Juvenile Justice

In Chapter 1 of the text, our author talks about “putting it all into perspective.” Prior to beginning work on this discussion,

Review Chapters 1 and 2 of Introduction to Juvenile Justice.

Read A More Just System of Juvenile Justice: Creating a New Standard of Accountability for Juveniles in Illinois.

Watch Juvenile Justice: The System With Joe Berlinger, Inside Adult Prison Youth Unit: General Perspectives, Superintendent Linda Commons: Interview, and

Prison Documentary Prison Life of Young Kids, Hard Time Prison Documentary 2017 HD (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

.

Select one of the juveniles from your reading, the videos, or from a personal experience with a particular juvenile in mind. Address the three questions in the following quote from the Lollis (2018) video Prison Documentary Prison Life of Young Kids, Hard Time Prison Documentary 2017 HD (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.:

“In a world that demands justice when the unthinkable becomes reality, there are no easy answers when that reality involves minors. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world and remains the only nation that, in rare circumstances, will sentence its juveniles to life without parole. Is it a solution? Does it work? Do we care?”

Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Juvenile Delinquency:
Background and
Measurement
1
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be
able to accomplish the following objectives:
© Thomas Frey/dpa/Corbis
Understand the complexity of juvenile
delinquency.
Understand how juvenile delinquency is
defined.
Understand the different types of
juvenile delinquency.
Understand the three primary
techniques for measuring crime.
Understand the rates of delinquency.
Identify the strengths and weaknesses
of each measure of crime.
During the summer of 1999, 6-year-old Tiffany Eunich was staying with a friend of her mother’s. The friend’s 12-year-old son, Lionel
Tate, and Tiffany were playing while Lionel’s mother was in another part of the home. Two hours later, Lionel told his mother that Tiffany
had stopped breathing. Lionel indicated that they were playing a wrestling game. He admitted that he had the little girl in a headlock,
and her head hit the table. Tiffany later died of her injuries. The autopsy indicated that Tiffany’s injuries included a lacerated spleen,
fractured rib cage and skull, and damage to her liver (Canedy, 2001).
Lionel Tate became the youngest person in American history to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Eventually
the case was overturned, allowing him to serve three years in prison; however, he continued to have trouble with the law and currently
resides in prison on an armed robbery conviction. The case of Lionel Tate captured national attention not only due to the nature of the
crime but also the young age of the defendant.
Although violent crime among juveniles is cause for serious concern, other forms of delinquency such as drug and alcohol use among
teens can be equally as concerning. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) asserts that alcohol and drug use
among teens is a significant public health issue. The CDC monitors drug and alcohol use among teenagers with a national schoolbased survey (visit http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss (http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss) for more information). According to the survey, in 2011, 38.7%
of students reported having at least one drink during the last 30 days before the survey, 23.1% of students reported using marijuana
one or more times during the 30 days before the survey, and 11.4% had sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or
inhaled paints or sprays to get high one or more times during their life (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…=content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 1 of 27
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Page 2 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
1.1 Introduction
Youth involvement in violent crime is often the subject of intense media coverage. The Tate
case illustrates that children can and do commit violent criminal acts. While this case illustrates
that juveniles are capable of murder, this type of crime is low compared to other types of
crimes. If we examine arrest statistics, we see that while 7,800 juveniles committed murder in
2010, that number is lower than any other violent crime category, with the exception of arson
(Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2010). On the other hand, the results of the Youth Risk
Behavior Surveillance System survey noted in the previous section indicate that youth are
experimenting with both drugs and underage drinking. These examples represent the range of
cases the juvenile justice system must deal with on an annual basis.
High School Counselor
High school counselors must wear a number
of hats. Youth who are truant or drop out of
school are far more likely to be involved in the
juvenile justice system.
Is possible to break the cycle of abuse?
How should the juvenile justice system
intervene with families who abuse their
children?
People generally agree that violent acts at the hands of a juvenile should be considered
criminal. However, defining and measuring deviant behavior among juveniles is more difficult
than it might seem. For example, if a youth drinks alcohol at a weekend party with friends and
does not get caught, is the behavior criminal? It certainly could be argued that underage drinking with friends is wrong regardless of police action.
However, if a youth is given a glass of wine at the family dinner table, does this behavior also represent juvenile delinquency? The context in which
the behavior occurs might alter our perspective.
We may see binge drinking at an unsupervised party differently than consuming a small amount in the context of a family gathering even though both
are against the rules. Or, the reasons behind the behavior may change our view. Conversely, consider a youth that may skip school to escape
chronic bullying or runs away from home to escape sexual abuse. Truancy is against the rules, but should the underlying cause be considered when
determining how to deal with the youth?
As we will see throughout this chapter, juvenile delinquency is a complex phenomenon. The complexity can be seen in several different examples.
First, the age at which a youth is considered a juvenile delinquent varies by state. Second, the type of offenses committed by juveniles varies
dramatically, and there is controversy surrounding how different types of offenses should be handled. Finally, there are various ways to measure
delinquency and each comes to slightly different conclusions about the extent and impact of crime. The complexity surrounding juvenile delinquency
should not be interpreted that studying the concept is unproductive or cannot inform public policy. Instead, researchers and practitioners must
appreciate and develop theories and policies that account for this complexity. Let’s begin by examining the complications and controversies that arise
when trying to define who is a juvenile delinquent.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 3 of 27
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Page 4 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
1.2 Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?
One of the challenges in understanding the juvenile justice system is that the system itself is in fact not systematic. The juvenile justice system is
comprised of 51 different entities—one for each state and the federal system. While some similarities exist between states, each is able to define
who qualifies as a juvenile delinquent. In general, most people would consider a juvenile delinquent to be minor who commits a criminal act. But at
what age is someone considered a minor? Should everyone who is under the age of 18 be considered a minor? Conversely, is there an age at which
someone is too young to form criminal intent and should therefore be exempt from criminal prosecution? Age ambiguity, or uncertainty surrounding
the age of entry into the juvenile justice system, can be seen in a number of examples. In Texas, the definition of a juvenile delinquent is a child
between the ages of 10 and 17 years of age. However, in Massachusetts, the age is between 7 and 16 years of age (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
If we look state by state, we see considerable variation in both the upper and lower age limits. For example, as seen in Table 1.1, three states,
Connecticut, North Carolina, and New York, list 15 years of age as the oldest age at which the juvenile court has jurisdiction over an individual. This
is referred to as the age of jurisdiction. In other words, the age of the youth dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult court system has
authority over the case. That means if a 16-year-old commits a felony in North Carolina, the jurisdiction rests with the adult court. Eleven other states
list 16 as the upper age, and the remaining 37 states and the District of Columbia consider 17 years of age as the upper age of jurisdiction.
Table 1.1: Oldest age for original jurisdiction in delinquency matters
Age
State
15
Connecticut, New York, North Carolina
16
Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas,
Wisconsin
17
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
Source: Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Some states also set the minimum age of jurisdiction for youth to be involved with the juvenile justice system. As seen in Table 1.2, North Carolina
holds the title for the state with the youngest age of jurisdiction allowing for those who are 6 years old to be subject to the juvenile court system.
Three states indicate that 7 years of age should be the minimum, followed by Arizona at 8 years old, and finally 12 others who list 10 years of age as
the minimum.
Table 1.2: Youngest age for original jurisdiction in delinquency matters
Age
State
6
North Carolina
7
Maryland, Massachusetts, New York
8
Arizona
10
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas,
Vermont, Wisconsin
Source: Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Not surprisingly, the upper age of jurisdiction varies by state as well. The upper age of jurisdiction refers to the oldest age a juvenile can be retained
in the juvenile system. For example, if a youth is convicted at age 14 for a crime and sentenced to serve time in a juvenile institution, the question
becomes how long the youth can be kept under supervision by the juvenile justice system. Table 1.3 illustrates that the majority of states consider the
age of 20 as the upper age of jurisdiction. There are a few states, however, that will allow youth as old as 24 to remain in the juvenile justice system
and even some that will allow for youth to remain as long as their sentence dictates.
Table 1.3: Oldest age for which the juvenile court may retain jurisdiction for disposition purposes.
Age
State
18
Alaska, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 5 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
19
Mississippi, North Dakota
20
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada*, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming
21
Florida
22
Kansas
24
California, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin
__
Colorado**, Hawaii**, New Jersey**
*Until the full term of disposition for sex offenders
**Until the full term of disposition
Source: Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 6 of 27
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Page 7 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
1.3 What Is Juvenile Delinquency?
Defining the types of behavior that should warrant involvement in the juvenile justice system further adds to this complexity. For example, while
murder at the hands of juveniles is clearly a situation that would invoke court involvement, other forms of delinquency are less clear. As we will see
later in this chapter, crimes committed by juveniles range from minor violations like vandalism and truancy to more serious crimes like rape and
robbery. Should those individuals who commit less serious forms of delinquency such as truancy be subjected to the same arrest and court
processing as those who commit more serious crime? Understanding this issue requires us to examine a brief history behind the concept of juvenile
delinquency.
Those born in the 1980s and later have only known the juvenile justice system as oriented toward punishment. Historically (which will be covered in
more detail in Chapter 2), the juvenile justice system was oriented toward rehabilitation and care of the youth. Rehabilitation or reformation of the
youth is the foundation behind one of the core concepts of the system. This concept is referred to as parens patria. Parens patria is Latin for “parent
of the nation” and refers to the court’s focus on the welfare of the juvenile. The parenting role of the court becomes particularly important in cases
where the juvenile is a victim of abuse and/or neglect.
The juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over behaviors that are illegal only for juveniles. Those types of crimes are referred to as status offenses
and include delinquent acts such as truancy, running away, and violating curfew. The status offenses are considered fairly minor forms of delinquency
and may qualify in some states for particular types of services such as diversion or educational classes. For example, some states offer seminars
both for the parents and youth who engage in chronic truancy. The classes might discuss the impact of skipping school both for the youth’s financial
and emotional well-being.
Delinquent offenses, abuse and neglect (nondelinquent) cases, and status offenses are clearly distinct; however, it was not until the 1960s that
reformers questioned how the juvenile justice system should handle each. At this point in history the concern was less about whether the system
should be more punitive in its handling of delinquent cases. Rather, the concern focused on whether the system could be having a negative impact
on status offenders and abuse and neglect cases. The controversy surrounding status offenses became particularly important as research suggested
that the system’s response could potentially influence the chance the youth would become involved in more serious delinquency in the future (Raley,
1995). In other words, could it be possible that the juvenile justice system could be doing more harm than good?
The treatment of status offenders was addressed as a core issue in the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. The protection for status offenders is called the
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders and recommends that all juveniles classified as
status offenders not be held for any period of time in a detention facility (Holden & Kapler, 1995).
The concern regarding the treatment of status offenders by the system originated for several
reasons. First, although status offenses are less serious forms of deviance, they could result in
severe sanctions such as institutionalization. Second, studies find that status offenders,
particularly girls who run away from home, may be doing so to escape an abusive home life.
These girls are often detained and treated as criminals rather than victims of abuse. Finally,
studies also find that placing these youth under the control of the system actually ends up
increasing their risk for future criminal behavior (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; Holman &
Ziedenberg, 2007; Sherman, 2005).
To reduce the potential negative impact, some argue that the system should develop labels,
guidelines, and even separate criminal codes. In terms of labels, the International Association of
Underage drinking is a delinquent-type status
Chiefs of Police (IACP) argued that those status offenders should be labeled as unruly children
offense.
(Krisberg & Austin, 1978). Other states classified those who commit status offenses as a person
in need of supervision (PINS), a youth in need of supervision (YINS), and juvenile in need of
supervision (JINS), or a child in need of supervision (CINS). Still other states limited the types of charges that could be classified as a status offense.
For example, North Carolina developed five categories (Governor’s Crime Commission, 2010) in particular:
Fuse/Thinkstock
1. Undisciplined-Type Status: a juvenile who has committed an undisciplined-type status offense (e.g., runaway, truant, and disobedient);
2. Delinquent-Type Status: a juvenile who committed a curfew, alcohol, tobacco, or motor vehicle offense that is not a crime for adults (e.g., buying
tobacco under 18, consuming alcohol under 21) is a delinquency court case;
3. Criminal-Type Status: a juvenile who committed a curfew, alcohol, tobacco, or motor vehicle offense that is not a crime for adults but is subjected
to criminal court;
4. Civil-Type Status: a juvenile who is under delinquency court jurisdiction for an infraction that is civil in nature (e.g., noncriminal traffic or fish and
game violations).
5. Alien Juvenile: a noncitizen juvenile under age 18 who is not charged with any offense.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 8 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
The remaining concern with status offenders, however, is how to deal with chronic status offenders, or those who commit multiple status offenses.
Chronic offending will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4. In the next section we will discuss how juvenile delinquency is measured and the
amount of juvenile delinquency that occurs each year.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 9 of 27
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Page 10 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
1.4 How Much Juvenile Delinquency Exists?
National crime statistics offer a fairly complicated portrait of juvenile offending and victimization. The statistics can sometimes be confusing and
contradictory. Let’s consider the following facts:
Over 1.2 million juveniles were arrested in 2010. Of those, nearly 54,000 were arrested for violent crimes, which represents an 11.6% decrease
from 2009 (FBI, 2010).
Studies also show that in the last five years, methamphetamine use among juveniles has dropped, but the use of prescription drugs is on the rise
(Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2011).
Studies show that the rate of violent victimization among juveniles between the ages of 12 and 17 is lower than those who are 18–20 years of
age but overall declined significantly since 2001 (Truman, 2011).
A recent study suggests that 30% of juveniles are arrested by age 23 (Brame, Turner, Paternoster, & Bushway, 2011).
After reading these statistics you may not feel you have any better understanding of crime than you did before. You are not alone if you feel this way.
Crime statistics can be a puzzling array of percentages, rates, and trends. These statistics, and the headlines that accompany them, can lead to
confusion regarding how much delinquency occurs each year. This confusion regarding crime was illustrated in a study of college students.
Researchers asked participants to indicate the number of murders that occurred in the United States in the previous year. Nearly half of the students
indicated that the number was as high as 250,000. In reality, the number of homicides typically hovers around less than 20,000 annually, with 1,700
of those involving juveniles (VanDiver & Giacopassi,1997). While these students are clearly misinformed, studies suggest that the public often
overestimates the amount of crime that occurs each year (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).
One reason for this overestimation is that our view and attitudes are influenced by the world and information around us. This phenomenon referred is
to as the availability heuristic. The availability heuristic refers to the tendency to believe in the probability of an event based on how easily an
example can be recalled (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973). Regarding violent crime, the available information may come from a person’s experience
(e.g., knowing someone who was robbed by a juvenile delinquent) but more often through the news media’s excessive coverage of violent crime
(Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).
Beyond the perceptual issue, there are several reasons why understanding crime statistics can be difficult. First, crime statistics can be very
contextual. Take arrest statistics as an example. Arrest statistics can be influenced by numerous factors, one of which is organizational practices
within police departments. When a police department decides to crack down on a particular type of crime such as drug use, the arrests for drugrelated crimes may increase. Second, while we often examine crime statistics on an annual basis (e.g., the percentage of crime in 2010), crime tends
to naturally fluctuate between years. Sometimes the fluctuation turns into a trend (e.g., crime decreased a certain percentage between 2006 and
2010); other times the fluctuation is an anomaly or an unusual year. Finally, we measure delinquency using multiple techniques and each technique
has its own strengths and weaknesses.
The juvenile justice field relies on three primary techniques for collecting crime data. The techniques utilized measure crime through arrests, selfreport surveys, and victimization surveys. In the next section, we will discuss these three sources and their strengths and weaknesses.
Arrest Results and Trends
When the news media discusses the increase or decrease in the crime rate, they are most often referring to the changes in number of arrests or
arrest rate. The arrest statistics for both juveniles and adults is most commonly derived from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR program
began in the 1930s and collects information from police departments across the country. In the 1940s, law enforcement agencies from nearly 400
cities provided information on arrests that occurred in their jurisdictions. By the 1960s, every state provided crime statistics to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). Today, crime statistics are collected by approximately 17,000 different police agencies across the country. The police agencies
consist of city, county, tribal, and state agencies. Even crime that occurs on university and college campuses can be part of these crime statistics
(FBI, 2004). As noted in the following Spotlight example, only certain types of crime are reported to the FBI each year.
Spotlight: Uniform Crime Reports
The Uniform Crime Reports was developed by the International Association of the Chiefs of Police in 1929. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation serves as the agency responsible for disseminating the crime data. Every year, the FBI publishes its annual report on crimes
occurring throughout the United States. The statistics are on crimes known to police and arrests made by law enforcement agencies. The FBI
limits the known offenses to the Part I crimes shown in the following list because of their seriousness and because they are the crimes most
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 11 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
likely to be reported.
The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) collects arrest data on both Part I and Part II offenses. Part I offenses include 8 different types of violent
and serious crime, and Part II offenses include 21 “other” types of crimes. The Part 1 offenses are also referred to as the “index” crimes.
Part I Crimes:
Murder and non-negligent homicide
Forcible rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Burglary
Larceny/theft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson
Part II Crimes:
Other assaults
Gambling
Forgery & counterfeiting
Offenses against family and children
Fraud
Driving under the influence
Embezzlement
Liquor laws
Stolen property
Drunkenness
Weapons
Disorderly conduct
Prostitution
Vagrancy
Sex offenses (except forcible rape)
Suspicion
Drug abuse violations
Curfew & loitering
Runaways
All other offenses (except trafficking)
The offenses are categorized into two groups: Part I offenses and Part II offenses. The Part I offenses encompass the index crimes including
homicide, forcible rape, arson, motor vehicle theft, larceny, robbery, and burglary. They are singled out due to their seriousness, frequency, and
likelihood of being reported. The Part II offenses include a broader range of offenses such as simple assault, forgery, and embezzlement. There are
29 Part II offenses in all. Several crime categories were added to the UCR since the 1960s. For example, police agencies began reporting officers
killed in the line of duty in 1960, arson was categorized as a Part I offense in 1982, and hate crimes were added in 1990 (FBI, 2004).
The data collected for the UCR program include three different categories:
1. Crimes known to police. Data include crimes reported by victims, witnesses, or discovered by police. These crimes may or may not be referred
to the court system for formal charges.
2. Crimes cleared by arrest. Data include the number of offenses cleared by an arrest. Crimes cleared by an arrest do not necessarily indicate the
number of people arrested. For example, the arrest of one person may “clear” a number of crimes that were committed by that one person.
Regardless of the number of people involved, an arrest must have occurred and the case referred to court.
3. Number of persons arrested for Part I and Part II offenses. Data include the number of persons arrested for Part I and Part II offenses in any
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 12 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
given year. The statistics are collected by age, race, gender, and location.
The data collected result in three annual publications and two semiannual publications. The three annual publications are Crime in the United States,
Hate Crime Statistics, and Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. The two semiannual publications provide statistics every six months and
report changes since the last reporting period. All of these can be accessed from the FBI’s website at www.fbi.gov (http://www.fbi.gov) .
What does the UCR tell us about crime? The UCR reports statistics for both juvenile and adult crimes. The FBI classifies a juvenile as anyone under
the age of 18 regardless of how it is defined by the state. The UCR does not report circumstances where youth are brought into custody for their own
protection such as in abuse and neglect cases. If we examine the amount of crime committed by juveniles relative to adults, we find that juveniles do
contribute significantly to the overall crime rate. Specifically, Figure 1.1 shows that in 2010, just over 22% of the property crimes and nearly 14% of
the violent crimes were committed by juveniles (FBI, 2010).
Table 1.4 illustrates that over 1.2 million juveniles were arrested in 2010. Of those juveniles, just slightly over 59,000 were arrested for violent
offenses (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), and over 290,000 were arrested for property
offenses (burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). A few other notable examples include 60,000 youth who were arrested for
vandalism, nearly 133,000 for drug abuse violations, and nearly 74,000 who were arrested for curfew and loitering violations. We also see some
differences by age with the pattern, suggesting that older youth are arrested more frequently than younger youth. For example, if we focus on the
crimes committed by 15 to 17 year olds, we see that 73% of the arrests that occurred in 2010 were committed by those in that age category.
Table 1.4: Arrests by charge and age, 2010
Offense charged
Total under
18
Under
10
10–12
13–14
15
16
17
TOTAL
1,288,615
8,205
75,408
266,082
244,042
317,280
377,598
Murder and non-negligent
manslaughter
784
0
7
66
119
239
353
Forcible rape
2,198
7
195
515
393
505
583
Robbery
21,110
36
558
3,342
4,179
6,052
6,943
Aggravated assault
35,001
302
2,849
7,766
6,355
8,245
9,484
Burglary
51,298
438
3,024
10,557
9,832
12,539
14,908
Larceny/theft
223,207
1,097
14,001
48,156
43,189
54,510
62,254
Motor vehicle theft
12,268
20
273
2,172
2,707
3,443
3,653
Arson
3,578
204
726
1,175
588
452
433
Vandalism
60,591
1,091
6,369
16,010
11,416
12,822
12,883
Weapons: carrying, possessing,
etc.
24,518
418
2,202
5,550
4,331
5,434
6,583
Drug abuse violations
132,921
152
2,799
20,065
23,223
35,320
51,362
Liquor laws
75,889
54
653
6,744
11,353
21,337
35,748
Drunkenness
10,030
19
88
1,124
1,659
2,357
4,783
Disorderly conduct
121,276
616
10,720
33,145
24,762
26,675
25,358
Suspicion
106
1
1
23
15
33
33
Curfew and loitering law
violations
73,897
243
2,864
15,126
16,178
21,443
18,043
Violent crime index
59,093
345
3,609
11,689
11,046
15,041
17,363
Property crime index
290,351
1,759
18,024
62,060
56,316
70,944
81,248
Adapted from: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2010.
What do these numbers tell us about juvenile crime? To begin, they tell us that violent crimes, while important to study, do not represent the majority
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 13 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
of crimes committed by juveniles each year. In reality, drug abuse violations and property violations are the bulk of the crimes committed. What
should also not be ignored, however, is that status offenses such as curfew and loitering violations involved a fair number of juveniles (74,000) in the
system. Remember our discussion of status offenses earlier in the chapter and the concern regarding the system’s reach into the lives of juveniles.
As discussed earlier, understanding crime statistics also requires an appreciation of how crime rates vary across time. Examining rates across time
allows us to see whether any potential patterns or trends are emerging. For example, as seen in Figures 1.2–1.6, we see the rate of delinquency
peaked in the mid 1990s and has leveled off in more recent years. In particular, we can see that it began to decline in 1995 and became fairly stable
from 2005 to 2010. When we examine trends by crime type, we see some differences. For example, with regard to violent crime we can see a steep
decline from 1995 to 2000, then a leveling off. Compare this to property crime, which saw a more gradual decline from 1995 to 2005.
Differences also emerge with drug abuse violations. While the crime rates rose dramatically and peaked in 1995, they have not declined to the same
degree as was seen with violent and property offenses. Finally, if we examine three types of status offenses (liquor law, runaway, and curfew
violations), we see slightly more stability over time with runaway charges following a more similar pattern to property and violent offenses. Examining
trends in this way tells us something different about crime. The decline in juvenile crime is a consistent trend over a period of years but varies slightly
by offense type.
Figure 1.1: Percentage of crime
committed by those under 18
This graph depicts the percentage of crime committed by
juveniles, showing that 22.5% of crimes committed by
juveniles are related to property, and 13.7% of crimes
committed by juveniles are violent.
Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the United States, 2010
Figure 1.3: Violent crime rates for
1980–2008 per 100,000 persons ages
10–17
Figure 1.2: Crime rates for 1980–2008
per 100,000 persons ages 10–17
This graph depicts the rate of delinquency per 100,000 persons
ages 10–17 between 1980 and 2008. Delinquency rates peaked
in 1995 at around 9,250 juveniles and began to steadily decline
after and eventually level off at around 6,500 in 2005.
Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the United States, 2010
Figure 1.4: Property crime rates for
1980–2008 per 100,000 persons ages
10–17
This graph depicts violent crime rates per 100,000 persons
This graph depicts property crime rates per 100,000 persons
ages 10–17 between 1980 and 2008. Violent crime rates
ages 10–17 between 1980 and 2008. Property crime rates
peaked in 1995 at just about 500 juveniles and began to
gradually declined from 1995 to 2005.
steadily decline after and eventually level off below 300 in
2005.
Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the United States, 2010
Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the United States, 2010
Figure 1.5: Drug violation crime rates
for 1980–2008 per 100,000 persons
ages 10–17
Figure 1.6: Status offenses for 1980–
2008 per 100,000 persons ages 10–17
This graph depicts the drug violations per 100,000 persons
This graph depicts status offenses per 100,000 persons ages
ages 10–17 between 1980 and 2008. Drug violations saw a
10–17 from 1980 to 2008. Liquor law and curfew offenses have
seen a relatively stable pattern from 1980 through 2008, while
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 14 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
rapid increase from 300 in the year 1990 to just under 700 in
runaway offenses peaked in 1995 and fell rapidly until 2000,
the year 1995. Since then, violation rates slowly declined to
when they leveled off.
around 550 in the year 2008.
Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the United States, 2010
Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the United States, 2010
Finally, if we examine differences by gender, Figures 1.7 and 1.8 demonstrate that boys commit substantially more offenses than girls; however, the
trend over time is similar by gender (e.g., a peak in the mid 1990s and then a leveling off).
Figure 1.7: Crime rates for 1980–2008
per 100,000 persons ages 10–17 by
gender
Figure 1.8: Crime rates by gender for
violent offenses only
This graph depicts crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–
This graph depicts violent offenses per 100,000 persons ages
17 from 1980 to 2008. It demonstrates that boys committed
10–17 from 1980–2008. The data show that boys commit violent
substantially more offenses than girls between 1980 and 2008;
offenses more often than girls; however, both genders peaked
however, the trend for both genders is the same. Crime rates
in violent offenses around 1995 and leveled off.
for both genders peaked in the 1990s and then leveled off.
Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the United States, 2010
Uniform Crime Reports. Crime in the United States, 2010
Trends aside, the UCR has both strengths and weaknesses as a measure of crime. In the next section we will examine several of the most
prominent.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the UCR
The UCR is a very popular and widely used measure of crime. Arguably, the UCR is more useful for examining trends among adults than juveniles;
however, the data available on youth is important. With regard to strengths, several stand out in particular. First, the longevity of the program is
notable. The UCR program has been in existence longer than any other program of its kind. The longevity of this program allows us to examine crime
trends from year to year or for longer periods.
Another strength is the national scope of the data collection. The UCR coverage area includes 17,000 police departments from every state in the
nation. So not only are we able to examine rates and trends, we are also able to examine how crime may vary by area. Finally, the source appears to
be a valid measure of serious crime (Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1985). If we want to examine crimes known to the police, many serious crimes
committed warrant a call to the police. For example, a victim or loved one may be more likely to call the police in the case of a murder, a motor
vehicle theft, or a robbery or burglary.
The UCR is criticized on a number of grounds. First and foremost is the key issue that not all crimes are reported to the police. Reasons vary but
often include reluctance on the part of the victim to report to police due to seriousness, feelings that the police may not help them, or that it is a
private matter (Gove et al., 1985). There is also a reporting requirement referred to as the hierarchy rule. Police report only the most serious crimes
even when multiple crimes are committed. While the FBI provides guidelines on which offense is the most serious, the exclusion of any crimes
means that not all of the crime committed is captured.
Another important weakness of the UCR is the potential that the crime measure is biased by law enforcement practices. For example, as mentioned,
not everyone reports that a crime has occurred. Layered upon that issue is that arrests may be more likely to occur in areas targeted for
enforcement. If enforcement occurs in lower-income areas more frequently than others, low-income residents may be disproportionately represented
in the UCR statistics. Finally, the UCR does not tap into why an offender may have committed the crime or why a crime may have occurred. While the
police agencies collect basic information on the person arrested (e.g., age, race, gender), they do not collect other incident level data (e.g.,
relationship between victim and offender, alcohol or drug use, etc.). Understanding the offender’s motivation for the crime is difficult to discern without
additional information (Gove et al. 1985; Farrington, 1994).
Supplementing the UCR
In the late 1970s, law enforcement agencies discussed supplementing the UCR program with additional data and crime categories. The changes
were suggested for several reasons. First, the law enforcement community proficiency in collecting data increased. Second, the UCR does not
provide the details necessary to understand why crime trends may be occurring. For example, as previously noted, the UCR is able to provide crime
statistics by geographic location, race, gender, and age but is unable to account for other details of the incident itself. Finally, the hierarchy rule is
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 15 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
concerning to those who believe that the UCR is not providing an accurate picture of the amount of crime occurring in the United States each year
(Maxfield, 1999).
In 1988, a new incident-based data collection system was approved. The data collection system, referred to as the National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS), collects data on every incident and arrest. The NIBRS Spotlight lists the offense categories included in this new system.
Although participating states began collecting data for NIBRS in the late 1980s, the implementation of the program has continued at a fairly slow rate.
Currently, approximately 6,000 law enforcement agencies provide data to the FBI on an annual basis. These 6,000 agencies represent approximately
25% of the U.S. population. Given the low response rate, the FBI continues to use UCR statistics when publishing its annual report on crime in the
United States.
Spotlight: NIBRS
The National Incident-Based Reporting system supplements the existing UCR system by providing incident level data on crimes reported to
the police. The NIBRS greatly expands the types of crimes reported by law enforcement officials to the FBI. NIBRS asks police agencies to
collect information on incidents involving victims younger than 12 as well as victimizations that occur with individuals, households, and
businesses.
The NIBRS categorizes crimes into Group A offenses and Group B offenses. Police departments are instructed to collect detailed information
on the 22 Group A categories. In addition, only arrest data are collected on the 11 Group B offenses.
Group A Offense Categories
Arson
Homicide offenses
Assault offenses
Kidnapping/abduction
Bribery
Larceny/theft offenses
Burglary/breaking and entering
Motor vehicle theft
Counterfeiting/forgery
Obscene material
Destruction/ vandalism of
property
Prostitution offenses
Robbery
Sex offenses, forcible
Sex offenses,
nonforcible
Stolen property
Drug/narcotic offenses
Embezzlement
Extortion/blackmail
Fraud offenses
Gambling offenses
Weapon law violations
Group B Offense Categories
Bad checks
Curfew/loitering/vagrancy violations
Disorderly conduct
Driving under the influence
Drunkenness
Family offenses, nonviolent
Liquor law violations
Peeping Tom
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 16 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Runaway
Trespass of real property
All other offenses
Self-Report Surveys
As noted previously, there are several problems or weaknesses with how the UCR measures crime. Two are particularly important as we begin
discussing our second measure of crime. First, the information collected as part of the UCR program is not sufficient to explain why the crime may
have occurred. Criminological theories (which we will discuss in Chapter 3) are designed to explain the motivation for crime or factors that may
influence a person’s decision to commit a crime. By utilizing UCR data, a researcher can identify that a certain number of arrests occurred among
males, or in the summer months, or in a particular geographic region. However, the same researcher cannot say why a man in Texas may have
committed a crime in July. Second, the UCR measures only reported crimes or those discovered by the police. The unknown crimes, or those that
occur but are not brought to the attention of police, are referred to as the dark figure of crime. In fact, some researchers argue that the UCR
captures only 10% of the crime that occurs each year whereas others put the figure at a more conservative estimate of 50% (Biederman & Lynch,
1991; Klaus, 2004). Regardless of the extent, it is an agreed-upon fact that police are not aware of every crime committed.
Self-report surveys are able to address some of the weaknesses of the UCR by asking participants a range of questions about their behavior. A
self-report survey about delinquent behavior would ask participants whether they have committed delinquency and to provide details regarding the
offense. Self-report surveys can be fairly wide ranging. For example, a survey can be administered almost anywhere (e.g., schools, prisons,
community gatherings) and in many ways (e.g., face-to-face, by mail or phone) and cover a variety of topics (e.g., involvement with cheating,
exposure to violence, or attitudes toward punishment).
The results of the first studies using self-report surveys of crime were published in the 1940s; however, the method did not gain popularity until the
late 1950s. Self-report surveys became popular for a couple of reasons. First, survey results indicated that some of the assumptions about who
commits crime were incorrect. For example, the UCR indicates that disadvantaged neighborhoods have higher arrest rates. Self-report studies
showed that people from various socioeconomic backgrounds commit crime (Short & Nye, 1958).
Second, researchers began to use self-report surveys to examine why
people commit crime. For example, we know that there are various factors
that could have an influence on criminal behavior. Self-report surveys allow
us to disentangle which factors are particularly important. Risk factors such
as family, school environments, and peers were discovered primarily
through the use of self-report surveys. The results of these types of studies
led to a dramatic increase in new ideas and theories to explain juvenile
delinquency (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000).
Although self-report surveys can give a broader picture of delinquency, the
information is often collected among fairly limited groups of people.
Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
Specifically, the people completing the surveys were often limited to those
President Bush takes part in a meeting on Monitoring the Future Study on
Teen Drug Use, Tuesday, December 11, 2007, in the Eisenhower Executive
living in a particular area (e.g., a survey of youth in Denver Colorado) or a
Office Building in Washington.
particular type (e.g., high school students in a rural area). To address this
issue, Delbert Elliott and colleagues (Elliott & Huizinga, 1983) developed
the National Youth Survey (NYS) to measure juvenile delinquency. The NYS was a longitudinal household study of 1,700 adolescents. The crime
categories measured included all but homicide from the Part I offenses and 60% of the Part II offenses. In addition, the survey questions tapped
social issues and attitudes. The results of the national survey produced similar results. In particular, the results confirmed that youth from various
socioeconomic backgrounds were committing crimes. The results also confirmed that many of the crimes reported by the youth were not coming to
the attention of the police (Elliott & Huizinga, 1983).
Another frequently used survey of crime with youth is called the Monitoring the Future survey (Johnston et al., 2011). The Monitoring the Future
survey is a national survey on drug and alcohol use that began in the 1970s. As seen in the Spotlight example, approximately 50,000 students in the
8th, 10th, and 12th grades are asked about their exposure to drugs and alcohol. Students are also asked to report their attitudes about and access to
drugs and alcohol.
Spotlight: Monitoring the Future
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 17 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
The Monitoring the Future survey was developed in 1975 and is facilitated by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The
survey is a nationally representative survey of adolescents. The survey was initially conducted only with high school seniors. In 1991, the
survey sample was extended to both 10th graders and 8th graders. A follow-up survey is sent to those participating in the 12th grade sample
for longitudinal follow up. On average, 50,000 students from across the country participate in the survey each year.
The Monitoring the Future Survey asks participants about their involvement with and opinions about drugs and alcohol. The questions fall into
four general categories:
Drug & Alcohol Use
“How many occasions (if any) have you used ________ in your lifetime?”
“How many occasions (if any) have you used _______ in the last 12 months?”
“How many occasions (if any) have you used _______ in the last 30 days?”
Alcohol Use
For alcohol use, the three previous questions are used as well as a similar set of questions asking participants how often they have been
drunk in their lifetime, last 12 months, and last 30 days. In addition participants are asked
“How many times in the last week have you had 5 or more drinks?”
Perceptions of Risk
Participants are asked to rate the degree to which alcohol and various drugs are risky based on a 5-point scale (no risk, slight risk, moderate
risk, great risk, and can’t say, drug unfamiliar).
“How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways), if they . . .?”
Disapproval of Use
Participants are asked their level of disapproval with using drugs and alcohol.
“Do YOU disapprove of people doing each of the following?”
Perceptions of Availability
Participants are asked how easily they could obtain various drugs and alcohol based on a 5-point scale (probably impossible, very difficult,
fairly difficult, fairly easy, and very easy). For 8th and 10th graders, “Can’t say, drug unfamiliar” is added to the questionnaire.
“How difficult do you think it would be for you to get each of the following types of drugs, if you wanted some?”
Drug use among teens is a hot topic. As we discussed earlier in this chapter, drug offenses peaked in the mid 1990s and then leveled off, albeit less
dramatically than other types of offenses. If we examined reported drug use using the Monitoring the Future study, we see some interesting trends.
Figure 1.9 illustrates that alcohol is the most prevalent substance used among all three grades with higher rates of use among older youth. If we
examine type, we can see that youth are more likely to use marijuana than other illicit drugs. However, nearly a quarter of high school seniors
indicate that they used an illicit drug other than marijuana in their lifetime.
Figure 1.9: Lifetime use of drugs and
alcohol in 2010
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 18 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
This graph depicts data from a self-report survey on drug and
alcohol use among students in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades in the
year 2010. The data indicates that alcohol was the most
prevalent substance used among the three grades with higher
rates among the older students. It also shows that youth were
more likely to use marijuana than other illicit drugs; however,
nearly one quarter of high school seniors indicated they had
used an illicit drug other than marijuana.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E.
(2012). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use:
Overview of key findings, 2011. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research,
The University of Michigan.
The preceding statistics provide a portrait of drug use among students in 2010. As with the UCR data, we should also examine the trends over time
to see whether those statistics represent a trend or are an anomaly. As can be seen in Figure 1.10, the trends indicate that drug and alcohol use
overall has been declining over time with the greatest decline in the alcohol use category.
Figure 1.10: Lifetime use of drugs
among juveniles 1980–2008
This graph contains data from juvenile self-report surveys. The
data demonstrates that drug and alcohol use declined overall
from the years 1980 to 2008 with the greatest decline in the
alcohol use category.
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E.
(2012). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use:
Overview of key findings, 2011. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research,
The University of Michigan.
The self-report surveys provide important information on delinquency; however, much like the UCR, self-report surveys have their own set of
strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Self-Report Surveys
The self-report method is very useful for criminological theory development. A self-report survey can include virtually any type of question about a
variety of subjects. The survey can ask participants various questions about family, neighborhoods, peers, teachers, and thoughts about the crime.
Through this method, the researcher can ask participants why they chose to (or not to) engage in the behavior. For example, if surveying youth about
binge drinking, the survey can not only ask them whether they engaged in binge drinking in the last 30 days (as does the survey we discussed in the
opening vignette) it may also ask the participant who they drank with (e.g., peers), in what environment (e.g., home, school, community), and what
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 19 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
time of day (e.g., evenings, weekends). The results can lead to a better understanding of the individual and environmental factors that come into play
when someone engages in delinquency.
As already mentioned, self-report survey results allow us to expose and understand the dark figure of crime. Crimes that are underreported to the
police are equally important to understanding delinquency. Several areas of inquiry become important in this regard. In particular, it begs the question
whether law enforcement agencies are likely to target certain areas more than others. Not that targeted enforcement is an automatic indication of
discrimination but that targeted enforcement has consequences. Those consequences include the lack of enforcement in other areas. Researchers
find that the UCR is a valid measure of serious crime as we discussed in the earlier section. But if less-serious crime, say recreational drug use, is
less likely to result in a call to the police, crime rates as measured by the UCR do little to help us understand the extent of drug use among teens.
Examining drug possession arrests clearly misses a tremendous number of people who use drugs but are not detected by the police. Recognizing
this issue allows us to give context to the UCR results.
Although early self-report surveys were criticized for being too limited in scale (e.g., just a few questions were asked) and population (e.g., high
school students), current surveys continue to improve. As a result this method is considered a reliable and valid measure of a range of offense types
(Thornberry & Krohn, 2000).
Although improvements in the self-report method continue, several weaknesses remain. For example, although there are a few national surveys
available (e.g., the Monitoring the Future Survey), the measures are not comparable to the UCR in terms of its scope. For example, with UCR data
we can make comparisons between cities, states, and regions. Even the national self-report surveys are unable to provide these types of data.
Although national surveys do exist, the measures are not comparable to the UCR and do not consistently provide comparisons by year and across
populations. For example, some of the most popular self-report surveys are with high school students. However, surveying high school students
misses important target populations: those who drop out of school or who are chronically truant and may not be in school at the time the survey is
administered.
The self-report method can be influenced by the participants themselves. For example, recall is an important issue for self-report surveys. People
may have difficulty recalling certain events, particularly when exploring the factors that may have motivated someone to commit a crime. Another
area of concern is deception. Juveniles may over- or underreport certain offenses for various reasons. For example, some juveniles may exaggerate
their involvement in drugs and alcohol in order to be seen desirably by their peers. Others may not report delinquency out of embarrassment or fear
of being caught.
A third and popular way to examine delinquency is to ask the victims about their experiences with crime. This method of data collection is important
for reasons that will be explored in the next section.
Victimization Data
The third most common way to measure crime is through victimization surveys. Victimization surveys supplement what is known about crime from
the UCR and self-report surveys by asking victims to report whether they have been victimized. The most commonly utilized data source on victims is
the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The NCVS is collected by the Census Bureau and provides a national portrait of victimization
experienced each year.
As seen in the Spotlight example, the NCVS mirrors many of the crime categories of the UCR. If individuals indicate that they (or someone in the
household) experienced victimization, they are asked to report details of the crime. The victimization data includes situational characteristics such as
month, time, and location; victim characteristics such as age, race, relationship with the offender; and impact of the victimization such as loss of
money and property. The survey also asks victims whether they reported the victimization to the police and whether they felt targeted due to personal
factors such as religion, race, and sexual orientation.
Spotlight: National Crime Victimization Survey
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) began in 1973 under the name National Crime Survey. The survey was redesigned and
changed names to its current moniker in the early 1990s. The NCVS samples households twice a year. Only those who are 12 and older can
participate as respondents. The NCVS utilizes households as its sample. Each household is interviewed on seven separate occasions. In
2010, the sample covered 49,000 households and approximately 100,000 people.
The NCVS measures both crimes that happen to individuals (personal and property) and crimes that occur to other members living at the
residence (household). The survey includes all the Part I UCR offenses except for murder and arson.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,se…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 20 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Victimization Categories
Rape and sexual assault
Robbery
Aggravated and simple assault
Purse snatching and pickpocketing
Burglary
Theft
Motor vehicle theft
Identity theft
Vandalism
Respondents are asked to report:
Whether the incident occurred
How many times in the last six months the incident occurred
The month, time, and location of the victimization
Whether they knew the person who victimized them
Whether the incident was reported to police
Extent of damage or loss of money
Whether they felt they were targeted due to their race, religion, ethnic background, disability, gender, or sexual orientation
Whether they felt they were targeted in the ways above due to the people they associated with
There are differences between the types of data collected through this survey and the data collected through the UCR. Two important differences
include the age cutoff (the youngest age captured in the NCVS is 12) and the types of crimes recorded. By asking victims to report experiences with
crime we are able to understand details about the commission of the crime, the relationships between victims and offenders, and even the impact of
the crimes.
Like self-reports, victimization data should also tap into the dark figure of crime and allow us to examine delinquency that may not have come to
attention of the police. Even further, if the victim did not report the incident to the police, it allows us to examine why the victim may have chosen not
to do so.
If we examine the results of the latest NCVS, we see that the pattern is similar to the UCR. For example, Figure 1.11 shows that the rate of reported
victimization is also declining. If we examine the victim and offender relationship, Figure 1.12 illustrates that 52% knew their victimizer, followed by
37% who indicated that the offender was a stranger. Finally, when examining the location of the victimization, 43% of the victimization occurring
during this time happened at school (see Figure 1.13).
Figure 1.11: Rate of violent
victimizations among juveniles per
1,000
Figure 1.12: Relationship between
victim and offender
This graph demonstrates the relationship between victim and
This graph demonstrates that the rate of violent victimizations
among ages 12–15 and 16–19 has been declining from 1993
through 2010. A rapid decline occurred from about 120 violent
victimizations per 1,000 in the year 1995 to around 60 violent
victimizations per 1,000 in the year 2000 for both age ranges.
Rates in the year 2010 were around 40 per 1,000 juveniles.
offender: 52% were acquainted with their victimizer, 37%
indicated their victimizer was a stranger, 2% were victimized by
a parent, 3% by a relative, 3% by an intimate individual, and 3%
were unsure of the relationship with their victimizer.
Adapted from Baum, K. (2005). Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993–
2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,sec…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 21 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Adapted from Baum, K. (2005). Juvenile victimization and offending,
1993-2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Figure 1.13:
Location of a violent crime incident
This graph indicates the most common locations of juvenile
violent crime incidents: 43% of victimizations occurred at
school, 20% in an open area, 16% at the victim’s home, 9% at a
different home, and 12% at some other location.
Adapted from Baum, K. (2005). Juvenile victimization and offending,
1993–2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
We can see from these results that victimization surveys help us understand the crime puzzle even further. By examining the victimization in terms of
characteristics, relationships, and location we can understand the circumstances in which victimization is likely to occur. Understanding the
circumstances and issues of child victims is very important. As we will discuss in Chapter 4, the relationship between victimization and delinquency is
an important one. For example, statistics show that abused or maltreated children are at significant risk for later delinquency. Maltreatment can
include physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Studies estimate that nearly half of delinquents report childhood abuse or neglect (Teague, Mazerolle,
Legosz, & Sanderson, 2008).
It is also important to note that the NCVS is not the only victimization survey in existence. Like self-report surveys, researchers can use victimization
surveys with a variety of populations. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys incarcerated youth each year to examine their
experiences with victimization in institutional settings. Like self-report surveys, researchers can tailor questions to tap into a variety of circumstances.
Because the victimization surveys are methodologically similar to self-report surveys, they share many of the same strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Victimization Surveys
The first strength is the level of detail victimization surveys provide. The NCVS includes detailed information about victims, allowing for policy
formation. Specifically, details of the incident such as location, time of day, and the victim-offender relationship provide ways to advise the general
public how to protect themselves against victimization. Unlike self-report surveys, the NCVS measures serious crimes on an annual basis and closely
parallels the UCR. In 1992, it was revamped to improve reporting of such things as nonstranger crimes and rape.
Finally, the NCVS employs a national sample and annual statistics for year-by-year comparisons.
However, like self-report surveys, there are some weaknesses with this approach. Recall may be
their victimization. In addition, people may answer in socially desirable ways and not tell the truth
victimization surveys. It has been reported that people realize if they admit to being victimized on
questionnaire. As such, there is concern that people will underreport victimization during the later
questionnaire (Sykes & Cullen, 1992).
compromised, as people may forget the details of
(Gove et al., 1985). Bias can be an issue with
the NCVS, they will have to go through a lengthy
phases of the survey to avoid the lengthy
Another weakness with this type of survey is the population sampled. The NCVS is a national sample of households; however, it is not feasible to
break the data down by state or city because the sample is not drawn to represent each city or state, although region comparisons are feasible in
some circumstances. And the most important weakness for understanding juvenile delinquency is the age cutoff for the NCVS. The NCVS asks only
about victimization experiences among those 12 and older. The survey may be under-representing juveniles if they are not the respondent or do not
wish to talk about victimization due to embarrassment. The juvenile may be fearful of discussing victimization in the home if the perpetrator of the
abuse (e.g., caregiver or sibling) is present in the home.
Given all three measures of crime have both strengths and weakness, the question becomes which do we use and when? The short answer is all
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,se…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 22 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
three. If we wish to examine serious crime such as homicide, the UCR is likely our best measure. If we wish to examine drug and alcohol use among
teens, we are better off utilizing self-report surveys. Finally, if we wish to examine the victim-offender relationship more clearly we are better off
utilizing victimization surveys. In other words, each can help us understand a different facet of crime. However, there remain benefits and
disadvantages of comparing the three measures when trying to understand delinquency. The next section will highlight these in detail.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,se…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 23 of 27
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,se…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Page 24 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
1.5 Measuring Crime: Putting It All Into Perspective
As we have discussed throughout this chapter, there are similarities and differences in our three primary measures of crime. The benefits of using all
three measures include the following:
The UCR and the NCVS cover many of the same types of crime. Studies have also found that the two measures are very comparable with
regard to burglary and robbery (Gove et al., 1985; Lauritsen & Schaum, 1998). As such, using these two measures to examine crime trends may
be useful.
Both the NCVS and self-report surveys find that the UCR is underestimating the amount of crime occurring each year (Kirk, 2006; Wells &
Rankin, 1995). This revelation was very important for understanding the relationship between class and delinquency. As such, the findings
should remind us to be cautious of the latest headlines regarding arrest rates.
Victimization and self-report data helped identify risk factors for delinquency such as peers, family, and school performance.
Combining the measures provides additional details on the characteristics of the offenders and victims, in particular, why victims may not report
crime and how situational factors influence victimization.
There are reasons to be cautious when combining the three measures of crime:
Critics contend that the UCR and NCVS are not directly comparable because they use different samples and work with different time spans.
The NCVS does measure serious crime but does not measure homicide or arson.
The UCR and NCVS report rates in different metrics—the UCR is a rate per 100,000 persons, and the NCVS is a rate per 1,000 persons.
Self-report surveys often focus on minor crimes, making direct comparisons to the UCR or NCVS difficult.
Overall, what do these measures tell us about juvenile delinquency? First, all three agree that the juvenile crime (and victimization) rate has
continued to decline over the decade. Second, some youth commit more crime than others. All three measures show differences by gender, race,
region, and crime type. Finally, the three measures have been able to identify certain risk factors that are known to be strong and consistent
predictors of crime.
Now that we have some sense of the crime rates among juveniles, the next chapter will explore the history of the juvenile justice system and offer
explanations for why the crime rates have fluctuated over time, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,se…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 25 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Chapter Summary
Juvenile delinquency is a complex phenomenon. Defining who is a juvenile and what behaviors represent juvenile delinquency is particularly
difficult.
Status offenders present unique challenges to the juvenile justice system. Many juveniles are arrested each year for status offenses, and their
treatment by the juvenile justice system remains controversial.
The three measures of juvenile crime include arrest, victimization surveys, and self-report surveys.
The Uniform Crime Reports are the primary source of arrest data. The UCR is collected annually by police departments all across the United
States and provide a solid measure of serious crime among juveniles.
Self-report surveys have been popular for several decades and allow researchers to examine crime from various angles. Self-report surveys
have evolved over time and are a meaningful way to collect crime data, particularly minor offenses not collected by the UCR.
The National Crime Victimization Survey is the primary source of victimization data. Similar to the UCR, the NCVS is published annually and
provides a national portrait of victimization.
The results of the three measures show that crime and victimization have declined significantly during the last decade.
Critical Thinking Questions:
1. Do you think that the federal government should mandate that each state agree upon the age that someone is considered a minor? Discuss the
problems with each approach.
2. Do you believe status offenses should be illegal? Do you think they should be handled by the juvenile justice system or an alternative system?
3. If you were interested in studying rape, which measure of crime would you use?
4. Why do you think boys are overrepresented in the system?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the definition.
age ambiguity
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
Uncertainty surrounding the age of entry into the juvenile justice system.
age of jurisdiction
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
The age of the youth dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult court system has authority over the case.
availability heuristic
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
Phenomenon that our view and attitudes are influenced by the world and information around us. The tendency to believe in the probability of an event based on how
easily an example can be recalled.
dark figure of crime
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
Refers to crimes not brought to the attention of the police.
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
Statute that protects status offenders and recommends that all juveniles classified as status offenders not be held for any period of time in a detention facility.
Monitoring the Future
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
A national youth crime survey on alcohol and drug use.
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,se…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 26 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(14 PM
Most common victimization survey; collected yearly by the Census Bureau.
parens patria
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
(Latin for “parent of the nation”) Refers to the parenting role of the court that focuses on the welfare of the juvenile.
self-report surveys
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
Data-gathering tool that asks participants about their criminal behavior.
status offenses
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
Behaviors that are illegal for juveniles but would be legal for adults.
uniform crime reports (UCR)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
Official arrest statistics for juveniles and adults compiled by the FBI.
victimization surveys
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/books/AUCRJ301.13.1/sections/front_matter/boo
Supplement what is known about crime from the UCR and self-report surveys by asking victims to report whether they have been victimized.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch01,se…content&clientToken=d3b6fc21-8dbe-b9dd-cb08-7fd0168ec70f&np=ch01
Page 27 of 27
Print
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
The Historical Context of
Juvenile Justice
2
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be
able to accomplish the following objectives:
Associated Press
Understand the early philosophy toward
the treatment of children.
Recognize the role of religion in the
history of juvenile justice.
Identify the key features of the various
time periods.
Understand the history of incarceration
for juveniles.
Understand how the juvenile and adult
courts are distinct.
Understand the current philosophy of
the juvenile justice system and how it
has changed.
News stories ran with the headline “Beating Children for Jesus?”(Schiffer, 2001). So was the case in 2001 in a small church in Atlanta,
Georgia. The church, named the House of Prayer and led by the Reverend Arthur Allen Jr., advocated for tough discipline of the
congregation’s children. The tough discipline took the form of frequent and often public whipping of children for misbehavior, often
under the watchful eye of the congregation. The abuse came to the attention of authorities after the children’s schoolteachers began
noticing bruises and welts on their arms and chests. As the case unfolded, stories of abuse began to emerge. The most noteworthy
included two boys, ages 7 and 10, being held in the air by adults while family members beat them with a wooden switch. Stories of
children being beaten for more than 30 minutes with a belt or other devices with full support from the reverend and family members
ultimately led to his arrest and the removal of more than 40 children from their homes.
The reverend and church members excused the beatings as “tough love” and argued that beatings instilled discipline in children. The
reverend was quoted by news agencies saying, “If we can use milder punishment, then I’m for it. But sometimes it doesn’t work, and I
can’t let them just take over the house.” Eventually, most of the children were returned to their homes in exchange for the parents’
agreement that they would not beat their children in the future. Even with police involvement, however, some parents were not swayed.
One parent in particular struggled with the authorities’ concern over the beatings saying, “The Bible told me, ‘whip them, it won’t kill
them.’ So, you know, how can you tell me not to whip my children when they need it, you know. But, I’ll never compromise with the
devil. That’s like compromising my soul.” Reverend Allen served a two-year prison sentence for orchestrating the beating of the children
in his congregation (Bryant, 2002).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,sec…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
Page 1 of 26
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
Page 2 of 26
Print
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
2.1 Introduction
While the scenario described in the opening story may be rare, the role of
religion in punishing deviance is deeply rooted in the history of juvenile
justice. And history has a funny way of repeating itself. For example,
policies or punishments used in the past commonly come full circle into the
future. Think, for example, how fashion or music repeats itself. Those
industries take from what “worked” in the past and attempt to recreate it for
a new generation. At the same time, we hope that the industry learns from
their failures and avoids those pitfalls in the future. However, as we will see
in this chapter, juvenile justice often experiences policy cycles that repeat
both the good and the bad.
SuperStock/SuperStock
The social context of the time influences the cycles experienced by the
The Civil Rights Movement, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was realized in
juvenile justice system. Consider, for example, the social context of the
its time due to political and social forces at play in the 1950s and 1960s.
Similarly, social forces have historically dictated trends and philosophies
1960s. The 1960s were a period of great social upheaval as our society
within the juvenile justice system.
became more invested in the rights of a variety of people including
minorities, women, prisoners, and juveniles. In part, these changes (e.g.,
civil rights movement, women’s rights, etc.) occurred because the political will and social forces existed to make them possible. If we consider this
when examining juvenile justice, we will see that the existing social forces of the times influence the philosophy of juvenile justice. For example, in the
1980s and 1990s the political and social climate shifted to one that was retributive. As such, punitive interventions like boot camps flourished.
Understanding the historical context behind the juvenile justice system is crucial. In this chapter, we will examine the history of juvenile justice in the
context of several major periods. In the process of exploring history, we will examine how certain policies and ideologies seem to repeat themselves
through the cycles of juvenile justice.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
Page 3 of 26
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
Page 4 of 26
Print
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
2.2 The Early Years
The current juvenile justice system includes a fairly comprehensive set of laws defining the criminal behavior of juveniles. In addition to delinquency,
a series of laws exist that govern the abuse, neglect, and abandonment of children. Abuse does not only mean physical or sexual abuse but also
emotional abuse. Yet many people take for granted that the rights and considerations given to children have always existed. If we examine the
earliest set of laws governing children, however, we see that for many years the protections given to juveniles did not exist.
The Code of Hammurabi
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
The Code of Hammurabi is the earliest collection
of laws addressing criminal punishment,
business, and the treatment of juveniles from
parent to child through legal procedure. This is a
piece of the tablet itself from Babylon in 1750
BCE.
The first comprehensive set of laws that were developed is referred to as the Hammurabic
Code. The Hammurabic Code is a set of laws developed by King Hammurabi of Babylon in 1750
BCE. While some disagreement exists about whether the code represents the first formal set of
laws, they are considered to be the most comprehensive attempt at categorizing behavior. The
laws were designed to regulate not only blatant criminal behavior (e.g., murder, violence) but also
business and property transactions (e.g., If a patrician has stolen ox, sheep, pig, or ship, whether
from a temple, or a house, he shall pay thirtyfold), marital relations (e.g., If a man’s wife be
caught lying with another, they shall be strangled and cast into the water), and parent-child
relationships. The laws specific to parent-child relationships are the earliest laws governing the
behavior of juveniles. For example, the laws set forth a clear delineation of parent and child.
Children who disobeyed their parents could be abandoned, maimed, or even killed. (Visit
http://www.commonlaw.com/Hammurabi.html (http://www.commonlaw.com/Hammurabi.html) for
specific examples.)
The spirit of these laws is compatible with the early view of children as property of their parents.
The concept of ownership is referred to as patria potestas. Patria potestas gives the father control over all family matters. Children were treated as
property of the parents, who then were granted the right to do as they wished with their children. As a general rule, children were seen as laborers
who would work for their families, or they were often sold into servitude. During this time, children who were not physically well or were of a “bad
temperament” were put to death (deMause, 1974). Boys were given a higher status than girls, and girls were more likely to suffer abandonment and
abuse as a result of this philosophy. The practice of favoring boys is a trend that unfortunately continues in several countries.
The Role of the Church
As discussed in the opening vignette, the church, particularly the Christian faith, has been a dominant force in the regulation and punishment of
criminal behavior throughout history. While religious undertones are not as apparent in today’s juvenile justice system, the church continues to play a
role. For example, faith-based programs have become popular over the last few years. These programs teach delinquents to rely on religion to cope
with pressures such as drugs and alcohol (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Moreover, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are founded on
the principles of a higher power and God. In the 1300s and 1400s, the church was considered the most important social institution, with criminal
behavior characterized as a sin against God. The punishments, which included drowning, hanging, or being burned alive, were intended to rid the
criminal of evil. The medieval punishments, used on juveniles as well, often had one thing in common: brutality. Some of the more torturous policies
are listed in the Spotlight feature. While there are very few accounts of how many juveniles were put to death or tortured through these means,
historians indicate that death sentences were not uncommon for juveniles found guilty of minor criminal behavior (Sanders, 1970).
Spotlight: Torture Devices
Iron Maiden: A wood coffin with spikes on the inside door. Once a person is placed in the coffin and the door is shut, the spikes will stab the
person to death. One particularly brutal feature was the two spikes that were placed at eye level that would stab the individual’s eyes.
Burned or Boiled Alive: Being burned or boiled alive were common methods used for hundreds of years. Historians indicate that boiling was
frequently used in Europe and Germany from the 1300s to the 16th century. Boiling typically involved being dunked into boiling liquid. Others
were tied down and placed in vats that were then brought to a boil slowly.
Rack: The individual would be tied by each ankle and wrist to a wooden wheel or axle. When the axles were turned, the individual would be
stretched four ways. The individual would eventually be pulled apart limb from limb.
Primitive forms of incarceration existed during this time as well. Confinement as a form of punishment could be accomplished through a variety of
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
Page 5 of 26
Print
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
mechanisms including underground mines, cages, or deteriorated buildings. Historians indicate that these early forms of incarceration housed men,
women, and children together in deplorable conditions. With disease and abuse common, the confined were required to fight for food and basic
needs for survival. The wardens were not seen as providers but rather managers or keepers of the captured. For the most part, incarceration was
akin to a death sentence given the deplorable conditions that existed in most facilities (Geltner, 2008).
Another commonly utilized form of confinement is referred to as transportation. As its title suggests, transportation included transporting or
transferring criminals to other countries via ships. Utilized most frequently in the 1600s, deviants would be transported via ships from Europe to North
America. Once they arrived in North America, the convicts were used as slave labor. According to some estimates, thousands of convicts were
shipped from England to American colonies each year (Spierenburg, 1995). After the American Revolution the colonial states began rejecting the
shipments of convicts, and transportation shifted to Australia. Eventually, every country began to reject the shipments of criminals. At that time, the
transportation concept evolved to holding criminals in ships indefinitely. These ships were often anchored right off shore and referred to as hulks
(Hughes, 1987). While few estimates of the number of juveniles transported during this time exist, evidence suggests that it was common for children
to be sentenced to transportation for life (Sanders, 1970).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
Page 6 of 26
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
Page 7 of 26
Print
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
2.3 Colonial Period (1600s–1800s)
During the colonial American period, two influences remained constant: the authority of the parent and the role of religion. In many respects, this
makes sense if we consider the puritanical nature of the early colonial days. Parents continued to be given wide latitude in dealing with their children,
whether through abusive or other means. An example of this can be found in the passage of the Stubborn Child Law in 1646.
The Massachusetts law dictated that if a 16-year-old child was rebellious and stubborn, the parents could bring the child to court where the child
could receive a death sentence. The spirit and wording of this law is very similar to biblical verses found in Deuteronomy 21:18–21, which states that
a child can be put to death for being stubborn or rebellious. Moreover, numerous accounts exist of juveniles still being put to death during this time for
minor crimes such as stealing clothing or food (Rothman, 1970).
Some improvements were made to the practices of incarceration across Europe during this period. For example, the house of correction or
workhouse concept developed. While the workhouse concept retained religious undertones, the treatment of offenders while incarcerated did
improve. For example, the emphasis of these institutions rested with the importance of repentance and hard work. During work periods, sinners were
to consider their transgressions and repent for their sins (Hirsch, 1992). The institutions were a vast improvement to the earlier institutions in terms of
cleanliness; however, as we will see in the next section, even bigger reforms were on the horizon.
The Age of Enlightenment
A revolution occurred in the 1700s, particularly in England and France, but eventually in North America. The revolution, referred to as the Age of
Enlightenment, began a seismic shift in the philosophy of how criminals should be punished. The scholars (also referred to as reformers) leading
this movement questioned the intended goal of the system of punishments of the time and whether a just and “enlightened” society should be
utilizing torture and brutality on its citizens. They argued that offenders, particularly those accused of less-serious crimes such as theft, could be dealt
with through a graduated system of sanctions with the same effects (i.e., a reduction of crime). In other words, they argued that punishment could
have the utility of reducing crime without the social costs that resulted from brutality.
This utilitarianism concept eventually gave way to a very influential theory
of crime: deterrence theory. As will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3,
deterrence theory originated from the work of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy
Bentham. They argued that brutal punishments were often justified based
on society’s need for revenge or retribution rather than prevention. The
prevention of crime, however, could occur by making punishments
proportionate to the crime. The following list outlines the main principles of
deterrence theory:
Laws must be developed for crime to be prevented. Specifically,
people must understand laws in order to understand the behaviors
society values.
The purpose of punishment is prevention of crime not revenge.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Rather than torture criminals for revenge, deterrence theory promoted the
use of sanctions and imprisonment. This new stream of thought was made
possible by the Age of Enlightenment and led to the Penitentiary Act of
1779.
Punishment must be swift, certain, and with a degree of severity that
simply offsets the gains of crime.
Prisons, which housed prisoners of all genders, ages, and crimes committed, should be abolished in favor of a system that separates people
based on these characteristics (Devine, 1981; Geis, 1973).
Penitentiary Act
As noted in the last bullet point of the preceding list, the Age of Enlightenment extended to the practice of incarceration. One of the more notable
prison reformers of this time was John Howard, a sheriff in Bedfordshire, England, in the 1770s. John Howard inspected local prisons at the time and
wrote a book titled The State of Prisons in England and Wales. In this book, he outlined the deplorable conditions of the prisons. The book, among
other events, provided the catalyst for the Penitentiary Act of 1779. The act called for a prison system that was secure, sanitary, subject to
inspection, and intended to reform rather than simply punish. To that end, prisoners were expected to work, receive religious instruction, and were
subjected to periods of solitary confinement to repent for their sins. Although these goals overlapped with the original intent of the House of
Corrections discussed earlier, the legislation’s focus on inspection and provisions for prisoners (e.g., diet, hygiene, medical care) provided a better
context for reformation through hard work (Devereaux, 1999).
In America, the use of the prison system, particularly in the context just discussed, was limited. During this time, punishment in America was more
likely to rely on corporal punishment (public hangings, whipping, etc.). However, that began to change in the mid 1700s when many of the colonial
states began adopting policies supporting the developments championed by reformers in England. In particular, several states utilized the workhouse
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
Page 8 of 26
Print
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
concept as a means of engaging youth in hard labor and repentance (Hirsch, 1992). Other forms of punishment to emerge for juveniles at this time
included indentured servitude, poorhouses, orphanages, and jails.
Although there were some improvements made during this time, reformers remained concerned about the treatment of juveniles in the workhouses.
Reformers were concerned that youth were still housed with adults and that the focus of incarceration remained highly punitive. The reformers, often
referred to as child savers, ushered in a new philosophy of juvenile justice and eventually led to the creation of a House of Refuge. Both the Child
Savers Movement and the House of Refuge are key features of the time discussed in the next section: the refuge period.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
Page 9 of 26
Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…ontent&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
Page 10 of 26
Print
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
2.4 Refuge Period (1800s–1899)
Prior to the 1800s, American society was largely agricultural in nature. Youth worked family farms and were given a tremendous amount of
responsibility at a fairly young age. However, with the Industrial Revolution, families left the farms to work in the factories predominately found in the
cities. As children began working in factories, they were taken away from the watchful eyes of their parents. The situation created many issues for
juveniles ranging from exposure to deviance (e.g., accounts indicate that juvenile street gangs flourished at this time; see Johnson, 1979, for
discussion) to abuses in the factories where they worked. Child labor laws were not well developed, and children were often forced to work long
hours in deplorable conditions. The increase in deviance and the concerns about the welfare of children led to the Child Savers Movement (McNally,
2009).
Child Savers Movement
© Bettmann/Corbis/AP Images
The Child Savers Movement was not limited to the Refuge Period. In fact, as we will discuss, the
movement extended into the next time period as well. The child savers were led by a group of
middle-class women who advocated for the welfare of children. In particular, they wanted to give
poor children better opportunities and guide them into a better life. They argued that the system
should consider the needs of the child and focus services on rehabilitation rather than rely on the
punitive and adversarial nature of the current system of punishment. At the same time, they
wanted to save children from the negative environments found in many cities. As a result, they
advocated for the use of reformatories or institutions that would house juveniles and “save” their
souls (Platt, 1969).
During the Refuge Period, the Child Savers
Movement strove to improve rather than punish
juveniles. This photo captures North Market Hall
Prison Reform
Mission School in London, 1850, which sought to
The New York House of Refuge is considered to be the first juvenile reformatory in the United
States. According to the New York State Archives, the New York House of Refuge opened
January 1, 1825, with 9 children (6 boys, 3 girls) but grew to nearly 1,700 inmates within a
decade. The youth were remanded to serve time indefinitely, and by most accounts the youth often remained at the facility until they reached
adulthood. The youth were required to spend most of their time working, developing literacy skills, and receiving religious instruction. You can read
more at http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_ed_reform_history.shtml
(http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/research/res_topics_ed_reform_history.shtml) .
reform children and keep them off the streets.
Another famous reformatory, referred to as the Elmira Reformatory, was designed for first-time felony offenders ages 16 to 30. The opening of the
Elmira Reformatory came on the heels of the Declaration of Principles, which were outlined by the National Prison Association meetings in 1870. The
Declarations were as follows:
Prison should be for reformation and rehabilitation of the inmate;
sentences would be indeterminate rather than fixed to allow for an assessment of whether rehabilitation occurred; and
classification of the inmate’s character and problems would take place and guide reformation. (Cullen, 1995)
The Elmira Reformatory opened in 1876 and used a mark system, with 3 levels of classification. The offender would begin at a level 2. From there
the residents were required to progress to level 1 in order to gain release. However, they could be demoted to level 3 for poor behavior. So in order to
move from level 2 to level 1, the inmate was required to follow the rules, attend school, and work for a period of at least six months. However, if they
refused to follow the rules, the residents were moved from level 2 to level 3. At that point, residents would be required to exhibit positive behavior for
at least three months before they could progress to level 2 and start the process over again (Pisciotta, 1994).
Although these reformatories were an improvement over the earlier facilities used to house juveniles, there were unintended consequences of these
institutions. For example, much like the earlier interventions for offenders, the belief that hard work and discipline would rehabilitate the offender
remained as a prominent fixture in these institutions. Some accounts indicate that the New York House of Refuge used a militaristic style regime of
discipline, and children were required to engage in strict, long hours of work with corporal punishment given for failure to abide by rules. Similarly, the
Elmira Reformatory, while heralded as wildly successful, eventually came under intense scrutiny for its use of corporal punishment and brutality
against the residents (Singer, 1971).
The Child Savers Movement also came under criticism. Critics argued that many of the juveniles placed in these institutions or under the control of
the juvenile court were not necessarily better off for the exposure. The saving of the child typically meant that the youth (regardless of their status as
either dependent or criminal) would be subjected to long periods of incarceration. As noted by Ventrell (1998, p. 13),
It is a mistake to assume that the House of Refuge served as a haven for youth otherwise guilty of serious crime. Those youth were still
maintained in the adult system. In the first two years of operation of the New York House of Refuge, approximately 90% of the children
https://content.ashford.edu/print/AUCRJ301.13.1?sections=ch02,se…content&clientToken=1d74510b-67d4-ecf6-41fb-a94833388324&np=ch02
Page 11 of 26
Print
10/10/18, 7(16 PM
were housed as a result of vagrancy or minor offenses. And it is unlikely that these children would have been consequented without a
House of Refuge as such minor offenses tended to go unpunished by the law.
In addition, some suggested that upper-class youth were not treated in this manner. Rather the movement was simply a mechanism of religious
control asserted over poor youth by the middle and upper classes (Platt, 1969; Ventrell, 1998…