Youth Incarceration as an Important Social Issue

Within the criminal justice system, there are many controversial issues including the high incarceration rate. Specifically, there is a high incarceration rate of juveniles which seems to be an important problem that is affecting society as whole. The youth’s individual welfare and development seem to also be a problem that society is facing. Youth incarceration within the juvenile system leads to many consequences in their future. There is evidence of consequences that result from incarcerating youth in the history of the United States. This involves placing those youth in camps, juvenile halls, or even group homes. “For more than a century, the predominant strategy for treatment and punishments of serious and sometimes not-so-serious juveniles’ offenders in the US has been placement into large juvenile corrections institutions” (Mendel, 2015, pg. 4). In the 18th and 19th century, youth were reprimanded in the judicial system quite harshly. The youth were placed in overcrowded institutions where “adult offenders and the severe mentally ill were placed” (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2014).

The federal policy which involves protecting juveniles that committed crimes and then to be sentenced by incarceration, was not established until the Juveniles Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was passed in 1974. This act had certain requirements which includes: youth offenders were to have “sight and sound separation' from adult offenders to prevent any contact between the two groups, youth who have committed 'status' offenses such as alcohol possession, could not be placed in a juvenile or adult detention facility, youth could not be detained in adult jails unless certain requirements were met, and states were to create plans to reduce the number of minority youth in the juvenile justice system” (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 1974, 2014).

There are many youths that are incarcerated in those juvenile facilities that are similar to the environments present in jail or prison. Youths receive harsh treatment once incarcerated and placed in juvenile facilities. This treatment is described as “outdated approaches based largely on control and coercion” (Newall & Leap, 2013, pg. 2). Some of these treatments have characteristics such as being punished by isolation, boot camp discipline, and constant persuasion of fear. According to research, in order to rehabilitate those that are placed in juvenile facilities, they would need to participate in trauma care, learn social skills, address their substance abuse and mental health, etc. These might be effective ways to rehabilitate juveniles, however they are “rarely practiced in juvenile justice facilities” (Newall & Leap, 2013; Mendel, 2011). Additionally, “how these youth are treated while incarceration has a marked impact on the rest of their life, their communities and on our society as a whole” (Newall & Leap, 2013, pg. 2).

Furthermore, it is shown that the Hispanic youth and African Americans are being incarcerated in the system at a more higher rate than other races. “Children of color ages 10-17 represent only 16% of the overall child population ages 10-17, but make up 34% of children arrested, 38% of children adjudicated, and 68% of children in residential placement” (Children 's Defense Fund, 2014, pg. 40). It is also shown that those youth that are incarcerated have a history of antisocial and traumatic issues. Langrehr (2011) mentions that youth who have been abused have the tendency to eventually develop rates of aggressive type behaviors. They also are more likely to be involved with the juvenile system than those who were not abused or neglected. Another issue with incarcerating youth is that it “contributes to lifelong repercussions and increased risk of recidivism, low educational attainment, high unemployment rates, high substance and alcohol abuse, and a significant increase in mental health problems” (Mendel, 2011; Langrehr, 2011; Newall & Leap, 2013).

Around 70,000 youths are being incarcerated in the juvenile system nationally. “The United States has the highest rates in comparison to other developed countries” (Mendel, 2015). The population of juveniles in 2013 was around 2,000 in the Los Angeles County. “The Los Angeles County Probation Department is known as the largest juvenile agency in the nation and manages juvenile offender’s detentions and also consists of fourteen locked probation camp facilities and three juvenile halls” (Newell & Leap, 2013). Also, it is important to note that the incarceration rate of youth that are of African American and Hispanic descent is inconsistent. An example of this is that “of approximately 900 young people detained in probation camps, 89 percent of them are male and that 95% of them are youth of color. African American youth are particularly over-represented in L.A. County’s camps; with an incarceration rate three times that of their prevalence in the general population. Youth in camps come largely from the First and Second supervisorial districts, encompassing South Los Angeles, East Los Angeles, and the San Gabriel Valley” (Newell & Leap, 2013, pg. 3).

There are factors that play a role when it comes to the incarceration of youth. These involve political and economic factors. Law makers have an intention of protecting people from juveniles that are deemed a threat to the public. These law makers place harsh punishment policies. Most of the incarcerated youths are those who did not commit violent crimes. There are reports that state that “25% of youth incarcerated in the juvenile justice system having actually committed violent crimes and should remain incarcerated for public safety” (Mendell, 2015). Unfortunately, those youth that have not committed serious crimes are being placed in juvenile facilities. “Low level youthful offenders are also being placed in residential programs as a result of widespread failure in most jurisdictions to invest in high-quality community-based programming” (Mendel, 2015, pg. 14).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Furthermore, Krisberg, Voung, Hartney, Marchionna, (2011), mention that since then late 1960’s, in California, “the state began providing individual counties with financial subsidies for local programs, that encouraged rehabilitation at the local level such as probation camps” (Krisberg, Voung, Hartney, Marchionna, 2011). Also, there is bias to those youth that are of color which leads to the unbalance of incarcerated youths of African Americans or Hispanic descent. There was a study that compared the probation reports and “found that Black youth were often characterized as more mature and adult like, whereas Caucasian youth were described as more vulnerable and immature, further, officers attributed behaviors of black youth as natural or innate characteristic whereas the same behaviors in Caucasian youth were seen as more of external circumstances” (Langrehr, 2011). These biases of those in power “provides insight into the role of race in attributable bias, particularly among public services officials whose decision can contribute to the racial disparities in the justice system” (Langrehr, 2011, pg.14). Likewise, it was also mentioned that “at virtually every stage of the juvenile justice processes, youth of color- Latinos and African Americans, particularly-receive harsher treatment then white counterparts, even when they enter justice systems with identical charges and offending histories” (Mendel, 2015, pg. 23).

Youth incarceration also has an impact economically. Within the county of Los Angeles, “the average daily cost to house a youth in a probation camp is $321.61, and for a six- month sentence, this equates to over $60,000” (Newell & Leap, 2013, pg. 4). Mendel (2015) made an argument “that incarcerating juveniles is an economic waste of tax-payers money which goes towards spending to place juveniles in correction institutes or residential facilities, when other treatment programs deliver equivalent or superior outcomes and contribute to lower recidivism rates and better meet the at-risk juvenile offenders overall needs” (Mendel, 2015).

Female incarcerated youth have specific need in the juvenile system, and it is significant to understand this. Although there isn’t much research on this issue involving the needs of incarcerated female youth, it is known that only a few cultural and gender specific juvenile systems exist. Welch, Roberts-Lewis & Parker (2009) happen to mention that there is “a significant need for the development of gender specific juveniles justice programs and treatment services to address the distinctive needs of females whom are incarcerated in the juvenile system” (Welch, Roberts-Lewis & Parker, 2009). Furthermore, there is an issue with LGBTQ youth and how they are placed in the juvenile system which led to specialized programs aimed at meeting the needs of LGBTQ youth that are incarcerated. These “youth in the juvenile justice system who identify as LGBT are isolated, being placed in sex-offender sections due to their sexual orientation, and are regularly becoming victims of verbal, physical and sexual abuse within the facilities” (Marksamer & Rowen, 2008).

There have been approaches aimed at comprehending the racial issue of incarcerated youth in the juvenile system. One of these approaches is the Conflict theory which “views communities divided into haves and have-nots, all competing for limited resources” (Netting, Kettner & McMurtry, 2008). Conflict theory also aims at the focus of power inequality coming from dominant groups, and non-dominant. Furthermore, there is a racial-threat theory that “claims that racial and ethnic minorities are discriminated against because they happen to lack the power to guarantee equal treatment” (Lynch, Patterson, & Childs, 2010, pg. 90). The racial-threat theory also implies “that minorities are perceived to be the most threatening, and as a result are most likely to be disadvantaged at sentencing because of the bias of the African American community” (Lynch et. al., 2010, pg. 91).

There is a non-profit agency, New Directions for Youth, in Los Angeles that is aimed at providing programs for those youth who are at risk. It is located in San Fernando Valley. Their mission is to dedicate “to providing comprehensive programs and services to at-risk youth and their families” (New Directions for Youth, 2013). The agency also offers many services that help with meeting the needs of those youth at risk. The agency also helps prevent delinquency and aims at helping youth succeed. Some of the programs within the agency are: Delinquency Prevention Program, Gang Prevention, and also includes individual and family counseling, after-school tutoring, summer employment, graffiti removal, crisis intervention, etc. These services are great because they are free and meet many needs of those youth whom are at risk.

Youth incarceration is an important social issue that needs to be addressed. Ways to address this issue is by aiming to help those youth who are at risk, and youth of color.

References

1. Carter, A. M. (n.d.). Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. doi: 10.4135/9781412950640.n65
2. Coleman, C. B. (2013). Proem. New Directions for Youth Development, 2013(139), 9–10. doi: 10.1002/yd.20065
3. Durán, R. J. (2010). Book Review: Michael J. Lynch, E. Britt Patterson, and Kristina K. Childs Racial Divide: Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Criminal Justice System. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 2008. Criminal Justice Review, 35(2), 255–256. Doi: 10.1177/0734016809356309
4. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report (Overview). (2014). PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi: 10.1037/e321112004-001
5. Krisberg, B., Vuong, L., Hartney, C. Marchionna, S. (2011). A new Era in California juvenile justice: Downsizing the state youth corrections system. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice.
6. Langrehr, K. J. (2011). Racial Distinctions in the Psychosocial Histories of Incarcerated Youth. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi: 10.1037/e706342011-001
7. Marksamer, J., & Rowen, M. (2008). And by the way, do you know he thinks he’s a girl? The failures of law, policy and legal representation for transgender youth in juvenile delinquency courts. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 5(1), 72–92. doi: 10.1525/srsp.2008.5.1.72
8. Mendel, R. A. (2015). No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.3332.6244
9. Netting, F. E., Kettner, P. M., McMurtry, S. L., & Thomas, M. L. (2008). Social work macropractice. Boston: Pearson.
10. Newell, M., Leap, J. (2013). Reforming the Nation’s Largest Juvenile Justice System. Children’s Defense Fund/UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs.
11. Raymonde, C. (2014, September 16). Children's Defense Fund Releases New Report Showing Children of Color Are Majority of Infants and Toddlers. Retrieved from https://www.childrensdefense.org/2014/childrens-defense-fund-releases-new-report-showing-children-of-color-are-majority-of-infants-and-toddlers/
12. Welch, C. L., Roberts-Lewis, A. C., & Parker, S. (2009). Incorporating Gender Specific Approaches for Incarcerated Female Adolescents: Multilevel Risk Model for Practice. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(1), 67–83. doi: 10.1080/10509670802572292