Journal of the Institute
Yüklə 1,2 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Impact of a Juvenile Correctional Facilities Sentencing Matrix Delores E. Craig-Moreland and Katherine Haliburton *
- Indeterminate Sentencing
- Kansas Juvenile Justice Reform
- Figure 1. Kansas Juvenile Correctional Facilities Admissions
- Table 1--Comparison of Monthly Admissions to JCFs
- Figure 2. Kansas JCF Admissions 1/2000-12/2002
- Figure3. Kansas female pre-matrix admissions.
- Table 2--Comparison of Monthly Female Admissions
- Figure 4. Kansas Female Matrix Admissions. Return Admissions
- Table 3: Annual Average Length of Stay (days) in a JCF*
- The Violent Youth Offender and Juvenile Transfer to the Adult Criminal Court
Conclusion Disproportionate Minority Confinement (DMC) is a terrible societal problem that has been allowed to perpetuate itself as a part of our criminal justice system for as long as there has been a criminal justice system in America. Even though there are scant or limited statistics (or at least better statistics than what once were in existence) to demonstrate the severity of the problem nationwide, minorities have always known that if they got into trouble with the law (or the law found trouble for them to get into), they were going to be adjudicated more severely than their white counterparts who may have been “guilty” of the same offenses. And minorities were going to be judged in much greater numbers than their white counterparts. Thanks to an act of Congress in 1988, DMC has become an issue of importance to all states in order to keep receiving their federal funds. It is a shame that it took such a threat to push them into action, but if that is what it took to bring the issue to the forefront, so be it. Something had to be done about it because not only are we discussing the overrepresentation of minorities in the judicial system, we are also talking about the terrible issue of prison overcrowding, one of the by-products of the 1980’s conversatism and its “War on Drugs”, which has still not proven itself a success even after decades. The issue of homeostasis has to be reviewed so progress can be made, in addition to the on-going efforts such as the W. Haywood Burns Model. There are far-reaching and almost disconnected process working within the system which contribute to the perpetuation of DMC and the difficulty of finding solutions to deal with it. But we must be mindful that we are not only dealing with statistics and funding. We are dealing with real lives and the lives around them. We are not of the opinion that we should simply open the doors of all criminal justice detention facilities and release everyone to return to the streets. Many of these men and women truly do need to be incarcerated, some for as long as the law allows. There are people in society who do bad things for which they must be held accountable. But we should not be so hung up on who or what agency is responsible or negligent for what happened that we forget the task at hand: looking to reduce the disproportionate numbers of young men and women who are detained in our juvenile justice facilities. Bibliography Feyerherm, William H. (1995). “The DMC Initiative: The Convergence of Policy and Research Themes”. P. 1-15 in Minorities in Juvenile Justice, Ed. Kimberly Kempf Leoinard, Carl E. Pope, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups (1989). “A Report on the Delicate Balance”. P.2. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended [Public Law 93-415], Section 223 [a][23]. Lehner, Eli (2000). “The Left’s Prison Complex: The Case Against the Case Against Jail”. National Review, October 9, 2000. Raspberry, William (1999). “Race, Crime, and Punishment”. Washington Post, May 14. Muhammed, Nisa Islam. “Young, White, and Criminal”. May 5, 2000. Wire Tap Online Newsletter, PoliticallyBlack.com.http://www.wiretapmag.org/story.html?StoryID=9112. Raspberry, William (2002). “The Big Illinois Crack-Up”. Washingto Post, April 27 National Council on Crime and Delinquency (n.d.) Silbert, James, and Sussman, Alan (1973). “The Rights of Juvenile Confined in Training Schools”. P. 359-381 in Prisoners’ Rights Sourcebook – Theory-Litigation-Practice, edited and compiled by Michele G. Hermann and Marilyn G. Haft. Clark Boardman Company Ltd., New York, New York. Christy, Joseph T. (1994). “Toward a Model Secure Detention Program: Lessons from Shuman Center”. P. 108-127 in Reforming Juvenile Detention: No More Hidden Closets, edited by Ira M. Schwartz and William H. Barton. Ohio University Press. Barton, William H. “Implementing Detention Policy Changes” (n.d.) P. 1. “Haywood Burns Institute Model for Reducing Disproportionate Minority Confinement” (n.d.). “Youth Law Center Model for Addressing Disproportionate Minority Confinement”. July 2002. Research and Evaluation Associates (http://www.rea-inc.com/Projects.html) (n.d.). Development Services Group, Inc. (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/dmc/resources/train.html) (n.d.). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/contacts/index.html). Impact of a Juvenile Correctional Facilities Sentencing Matrix Delores E. Craig-Moreland and Katherine Haliburton* During the 1990s, the Kansas Legislature recognized many problems in the juvenile justice system. Youth centers for confinement of juvenile offenders were overcrowded, and many juveniles were released to accommodate new arrivals. The system of juvenile offender services in the community was in poor shape, embedded within the child welfare system. Juvenile justice did not draw separate attention unless some juvenile offender escaped a youth center and went on a crime spree. The same conditions or worse were evident throughout the United States. A system designed to save children from harsh treatment in the criminal justice system became overcrowded. Suicides and injuries highlighted the danger to children. A complete list of all the problems of the juvenile justice system is not necessary to convince most readers of the crisis in juvenile justice. Juvenile sentencing models reflect the philosophy directing juvenile justice. There are three different types of juvenile sentencing laws utilized in the United States: indeterminate sentencing; determinate sentencing; and a combination of the two. Indeterminate sentencing is the traditional type used in the U.S., mainly because of the juvenile justice system’s founding belief of individualization of each juvenile case and the offender-based approach. Currently, 34 states practice indeterminate sentencing such as used in the state of Missouri. A judge decides to commit a child to the Department of Youth Services for an indefinite term, and in turn DYS typically makes the release decision based upon some criteria for completion of treatment. In the 1990s, use of determinate sentencing, with a fixed period of confinement based on the offense, began to expand as a more punitive model of juvenile justice was adopted. Kansas, along with five other states, utilizes determinate sentencing; District Court judges in Kansas commit youth to the custody of the Juvenile Justice Authority Commissioner for a determinate period, as prescribed in the Kansas sentencing matrix. Although only six states have moved from indeterminate to determinate sentencing, 10 states and the District of Columbia have opted to implement both. In Texas, for example, juveniles can be committed to the Texas Youth Commission in one of two ways: most are committed to TYC for an indeterminate sentence; or more serious offenders generally receive a determinate sentence. Sentencing laws tend to change as society’s view of juvenile offenders change. Most people still view juveniles as a special population in need of individualized rehabilitation, that indeterminate sentencing embraces. However, policy changes such as determinate sentencing, reflects increasing support for a more punitive approach to juvenile justice. This article describes the impact of implementation of juvenile sentencing guidelines in Kansas. (See Appendix A for sentencing details in the United States)
Supreme Court cases such as In re Gault, where the court noted some juvenile treatment exceeded corresponding adult confinement sanctions, began a process of requiring more and more rights for juveniles. In general, these cases highlighted limitations in individualized justice, where inequities in confinement were common. Some of worst features of the traditional model of juvenile justice can be seen in a Kansas case involving a female juvenile offender. This young woman, from a rural community, came to the female juvenile correctional facility as a result of a misdemeanor charge. Sarah (not her real name) was fourteen years of age, and had a lengthy history of status offenses such as truancy and curfew violations. While Sarah was not particularly criminal in her conduct, she was annoying, and had exceeded the patience of the local judiciary. Her family situation was not particularly helpful, with a mother commonly given to drug use/abuse. Like many juvenile offenders, she was below grade level in reading and other academic skills. Confinement in a juvenile correctional facility represented a “final solution” to the problem of what to do with Sarah. Nothing in the community seemed to help. Her sentence to a juvenile correctional facility was indeterminate, with the standard transfer of custody to the state until such time as she could be rehabilitated. Sarah remained in the juvenile correctional facility until just before her nineteenth birthday. Time after time she was scheduled for release, but committed some form of disciplinary infraction. In spite of occasional conduct lapses, she did well in the educational program at the facility. While Sarah committed a relatively minor crime involving minor property damage, and had only a few subsequent rule infractions, she was maintained under lock and key for nearly five years. The juvenile correctional facility staff observed Sarah’s need for supervision beyond that available in her home. Staff was convinced she was “better off” in the facility than at home. The fact remains Sarah spent her entire adolescence in a correctional facility, and was released as a young adult with minimal social and independent living skills, and few supports to assist transition to adult life. Sarah languished in the female juvenile correctional facility during the 1990s. At the same time, overcrowding in male facilities occasionally led to release of some offenders in just a few months. Michael (not his real name either!) was committed to the most secure juvenile correctional facility as a result of a conviction for participation in a crime spree with an older brother. The two were responsible for battery of an elderly woman. In spite of this felony conviction for a violent crime, Michael was back out of the juvenile correctional facility in less than six months. The staff at the juvenile correctional facility offered two explanations: overcrowding required someone be released; and Michael was mainly guilty of accompanying his brother. Determinate Sentencing The plight of juvenile offenders like Sarah are more or less invisible to society, but juveniles such as Michael and his brother evoke public fear of violent crime, motivating lawmakers to get tough. Forst (1995) referred to the recent wave of change in juvenile justice throughout the United States as a “new juvenile justice”, with greater emphasis on due process and punitive sentencing. Mears & Field (2000) provided a good case study of the new juvenile justice as they described reform in Texas juvenile justice, and observed movement in the direction of a more criminal-like approach. Texas juvenile justice reform surfaced in 1995, with many changes designed to be tougher on juvenile offenders. Perhaps the most sweeping change in Texas took the form of a system of guidelines for sentencing, if the prosecutor elected to ‘get tough’. Getting tough on juvenile crime takes the form of transfer to adult criminal court, more public records of juvenile crime, and increasing interest in sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders. See National Criminal Justice Association (1997) for full details of the juvenile justice reform initiatives throughout the states. Hofer, Blackwell, and Ruback (1999) point out that much of the reason for implementing federal sentencing guidelines for adult offenders was the reduction of unexplained sentence disparity. In other words, the sentencing guidelines were a response to the desire for ‘same crime, same time’ justice. Shane-Dubow (1998) elaborated the intent of determinate sentencing to include multiple goals of limiting discretion and a focus, at least at sentencing, more on the severity of the crime than on the offender. The focus on the crime, rather than the criminal, is especially interesting in the world of juvenile justice, where the very purpose of the separate system is to provide ample opportunity to respond to the unique needs of the juvenile offender. Use of juvenile determinate sentencing guidelines comes from many of the same concerns expressed in the adult criminal justice system. Forst, Fisher, and Coates (1995) noted the same interest in limiting discretion in sentencing, and equity in incarceration and release of juvenile offenders. Additionally, there is a continuing concern about incarcerating status offenders with juvenile delinquents in juvenile correctional institutions. The crux of this issue for most juvenile justice professionals is the lack of rehabilitative effect when status offenders are placed in facilities for juvenile offenders. Two very heterogeneous populations are mixed, with no advantage to either group. Sometimes the great numbers of status offenders produces overcrowding, resulting in early release of more serious offenders. Second, there is concern about the reduced level of due process safeguards in the juvenile justice system. If the main goal of the juvenile justice system is to act in the best interests of the child, that would appear incompatible with use of uniform sentencing guidelines focused more on the offense than the offender. Third, the final concern is that of so called “law and order” advocates, who perceive that juvenile offenders frequently do not spend enough time in juvenile correctional facilities. If any part of juvenile justice reform is driven by interest in reducing juvenile crime, it seems reasonable to explore views of juvenile offenders. Corrado, Cohen, Glackman, & Odgers (2003) conducted research on juvenile offender intention to recidivate, based on the various sentencing models. The research concluded recidivism is more associated with reintegration resources and care than with sentencing models or length of incarceration. In other words, the method of sentencing and the sanction itself have less impact on subsequent juvenile offending than the social environment of the juvenile. This study focused on the changes in admissions to juvenile corrections facilities, as a result of the implementation of juvenile sentencing guidelines. The data was analyzed to observe any consequences on confinement rates, recommitment rates, and length of sentence.
The articulated intent of the adoption of the sentencing matrix was multifaceted, but focused mainly around a more uniform experience of juvenile justice throughout the state of Kansas, and effecting population control to make sure adequate capacity would be available to keep serious juvenile offenders for appropriately lengthy stays. Some legislators were moved to support juvenile justice reform on the basis of eliminating confinement of status offenders, thereby creating a more homogeneous population in the juvenile correctional facilities. In other words, the same issues identified by Forst, Fisher, and Coates (1995) were in play during the 1990s in Kansas, and drove to varying degrees the reform legislation. Pre-Matrix Admissions The data available for this study included admissions to juvenile correctional facilities in the state of Kansas, for the period from July 1, 1996 through December 2002. The figure below shows the historical data for three years prior to implementation of the matrix, and the first year of the matrix. A projection line shows the expected pattern of admissions IF the matrix were not implemented. It is clear the implementation of the matrix had a profound impact on the absolute numbers of admissions to the juvenile correctional facilities. Figure 1. Kansas Juvenile Correctional Facilities Admissions 
A statistical comparison of average monthly admissions in the pre-matrix period (7/96-6/99) with the matrix period (1/2000-6/03) revealed a statistically significant difference. Table 1--Comparison of Monthly Admissions to JCFs
*Mean difference between pre-matrix and matrix monthly admissions was 45.34. Figure 1 does show admissions were on a clear upward trend at the time of implementation of the matrix criteria for referral to a juvenile correctional facility. Clearly, the first impact of the matrix was reduction in admission referrals. This is certainly consistent with findings reported by Sorensen and Stemen (2002), although they caution such conclusions must be weighed with other corresponding crime control initiatives. In general, they concluded states with presumptive sentencing guidelines have substantially lower prison admission rates. Analysis of the admissions during the three years prior to the implementation of the matrix showed varying reasons for admission to juvenile correctional facilities. While those admissions were not governed by the matrix, they were analyzed in terms of how many would meet the criteria for matrix admission. Out of a total of 3,475 admissions during the three years in question, a total of 2,503 did meet criteria for at least one matrix grid category. Of the remaining 972, an additional 88 were identified as direct commitments, with no information available about the nature of the crime. More extensive analysis of these remaining 884 showed 393 referred for felony charges, and 491 misdemeanor crimes as a basis for referral. Granting the benefit of doubt based on lack of information, of the 393 felony cases, 48 were close to meeting criteria, and were assigned a matrix category. This left 345 felons as non-matrix category admissions. A similar review of the 491 misdemeanants showed some 29 cases could be interpreted as potentially meeting a matrix category. This rather conservative estimation of admissions not meeting any matrix category left at least 807 admissions of sub-matrix threshold juvenile correctional facility (JCF) admissions. That group was composed of 29% female admissions, compared to a general tendency of female admissions to make up approximately 13% of total admissions for the period in question. With respect to race of this group, 48% were Caucasian, compared to 50% in the total pre-matrix population. Overall, in the three years immediately prior to the implementation of the matrix sentencing guidelines for juvenile offender referral to juvenile correctional facilities, approximately 23% of admissions fell below the “criminality” standards of admissions applied by the matrix. That group was slightly more female and slightly more minority than the entire pre-matrix admissions population. The pre-matrix admissions were characterized by disproportionate admissions for minorities. Among the 3,475 admissions in the final three years before implementation of the matrix, the percentage reported as non-Hispanic Caucasian was 50.1%; a clear under representation of the majority population group in Kansas. Approximately 33% of admissions were reported as African American; roughly 12% of admissions were Hispanic; the remaining 5% were divided between Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native American Indians. Indeterminate sentencing practices in Kansas resulted in wide variation in time served in juvenile correctional facilities, even for those convicted of the same sort of crime. For example, in 1998 a total of 1116 juvenile offenders entered JCFs. Those admitted in 1998 served a wide range of time in facilities; from as little as two days to as long at 1600 days. The longest sentence was related to an offense below the matrix criteria for admission. If cases are sorted according to categories contained in the matrix imposed July 1, 1999, some 68 juvenile offenders would fall within the category labeled Violent II. This group is associated with felony crimes against persons, including second degree murder, rape, aggravated indecent liberties, aggravated kidnapping, and voluntary manslaughter. The matrix sentence associated with this group ranges from 24 months to retention to age 22.5 years. Among those admitted with 1998 indeterminate sentences for such crimes the actual time served ranged from 6 days to 1344 days. The most frequent period served was one year.
When scrutinized for race, this group was composed of Caucasians (55.9%), African Americans (26.8%), Hispanics (10.9%), Asians (2.1%), Pacific Islanders (.2%), and Native Americans (3.2%). Figure3. Kansas female pre-matrix admissions. 
A statistical comparisons of average monthly female admissions in the pre-matrix period and matrix period revealed a significant difference in monthly admissions. Table 2--Comparison of Monthly Female Admissions
*Mean difference between pre-matrix and matrix monthly admissions was 9.78. Once the matrix was implemented, the female referrals to juvenile correctional facilities dropped substantially, varying between one and seven admissions pre month, with an average near four per month. In other words, when specific crime-related referral criteria were implemented, referrals of females to juvenile correctional facilities fell to approximately one-quarter of the rate of referrals made on an indeterminate referral basis. It is of some interest that females composed some 13% of referrals before the matrix, yet are approximately 8% of admissions since implementation of the referral criteria embodied in the matrix. Figure 4. Kansas Female Matrix Admissions. 
Return Admissions In the pre-matrix period the percentages of admissions with prior admissions to juvenile correctional facilities went from 25% in 1997 to 29% in 1998. The rates for 1999 (35%) and 2000 (50%) were composed of juveniles sentenced under the pre-matrix laws and those sentenced via the matrix. It is difficult to draw any conclusions about the relatively high rates during this period. During the period in which almost all admissions were governed by the matrix and associated sentence guidelines, the rate of return admissions was 40% in 2001 and 31% in 2002. The declining rate of return may reflect the impact of the longer incarceration sentences typical of the guidelines. The majority of those returned were conditional release violators, guilty of some violation of the rules under which they exited the JCF. Length of Stay In the pre-matrix period, release of a juvenile offender was completely within the control of the superintendent of the juvenile correctional facility. Often, the period of incarceration and date of release was controlled by the pressure to admit newly sentenced juvenile offenders. All four juvenile correctional facilities had populations at or near capacity during that period. The table below shows the average length of stay for juvenile admissions during each year. Table 3: Annual Average Length of Stay (days) in a JCF*
*Each cell contains the average number of days divided by the number of admissions that year. After implementation of the matrix in July 1999, the average number of days served in a juvenile correctional facility went up dramatically. Furthermore, in the pre-matrix period females served an average of six weeks more than male counterparts, but after the matrix males were serving approximately three months longer. Discussion The introduction to this study presented three potential issues in juvenile confinement: excluding status offenders from confined populations, lack of adequate due process safeguards for those at risk of confinement, and adequate periods of confinement for serious and violent juvenile offenders. Use of sentencing guidelines may afford opportunities to address all three of these issues, to varying degrees. The Kansas data was analyzed with respect to each of these issues. The Kansas matrix for referral of juvenile offenders has eight different categories of juvenile offenders eligible for referral; none of those categories includes status offenders. In the data for those referred prior to the matrix, there were instances of habitual truants referred for juvenile correctional facility admission. Data for admissions in accordance with KSA 38-16,129 does not indicate any deviations to include status offenders. On the strength of the three years experience with the matrix formula for referral to a juvenile correctional facility, it does prevent the mixing of status offenders with a population of juvenile offenders. Imposing standards for admission to the juvenile correctional facilities resulted in a serious decline in referrals. Admissions for the three years of sentencing guidelines were about half the numbers admitted during the three pre-matrix years. Yet no major juvenile crime wave occurred. Juvenile arrests during the most recent three years have been among the lowest in recent Kansas history. It appears reduced juvenile incarceration did not adversely affect community safety, although many factors may account for the low crime rates. The second question/issue, associated with due process considerations of juvenile offenders, is less clear in the data presented. A recent ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court does appear to further cloud this issue. In September of 2002, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in the matter of the “JM” case concerning the meaning of prior adjudications. The Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority contended that prior adjudications referred to prior cases. A judge contended each charge in a case could be regarded as a separate adjudication. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that each count/charge in a single case could be regarded as a separate adjudication. This ruling could be interpreted as a reduction in due process for juveniles considered for referral to a juvenile correctional facility, because the need for prior adjudications could be satisfied with a single prior case containing multiple counts/charges. Certainly the very specific requirement for application of each matrix category requires a substantial effort on the part of the juvenile court professionals. The journal entry must state how they meet the matrix criteria, and the period of incarceration. If the juvenile does not meet the criteria of the indicated matrix category, it is likely the Juvenile Justice Authority will file a motion to block the referral. The overall impact of the matrix has been to raise awareness of the serious consequences for juvenile offenders, raising interest in adequate due process. The third issue is providing for capacity so serious violent juvenile offenders may experience adequate duration of incarceration. Length of stay data in the pre-matrix population showed wide variation, with relatively short average length of stay. The principal explanation for the short stay was prevention of overcrowding. With the sentencing guidelines offered by use of the matrix, there is a minimum stay of six months, and a substantially greater sentence for those committed as a consequence of a serious and/or violent crime. For example, the duration of stay for anyone committed as a consequence of a violent crime can range from 60 months minimum if convicted of an “off-grid” felony, or a 24 month minimum if convicted of a level 1, 2, or 3 felony. In both cases, juveniles may be incarcerated in the custody of the Juvenile Justice Authority until age 22 years, six months. The ultimate impact of the matrix is disclosed in the numbers referred to juvenile correctional facilities, and the valid reasons for making such a referral. Many of the additional numbers of juvenile offenders confined before the matrix were referred for what amounted to a lack of resources in the community. Confinement resulting from a lack of community resources results in mixing heterogeneous populations, and incarcerating juveniles for which there are no adequate programs. The impact on female juvenile confinement and minority confinement is quite unique. The section describing female admissions data clearly shows marked disproportionate reduction of female juveniles once the matrix guided referrals. Further exploration of gender related impact, and the impact on disproportionate minority contact promise to yield interesting information. Philosophically, juvenile sentencing guidelines seem to be at odds with a system expected to function in the best interests of each delinquent. Yet the data on indeterminate sentencing documents vast inequities and apparent gender bias.
Corrado, R. R., Cohen, I. M., Glackman, W. and Odgers, C. (2003) Serious and Violent Young Offenders’ Decisions to Recidivate: An Assessment of Five Sentencing Models. Crime and Delinquency, Volume 49(2), p. 179-200. Forst, Martin (1995) The New Juvenile Justice. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers. Forst, Martin, Fisher, B. A., and Coates, R. B. (1995) Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing of Juvenile Delinquents: A National Survey of Approaches to Commitment and Release Decision-Making. In Martin L. Forst (Ed.) The New Juvenile Justice. (pp. 139-153.) Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers. Hofer, Paul, Blackwell, K.R., & Ruback, R.B. (1999). The effect of the federal sentencing guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Volume 90(1), p. 239 and on. Mears, Daniel P., and Field, Samuel, H. (2000) Theorizing Sanctioning In A Criminalized Juvenile Court. Criminology, Volume 38(4), p. 983-1019. National Criminal Justice Association (1997). Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States: 1994-1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Shane-Dubow, Sandra, Reitz, K. R. & Wright, R.F. (1998). The development of structured sentencing: long-term effects and outcomes. Law and Policy, 20(4), p. 383-531. Sorensen, Jon and Stemen, Don. (2002) The Effect of State Sentencing Policies on Incarceration Rates. Crime and Delinquency, Volume 48(3), p. 456-475.
Yüklə 1,2 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
