Case Studies of Juvenile Delinquency.

Case Studies of Juvenile Delinquency.

Author: Tony

Abstract

This paper focuses on the effect of boot camps on two cases of juvenile delinquency. The two cases are Terry and Josh. A description of the criteria that was used for placing each one of these delinquents into either a court for status offenders or a court for juvenile delinquents is offered in the paper. A brief description of the juvenile boot program is also offered. The placement of these two delinquents into a juvenile boot camp program will be discussed. The effects of boot camps on detention facilities will also be outlined. The effect of boot camp program on court waiver will also be explained. The expected outcomes of the juvenile boot program will be outlined.

Introduction.

Status offense is a contravention against a law that is supposed to be applied on only a specific group of people, such as individuals under the age of 18 years. Thus, a juvenile status offender is a person who contravenes laws that only applies to people under the age of 18 years (Bilchick, 2011). This paper considers the following two juveniles who have just entered the system: Josh, a 16-year-old male, and Terry, a 15-year-old male. Their ages indicates that they are both adolescents.

Terry comes from a one-parent home and has been a truant from school, has been breaking the curfew, is considered to be incorrigible, and has run away from home three times. According to the above description of Terry’s misdemeanors, Terry can be considered as a status offender. He is considered as a status offender since none of Terry’s action has contravened the constitutional law that applies to adults.

On the other hand, Josh comes from a one-parent home. He was found in his neighbor’s apartment stealing cash from her purse. His prior record consists of truancy, malicious mischief, running away from home, assault with a weapon, possession of drugs (under one gram), and grand theft auto. The following actions of Josh are considered as status offences: truancy, malicious mischief and running away from home. The following actions show that Josh is a delinquent:  assault with a weapon, possession of drugs (under one gram), grand theft auto and sneaking into a neighbor’s apartment and stealing money from her purse. The action of sneaking into a neighbor’s apartment and stealing money from her purse is considered as a contravention of law, even if it is done by an adult. Thus, it can be concluded that Terry, a status offender and Josh, a juvenile delinquent, will require different punishments and corrective strategies due to the differing gravity of their offences. Hence, Terry’s case will be taken to a court that deals with status offenders, while Josh’s case will be taken to a court that deals with juvenile delinquents.

Status offenders are considered as pre-delinquents who require supervision of juvenile probation officers. The juvenile probation officer will still have power over a status offender if he or she does not complete the required punishment (Bilchick, 2011).

Research has shown that intra-family stressors do affect adolescents who engage in delinquent behaviors (or commit status offences). Hence, the juvenile status offenders alongside their families are required to obtain pre-court diversion and intervention services. These services are intended to ensure that the family continues to function, and they also enable the status offender to avert any form of court involvement. Most communities are affected by status offenders and such communities do prefer if such status offenders are taken into jail. Pre-court interventional programs for such status offenders are thus delinked from judicial processes, and hence the courts do not interfere with such programs (Bilchick, 2011). However, for the case of terry, his parent does consider him to have an incorrigible character, and she thus recommends that the court should intervene in the situation. The court considered the following felony charges: truancy, breaking curfews and incorrigible misbehavior. The court jailed him for six months in a juvenile probation facility. However, this term could be transformed (and substituted by) into a three month term in a juvenile boot camp. Terry preferred the boot camp and he was placed in the juvenile boot camp program. Within the boot camp, Terry’s probation officer will be paying him a visit once a month to assess his corrective transformation and rehabilitation status. Based on Terry’s offences, he was enrolled into a small community-based boot camp facility. This facility is able to share the local infrastructure with the local community, and also most of its staff members have been recruited from the local community (Thomas, 2011).

The case of Josh is more complicated than Terry’s case, as Josh is also charged with theft. Theft is not covered by pre-court interventional programs, since theft is a felony that is also illegal among adults, and therefore Josh is not a status offender but a juvenile delinquent. However, the circumstances surrounding the act of theft were non-violent, and this implies that Josh can be admitted into a juvenile boot camp program (due to the non-violent nature of his offences). In the court, Josh was sentenced to a year in jail in a juvenile correction facility. Within the Juvenile correction facility, Josh was co-opted into a juvenile boot camp program whose term would last for exactly six months. Josh thus joined the boot program. Based on Josh’s offences, he was enrolled into a stand-alone boot camp that is located away from the general population areas. This facility is placed far away from the general population because there is fear that the enrolled offenders may negatively influence the local community, and/or the offenders may engage in physical assaults against each other and/or also involve the members of the surrounding community (Thomas, 2011).

Placement of juvenile offenders in juvenile boot camps does affect the operations of detention facilities. Detention facilities are designed for adult offenders who have committed serious crimes. Thus, placing juvenile delinquents in detention facilities has the effect of hardening them into hardcore criminals who would terrorize their respective communities when they released. Moreover, placing juvenile delinquents into boot camps instead of detention facilities has the effect of decongesting such detention facilities and ensuring that only adults are placed in such detention facilities. Thus, juvenile boot camp program will not lead to closure of detention facilities (since such facilities are usually filled with adult offenders). However, there will be some minimal employment layoffs, especially of the juvenile probation officers and juvenile correction officers, since most juvenile offenders will be placed under the supervision of boot camps’ administrators. Detention sentences are always determinate as a juvenile delinquent who has been sentenced to serve more than 3 years in a detention facility cannot qualify for a juvenile boot camp program (Zaccano, 2011).

Another area that will be affected by the juvenile boot camp program is the waiver program of courts. The courts would have to reduce the age of waiver in order to ensure that only juveniles benefit from such waiver, and also to place an emphasis on the fact that adults should be held responsible for their actions (since they are not likely to benefit from such waiver) (Zaccano, 2011).

Overview of juvenile boot camps programs.

The juvenile boot camp program has the following five basic elements (Thomas, 2011):

1.     The program only incorporates non-violent juvenile delinquents. Thus, jails can be freed for violent criminals and “superpredator” delinquents. Hence, both Terry and Josh can be considered for this program, since their most significant felonies are considered to be non-violent.

2.     There is a residential phase lasting for a period of less than six months. The duration of the residential phase is determined by the significance of the felony. Thus, Terry’s residential phase would last for only three months while Josh’s residential phase would last for six months.

3.     The schedule is regimented so that emphasis is placed on imparting discipline in the participants and physical training.

4.      The participants are provided with the appropriate substance abuse counseling, skill training and educational opportunities.

5.     Seamless coordination and integration of the program, with the  provision of appropriate aftercare services.

The boot-camp environment is described hereafter. It is a military-style environment whereby the status offender is separated and housed differently from other boot camp participants (non-convict military cadets), and the hard labor in the camp substitutes for a long-time confinement in conventional jails. Stand-alone boot camps do place a lot of emphasis on discipline and the participants are treated harshly in such boot camps as compared to the community-based boot camps (Thomas, 2011).

The juvenile boot camp program operates in conformance with the six guidelines stated hereafter. First of all, the participants are involved in community service. Secondly, the program provides educational opportunities, vocational training and job placement for the participants. Thirdly, there is provision of substance abuse counseling and management services. Fourthly, there is provision of general health and mental healthcare services. Fifthly, the continuous case management is personalized according to the needs of the participants. Finally, intensive aftercare services are also offered in the program(Thomas, 2011).

The main goals of juvenile boot camp program are rehabilitation, deterrence, punishment, incapacitation and cost control. Punishment and cost control enables the program to offer better rehabilitative services to juvenile offenders as compared to detention facilities.  The following four conditions are necessary for effective cost control: the participants should be confinement bound, the period of confinement should be considerably shorter (than the jail term in a detention facility), there should be a minimization of program failures (such as, the number of voluntary dropouts should be kept at the minimum low, expulsions must be minimized and post-release failure must be mitigated) and the camp must accommodate a considerable number of juvenile offenders (Dwyer, 2011).

Induction of behavior change.

The number of participants in each boot camp should number approximate about 75 persons. The selection should be based on the confinement periods. Thus, Terry is incorporated in a community camp whose participants are confined for a period not exceeding three months. The community boot camp is financed by the state budget and some philanthropic organizations. The military atmosphere in Terry’s camp is modeled based on the developmental model (Thomas, 2011).

The developmental model is effective in rehabilitating adolescents, since the model is designed in such a way as to promote appropriate adolescent development. The model incorporates the following three elements (Robinson, 2011):

1.     Adolescent value fairness, and hence the program has been designed to ensure that there is justice, even-handedness, objectivity, impartiality and equality.

2.     Most adolescents (especially ones like Terry) do reject any form of imposed structure and commanding assistance. This rejection of assistance is normal among such status offenders, since they have been actively rejecting any form of assistance from their parents and all other concerned parties. For instance, terry is considered incorrigible.

3.     Adolescent prefer encouragement (a form of positive reinforcement) to punishment (a form of negative reinforcement). However, the status offenders may modify their behaviors and attitudes in order to avert punishment, but this behavioral modification is transient at best, and it does not have any long-term rehabilitative impact.

Thus, the services in the boot camp are offered on the basis of strengths and needs. This way, the inclination to decline assistance is naturally subdued and Terry then becomes amenable to rehabilitation. This is because this strategy enables Terry to understand that his needs can only be meet in non-delinquent fashion (Robinson, 2011).

On the other hand, Josh is incorporated into a stand-alone camp whereby none of the offenders is serving a term exceeding six months. The camp is also operated using the developmental model, but there is harsher punishment as compared to Terry’s camp.

In both camps, the young offenders share certain common needs. This aspect of sharing will enable the adolescents to come together and bond with each other and in the process create a new “family” entity that can be supervised closely by their boot camp manager. The boot camp manager will act as the father figure who will direct the counseling sessions of these adolescent. The bonding process will also enable Terry and Josh to learn how to create healthy, effective and productive interpersonal relationships. This life lesson will be very useful for these two adolescents when they are released from the camps as they will be able to reconcile their differences with their parents, teachers and mates (Robinson, 2011).

Reintegration of these two adolescents back into the society is important for boot camp success. Juvenile boot programs have thus designed mechanisms that will ensure that the reformed adolescent is able to transit easily from the residential phase of the program into active community life. This mechanism has the following components (Thomas, 2011):

1.     The youths will be assessed and classified according to their risk of recidivism. The youth with the lowest risk (or who pose no risk) of recidivism will be selected and recommended for release into the community.

2.     The case planning of both Terry and Josh will be done using inputs from their respective families. The respective program coordinators will seek the perspective of the society about an impending release of these adolescents. The coordinator will explain to the members of the societies that the two adolescents have been rehabilitated, and they can therefore be reintegrated back into their respective communities.

3.     Intensive surveillance will be conducted on both Josh and Terry after their release. The boot program administrator will liaise with members of their respective communities, the US justice department and the local security apparatus in order to ensure that the surveillance is objective and intensive.

Expected outcome.

It is expected that both Terry and Josh will be:

1.     Rehabilitated completely before they are released from the camp.

2.     To learn how to create healthy, effective and productive interpersonal relationships.

3.     To reconcile their differences with their parents, teachers and mates.

4.     Successfully reintegrated into the society.

If these expected outcomes are achieved, there will be an extremely low probability that either Josh or Terry will relapse back into juvenile delinquency and truancy. Moreover, these adolescents will be able to understand that delinquency does not solve any of their problems, instead it worsens them; and this fact will motivate them to be law-abiding citizens.

References.

Bilchik, S. (2011). Juvenile status offences. Journal of Applied Sociology, 97, 789-818.

Thomas, D. (2011). Juvenile Boot Camp Program. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Books.

Dwyer, E. (2011). Current Goals and Guidelines of Juvenile Boot Camp programs. Journal of

            Rehabilitative Services, 94, 189-217.

Robinson, T. (2011). Assessment of the Induction Behavioral Changes in Juvenile Boot Camps.

                   Currents Trends in Criminology, 51, 230-265.

Zaccano, R. (2011). Juvenile delinquency and military service. Journal of Social Science, 98,          321-55.