Is Punitive Juvenile Justice Policy Declining in the United States? A Critique of Emergent Initiatives
| Author | Peter J. Benekos,Alida V. Merlo |
| Published date | 01 April 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225409356740 |
| Date | 01 April 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Corresponding author:
Professor Alida V. Merlo, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Department of Criminology, Indiana, Pennsylvania 15705, USA.
Email: amerlo@iup.edu
Is Punitive Juvenile Justice Policy
Declining in the United States?
A Critique of Emergent Initiatives
Alida V. Merlo
Indiana University of Pennsylvania, USA
Peter J. Benekos
Mercyhurst College, Pennsylvania USA
Abstract
The authors examine emergent policies in juvenile justice that suggest a softening of the get-tough legislation
of the 1990s that targeted youthful offenders. In the context of Bernard’s thesis on the cycle of juvenile justice
(Bernard, 1992) this article critiques the extreme policy reactions to juvenile violence and considers the
impact they had on demonization of youth and expressive justice. The discussion contrasts punitive rhetoric
such as zero tolerance with programmes that incorporate restorative principles. The authors propose that a
decrease in juvenile crime, dissemination of evidence-based intervention strategies, and fiscal constraints have
provided opportunities to de-escalate the punitive response to youthful offenders.
Keywords
juvenile justice policy, juvenile court processes, juvenile policies in the US, youth in court.
Introduction
Although juvenile crime in the United States far exceeds that of Europe, there has been a
decline in juvenile arrests since they peaked in the 1990s. One frequently cited example
of this trend is juveniles who kill. In 1996, there were 1907 young people under the age of
18 arrested for murder; in 2006, there were 764 youth arrested for murder (Uniform Crime
Reports, 1997; Uniform Crime Reports, 2007). The dramatic increase in juvenile crime in
the late 1980s and 1990s fuelled a legislative response that was harsh and punitive.
This article provides both a review of some of the policies that were implemented to
deal with the rise in youth violence and an examination of specific indicators which sug-
gest that although some changes were implemented, juvenile justice policy has remained
Youth Justice
10(1) 3–24
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225409356740
yjj.sagepub.com
4 Youth Justice 10(1)
on a fairly even keel for the last 20 years. While adjustments in the handling of youth have
occurred due to punitive policies, the juvenile court appears to practise some policies
which are consistent with its historical mission. To illustrate this thesis, the authors have
selected five indicators of juvenile justice policy:
1 percentage of youth waived to adult court;
2 out-of-home placement dispositions;
3 juvenile probation dispositions;
4 juveniles sentenced to adult prisons; and
5 public opinion on the importance of prevention and rehabilitation for youth.
These data provide a snapshot of the state of juvenile justice policy in the United States
and are useful for interpreting current and future trends. Before examining these trends, it
is important to understand the historical backdrop in which existing policies and statutes
were revised or new policies were implemented.
The Concept and Evolution of Juvenile Justice
The classic interpretation of the juvenile court is that a special court was established
through the efforts of child savers and concerned citizens in order to protect children from
the harms of criminal court and to use social welfare programs to save wayward youth
(Bortner, 1988; Platt, 1977; Taylor et al., 2007). The parens patriae doctrine that the state
would act as a kind and benevolent parent underscored a different philosophy and a thera-
peutic system to care for the best interests of children.
While the original mission of the juvenile court may have reflected an admirable objec-
tive, the reality of how youth were treated was subsequently condemned. In the context of
hardening attitudes toward youth and with a system depicted by deficit performance,
juvenile justice at the beginning of the 21st century was bleak. Three developments –
exaggerated media coverage, demonization of youth, and loss of faith in the juvenile
justice system – were used by legislators to drive policies which resulted in a shift of dis-
cretion from judges to prosecutors, reduced the individualization of sanctions, and further
adultified the juvenile justice system. This resulted in the removal of more youth from the
juvenile system and underscored the trend in adultification policies.
The emphasis on punishment and increased social control is consistent with Garland’s
thesis that ‘penal welfarism’ has been overshadowed by more expressive and emotional
state control that has also become more politicized (Garland, 2001). He recognizes that
incarcerative control reflects exclusionary policies that are consistent with Cohen’s
description of cycles of social control in which responses to deviance shift from inclusion-
ary, integrative efforts to exclusionary, punitive measures (Cohen, 1985). Both Garland
and Cohen examine methods of social control and identify strategies which essentially
expand state control. The rise in punitive impulses toward juveniles is characteristic of
Garland’s assessment of the nature of contemporary penal policy and more coercive social
control (Garland, 2001).
To continue reading
Request your trial