrieved from http://www.epc.msu.edu/publications/accountability/failingschools.htm.
Spears, A., & Wilson, L. (2009). Brain-based learning highlights. Retrieved from http://www.itari.in/categories/brainbasedlearning/DefinitionofBrain-BasedLearning.pdf.
Waren-Gross, L. (2009). How does a failing school stop failing? Knowledge Quest, 38(2), 40-43. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1928295661&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Zhang, H., & Cowen, D. (2009). Mapping academic achievement and public school choice under the no child left behind legislation. Southeastern Geographer, 49(1), 24-40. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1667640731&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Toxicology in the Criminal Justice System ©
Toxicology in the Criminal Justice System
Jeannette Villatoro
Forensics BLK1042A
Jen Brockel
November 15, 2010
Toxicology in the Criminal Justice System
Forensic science has been a significant aspect of the criminal justice system for centuries. With the flourishing determination to develop forensic science throughout the years, advancements have led to the development of many significant sciences, including toxicology. Understanding and studying the adverse effects of chemicals on biological systems has proven to be a necessary force in the criminal justice system. By exploring new theories in toxicology, successes and failures throughout the historical progression of this science has led to incredible strides in crime investigation and a promise for a more proficient future in toxicological studies.
Forensic Science
Since the inception of history, forensic science has been fully perused. The development of understanding of science and how it can apply to legal matters has been a necessary force in society and the interest of the criminal justice field. Since the 1950s, the fascinating marriage of science with criminal justice has led to amazing developments in the handling of the age-old burden of crime.
One of the major contributions to the successful progression of forensic science is the commencement of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 1950. The goal of this organization was to bring multi-disciplinary professionals together for the purpose of seeking the continued advancement of science for the benefit of the legal system (American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2010). In doing so, this organization propelled a unique focus on forensic science for the future of criminal justice.
Another major contribution to the advancement of forensic science was the discovery of the Kidd blood grouping system by F. H. Allen and colleagues in 1951. This blood group is a product of a certain gene that has proteins acting as urea transporters (Rudin & Inman, 2002). These proteins affect the kidneys and other antigens in the body and the understanding of this blood grouping system enhanced the knowledge of forensics and toxicology in particular.
Great discoveries did not cease in the 1950s and soon a new accomplishment would generate an even greater desire to increase the awareness and development of forensic science. Paul Leland Kirk, a forensic scientist, published Crime Investigation (Rudin & Inman, 2002). This book served as a guidebook to many criminalists and other forensic scientists. Kirk was able to outline the mastery of forensic science and through his observation of a particular murder case, was able to contribute to the exoneration of a convicted suspect after twelve years of incarceration for the crime.
In 1954, R. F. Borkenstein created the breathalyzer for field testing of sobriety (Rudin & Inman, 2002). By implementing forensic science to develop a way to determine the alcohol content in a person’s breath, this device became an astounding contribution to the criminal justice system.
Developments in the field of forensic science continued to change the face of science and law. A major contributor was Maurice Miller. In 1960 Miller described the ways in which gas chromatography worked in identifying petroleum products and gasoline (Rudin & Inman, 2002). The use of gas chromatography quickly became the standard in most forensic laboratories.
Bloodstain analysis became a strong focus in forensic science in 1967 when Brain Culliford and Brian Wraxall developed new methods of analyzing and testing bloodstains (Rudin & Inman, 2002). Throughout the 1970s, forensic science discoveries would perpetuate advancement in the field beyond measure. Gunshot residue analysis would be born and a system to classify fingerprints would create an immeasurable efficiency in the criminal justice system.
In later decades, DNA profiling would advance forensic science. DNA would become a major focus in forensic science throughout the years to come. Forensic science and the thirst for a greater application of this concept were in high demand. Beginning in the middle of the twentieth century and continuing until the end of this century, society became more concerned with chemicals in the environment that could cause harm to the human body (Hayes, 2008). The American Board of Toxicology was developed in 1980 and the concern for the necessity to analyze the causes of death of crime victims flourished. As toxicology developed to provide answers for these alarming concerns, it became evident that toxicology as a forensic science would provide a benefit to criminal investigations. The understanding and desire for knowledge of toxicology as it pertained to forensic investigation helped to develop the intrinsic theories of toxicology that exist today.
Methods and Theories
Toxicology has become a major necessity in the field of forensic science. Throughout the many scientific changes that have affected toxicology and its application to criminal justice, many new and exciting features of this forensic science has surfaced. The primary concern for environmental health grew into a science that could benefit criminal law. How chemicals affect the living and how these chemicals react to one’s one biological structure to create illness or death brought about the demand for toxicology. When being used as a forensic science for the criminal justice field, toxicology has undergone major changes to elicit better and more efficient tools for analysis.
The first simplistic theory of toxicology was introduced by Paracelus in 1493 when he imposed the idea that the dose makes the poison (Goldstein & Gallo, 2001). This idea catapulted the understanding that any chemical in overabundance could be harmful to biological systems. The author of the most impactful law of toxicology was Paré who developed the understanding of the specific effects that can occur from chemicals reacting to biological functions (Goldstein & Gallo, 2001). Paré initiated the first case study of this ideal in which prisoners would be tested to prove the damaging nature of some chemicals and the biological reactions that govern the principles of toxicology. This study, although inhumane and unjustified, resulted in the essence of hazardous toxins being recognized when given in high doses. Further down the line, it would become acceptable to test theories of toxic substances on animals rather than human subjects (Goldstein & Gallo, 2001).
Because there are over twenty one million substances documented in databases that can adversely affect the human body, new methods of identifying the harm of substances was becoming a desperate need in forensic science (Society of Toxicology, 2008). The Drug Abuse Warning Network founded in 1977 projected an enormous interest in toxicology. Hospital surveys done by the Drug Abuse Warning Network began to perpetuate alarming statistics in drug use. According to John and Joseph Fenton, “a survey of hospital emergency departments by DAWN showed an increase in heroine-related admission on the order of 44% between 1992 and 1993” (Fenton & Fenton, 2002). Additionally, cocaine-related admissions rose over 5% during the same timeframe while methamphetamine-related admissions rose a staggering 61% at this time (Fenton & Fenton, 2002). Further studies revealed distressing statistics on the use of alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs by pregnant women and the detrimental effects on the fetus. This dilemma brought toxicology to the forefront to protect the health and well-being of citizens in conjunction with developing new methods of analyzing hazardous substances present during a crime.
The reactions of the body to certain substances vary so greatly that toxicology can be a tricky science. Additionally, the cause of death can be difficult to determine if more than one injury is the cause. In one particular case, a man named Donald Harvey worked as a nurse’s aide from 1983 to 1987. During this time, he killed several patients by suffocation, metal-based poisoning, and tranquilizers (Ramsland, 2004). This crime shocked the nation and revealed the sensitivity of time to toxicology and the possibility of differing causes of death posing a dilemma in a single crime.
The testing methods of toxicology have always been the crux of how hazardous chemicals were identified and analyzed (DeRosa, 1997). Development has rapidly increased in the late 20th century and early 21st century to make certain that these methods continuously improve for the purpose of environmental protection and the application of toxicology in the criminal justice field. With the understanding of alcohol and drug effects rising, the study of toxicology found new scientific methods for understanding these effects. Gas chromatography and spectrometry were the successful result of such understanding and the use of these methods boomed in the field of toxicology during the middle of the 20th century. By dissolving tissues in an acidic solution and using high-pressure gas chromatography for analysis, direct testing was enabled. Further testing methods such as immunoassay surfaced so that the best approach for detecting low drug levels would be possible without prior analytical methods (Saferstein, 2009). These effectual testing methods eliminated the need to go through the process of extraction, which often led to unstable results produced from tedious processes (Ramsland, 2004).
Analysis
Some major successes and failures colored the history of toxicology to the present time. The conception of toxicology began with the notion of the presence of toxins and quickly progressed to quantifying poisons. One famous case that occurred in the middle 20th century led to an understanding of the necessity of using time in the analysis of toxic substances and the ability for corpses to absorb toxic substances after death occurs. Marie Besnard was accused of killing twelve people with arsenic between 1929 and 1949 (Ramsland, 2004). Exhumation of the bodies revealed high levels of arsenic in each victim, however, only circumstantial evidence was gathered to indict Marie Besnard for the murders. During witness testimony of a toxicologist for the defense, a new theory came to light that arsenic could enter the hair of a corpse in the ground through anaerobic bacteria (Ramsland, 2004). Because of this theory, the toxicologist on the case had the burden of proving that the arsenic was administered before the burial of the victims. By exposing the hair of a victim to radioactivity for over twenty six hours, this element of the case could have been proven. However, because the toxicologist failed to expose the hair for the required length of time, Marie Besnard was acquitted (Ramsland, 2004). The outcome of this case proved to be unfortunate, but the mistakes of the toxicologist and the awareness of poison affecting a corpse made a significant contribution to toxicology and its application to future criminal cases.
Trial and error continues to mark the successes and failures of toxicology throughout history. Testing protocols have been the most blundering issue. During the early 20th century, early acute toxicity studies were done in a seven-day period (Kamrin, 1988). The continued failures of this method and the lack of results produced brought about the standard fourteen-day period protocol in the late 20th century. With all of the improvements in toxicology in the 21st century, time continues to be a limitation with testing because analysis can take several weeks. This is usually counterproductive to law enforcement as evidence needs to be gathered and analyzed quickly to allow a case to develop and investigation to continue.
The testing of animals perpetuated great success in the field of toxicology as well. Initially, results were constrained in the beginning stages of animal testing during the 20th century. Results varied greatly and the components of the chemicals did not produce consistent results. This propagated the understanding that diet, breeding conditions, and environmental issues had an effect on the results of the testing (Kamrin, 1988). This knowledge allowed toxicologists to have more control with testing conditions and to produce more accurate results.
Another instrumental case that involved forensic toxicology was that of Robert Curley. In 1991, Curly was admitted to the hospital on numerous occasions but doctors could not discern what the ailment was. Curley died after a month of puzzling symptoms and agonizing pain. Through examination, it was discovered that he had heavy levels of thallium in his system. Although it was evident that heavy metal exposure caused his death, investigators could not locate a suspect. Dr. Frederic Reiders, a private toxicologist, was solicited to use up-to-date toxicological examination techniques on the corpse. His breakthrough method of conducting a segmental analysis on the hair shaft to devise a timeline of thallium exposure and ingestion brought investigators to a known suspect (Ramsland, 2004). This method revolutionized the way in which analysis on corpses continued throughout the 20th century as it provided a new technique and incorporated this technique with criminal investigation.
The toxicology laboratory has been a major issue in this particular field of forensic science. Many attempts at laboratory development failed to present the kind of tools and analysis needed for criminal justice. As the shift began to change from environmental safety towards criminal investigation, toxicology went through major alterations. One of the foremost problems that occur within the laboratory is the timing in which a sufficient analysis for evidence can be provided. The knowledge of the importance of gas chromatography in the middle of the 20th century helped to motivate more powerful tools in the laboratory which eliminated failed toxicological results due to human error (California Department of Justice, 1999).
Advancements in Toxicology
Most theories on how to improve toxicological testing methods relied on more technological advances being applied to toxicology. Perhaps the most noteworthy development in toxicology became the increased modification of laboratories with an accreditation for toxicology. As stated by Rawat, et al., “advances in computer sciences and hardware combined with equally significant developments in molecular biology and chemistry are providing toxicology with a powerful new tool box” (Rawat, et. al, 2007, p. 1). The uncertainty of experimental testing was eagerly replaced by computational toxicology. The computed models manifested quickly in many laboratories to develop cross-extrapolation techniques that proved much more efficient in determining the presence of poisonous or toxic chemicals (Demchuk, et al., 2008). By allowing this method to evolve, toxicological evidence becomes more valid in the courtroom. Rather than rely on methods that provide analysis through long, painstaking testing that is conducted by perceived calculations, using a computer model reduces the margin of error. Most chemicals that cause death or illness when administered in abundance, such as morphine, do not decompose quickly (Adeyemi, et al., 2010). Therefore, proper analysis can be made with the accuracy of computer models in toxicology to present a better display of evidence in the courtroom to convict a suspect if poisoning is a factor.
Advancements continue in the 21st century as computer technology is utilized with the forensic science of toxicology. Chemical characterization is made possible by these advances. According to The National Research Council, “chemical characterization involves the compilation of data on physical and chemical properties, uses, environmental surveillance, fate and transport, and properties that relate to the potential for exposure, bioaccumulation, and toxicity” (National Research Council, 2007). Laboratories that support newer methods and more technological equipment have the opportunity to produce accurate results and gain new knowledge of more intricate techniques for the future.
Future
The criminal justice system thrives to prevent crime and prosecute criminals to prevent further harm to society. Forensic toxicology is a key component to the intentions of the criminal justice system and to crime investigation in particular. Chemical toxins cannot usually be detected with the naked eye and very rarely is evidence of toxic substances left at a crime-scene. Toxicology works diligently to detect such substances during a criminal investigation.
When a crime investigator properly collects and stores blood and tissue samples for analysis, a toxicologist performs the necessary methods to determine unusual chemical reactions in the biological systems of a body (Adeyemi, et al., 2010). The demands of toxicology, however, go beyond mere detection and analysis. A toxicologist must be able to work closely with police to provide expert opinion and predictions. One of the most comprehensive tools that will continue to advance toxicology for the benefit of police work is the Drug Recognition Expert program. This program offers a broad spectrum of drugs that may have been taken based on the effects of the nervous system. However, the Drug Recognition Expert program cannot provide specific drug possibilities based on an analysis (Saferstein, 2009). This program is essential to practical toxicology analysis but the limitations of this program deem this system unreliable on its own. In conjunction with the professional analysis of a forensic toxicologist, this program incorporates standardized methods for examining suspects to determine if drugs were ingested (Saferstein, 2009).
Police will continue to utilize methods of toxicology when working with the public. The breathalyzer is one mechanism that has provided to be an enormous contribution to the detection of alcohol use while driving. When police correctly administer this device, accurate results protect the suspect and potential victims from harm.
Toxicology is significant to police work because of the astronomical issues of drug and alcohol abuse in society. Furthermore, drug and alcohol abuse is connected closely with the committal of many crimes. The annual Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows that as much as 78% of some convicted criminals tested positive for drugs when incarcerated (National Drug Control Policy, 2000). Toxicology is the science that can connect police officers with the evidence needed of such drug and alcohol use. Other devices and mechanisms that may surface in the 21st century pertaining to toxicology and the detection of alcohol and drugs will undoubtedly benefit the future of police work.
Forensic science has flourished so readily in the 20th and 21st centuries that it has become indispensable to the criminal justice system. Evidence relies on the distinct accuracy that forensic evidence can provide. Toxicology has proven to be a huge contender in the field of criminal justice and has gone through scientific changes that amount to technological advances indispensable to police agencies and criminal investigators. Although limitations of forensic toxicology may delay possibilities, the advancements in this field are undeniably necessary for police to conduct proper investigations that lead to convictions in the courtroom now and in the future.
References
Adeyemi, A., Garelick, H., & Priest, N. (2010). A biokinetic model to describe the distribution and excretion of arsenic by man following acute and chronic intakes of arsenite/arsenate compounds by ingestion. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 29(11), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=2166766171&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fm t=6&Vinst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288664995&clientId=74379.
California Department of Justice (1999). Toxicological analysis. Retrieved from http://www.cci.ca.gov/Reference/peb/peb8.pdf.
Demchuk, E., Ruiz, P., Wilson, J., Scinicariello, F., & Pohl, H. (2007). Computational toxicology methods in public health practice. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods. Retrieved from http://gene.hsc.wvu.edu/data/08TMM.pdf.
DeRosa, C. (1997). Validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods. Retrieved from http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/about_docs/validate.pdf.
Fenton, J., & Fenton, J. (2002). Toxicology: a case-oriented approach. New York: CRC Press.
Goldstein, B., Gallo, M. (2001). Paré's law: the second law of toxicology. Toxicological Sciences, 60(2), Retrieved from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/2/194.full.
Hayes, A. (2008). Principles and methods of toxicology. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Hooper, M. (2002). History of toxicology. Retrieved from http://www.tiehh.ttu.edu/mhooper/Docs/1-History-of-Toxicology-06.pdf.
Kamrin, M. (1988). Toxicology: a primer on toxicology principles and applications. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc.
National Drug Control Policy (2000). Drug-related crime. Retrieved from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html.
Ramsland, K. (2004). Forensic toxicology. Criminal Mind, Retrieved from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/toxicology/4.html.
Rawat, A., Gust, K., Deng, Y., Garcia-Reyero, N., & Quinn, M. (2008). Computational toxicology - a state of the science mini review. Toxicological Sciences, 103(1), Retrieved from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/103/1/14.full.
Rudin, N., & Inman, K. (2002). Forensic science timeline. Retrieved from http://www.forensicdna.com/Timeline020702.pdf.
Saferstein, R. (2009). Criminalistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Society of Toxicology (2008). Society of toxicology strategic plan. Retrieved from http://www.toxicology.org/ai/asot/SOTStrategicPlan.pdf.
Jeannette Villatoro
Forensics BLK1042A
Jen Brockel
November 15, 2010
Toxicology in the Criminal Justice System
Forensic science has been a significant aspect of the criminal justice system for centuries. With the flourishing determination to develop forensic science throughout the years, advancements have led to the development of many significant sciences, including toxicology. Understanding and studying the adverse effects of chemicals on biological systems has proven to be a necessary force in the criminal justice system. By exploring new theories in toxicology, successes and failures throughout the historical progression of this science has led to incredible strides in crime investigation and a promise for a more proficient future in toxicological studies.
Forensic Science
Since the inception of history, forensic science has been fully perused. The development of understanding of science and how it can apply to legal matters has been a necessary force in society and the interest of the criminal justice field. Since the 1950s, the fascinating marriage of science with criminal justice has led to amazing developments in the handling of the age-old burden of crime.
One of the major contributions to the successful progression of forensic science is the commencement of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 1950. The goal of this organization was to bring multi-disciplinary professionals together for the purpose of seeking the continued advancement of science for the benefit of the legal system (American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 2010). In doing so, this organization propelled a unique focus on forensic science for the future of criminal justice.
Another major contribution to the advancement of forensic science was the discovery of the Kidd blood grouping system by F. H. Allen and colleagues in 1951. This blood group is a product of a certain gene that has proteins acting as urea transporters (Rudin & Inman, 2002). These proteins affect the kidneys and other antigens in the body and the understanding of this blood grouping system enhanced the knowledge of forensics and toxicology in particular.
Great discoveries did not cease in the 1950s and soon a new accomplishment would generate an even greater desire to increase the awareness and development of forensic science. Paul Leland Kirk, a forensic scientist, published Crime Investigation (Rudin & Inman, 2002). This book served as a guidebook to many criminalists and other forensic scientists. Kirk was able to outline the mastery of forensic science and through his observation of a particular murder case, was able to contribute to the exoneration of a convicted suspect after twelve years of incarceration for the crime.
In 1954, R. F. Borkenstein created the breathalyzer for field testing of sobriety (Rudin & Inman, 2002). By implementing forensic science to develop a way to determine the alcohol content in a person’s breath, this device became an astounding contribution to the criminal justice system.
Developments in the field of forensic science continued to change the face of science and law. A major contributor was Maurice Miller. In 1960 Miller described the ways in which gas chromatography worked in identifying petroleum products and gasoline (Rudin & Inman, 2002). The use of gas chromatography quickly became the standard in most forensic laboratories.
Bloodstain analysis became a strong focus in forensic science in 1967 when Brain Culliford and Brian Wraxall developed new methods of analyzing and testing bloodstains (Rudin & Inman, 2002). Throughout the 1970s, forensic science discoveries would perpetuate advancement in the field beyond measure. Gunshot residue analysis would be born and a system to classify fingerprints would create an immeasurable efficiency in the criminal justice system.
In later decades, DNA profiling would advance forensic science. DNA would become a major focus in forensic science throughout the years to come. Forensic science and the thirst for a greater application of this concept were in high demand. Beginning in the middle of the twentieth century and continuing until the end of this century, society became more concerned with chemicals in the environment that could cause harm to the human body (Hayes, 2008). The American Board of Toxicology was developed in 1980 and the concern for the necessity to analyze the causes of death of crime victims flourished. As toxicology developed to provide answers for these alarming concerns, it became evident that toxicology as a forensic science would provide a benefit to criminal investigations. The understanding and desire for knowledge of toxicology as it pertained to forensic investigation helped to develop the intrinsic theories of toxicology that exist today.
Methods and Theories
Toxicology has become a major necessity in the field of forensic science. Throughout the many scientific changes that have affected toxicology and its application to criminal justice, many new and exciting features of this forensic science has surfaced. The primary concern for environmental health grew into a science that could benefit criminal law. How chemicals affect the living and how these chemicals react to one’s one biological structure to create illness or death brought about the demand for toxicology. When being used as a forensic science for the criminal justice field, toxicology has undergone major changes to elicit better and more efficient tools for analysis.
The first simplistic theory of toxicology was introduced by Paracelus in 1493 when he imposed the idea that the dose makes the poison (Goldstein & Gallo, 2001). This idea catapulted the understanding that any chemical in overabundance could be harmful to biological systems. The author of the most impactful law of toxicology was Paré who developed the understanding of the specific effects that can occur from chemicals reacting to biological functions (Goldstein & Gallo, 2001). Paré initiated the first case study of this ideal in which prisoners would be tested to prove the damaging nature of some chemicals and the biological reactions that govern the principles of toxicology. This study, although inhumane and unjustified, resulted in the essence of hazardous toxins being recognized when given in high doses. Further down the line, it would become acceptable to test theories of toxic substances on animals rather than human subjects (Goldstein & Gallo, 2001).
Because there are over twenty one million substances documented in databases that can adversely affect the human body, new methods of identifying the harm of substances was becoming a desperate need in forensic science (Society of Toxicology, 2008). The Drug Abuse Warning Network founded in 1977 projected an enormous interest in toxicology. Hospital surveys done by the Drug Abuse Warning Network began to perpetuate alarming statistics in drug use. According to John and Joseph Fenton, “a survey of hospital emergency departments by DAWN showed an increase in heroine-related admission on the order of 44% between 1992 and 1993” (Fenton & Fenton, 2002). Additionally, cocaine-related admissions rose over 5% during the same timeframe while methamphetamine-related admissions rose a staggering 61% at this time (Fenton & Fenton, 2002). Further studies revealed distressing statistics on the use of alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs by pregnant women and the detrimental effects on the fetus. This dilemma brought toxicology to the forefront to protect the health and well-being of citizens in conjunction with developing new methods of analyzing hazardous substances present during a crime.
The reactions of the body to certain substances vary so greatly that toxicology can be a tricky science. Additionally, the cause of death can be difficult to determine if more than one injury is the cause. In one particular case, a man named Donald Harvey worked as a nurse’s aide from 1983 to 1987. During this time, he killed several patients by suffocation, metal-based poisoning, and tranquilizers (Ramsland, 2004). This crime shocked the nation and revealed the sensitivity of time to toxicology and the possibility of differing causes of death posing a dilemma in a single crime.
The testing methods of toxicology have always been the crux of how hazardous chemicals were identified and analyzed (DeRosa, 1997). Development has rapidly increased in the late 20th century and early 21st century to make certain that these methods continuously improve for the purpose of environmental protection and the application of toxicology in the criminal justice field. With the understanding of alcohol and drug effects rising, the study of toxicology found new scientific methods for understanding these effects. Gas chromatography and spectrometry were the successful result of such understanding and the use of these methods boomed in the field of toxicology during the middle of the 20th century. By dissolving tissues in an acidic solution and using high-pressure gas chromatography for analysis, direct testing was enabled. Further testing methods such as immunoassay surfaced so that the best approach for detecting low drug levels would be possible without prior analytical methods (Saferstein, 2009). These effectual testing methods eliminated the need to go through the process of extraction, which often led to unstable results produced from tedious processes (Ramsland, 2004).
Analysis
Some major successes and failures colored the history of toxicology to the present time. The conception of toxicology began with the notion of the presence of toxins and quickly progressed to quantifying poisons. One famous case that occurred in the middle 20th century led to an understanding of the necessity of using time in the analysis of toxic substances and the ability for corpses to absorb toxic substances after death occurs. Marie Besnard was accused of killing twelve people with arsenic between 1929 and 1949 (Ramsland, 2004). Exhumation of the bodies revealed high levels of arsenic in each victim, however, only circumstantial evidence was gathered to indict Marie Besnard for the murders. During witness testimony of a toxicologist for the defense, a new theory came to light that arsenic could enter the hair of a corpse in the ground through anaerobic bacteria (Ramsland, 2004). Because of this theory, the toxicologist on the case had the burden of proving that the arsenic was administered before the burial of the victims. By exposing the hair of a victim to radioactivity for over twenty six hours, this element of the case could have been proven. However, because the toxicologist failed to expose the hair for the required length of time, Marie Besnard was acquitted (Ramsland, 2004). The outcome of this case proved to be unfortunate, but the mistakes of the toxicologist and the awareness of poison affecting a corpse made a significant contribution to toxicology and its application to future criminal cases.
Trial and error continues to mark the successes and failures of toxicology throughout history. Testing protocols have been the most blundering issue. During the early 20th century, early acute toxicity studies were done in a seven-day period (Kamrin, 1988). The continued failures of this method and the lack of results produced brought about the standard fourteen-day period protocol in the late 20th century. With all of the improvements in toxicology in the 21st century, time continues to be a limitation with testing because analysis can take several weeks. This is usually counterproductive to law enforcement as evidence needs to be gathered and analyzed quickly to allow a case to develop and investigation to continue.
The testing of animals perpetuated great success in the field of toxicology as well. Initially, results were constrained in the beginning stages of animal testing during the 20th century. Results varied greatly and the components of the chemicals did not produce consistent results. This propagated the understanding that diet, breeding conditions, and environmental issues had an effect on the results of the testing (Kamrin, 1988). This knowledge allowed toxicologists to have more control with testing conditions and to produce more accurate results.
Another instrumental case that involved forensic toxicology was that of Robert Curley. In 1991, Curly was admitted to the hospital on numerous occasions but doctors could not discern what the ailment was. Curley died after a month of puzzling symptoms and agonizing pain. Through examination, it was discovered that he had heavy levels of thallium in his system. Although it was evident that heavy metal exposure caused his death, investigators could not locate a suspect. Dr. Frederic Reiders, a private toxicologist, was solicited to use up-to-date toxicological examination techniques on the corpse. His breakthrough method of conducting a segmental analysis on the hair shaft to devise a timeline of thallium exposure and ingestion brought investigators to a known suspect (Ramsland, 2004). This method revolutionized the way in which analysis on corpses continued throughout the 20th century as it provided a new technique and incorporated this technique with criminal investigation.
The toxicology laboratory has been a major issue in this particular field of forensic science. Many attempts at laboratory development failed to present the kind of tools and analysis needed for criminal justice. As the shift began to change from environmental safety towards criminal investigation, toxicology went through major alterations. One of the foremost problems that occur within the laboratory is the timing in which a sufficient analysis for evidence can be provided. The knowledge of the importance of gas chromatography in the middle of the 20th century helped to motivate more powerful tools in the laboratory which eliminated failed toxicological results due to human error (California Department of Justice, 1999).
Advancements in Toxicology
Most theories on how to improve toxicological testing methods relied on more technological advances being applied to toxicology. Perhaps the most noteworthy development in toxicology became the increased modification of laboratories with an accreditation for toxicology. As stated by Rawat, et al., “advances in computer sciences and hardware combined with equally significant developments in molecular biology and chemistry are providing toxicology with a powerful new tool box” (Rawat, et. al, 2007, p. 1). The uncertainty of experimental testing was eagerly replaced by computational toxicology. The computed models manifested quickly in many laboratories to develop cross-extrapolation techniques that proved much more efficient in determining the presence of poisonous or toxic chemicals (Demchuk, et al., 2008). By allowing this method to evolve, toxicological evidence becomes more valid in the courtroom. Rather than rely on methods that provide analysis through long, painstaking testing that is conducted by perceived calculations, using a computer model reduces the margin of error. Most chemicals that cause death or illness when administered in abundance, such as morphine, do not decompose quickly (Adeyemi, et al., 2010). Therefore, proper analysis can be made with the accuracy of computer models in toxicology to present a better display of evidence in the courtroom to convict a suspect if poisoning is a factor.
Advancements continue in the 21st century as computer technology is utilized with the forensic science of toxicology. Chemical characterization is made possible by these advances. According to The National Research Council, “chemical characterization involves the compilation of data on physical and chemical properties, uses, environmental surveillance, fate and transport, and properties that relate to the potential for exposure, bioaccumulation, and toxicity” (National Research Council, 2007). Laboratories that support newer methods and more technological equipment have the opportunity to produce accurate results and gain new knowledge of more intricate techniques for the future.
Future
The criminal justice system thrives to prevent crime and prosecute criminals to prevent further harm to society. Forensic toxicology is a key component to the intentions of the criminal justice system and to crime investigation in particular. Chemical toxins cannot usually be detected with the naked eye and very rarely is evidence of toxic substances left at a crime-scene. Toxicology works diligently to detect such substances during a criminal investigation.
When a crime investigator properly collects and stores blood and tissue samples for analysis, a toxicologist performs the necessary methods to determine unusual chemical reactions in the biological systems of a body (Adeyemi, et al., 2010). The demands of toxicology, however, go beyond mere detection and analysis. A toxicologist must be able to work closely with police to provide expert opinion and predictions. One of the most comprehensive tools that will continue to advance toxicology for the benefit of police work is the Drug Recognition Expert program. This program offers a broad spectrum of drugs that may have been taken based on the effects of the nervous system. However, the Drug Recognition Expert program cannot provide specific drug possibilities based on an analysis (Saferstein, 2009). This program is essential to practical toxicology analysis but the limitations of this program deem this system unreliable on its own. In conjunction with the professional analysis of a forensic toxicologist, this program incorporates standardized methods for examining suspects to determine if drugs were ingested (Saferstein, 2009).
Police will continue to utilize methods of toxicology when working with the public. The breathalyzer is one mechanism that has provided to be an enormous contribution to the detection of alcohol use while driving. When police correctly administer this device, accurate results protect the suspect and potential victims from harm.
Toxicology is significant to police work because of the astronomical issues of drug and alcohol abuse in society. Furthermore, drug and alcohol abuse is connected closely with the committal of many crimes. The annual Bureau of Justice Statistics report shows that as much as 78% of some convicted criminals tested positive for drugs when incarcerated (National Drug Control Policy, 2000). Toxicology is the science that can connect police officers with the evidence needed of such drug and alcohol use. Other devices and mechanisms that may surface in the 21st century pertaining to toxicology and the detection of alcohol and drugs will undoubtedly benefit the future of police work.
Forensic science has flourished so readily in the 20th and 21st centuries that it has become indispensable to the criminal justice system. Evidence relies on the distinct accuracy that forensic evidence can provide. Toxicology has proven to be a huge contender in the field of criminal justice and has gone through scientific changes that amount to technological advances indispensable to police agencies and criminal investigators. Although limitations of forensic toxicology may delay possibilities, the advancements in this field are undeniably necessary for police to conduct proper investigations that lead to convictions in the courtroom now and in the future.
References
Adeyemi, A., Garelick, H., & Priest, N. (2010). A biokinetic model to describe the distribution and excretion of arsenic by man following acute and chronic intakes of arsenite/arsenate compounds by ingestion. Human and Experimental Toxicology, 29(11), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=2166766171&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fm t=6&Vinst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288664995&clientId=74379.
California Department of Justice (1999). Toxicological analysis. Retrieved from http://www.cci.ca.gov/Reference/peb/peb8.pdf.
Demchuk, E., Ruiz, P., Wilson, J., Scinicariello, F., & Pohl, H. (2007). Computational toxicology methods in public health practice. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods. Retrieved from http://gene.hsc.wvu.edu/data/08TMM.pdf.
DeRosa, C. (1997). Validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological test methods. Retrieved from http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/docs/about_docs/validate.pdf.
Fenton, J., & Fenton, J. (2002). Toxicology: a case-oriented approach. New York: CRC Press.
Goldstein, B., Gallo, M. (2001). Paré's law: the second law of toxicology. Toxicological Sciences, 60(2), Retrieved from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/2/194.full.
Hayes, A. (2008). Principles and methods of toxicology. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Hooper, M. (2002). History of toxicology. Retrieved from http://www.tiehh.ttu.edu/mhooper/Docs/1-History-of-Toxicology-06.pdf.
Kamrin, M. (1988). Toxicology: a primer on toxicology principles and applications. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, Inc.
National Drug Control Policy (2000). Drug-related crime. Retrieved from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html.
Ramsland, K. (2004). Forensic toxicology. Criminal Mind, Retrieved from http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/forensics/toxicology/4.html.
Rawat, A., Gust, K., Deng, Y., Garcia-Reyero, N., & Quinn, M. (2008). Computational toxicology - a state of the science mini review. Toxicological Sciences, 103(1), Retrieved from http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/103/1/14.full.
Rudin, N., & Inman, K. (2002). Forensic science timeline. Retrieved from http://www.forensicdna.com/Timeline020702.pdf.
Saferstein, R. (2009). Criminalistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Society of Toxicology (2008). Society of toxicology strategic plan. Retrieved from http://www.toxicology.org/ai/asot/SOTStrategicPlan.pdf.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sexual Predator Prosecution in Utah ©
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
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 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.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Withering Rose ♥
By Jeannette Villatoro 2010 ©
Oh, withering rose
Whose beauty remains
Yet only a microscope
Can view past the pain.
How delicate you are
Once fleshy and sprite
Now brittle and desperate
And begging to fight.
So curious, those petals
Once red but now brown
A withering stem
No nourishment found.
Oh, withering rose
Your scent is no longer
...The musk of death
Now lingers and ponders.
So curious, though
Your thorns aren't defeated
Still packed with a prickle
While you are depleted.
Yes, withering rose
I sense who you were
The echoes of beauty
The remnants endure.
The cycle of beauty
That laughs in your face
Can still, my dear rose,
Within you be traced.
Oh, withering rose
Whose beauty remains
Yet only a microscope
Can view past the pain.
How delicate you are
Once fleshy and sprite
Now brittle and desperate
And begging to fight.
So curious, those petals
Once red but now brown
A withering stem
No nourishment found.
Oh, withering rose
Your scent is no longer
...The musk of death
Now lingers and ponders.
So curious, though
Your thorns aren't defeated
Still packed with a prickle
While you are depleted.
Yes, withering rose
I sense who you were
The echoes of beauty
The remnants endure.
The cycle of beauty
That laughs in your face
Can still, my dear rose,
Within you be traced.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Is Due Process for Prisoners Preposterous?
Many of the rights that citizens are afforded are also allotted to prisoners. Some of these rights are basic, and others are not. Although many argue that these rights are extended to human beings rather than law-abiding citizens, it is quite controversial when examining just how strongly prisoners are protected with the rights that others who do not commit crimes more readily deserve.
Due process is and has been one of the most fundamental aspects of liberty in addition to being a key ingredient for a fair and impartial justice system. By definition, due process is the assurance of such reasonable legal procedures. Due process is a simple concept yet exceedingly important. In fact, due process is the only order that is stipulated more than once in the Constitution, in both the fifth and fourteenth amendments (Strauss, 2010).
As it pertains to inmates, due process is still heartily important. Disciplinary action is an aspect of prison life that remains intact, however prudently, to keep order among prisoners and to protect the security of the facility. However, because inmates have the right to due process, they may dispute a disciplinary action as well as exercise their rights to enforce the privileges that are associated with such a right (Seiter, 2008). An inmate, once disciplined for an action, has the right to receive advanced notice of the infringement, the right to prepare a defense in an adequate timeframe, the right to present evidence or call witnesses, the right to have assistance fighting the charge, and the right to have the findings recorded in an itemized and properly documented form (Seiter, 2008, p. 486). This is disturbingly identical to the rights a citizen has at trial before a decision is made about their guilt or innocence. Due process is highly important at this crucial stage because a person is perceived innocent before proven guilty and should have the right to a defense before freedom, our most prized and protected asset in the United States, is taken away from them. Yet for a person convicted of a crime and punished by law to have the ability to manipulate and abuse this precious right is quite a distraction from the intent of this constitutional right.
Although inmates must have some rights so that they are not treated inhumanely, it seems that inmates have the right to fair treatment rather than the right to not be maliciously exploited. It is significant to examine this idea closely, as these inmates have committed crimes that have causes immense damage to society and individuals. Most prisoners will and do take advantage of each right they are allotted, especially due process. They will execute an abundance of grievances against the prison system, both to rebel against the repressiveness of being incarcerated and to simply pass the time in an otherwise boring life. Therefore, I would not object to such rights being reserved for citizens who do not commit crimes.
A simpler system should be enforced in the prisons to eradicate cruel and unusual punishment, which by itself seems the only fair right to give a prisoner. In fact, all of the resources and dispensation prearranged for prisoners such as the ability to devise a defense against a disciplinary action should be instead given to the staff of the prison when giving such an infraction. If there is not enough evidence to support the findings, perhaps the prison can investigate the charge. Otherwise, the prisoner will just have to deal with the disciplinary action given. After all, how many times are children allowed to dispute a reprimand given by parents? How would this help in the learning process of right and wrong and baring the consequences? Let the inmates fuss about a reprimand like children, but hand it down as given. This will aid in the goal of rehabilitating prisoners from reckless persons unaffected by the repercussions of their choices to viable, accountable citizens. Moreover, as an added and most pertinent bonus, this will also keep the integrity of the power of the prison staff intact and reiterate the sobering and realistic position of the prisoners within the corrections system; incarcerated dangers to society who have been justly stripped of their freedom and must learn from their deeds.
References
Seiter, R. (2008). Corrections: an introduction (second edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Strauss, P. (2010). Due process. Legal Information Institute, Retrieved from
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process.
Due process is and has been one of the most fundamental aspects of liberty in addition to being a key ingredient for a fair and impartial justice system. By definition, due process is the assurance of such reasonable legal procedures. Due process is a simple concept yet exceedingly important. In fact, due process is the only order that is stipulated more than once in the Constitution, in both the fifth and fourteenth amendments (Strauss, 2010).
As it pertains to inmates, due process is still heartily important. Disciplinary action is an aspect of prison life that remains intact, however prudently, to keep order among prisoners and to protect the security of the facility. However, because inmates have the right to due process, they may dispute a disciplinary action as well as exercise their rights to enforce the privileges that are associated with such a right (Seiter, 2008). An inmate, once disciplined for an action, has the right to receive advanced notice of the infringement, the right to prepare a defense in an adequate timeframe, the right to present evidence or call witnesses, the right to have assistance fighting the charge, and the right to have the findings recorded in an itemized and properly documented form (Seiter, 2008, p. 486). This is disturbingly identical to the rights a citizen has at trial before a decision is made about their guilt or innocence. Due process is highly important at this crucial stage because a person is perceived innocent before proven guilty and should have the right to a defense before freedom, our most prized and protected asset in the United States, is taken away from them. Yet for a person convicted of a crime and punished by law to have the ability to manipulate and abuse this precious right is quite a distraction from the intent of this constitutional right.
Although inmates must have some rights so that they are not treated inhumanely, it seems that inmates have the right to fair treatment rather than the right to not be maliciously exploited. It is significant to examine this idea closely, as these inmates have committed crimes that have causes immense damage to society and individuals. Most prisoners will and do take advantage of each right they are allotted, especially due process. They will execute an abundance of grievances against the prison system, both to rebel against the repressiveness of being incarcerated and to simply pass the time in an otherwise boring life. Therefore, I would not object to such rights being reserved for citizens who do not commit crimes.
A simpler system should be enforced in the prisons to eradicate cruel and unusual punishment, which by itself seems the only fair right to give a prisoner. In fact, all of the resources and dispensation prearranged for prisoners such as the ability to devise a defense against a disciplinary action should be instead given to the staff of the prison when giving such an infraction. If there is not enough evidence to support the findings, perhaps the prison can investigate the charge. Otherwise, the prisoner will just have to deal with the disciplinary action given. After all, how many times are children allowed to dispute a reprimand given by parents? How would this help in the learning process of right and wrong and baring the consequences? Let the inmates fuss about a reprimand like children, but hand it down as given. This will aid in the goal of rehabilitating prisoners from reckless persons unaffected by the repercussions of their choices to viable, accountable citizens. Moreover, as an added and most pertinent bonus, this will also keep the integrity of the power of the prison staff intact and reiterate the sobering and realistic position of the prisoners within the corrections system; incarcerated dangers to society who have been justly stripped of their freedom and must learn from their deeds.
References
Seiter, R. (2008). Corrections: an introduction (second edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Strauss, P. (2010). Due process. Legal Information Institute, Retrieved from
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Preventing Juvenile Delinquency
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. By evaluating the effects juvenile delinquency has on the community, victims, and families, along with analyzing methods of deterrence, the future of the juvenile justice system can be predicted and a vast overhaul of juvenile justice can ensue.
History
Juvenile delinquency has been a serious dilemma 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.
Effects
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.
Judges are a chief factor in the juvenile justice system and play an impacting role in the lives of each juvenile that is seen before the court. Because juvenile court typically does not use a jury, the judge has the final decision that decides the fait of the juvenile (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). Because of this fact, it is essential that the judge has special training in the workings of juvenile justice with a background in psychological concentration that can aid in the treatment of each unique juvenile case.
The families of the juvenile play an important role in the sentencing process. Family members can aid in the determination of probation and necessary requirements that are given as well as whether the juvenile is incarcerated in a juvenile facility. If the juvenile is released on probationary terms, the family must be responsible for the well being of the juvenile in addition to making certain the terms of probation are being met (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008).
Juveniles may be required to pay monetary damages to the victim of the crime (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). This helps with retribution and deterrence and gives the juvenile offender a sense of responsibility for his or her actions. The victims have a keen role in the sentencing of the juvenile as well. Families of victims usually face consequences much like the victim, and the suffering from the crime bleeds to many others close to the victim (Garcia, & McDowell, 2010).
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). One study elicited alarming results between the collaboration of young juvenile delinquency and adulthood divorce (Forgatch, et al., 2009). In regards to this particular study, Marion Forgatch, et al. concluded that, “in the theoretical model, ineffective parenting
practices and deviant peer association serve as the primary mechanisms for growth in adolescent delinquent behavior and early arrests (Forgatch, et al., p. 1). 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.
Prevention Methods
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.
Family strengthening is one of the most significant stratagems to defeat juvenile delinquency. Studies have shown that adequate parenting and powerful family dynamics reduce the possibility of criminal behavior among juveniles (Koffman, et al., 2009). The benefits of a structured family life are plentiful. The juvenile will experience love, support, discipline and unique connection with family members that share the same environment and conditions of life. Aside from these obvious advantages, family and parent training programs help protect and improve family relationships in which juvenile delinquents are involved and positive results help to eradicate impulsive, aggressive, and chronically disruptive behavior that leads to social deficiency and subsequent delinquency (Piquero, et al., 2009). In one particular meta-analytic review of an experimental study involving such a family intervention program showed a reduction in these preexisting conditions in juvenile behavior and a 75% diminution of delinquency among the juvenile participants (Piquero, et al., 2009). Such studies and results show promise for programs designed to strengthen families as these interventions touch on the underlying issues of most juvenile dilemmas. The problem lies within the ability to reach out to each family and to construct a program that fits the needs of the targeted family. Moreover, it is nearly impossible to heal families with abuse and trauma, which are common factors in juvenile delinquency. While it is much more uplifting to rely on the abilities of parents and the responsibilities that adults exercise in determining family values, this is a failing concept in some circumstances.
In the event that family intervention cannot be completed due to a lack of cooperation or unavailable means, after-school programs and community efforts should be put into practice to incorporate positive interaction among juveniles at risk for delinquency. Crime analysis surveys report that most crime carried out by juvenile delinquents peaks between the hours of 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. (Gottfredson, et al., 2004). Implementing structured after-school programs with supplemented programs such as drug rehab, counseling, anger management programs, mentoring, peer discussion groups, conflict management and life skills classes will provide more success and better prevention possibilities among at-risk youths. Triumphs that can be expected among participating juveniles are empowerment, leadership, coping skills and hope for the future (Koffman, et al., 2009). However, such programs cannot replace family influence, and the patterns of behavior that will sporadically occur among youths and juveniles experiencing puberty will need to be carefully dealt with by significant support from after-school interventions. Furthermore, in crime ridden communities, a dependency on such programs may develop, prompting families and parents to rely on the raising of children to be done by governmental, private, and community agencies. Nevertheless, these programs offer hope when there is little, and success has motivated continued application and funding for suitable intervention techniques. Copious funding for such programs, although scarce and difficult to generate in suitable quantities, is mandatory to deliver success within communities with low-income families and economic struggles.
Financial challenges sadly have a strong baring on juvenile behavior. Besides the detrimental conditions that can result from poverty, stress and anger breed in families that cannot make ends meet, perpetuating violence and criminal activity. Assistance programs serve in helping families obtain housing and other necessities of life such as food and medical aid, yet even with such programs, juvenile delinquency still flourishes. Shame and guilt from poverty exists equally when assistance programs are being utilized, as one study established (Garcia, & McDowell, 2010). To stop the cycle of such feelings that inevitably lead to delinquency, innovative programs should be established by Congress to financially aid families while requiring parents and caregivers to obtain training programs and employment counseling. Furthermore, poverty stricken communities will benefit from construction makeovers and designated improvements. Juvenile delinquency will cease considerably as a result of geographical enhancements.
Innovative ideas for preventing juvenile delinquency shall include a consideration of healthy peer interaction. Featured in this concept is a necessary understanding of the high impact of peer influence on juveniles. One particular study with 70 participants, all between the ages of eleven and seventeen years old, showed that peer pressure and persuasion of other similarly aged juveniles had a role in the decisions, actions, and beliefs that the participants engaged in (Cohen, & Piquero, 2009). One of the most powerful intervention programs designed and adopted by various court systems in the United States are those mentoring programs and interventions devised to scare juveniles out of crime. While most of these programs involve adult offenders who install fear and truth into youthful offenders, it is clear that peer influence should be utilized in this concept as well. Unlike adults whom can easily remember their youth and relate to juveniles, it is extremely difficult for juveniles to relate to adults. Therefore, juvenile offenders sentenced, punished, or otherwise handled in court for a crime should be required to participate in a new mentoring program for peers with similar criminal tendencies or other anthropological similarities. A program such as this will most likely show colossal achievements in the prevention of juvenile delinquency.
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. Technology will continue to be a precedent for court systems and juvenile cases. Perhaps within the next decade, the United States can expect better systems to monitor, detain, and rehabilitate juveniles through comprehensive programs that are designed and tested with scientific evidence. Nationally, jurisdictions will collaborate to bring forth a more cohesive juvenile justice system that can be easily measured, observed, and improved. While more juvenile delinquents can be expected in the next century, more detention facilities for juveniles will be developed. Although this will seem to be a negative progression, more facilities will give the opportunity for creative programs to develop to be structurally appropriate for the differing circumstances of juvenile offenders. Likewise, more juvenile specific facilities will mean less juveniles being thrust into adult prisons. Additionally, it can be expected that psychology will have a more prominent role in the implementation of justice to enable understanding and treatment for all juvenile types.
For juveniles today, the traditions and patterns that transition a child through adolescence and adulthood are obscured with many negative factors. Broken families, violence, abuse, and poverty promise to destroy the stability a juvenile relies on and damages the juvenile in a way that enables disparaging choices to shape the future of that juvenile. With a conundrum of negative effects, and dilapidating situations within juvenile lives, delinquency may be a problem that can never quite be resolved. Yet, if the juvenile justice system works congruently with communities to produce techniques for justice, along with constant attention to the changing realisms of juvenile life, a successful remedy for delinquency may surely be imminent in the future of juvenile justice.
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&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
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&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277770183&clientId=74379.
Forgatch, M., Patterson, G., Degarmo, D., & Beldavs, Z. (2009). Testing the Oregon
delinquency model with 9-year follow-up of the Oregon divorce study. Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1671216111&SrchMode=1&sid=11&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277769914&clientId=74379.
Garcia, M., & McDowell, T. (2010). Mapping social capital: a critical contextual
approach for working with low-status families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(1), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1959683741&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Gottfredson, D., Gerstenblith, S., Soulè, D., Womer, S., & Lu, S. (2004). Do after school
programs reduce delinquency?. Prevention Science, 5(4), Retrieved from http://www.ccjs.umd.edu/faculty/userfiles/25/GottfredsonWeismanSoule.pdf
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, Initials. (2008). Juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/about/jjdpa2002titlev.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&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
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&clientId=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&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
History
Juvenile delinquency has been a serious dilemma 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.
Effects
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.
Judges are a chief factor in the juvenile justice system and play an impacting role in the lives of each juvenile that is seen before the court. Because juvenile court typically does not use a jury, the judge has the final decision that decides the fait of the juvenile (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). Because of this fact, it is essential that the judge has special training in the workings of juvenile justice with a background in psychological concentration that can aid in the treatment of each unique juvenile case.
The families of the juvenile play an important role in the sentencing process. Family members can aid in the determination of probation and necessary requirements that are given as well as whether the juvenile is incarcerated in a juvenile facility. If the juvenile is released on probationary terms, the family must be responsible for the well being of the juvenile in addition to making certain the terms of probation are being met (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008).
Juveniles may be required to pay monetary damages to the victim of the crime (Bartollas, & Miller, 2008). This helps with retribution and deterrence and gives the juvenile offender a sense of responsibility for his or her actions. The victims have a keen role in the sentencing of the juvenile as well. Families of victims usually face consequences much like the victim, and the suffering from the crime bleeds to many others close to the victim (Garcia, & McDowell, 2010).
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). One study elicited alarming results between the collaboration of young juvenile delinquency and adulthood divorce (Forgatch, et al., 2009). In regards to this particular study, Marion Forgatch, et al. concluded that, “in the theoretical model, ineffective parenting
practices and deviant peer association serve as the primary mechanisms for growth in adolescent delinquent behavior and early arrests (Forgatch, et al., p. 1). 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.
Prevention Methods
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.
Family strengthening is one of the most significant stratagems to defeat juvenile delinquency. Studies have shown that adequate parenting and powerful family dynamics reduce the possibility of criminal behavior among juveniles (Koffman, et al., 2009). The benefits of a structured family life are plentiful. The juvenile will experience love, support, discipline and unique connection with family members that share the same environment and conditions of life. Aside from these obvious advantages, family and parent training programs help protect and improve family relationships in which juvenile delinquents are involved and positive results help to eradicate impulsive, aggressive, and chronically disruptive behavior that leads to social deficiency and subsequent delinquency (Piquero, et al., 2009). In one particular meta-analytic review of an experimental study involving such a family intervention program showed a reduction in these preexisting conditions in juvenile behavior and a 75% diminution of delinquency among the juvenile participants (Piquero, et al., 2009). Such studies and results show promise for programs designed to strengthen families as these interventions touch on the underlying issues of most juvenile dilemmas. The problem lies within the ability to reach out to each family and to construct a program that fits the needs of the targeted family. Moreover, it is nearly impossible to heal families with abuse and trauma, which are common factors in juvenile delinquency. While it is much more uplifting to rely on the abilities of parents and the responsibilities that adults exercise in determining family values, this is a failing concept in some circumstances.
In the event that family intervention cannot be completed due to a lack of cooperation or unavailable means, after-school programs and community efforts should be put into practice to incorporate positive interaction among juveniles at risk for delinquency. Crime analysis surveys report that most crime carried out by juvenile delinquents peaks between the hours of 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. (Gottfredson, et al., 2004). Implementing structured after-school programs with supplemented programs such as drug rehab, counseling, anger management programs, mentoring, peer discussion groups, conflict management and life skills classes will provide more success and better prevention possibilities among at-risk youths. Triumphs that can be expected among participating juveniles are empowerment, leadership, coping skills and hope for the future (Koffman, et al., 2009). However, such programs cannot replace family influence, and the patterns of behavior that will sporadically occur among youths and juveniles experiencing puberty will need to be carefully dealt with by significant support from after-school interventions. Furthermore, in crime ridden communities, a dependency on such programs may develop, prompting families and parents to rely on the raising of children to be done by governmental, private, and community agencies. Nevertheless, these programs offer hope when there is little, and success has motivated continued application and funding for suitable intervention techniques. Copious funding for such programs, although scarce and difficult to generate in suitable quantities, is mandatory to deliver success within communities with low-income families and economic struggles.
Financial challenges sadly have a strong baring on juvenile behavior. Besides the detrimental conditions that can result from poverty, stress and anger breed in families that cannot make ends meet, perpetuating violence and criminal activity. Assistance programs serve in helping families obtain housing and other necessities of life such as food and medical aid, yet even with such programs, juvenile delinquency still flourishes. Shame and guilt from poverty exists equally when assistance programs are being utilized, as one study established (Garcia, & McDowell, 2010). To stop the cycle of such feelings that inevitably lead to delinquency, innovative programs should be established by Congress to financially aid families while requiring parents and caregivers to obtain training programs and employment counseling. Furthermore, poverty stricken communities will benefit from construction makeovers and designated improvements. Juvenile delinquency will cease considerably as a result of geographical enhancements.
Innovative ideas for preventing juvenile delinquency shall include a consideration of healthy peer interaction. Featured in this concept is a necessary understanding of the high impact of peer influence on juveniles. One particular study with 70 participants, all between the ages of eleven and seventeen years old, showed that peer pressure and persuasion of other similarly aged juveniles had a role in the decisions, actions, and beliefs that the participants engaged in (Cohen, & Piquero, 2009). One of the most powerful intervention programs designed and adopted by various court systems in the United States are those mentoring programs and interventions devised to scare juveniles out of crime. While most of these programs involve adult offenders who install fear and truth into youthful offenders, it is clear that peer influence should be utilized in this concept as well. Unlike adults whom can easily remember their youth and relate to juveniles, it is extremely difficult for juveniles to relate to adults. Therefore, juvenile offenders sentenced, punished, or otherwise handled in court for a crime should be required to participate in a new mentoring program for peers with similar criminal tendencies or other anthropological similarities. A program such as this will most likely show colossal achievements in the prevention of juvenile delinquency.
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. Technology will continue to be a precedent for court systems and juvenile cases. Perhaps within the next decade, the United States can expect better systems to monitor, detain, and rehabilitate juveniles through comprehensive programs that are designed and tested with scientific evidence. Nationally, jurisdictions will collaborate to bring forth a more cohesive juvenile justice system that can be easily measured, observed, and improved. While more juvenile delinquents can be expected in the next century, more detention facilities for juveniles will be developed. Although this will seem to be a negative progression, more facilities will give the opportunity for creative programs to develop to be structurally appropriate for the differing circumstances of juvenile offenders. Likewise, more juvenile specific facilities will mean less juveniles being thrust into adult prisons. Additionally, it can be expected that psychology will have a more prominent role in the implementation of justice to enable understanding and treatment for all juvenile types.
For juveniles today, the traditions and patterns that transition a child through adolescence and adulthood are obscured with many negative factors. Broken families, violence, abuse, and poverty promise to destroy the stability a juvenile relies on and damages the juvenile in a way that enables disparaging choices to shape the future of that juvenile. With a conundrum of negative effects, and dilapidating situations within juvenile lives, delinquency may be a problem that can never quite be resolved. Yet, if the juvenile justice system works congruently with communities to produce techniques for justice, along with constant attention to the changing realisms of juvenile life, a successful remedy for delinquency may surely be imminent in the future of juvenile justice.
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&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
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&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277770183&clientId=74379.
Forgatch, M., Patterson, G., Degarmo, D., & Beldavs, Z. (2009). Testing the Oregon
delinquency model with 9-year follow-up of the Oregon divorce study. Development and Psychopathology, 21(2), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1671216111&SrchMode=1&sid=11&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1277769914&clientId=74379.
Garcia, M., & McDowell, T. (2010). Mapping social capital: a critical contextual
approach for working with low-status families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36(1), Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1959683741&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=74379&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Gottfredson, D., Gerstenblith, S., Soulè, D., Womer, S., & Lu, S. (2004). Do after school
programs reduce delinquency?. Prevention Science, 5(4), Retrieved from http://www.ccjs.umd.edu/faculty/userfiles/25/GottfredsonWeismanSoule.pdf
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office, Initials. (2008). Juvenile justice and
delinquency prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/about/jjdpa2002titlev.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&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
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&clientId=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&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
