Young Offenders in USA
| Date | 01 June 1978 |
| Published date | 01 June 1978 |
| Author | Brendan Fulton |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057802500205 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Young Offenders in USA
(Report of a Visit)
BRENDAN FULTON
THE PURPOSE of my visit was to look at methods devised for young
offenders as extensions of supervision and alternatives to residential care.
In addition, I hoped to talk with American probation officers and social
workers about the problems of working with individuals within com-
munities where violence was prevalent. In a way, my terminology re-
presented our blinkered thinking in Northern Ireland where residential
care tends to be associated with removal from the community. Thus
community-based alternatives would be a much better
’
description of
what I was looking at.
In the event my journey involved me in a very broad look at the
corrections field. I suppose this was inevitable once I began to try to
gauge the probation o~cers’ or social workers’ role vis-a-vis the com-
munities in which they worked. The wider view was also forced by
the changes within the system and services from State to State as I had
to try to gain some idea of these before I could measure the significance
of individual programmes.
Time was also required to adjust to the terminology. Probation within
Northern Ireland stands firmly within the social work field while in
the USA it is within the correctional field. Moreover, the equally nebulous
term &dquo;counsellor&dquo; tends to be substituted for &dquo;social worker&dquo;. The latter
seems to be associated with the &dquo;bleeding heart&dquo; syndrome or with clinical
work. Another element was the absence of professional social work train-
ing as we know it for many in the correctional field. Most of the
probation officers that I met had no likelihood of ever being trained, in
contrast to Northern Ireland. Consequently, there seemed to be more
empathy between field and residential workers-the same boat, so to
speak.
On my travels I was surprised to find that discussion tended to restrict
itself to the effectiveness of the various parts of the Juvenile System
with little questioning of the overall system. All the juvenile structures
which I saw were based on a justice model with welfare of the young
person as an important component. This may simply indicate that within
the USA it is unrealistic to consider removal from the court system.
Certainly the rights of the accused receive a far greater degree of atten-
tion than in Northern Ireland where probation officers have been ridiculed
for the extent of their concern for &dquo;due process&dquo;. Children have guaran-
teed rights under the State Law (for example, safeguard against assess-
ment before a finding of guilt).
It is interesting, therefore, within this very legalistic setting to look
at the experiments in Diversion that are taking place. The term itself
has many meanings: in New York City, the Vera Institute was involved
in a pre-court diversion scheme, while in the Massachusetts Juvenile the
scheme operated after an appearance in court but prior to a determina-
tion of delinquency. Both entailed involvement of the accused in some
sort of programme for a limited period. Successful completion resulted in
no further action and the &dquo;sealing&dquo; of that person’s criminal record.
51
Other schemes described seemed more like an Intermediate Treatment
Order in England while others were equivalent to a supervised police
caution. All the schemes raised the following problems-how can the
scheme be drawn into the system without allowing for more pressure
being placed on the accused to accept guilt? Are the persons referred
the ones most likely to benefit? Is it a greater restriction on freedom
than would otherwise have been imposed? Vera (New York City) is
undertaking a research programme using a control group and further
research is being undertaken an many other places. It seems to be
appropriate for us to set up an appropriate pilot scheme taking cognisance
of our legitimate concern about ensuring due process and the danger of
&dquo;overkill&dquo; of those not likely to be at risk.
The overriding problem with Diversion continues to be the fear that
the system may become as contagious as the court it is meant to by-pass.
Before moving to...
To continue reading
Request your trial