Juvenile Justice: Putting It in Perspective

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 Links to an external site..
Watch Juvenile Justice: The System With Joe Berlinger Links to an external site., Inside Adult Prison Youth Unit: General Perspectives Links to an external site., Superintendent Linda Commons: Interview Links to an external site., and Prison Kids: Juvenile Justice in America | Full Documentary 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 following three questions in the following quote by filmmaker Makeda Lollis.

“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?”

Note: this discussion format will differ from formats in prior courses. You must post in the discussion on at least three separate days by Day 7; your total word count for your posts should be a minimum of 600 words. There is no required word count for individual posts as long as your combined posts total at least 600 words. However, you must use at least one APA 6th edition in-text citation in at least one post.

Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

▪ Explain the complexity of defining juvenile delinquency.

▪

Summarize the different types of juvenile delinquency.

▪

Describe how states attempt to define juvenile delinquency in relation to age.

▪

Evaluate the rates of delinquency and the three primary techniques for measuring delinquency.

▪

Analyze the benefits of using the three crime measurements together.

Juvenile Delinquency:
Background and

Measurement

ncognet0/Getty Images

Chapter Outline
1.1 Introduction

1.2 What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency?

1.3 Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?

1.4 How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

▪ Arrest Results and Trends

– What the UCR Reveals About Crime

– Strengths of the UCR

– Weaknesses of the UCR

– Supplementing the UCR

▪ Self-Report Surveys

– Strengths of Self-Report Surveys

– Weaknesses of Self-Report Surveys

▪ Victimization Data

– Strengths of Victimization Surveys

– Weaknesses of Victimization Surveys

1.5 Measuring Crime: Putting It All Into Perspective

During the summer of 1999, 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick was staying with a friend of her mother.
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
had the little girl in a headlock and her head had 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 U.S. 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
because of the nature of the crime but also because of the young age of the defendant.

Although violent crime among juveniles is cause for serious concern, other forms of delin-
quency, such as drug and alcohol use among teens, can be equally concerning. In fact, the Cen-
ters 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 school-based survey (visit http://www.cdc.gov/yrbss for more information).
According to the survey, in 2017, 29.8% of high school students reported having at least one
drink during the last 30 days before the survey, 19.8% of students reported using marijuana
one or more times during the 30 days before the survey, and 6.2% 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 (Kann et al., 2018).

Section 1.1Introduction

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 illus-
trates that juveniles are capable of murder, this type of crime is rare compared to other types
of crimes. If we examine arrest statistics,
we see that although 682 juveniles were
arrested for murder in 2016, this number
is lower than that for any other violent
crime category (Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation [FBI], 2017). As a point of compari-
son, more than 147,000 youth were
arrested for property crimes in 2016 (FBI,
2017). This comparison is not to suggest
that property crime is comparable to vio-
lent crime, particularly murder; however,
it does illustrate that an arrest made for a
violent crime is a rare event.

People generally agree that a juvenile’s
violent acts should be considered crimi-
nal. 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, regard-
less of police action. However, if a youth
is given a glass of wine at the family din-
ner table, does this behavior also repre-
sent juvenile delinquency? The context in
which the behavior occurs might alter our
perspective.

We may see binge drinking at an unsupervised party differently than we see consuming a
small amount of alcohol in the context of a family gathering, even though underage drinking
is illegal. Similarly, the reasons behind certain behaviors may change our view. Consider a
youth who skips school to escape chronic bullying or who runs away from home to escape
sexual abuse. Truancy is against the law, but should the underlying cause for the behavior be
considered when determining whether to involve the criminal justice system?

As we will see throughout this chapter, juvenile delinquency, which typically refers to the
criminal activities of a minor child, is a complex phenomenon. The complexity can be seen in
several examples. First, although the age at which a youth is considered a juvenile delinquent
is 18 according to federal law, the age varies at the state level. Second, the types of offenses
committed by juveniles vary dramatically, and controversy surrounds how different types
of offenses should be handled within the justice system. Finally, there are various ways to

Flirt/SuperStock
Defining and measuring deviant behavior among
juveniles is more difficult than it might seem.

Section 1.2What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency?

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
to mean 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 juvenile delinquency.

1.2 What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency?
Defining precisely the types of behavior that should warrant involvement in the juvenile jus-
tice system is complicated. For example, although murder is clearly a crime that would invoke
court involvement, other forms of delinquency are less clear. Crimes committed by juveniles
range from minor violations like vandalism and truancy to more serious crimes like rape and
robbery. Should individuals who engage in less serious forms of delinquency be subjected to
the same arrest and court processing as those who commit more serious crime? Understand-
ing this issue requires us to examine a brief history of the concept of juvenile delinquency in
the United States.

Those born in the 1980s and later have known only a juvenile justice system oriented toward
punishment. Historically the juvenile justice system was oriented toward rehabilitation and
care of delinquent youth (see Chapter 2). Rehabilitation or reformation is the foundation
behind parens patria, one of the core concepts of the system. Parens patria (Latin for “parent
of the nation”) refers to the court’s focus on the welfare of the juvenile. The court’s parent-
ing role becomes particularly important in cases in which a juvenile is a victim of abuse or
neglect.

The juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over behaviors that are illegal only for juveniles. These
types of crimes are referred to as status offenses and include delinquent acts such as tru-
ancy, running away, and violating curfew. Status offenses are considered fairly minor forms of
delinquency and in some states may qualify for particular types of services, such as diversion
or educational classes, rather than incarceration. For example, some states offer seminars
both for youth who engage in chronic truancy and for their parents. The classes might discuss
the impact of skipping school on the youth’s financial and emotional well-being.

Although the juvenile justice system had long distinguished between delinquent offenses
(more serious), abuse and neglect cases (serious but nondelinquent), and status offenses (less
serious), it was not until the 1960s that criminal justice reformers questioned how the system
should handle each. At the time, the concern was less about whether the system should be
more punitive in its handling of delinquent cases than it was about 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 influence a youth’s chance of becoming involved in more serious
delinquency in the future (Raley, 1995). In other words, could the juvenile justice system be
doing more harm than good?

Section 1.2What Qualifies as Juvenile Delinquency?

The treatment of status offenders was addressed as a primary issue in the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. One of the four core protections of this act is the
Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, which recommends that all juveniles classi-
fied as status offenders not be held for any period of time in a detention facility (Holden &
Kapler, 1995). The recommendation regarding the treatment of status offenders was based
on several concerns. First, although status offenses are less serious forms of delinquency, 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
increases their risk for future criminal behavior (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004; Holman &
Ziedenberg, 2007; Sherman, 2005).

To reduce these potential negative impacts, some observers argue that the system should
develop labels, guidelines, and even separate criminal codes for status offenders and juve-
niles who offend as a result of abuse or neglect. In terms of labels, the International Associa-
tion of Chiefs of Police (IACP) have long
argued that status offenders should be
labeled as unruly children to reduce the
use of the “offender” label (Krisberg &
Austin, 1978). More recently, the IACP
and the John D. and Catherine T. MacAr-
thur Foundation began a partnership to
create innovative policies for handling
youth. As a result of this collaboration,
jurisdictions across the country have
been able to reduce referrals to the juve-
nile court for status offenses (Bahney,
Daugirda, Firman, Kurash, & Phudy,
2014). Some states classify a juvenile who
commit status offenses as a person in
need of supervision (PINS), a youth in
need of supervision (YINS), a juvenile in
need of supervision (JINS), or a child in
need of supervision (CINS). Still other
states limit the types of charges that can
be classified as a status offense. For exam-
ple, North Carolina developed five catego-
ries of status offenders (Governor’s Crime
Commission, 2012):

• Undisciplined-type status offender:
a juvenile who has committed an
undisciplined-type status offense
(e.g., truancy, has run away, has
been disobedient)

Fuse/Thinkstock
Underage drinking is a delinquent-type status
offense.

Section 1.3Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?

• Delinquent-type status offender: a juvenile who has committed a curfew, alcohol,
tobacco, or motor vehicle offense that is not a crime for adults (e.g., buying tobacco
under age 18, consuming alcohol under age 21)

• Nonoffender: a juvenile who is under juvenile court jurisdiction for reasons of delin-
quency, neglect, or abuse

• Civil-type offender: 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)

• Alien juvenile: a noncitizen juvenile under age 18 who is not charged with any
offense

A concern regarding status offenders that is not addressed by these types of labels and guide-
lines, however, is how to deal with chronic status offenders or those who commit multiple
status offenses (see Chapter 4).

1.3 Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?
One of the challenges of understanding the juvenile justice system is that the system itself
is, in fact, not systematic. This is particularly true when it comes to defining who qualifies as
a juvenile. The U.S. juvenile justice system is comprised of 51 different entities—one for the
federal system and one for each state—and who qualifies as a juvenile differs from state to
state. A juvenile delinquent is a minor who commits a criminal act. But at what age is some-
one considered a minor?

The federal government considers a minor to be under the age of 18. Should everyone in
the country 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 regarding the age of entry into the juve-
nile justice system, can be seen by how juvenile delinquent status is defined differently in
different states. In Texas, the definition of a juvenile delinquent is a child between the ages
of 10 and 17. However, in Massachusetts, the age is between 7 and 16 years (Hockenberry &
Puzzanchera, 2018).

If we look state by state, we see considerable variation in both the upper and lower age limits
for who is considered a juvenile. The upper age limit in each state is referred to as the age of
jurisdiction, or the age that dictates whether the juvenile court or the adult court system has
authority over a case. Most states consider a juvenile to be any person under the age of 18
(see Table 1.1).

Support for raising the age of jurisdiction has increased over the past several years as research
questioning the effectiveness of transferring youth to adult court has increased. In 2013, both
Illinois and Massachusetts raised the age of jurisdiction from 16 to 17, with New Hampshire
following suit in 2015. In 2017, New York voters passed legislation to raise the age of jurisdic-
tion from 15 to 18 (starting in fiscal year 2018), and North Carolina raised the age of jurisdic-
tion for nonviolent crimes to age 18 (effective December 1, 2019).

Section 1.3Who Is a Juvenile Delinquent?

Table 1.1: Upper age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters by
state/jurisdiction

Age State/jurisdiction

16 Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin

17 Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jer-
sey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina*, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylva-
nia, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,
Wyoming

*Effective December 2019

From “Figure: Delinquency upper age, 2016,” in Statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?qaDate=2016&text=no&maplink=link2

Some states also set a minimum age of jurisdiction for youth to be involved with the juvenile
justice system (see Table 1.2). North Carolina allows the lowest minimum age of jurisdiction,
meaning that youth as young as 6 years old are subject to the juvenile court system. The mini-
mum age of jurisdiction is 7 years in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York.
It is 8 years in Arizona and 10 years in 11 other states. If a youth below these ages commits
a delinquent act, it would likely be handled informally by the police department and family.
Youth under the age of jurisdiction are considered too young to understand that their behav-
ior is criminal.

Table 1.2: Minimum age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters, by state

Age State

6 North Carolina

7 Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York

8 Arizona

10 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin

From “Figure: Delinquency lower age, 2016,” in Statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04102.asp?qaDate=20

Not surprisingly, the maximum age of jurisdiction varies by state as well. The maximum age of
jurisdiction refers to the oldest age at which a juvenile can be retained in the juvenile system.
The majority of states consider the age of 20 as the maximum age of jurisdiction (see Table
1.3). So, for example, if a youth is convicted at age 14 for a crime in Ohio and is sentenced to
serve time in a juvenile institution, he can be kept under supervision by the juvenile justice
system until he is 20 years old. A few states will allow youth as old as 24 to remain in the
juvenile justice system, and some will allow youth to remain as long as their sentence dictates.

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Table 1.3: Maximum age of jurisdiction in delinquency matters, by
state/jurisdiction

Age State/jurisdiction

18 Oklahoma, Texas

19 Alaska, Connecticut, Mississippi, North Dakota

20 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada*, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washing-
ton, West Virginia, Wyoming

21 Vermont

22 Kansas

24 California, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin

— Colorado**, Hawaii**, New Jersey**

Note: Extended jurisdiction may be restricted to certain offenses or juveniles.
*Until the full sentence has been served for sex offenders
**Until the full sentence has been served

From “Figure: Jurisdictional boundaries,” in Statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04106.asp?qaDate=2016

1.4 How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?
National crime statistics offer a fairly complicated portrait of juvenile offending and victim-
ization. The statistics can sometimes be confusing and contradictory. Let’s consider the fol-
lowing facts:

• Over 850,000 juveniles were arrested in 2016. This number represents a 58%
decrease since 2007 (FBI, 2016).

• Prevalence of marijuana use and inhalants increased significantly in 2017, although
still below peak levels (Johnston, Miech, O’Malley, Bachman, Schulenberg, & Patrick,
2018).

• Studies show that the rate of violent victimization among juveniles between the ages
of 12 and 17 declined to an all-time low in 2015 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2017).

• In recent years, the percentage of arrests has grown for girls more than for boys,
although boys represent 92% of all juvenile arrests (Puzzanchera & Ehrmann, 2018).

• Up to 60% of U.S. children are exposed to violence, crime, or abuse in their homes,
schools, and communities (Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, Hamby, & Kracke, 2009).

After reading these statistics, you may not feel you have any better understanding of juvenile
crime than you did before. If so, you are not alone. 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 regard-
ing crime was illustrated in a mid-1990s study of college students. Researchers asked partici-
pants 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,

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

the number of homicides typically hovers around less than 20,000 annually, with 1,700 of
those involving juveniles (VanDiver & Giacopassi, 1997). Clearly these students were misin-
formed, but studies suggest that overall the public often overestimates the amount of crime
that occurs each year (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).

One reason for this overestimation is that our views and attitudes are influenced by our per-
sonal experiences and by the information we take in about the world around us. This phe-
nomenon is referred to as the availability heuristic, which is the tendency to believe in the
probability of an event based on how easily an example can be recalled (Tversky & Kahne-
man, 1973). Regarding violent crime, information may come from a person’s experience (e.g.,
knowing someone who was robbed by a delinquent youth), but more often it comes from the
news media’s excessive coverage of violent crime (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).

There are several other reasons why understanding crime statistics can be difficult. First,
crime statistics can be very contextual. For 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 drug-related crimes may increase even though the crimes themselves have
not increased. Second, although we often examine crime statistics from an annual perspec-
tive (e.g., the percentage of crime in 2018), crime tends to fluctuate naturally between years.
Sometimes the fluctuation turns into a trend (e.g., the crime rate has decreased significantly
between 2010 and 2018); other times the fluctuation represents an anomaly or an unusual
year. Finally, we use multiple techniques to measure delinquency, and each technique has its
own strengths and weaknesses. In particular, the juvenile justice field relies on three primary
sources for collecting crime data: arrests, self-report surveys, and victimization surveys. Let’s
take a look at these three sources and their strengths and weaknesses.

Arrest Results and Trends
When the news media discuss the increase or decrease in the crime rate, they are most often
referring to changes in the number of arrests or the arrest rate. The arrest statistics for both
juveniles and adults is most commonly derived from the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR),
whose data are published annually by the FBI. The UCR program began in the late 1920s and
collects information from police departments across the country. In the 1940s, law enforce-
ment agencies from nearly 400 cities provided information on arrests in their jurisdictions. By
the 1960s, every state provided crime statistics for the UCR. Today, crime statistics included
in the UCR are collected by approximately 17,000 different city, county, tribal, and state police
agencies across the country. Even crime that occurs on university and college campuses can
be part of these crime statistics (FBI, 2004). The statistics account for crimes known to police
and arrests made by law enforcement agencies.

The UCR collects arrest data on what are known as Part I and Part II offenses. The Part I
offenses, also known as index crimes, include homicide, rape, arson, motor vehicle theft, lar-
ceny, robbery, and burglary. They are singled out because of 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. The annual report published by the FBI focuses
on Part I offenses. Both types of offenses are listed in Table 1.4. Several crime categories have
been 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).

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Table 1.4: Part I and II offenses

Part I offenses Part II offenses

Murder and nonnegligent homicide
Rape
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Burglary
Larceny/theft
Motor vehicle theft
Arson

Other assaults
Fraud
Embezzlement
Stolen property
Weapons
Prostitution
Sex offenses (except rape)
Drug abuse violations
Runaways
Gambling
Forgery and counterfeiting
Offenses against family and children
Driving under the influence
Liquor laws
Drunkenness
Disorderly conduct
Vagrancy
Suspicion
Curfew & loitering
All other offenses (except trafficking)

The data collected for the UCR program include three different categories:

• Crimes known to police: Data include crimes reported by victims or witnesses, or
those discovered by police. These crimes may or may not be referred to the court
system for formal charges.

• Crimes cleared by arrest: Data include the number of offenses cleared by an arrest.
Cleared refers to whether the crime was considered “solved” by the police. 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 committed by
that one person. Regardless of the number of people involved, an arrest must have
occurred and the case referred to court.

• 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 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 statis-
tics 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.

What the UCR Reveals About Crime
By examining the data included in the UCR, we can get a sense of who is committing what types
of crime. For example, the FBI classifies a juvenile as anyone under the age of 18, regardless
of how juvenile is defined by each state. In addition, the UCR does not report circumstances in
which youth are brought into custody for their own protection, such as in abuse and neglect
cases. Further, comparing the amount of crime committed by juveniles relative to adults, we

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

find that juveniles contribute significantly to the overall crime rate. Specifically, Figure 1.1
shows that, in 2016, just under 14% of property crimes and 10% of violent crimes were com-
mitted by juveniles (FBI, 2017).

Figure 1.1: Percentage of crime committed by those under 18, 2016

Of the total crime committed in the United States in 2016, juveniles committed almost 14% of all
property crimes and 10% of all violent crimes.

From “Table 20: Arrests by age, 2016,” in Crime in the United States, by Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report,
2017, Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-2

Table 1.5 breaks down the arrests of juveniles in 2016 by charge and age, indicating that more
than 680,000 juveniles were arrested during that year. Of those juveniles, slightly over 41,000
were arrested for violent offenses (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault), and more than 147,000 were arrested for property offenses (bur-
glary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson). A few other pieces of data are notable:
just over 31,000 youth were arrested for vandalism, over 78,000 for drug abuse violations,
and just over 27,000 for curfew and loitering violations. We also see some patterns regard-
ing age, suggesting that older youth are arrested more frequently than younger youth. For
example, the crimes committed by youth under age 15 make up only 28%, or less than a third,
of all juvenile arrests in 2016.

Table 1.5: Arrests by charge and age, 2016

Offense
charged

Total
under 18

Under
10 10–12 13–14 15 16 17

TOTAL 681,701 4,902 42,347 143,326 127,828 164,010 199,288

Violent crime 41,335 198 2,543 8,565 7,860 10,175 11,994

Murder and
nonnegligent
manslaughter

682 0 5 55 93 198 331

Rape 2,952 30 331 829 514 561 687

Robbery 15,339 20 368 2,510 3,123 4,367 4,951

(continued on next page)

Property index Violence index

13.6

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Table 1.5: Arrests by charge and age, 2016 (continued)

Offense
charged

Total
under 18

Under
10 10–12 13–14 15 16 17

Aggravated
assault

22,362 148 1,839 5,171 4,130 5,049 6,025

Property crime 147,350 783 8,512 31,661 29,385 36,501 40,508

Burglary 25,513 193 1,596 5,857 5,243 6,117 6,507

Larceny/theft 107,287 476 6,207 22,638 20,954 26,589 30,423

Motor vehicle
theft

12,520 15 295 2,514 2,837 3,519 3,3

Arson 2,030 99 414 652 351 276 238

Vandalism 31,181 534 3,253 8,737 5,663 6,457 6,5

Weapons:
carrying,
possessing, etc.

15,452 203 1,377 3,220 2,734 3,551 4,367

Drug abuse
violations

78,330 91 1,737 10,239 12,096 20,639 33,528

Liquor laws 29,073 9 267 2,782 4,404 8,044 13,567

Drunkenness 3,805 14 35 406 521 907 1,922

Disorderly
conduct

52,315 498 4,964 14,487 10,521 11,221 10,624

Suspicion 74 0 6 18 14 19 17

Curfew and
loitering law
violations

27,152 135 1,615 6,046 6,186 7,288 5,882

Adapted from Crime in the United States, by Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-
the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-

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 of crimes committed by juveniles
each year. Rather, drug abuse violations and property violations make up the bulk of juve-
nile crime. Similarly, the overall crime rate among those aged 18 and under has dropped sig-
nificantly. This type of data could be used to counteract public fears that youth have become
more violent over the past decade (Gramlich, 2018; NPR, 2016). Similarly, although status
offenses such as curfew and loitering violations involved a fair number of juveniles (just over
27,000) in 2016, they have decreased over time (see Figure 1.6). Could this decrease reflect
policies implemented since the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders protection was rec-
ommended in the mid-1970s to address the justice system’s reach into the lives of juveniles?

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, which can, for instance, inform legislation or departmental policy. For example,
the rate of delinquency peaked in the mid-1990s and since then has declined significantly

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

(see Figure 1.2). In particular, it began to decline in 1995, became fairly stable from 2005 to
2008, and then declined significantly until 2016. In fact, juvenile crime rates are the lowest
they have been since the get-tough movement of the 1980s, when the system began imple-
menting policies that led to an increase in arrests. When we examine trends by crime type,
we see similar trends. For example, violent crime rates declined steeply from 1995 to 2000,
before leveling off and then declining again steeply until 2012 (see Figure 1.3). Compare this
trajectory to that of property crime, which declined more gradually from 1995 to 2016 (see
Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.2: Delinquency rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2016

Delinquency rates peaked in 1995 at around 8,200 juveniles, declined steadily after that, and
eventually leveled off at around 5,900 in 2005 before dropping dramatically to around 2,500 in 2016.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www
.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

Figure 1.3: Violent crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2012*

Violent crime rates peaked in 1995 at just under 500 juveniles, declined steadily after that, and
eventually leveled off below 300 in 2005 before dropping again to around 180 in 2012.

*Data after 2012 is not available.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www
.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
1980 1985 1990 1995

Years

R
at
e

2000 2005 2010 2016

600

500

400

300

200

100

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

Years

R
at
e

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.4: Property crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2016

Property crime rates consistently declined from 1995 to 2016.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www
.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

Declines are also seen with drug abuse violations and status offenses. Drug violations rose
dramatically, peaking in the mid-1990s. They have declined slowly since then (see Figure 1.5).

When we examine three types of status offenses—liquor law, runaway, and curfew viola-
tions—we see similar trends (see Figure 1.6). Examining trends in this way tells us that the
decline in juvenile crime has been a consistent trend over a period of years that varies only
slightly by offense type. This type of information could inform, say, statewide approaches to
allocating law enforcement resources. For example, if the arrest rates for arson were increas-
ing steadily over time while rates for all other offenses were decreasing, a state might devote
a greater percentage of its resources to exploring why more juveniles were committing arson
each year.

Figure 1.5: Drug violation crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17,
1980–2016

Drug violations saw a rapid increase from just under 300 in 1990 to nearly 700 in 1995. Since
then, violation rates have declined slowly to around 295 in the year 2016.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www
.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

Years

R
at
e

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

Years

R
at
e

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.6: Status offense rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17, 1980–2016*

Liquor law violations peaked in 1990 at just under 600, while both runaway and curfew and loitering
offenses peaked in 1995 at around 800 and 500, respectively. All three rates declined throughout the
2000s, with both liquor and curfew and loitering violations at nearly 100 by 2016. Runaway offenses
peaked in 1995 and then fell rapidly until 2000, after which they leveled off until 2009.

*Data for “runaway” not available after 2009.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www
.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

Finally, if we examine differences by gender, Figures 1.7 and 1.8 indicate that boys commit
substantially more offenses than girls. Despite this difference, crime rates for both genders
followed about the same trajectory over time, peaking in the 1990s and then leveling off.

Figure 1.7: Crime rates per 100,000 persons ages 10–17 by gender, 1980–2016

Between 1980 and 2008, boys committed substantially more offenses than girls did. However,
although the rates of crime committed by both boys and girls peaked in the 1990s, the rate of crimes
committed by boys has dropped at a more substantial rate since then.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www
.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Runaway Liquor law Curfew and loitering

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

Years

R
at
e

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Boys Girls

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

Years

R
at
e

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.8: Crime rates for violent offenses only by gender, 1980–2012*

From 1980 to 2012, boys committed violent offenses significantly more often than girls. However, the
decline in the rate of crimes committed by girls was much less substantial after a peak in the 1990s.

*Data after 2012 are not available.

From “Juvenile arrest rates by offense, sex, and race,” by National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2017, Retrieved from http://www
.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2016.xls

Although the UCR is a useful tool for determining trends, it has both strengths and weak-
nesses as a measure of crime.

Strengths of the UCR
The UCR is a popular and widely used measure of crime. Arguably, it is more useful for exam-
ining trends among adults than juveniles; however, the data available on youth are also impor-
tant. The UCR has several strengths:

• The longevity of the program is notable. The UCR program has been in existence
longer than any other program of its kind. The amount of data collected through this
program over such a long period of time allows us to examine crime trends from a
more historical perspective that provides us with a bigger picture view of crime and
crime trends.

• The data collection is national in scope. The UCR coverage area includes 17,000
police departments from every state in the nation. So not only are we able to exam-
ine rates and trends, but we also are able to examine how crime may vary by area.

• The source of the data included in the UCR appears to be a valid measure of serious
crime (Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1985). The UCR collects data on crimes that are
serious enough to warrant a call to the police, such as murder, motor vehicle theft,
robbery, or burglary. So, for example, if we want to examine crimes known to the
police, we know that the UCR includes data on crimes for which a victim or loved
one would be more likely to contact law enforcement for help.

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Boys Girls

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

Years

R
at
e

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Weaknesses of the UCR
At the same time, the UCR is criticized on a number of grounds:

• A key criticism is that the UCR collects data only on reported crimes, and not all
crimes are reported to the police. Reasons for not reporting vary but often include
reluctance on the part of the victim to report to police because the crime may not
seem serious enough, because of feelings that the police may not help them, or
because they think the incident is a private matter (Gove et al., 1985). The UCR pro-
gram also employs a reporting requirement referred to as the hierarchy rule. Accord-
ing to this rule, even when a person has committed multiple crimes, police report
only the most serious crimes that person has committed. The FBI provides guide-
lines on which offenses are the most serious, but the exclusion of any crimes means
that the UCR does not capture all crime committed.

• The crime measure reflected in the UCR may be biased by law enforcement prac-
tices. For example, not everyone reports that a crime has occurred. In addition,
arrests may be more likely in areas targeted for enforcement. If enforcement occurs
in lower-income areas more frequently than in others, low-income residents may be
disproportionately represented in the UCR statistics.

• The UCR does not tap into why a person may have committed a crime or why a
crime may have occurred. Although 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). Understanding
the person’s motivation for the crime is difficult to discern without additional infor-
mation (Farrington, 1994; Gove et al., 1985).

Supplementing the UCR
In the late 1970s, law enforcement agencies suggested supplementing the UCR program with
additional data and crime categories for several reasons. First, the law enforcement com-
munity’s proficiency in collecting data had increased. Second, the UCR does not provide the
details necessary to fully understand trends in crime. Finally, the hierarchy rule is concerning
to those who believe the UCR does not provide an accurate picture of the amount of crime
occurring in the United States each year (Maxfield, 1999).

In response to law enforcement’s suggestions, a new incident-based data collection system,
the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), was approved in 1988. This data col-
lection system is meant to collect data on every incident and arrest throughout the United
States. Although participating states began collecting data for NIBRS in the late 1980s, imple-
mentation of the program nationwide has been fairly slow. Currently, approximately 6,000
law enforcement agencies, representing only about 25% of the U.S. population, provide data
to the FBI on an annual basis. Given this low response rate, the FBI continues to rely on UCR
statistics when publishing its annual report on crime in the United States.

The accompanying Spotlight feature lists the offense categories included in the NIBRS.

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Self-Report Surveys
A self-report survey is a data-gathering tool that asks participants to report on their own
thoughts, behaviors, and experiences. Since the 1950s, self-report surveys have been used
in crime reporting and research to address two particular weakness of the UCR. First, the
information collected as part of the UCR program is not sufficient to explain why a crime may
have occurred. Criminological theories (see Chapter 3) are designed to explain the motivation
for crime or the factors that may influence a person’s decision to commit a crime. By using
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 mea-
sures only crimes reported to or discovered by the police. 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. The
number of unreported crimes or crimes undiscovered by police is referred to as the dark
figure of crime.

Self-report surveys about crime are able to address these weaknesses of the UCR by asking
participants a range of questions about their behavior. For example, a self-report survey about
delinquent behavior might ask participants whether they have engaged in delinquency and
to provide details regarding the offenses. 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 top-
ics (e.g., involvement with cheating, exposure to violence, or attitudes toward punishment).

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 a wide variety of 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 various factors can influence criminal behavior.
Self-report surveys allow us to disentangle which factors are particularly important. Risk fac-
tors such as family relationships, school environments, and the influence of peers were dis-
covered 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 (Thorn-
berry & Krohn, 2000).

Although self-report surveys can give a broader picture of delinquency, survey information is
often collected among fairly limited groups of people. For example, often the people complet-
ing a survey live in a particular area (e.g., a survey of youth in Denver, Colorado) or are mem-
bers of a particular demographic (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) in the mid-1970s to measure juvenile delinquency. The first NYS was a longitu-
dinal household study of 1,700 adolescents. The crime categories measured included all but
homicide from the UCR Part I offenses and 60% of the Part II offenses. In addition, the survey
questions tapped social issues and attitudes. The results of the NYS produced results similar
to those of local and regional surveys. In particular, the results confirmed that youth from
various socioeconomic backgrounds were committing crimes. The results also confirmed

Spotlight: The National Incident-Based Reporting System

The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) supplements the UCR system by pro-
viding 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. It 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 depart-
ments are instructed to collect detailed information on the 22 Group A categories. Only
arrest data are collected on the 11 Group B offenses.

Group A Offense Categories

• Arson homicide offenses
• Assault offenses
• Bribery
• Burglary/breaking and entering
• Counterfeiting/forgery
• Destruction/ vandalism of property
• Drug/narcotic offenses
• Embezzlement
• Extortion/blackmail
• Fraud offenses
• Gambling offenses
• Kidnapping/abduction
• Larceny/theft offenses
• Motor vehicle theft
• Obscene material
• Prostitution offenses
• Robbery
• Sex offenses, forcible
• Sex offenses, nonforcible
• Stolen property
• 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 offenses
• Runaways
• Trespass of real property
• All other offenses

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Spotlight: The National Incident-Based Reporting System

Group A Offense Categories

Group B Offense Categories

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

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
and youth is called the Monitoring the
Future survey (Johnston et al., 2018).
The Monitoring the Future survey is a
national survey on drug and alcohol use
that began in the 1970s and has since
been conducted annually. Each year
approximately 50,000 students in the 8th,
10th, and 12th grades are asked about
their exposure to, attitudes about, and
access to drugs and alcohol. The accompa-
nying Spotlight feature provides more
details about this survey.

Spotlight: Monitoring the Future Survey

The Monitoring the Future survey was developed in 1975 and is facilitated by the University
of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. It is a nationally representative survey of ado-
lescents that asks participants about their involvement with and opinions about drugs and
alcohol. Initially conducted only with high school seniors, the survey sample was extended
to 10th graders and 8th graders beginning in 1991. An additional survey is sent to those par-
ticipating 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 questions asked in the Monitoring the Future survey fall into four general categories:

Drug and Alcohol Use
“How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in your lifetime?”
“How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in the last 12 months?”
“How many occasions (if any) have you used [x substance] in the last 30 days?”

Alcohol Use
For alcohol use, the questions regarding drug and alcohol use are used as well as a similar
set of questions asking participants how often they have been drunk in their lifetime, in the
last 12 months, and in the last 30 days. In addition, participants are asked, “How many times
in the last week have you had five or more drinks?”

Perceptions of Risk
Based on a five-point scale (no risk, slight risk, moderate risk, great risk, and “can’t say, drug
unfamiliar”), participants are asked to rate the degree to which consuming alcohol and vari-
ous drugs is risky: “How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in
other ways), if they . . .?”

(continued on next page)

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press
President George W. Bush takes part in a
meeting on the Monitoring the Future Study on
Teen Drug Use, Tuesday, December 11, 2007,
in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in
Washington.

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

We see some interesting trends when we use the Monitoring the Future survey to examine
reported drug use among U.S. adolescents. Recall that the UCR told us that juvenile drug
offenses in the United States peaked in the mid-1990s and then leveled off, albeit less dra-
matically than other types of offenses. Figure 1.9 uses Monitoring the Future data to illustrate
that in 2016 alcohol was the substance used most among students in the 8th, 10th, and 12th
grades, with higher rates of use among older youth. When it comes to drug use, the figure
shows us that youth were more likely to use marijuana than other illicit drugs. However,
nearly 20% of high school seniors indicated that they had used an illicit drug other than mari-
juana in their lifetime.

Figure 1.9: Lifetime use of drugs and alcohol among juveniles, 2016

From “Table 5: Trends in lifetime prevalence of use of various drugs in grades 8, 10, and 12,” in Monitoring the Future national
survey results on drug use: 1975–2017: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use, by L. D. Johnston, R. A. Miech, P.
M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, J. E. Schulenberg, and M. E. Patrick, 2018, Retrieved from http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/
monographs/mtf-overview2017 . Licensed under CC-BY 4.0.

As we do with the UCR data, we should also use the Monitoring the Future data to examine
the trends over time to see whether the 2016 statistics are part of a trend or are an anomaly.

Spotlight: Monitoring the Future Survey (continued)

Disapproval of Use
Participants are asked to rate their level of disapproval with using drugs and alcohol: “Do
YOU disapprove of people doing each of the following?”

Perceptions of Availability
Based on a five-point scale (probably impossible, very difficult, fairly difficult, fairly easy, and
very easy), participants are asked how easily they could obtain various drugs and alcohol:
“How difficult do you think it would be for you to get each of the following types of drugs, if
you wanted some?” For 8th and 10th graders, the option “can’t say, drug unfamiliar” is added
to the questionnaire.

Any illicit drug Alcohol

17.2

33.7

48.3

Any illicit drug
except marijuana

8th grade 12th grade10th grade

8.9
14

20.7 22.8

43.4

61.5

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.10 indicates that drug and alcohol use among adolescents overall has been declining
over time, with the greatest decline in the use of alcohol. The data tell us that the decline is a
long-term trend.

Figure 1.10: Lifetime use of drugs among juveniles, 1991–2017

From “Table 1: Trends in lifetime prevalence of use of various drugs for grades 8, 10, and 12 combined,” in Monitoring the Future
national survey results on drug use: 1975–2017: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use, by L. D. Johnston, R. A. Miech,
P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, J. E. Schulenberg, and M. E. Patrick, 2018, Retrieved from http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/
monographs/mtf-overview2017 . Licensed under CC-BY 4.0.

Information like that shown in Figures 1.9 and 1.10 can be useful in several ways, such as
helping to assess the effect of law enforcement that targets drug use or reconsidering ways to
restrict sales of alcohol to minors.

Strengths of Self-Report Surveys
Much like the UCR, self-report surveys have their strengths and weaknesses. 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, but it may
also ask the participant who they drank with (e.g., peers), in what environment (e.g., home,
school, community), and at what 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.

In addition, 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

Any illicit drug Any illicit drug except marijuana Alcohol

Years

R
at
e

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

others. Not that targeted enforcement is an automatic indication of discrimination but that
targeted enforcement has consequences. Those consequences include the lack of enforce-
ment in other areas. Researchers find that the UCR is a valid measure of serious crime, but
if less serious crime, say recreational drug use, is not as likely to result in a call to the police,
then crime rates as measured by the UCR do little to help us understand the extent of drug use
among teens. Examining only 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 understand the limits of the UCR and better contextualize the results. Self-report surveys
provide insight into delinquent behavior that the UCR cannot.

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 con-
tinue to improve and are considered a reliable and valid measure for a range of offense types
(Thornberry & Krohn, 2000).

Weaknesses of Self-Report Surveys
Although improvements in the self-report method continue, several weaknesses remain. For
example, although a few national surveys are available (e.g., Monitoring the Future), the mea-
sures 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 popula-
tions: 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 delin-
quency out of embarrassment or fear of being caught.

Victimization Data
The third most common way to measure crime is through victimization surveys, which sup-
plement 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
U.S. Census Bureau and provides a national portrait of victimization experienced each year.

As seen in the accompanying Spotlight feature, the NCVS mirrors many of the crime catego-
ries 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 include
situational characteristics, such as month, time, and location; victim characteristics, such as
age, race, and relationship with the offender; and impact of the victimization, such as loss of

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

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, or
sexual orientation.

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 instances of delinquency that may not have come to attention of the police. Even

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. Each household is interviewed on seven separate occasions.
In 2016, the sample covered 135,000 households and approximately 225,000 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.

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 details about victimization. Questions include the following:

• Whether the respondent was the victim of a crime
• How many times in the last six months the respondent was the victim of a crime
• The month, time, and location of the victimization
• Whether the respondent knew the person(s) who victimized him or her
• Whether the incident was reported to police
• The extent of damage or whether there was a loss of money, property, or other items
• Whether the respondent felt targeted due to his or her race, religion, ethnic back-

ground, disability, gender, or sexual orientation
• Whether the respondent felt targeted in the ways mentioned above due to the people

with whom he or she associated

These questions help us understand criminal acts from the victim’s perspective, which helps
us to better understand the nature and consequence of crime.

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

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.

The NCVS can be administered to anyone 12 years or older who resides in the household. If we
examine these results 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. The Bureau of Justice Statis-
tics published a report in 2005 that pulled out only youth ages 12–17 to illustrate additional
details about juvenile victimization. For example, in terms of the victim and offender relation-
ship, 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 victimizations occurring during this time happened at school (see Figure 1.13).

Figure 1.11: Rate of violent victimizations among juveniles per 1,000,
1980–2015

From “Victimizations per 1,000 juveniles ages 12–17,” in OJJDP statistical briefing book, by Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/victims/qa02501.asp?qaDate=2015

Figure 1.12: Relationship between victim and offender

Adapted from Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993–2003, by K. Baum, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
U.S. Department of Justice.

12–14 yrs 15–17 yrs

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Years

R
at
e

100

2 3 3 3

Acquaintance Stranger Parent Relative Intimate Don’t know

Section 1.4How Prevalent Is Juvenile Delinquency?

Figure 1.13: Most common locations of violent crime incidents

Adapted from Juvenile victimization and offending, 1993–2003, by K. Baum, 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
U.S. Department of Justice.

We can see from these results that victimization surveys help us understand the crime puzzle
even further. By examining 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 is the relationship between
victimization and delinquency. For example, statistics show that abused or maltreated chil-
dren are at significant risk for later delinquency. Maltreatment can include physical, sexual,
or emotional abuse. Studies estimate that nearly half of children who become delinquents
report childhood abuse or neglect (Teague, Mazerolle, Legosz, & Sanderson, 2008).

The NCVS is not the only victimization survey in existence. Like self-report surveys, research-
ers can use victimization surveys with a variety of populations. For example, the Bureau of Jus-
tice Statistics surveys incarcerated youth each year to examine their experiences with victim-
ization in institutional settings. As with 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 of Victimization Surveys
The first strength is the level of detail victimization surveys provide. The NCVS includes
detailed information about victims that allows for more informed policy creation regarding
how best to prevent crime and similar victimization in the future. Similarly, details of the
incident such as location, time of day, and the victim-offender relationship help inform the
general public on 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 non-stranger crimes and rape. Finally,
the NCVS employs a national sample and annual statistics for year-by-year comparisons.

School Open area

9
12

Victim’s home Other home Other locations

Section 1.5Measuring Crime: Putting It All Into Perspective

Weaknesses of Victimization Surveys
However, like self-report surveys, there are some weaknesses with this approach. People may
forget the exact details of their victimization, which could lead to misleading or erroneous
reporting. In addition, people may answer in socially desirable ways to either exaggerate or
not tell the truth (Gove et al., 1985). Bias can also be an issue with victimization surveys. The
NCVS can be quite extensive and take up a significant amount of time to fill out completely.
Consequently, there is concern that people will underreport victimization during the later
phases of the survey to avoid the lengthy questionnaire (Sykes & Cullen, 1992).

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 down the data by state or city
because the sample is not drawn to represent each city or state, although region comparisons
are feasible in some circumstances.

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 underrepresenting 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.

1.5 Measuring Crime: Putting It All Into Perspective
Given that all three measures of crime have both strengths and weakness, the question
becomes which do we use and when? The short answer is all three. If we wish to examine seri-
ous 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 using self-report surveys. Finally, if we wish to
examine the victim-offender relationship more clearly, we are better off using victimization
surveys. In other words, each measure can help us understand a different facet of crime. How-
ever, there remain benefits and disadvantages of comparing the three measures when trying
to understand delinquency.

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 comparable with regard to burglary and robbery
(Gove et al., 1985; Lauritsen & Schaum, 1998). As such, these two measures tend to
validate each other, which makes them useful in examining crime trends.

• 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 is important for understanding the relationship between socioeconomic
status and delinquency. As such, the findings should remind us to be cautious of the
latest headlines regarding arrest rates.

• Victimization and self-report data help identify risk factors for delinquency such as
peers, family, and school performance. The more we know of victims of crime and

Summary of Learning Objectives

how victims experience crime, the more we can do to help prevent crime in the first
place and also help those who have suffered a traumatic experience.

• Combining the measures provides additional details on the characteristics of offend-
ers and victims—in particular, why victims may not report crime and how situ-
ational factors influence victimization.

However, there are also reasons to be cautious when combining the three measures of crime:

• The UCR and NCVS may not be directly comparable because they use different
samples and work with different time spans.

• 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 declined significantly over the past decade.
Second, all three measures show differences by gender, race, region, and crime type, although
all show similar rates of decline. Finally, the three measures have been able to identify certain
risk factors that are known to be strong and consistent predictors of crime.

Summary of Learning Objectives
Explain the complexity of defining juvenile delinquency.

• Juvenile delinquency is a complex phenomenon. Defining who is a juvenile and what
behaviors represent juvenile delinquency can vary by state.

• National statistics can provide us with an understanding of the rates of delinquency
over time.

Summarize the different types of juvenile delinquency.

• Juvenile delinquency refers to unlawful acts of a minor child.
• The juvenile court assumes jurisdiction over behaviors that are illegal only for juve-

niles. These types of crimes are referred to as status offenses and include delinquent
acts such as truancy, running away, and violating curfew.

Describe how states attempt to define juvenile delinquency in relation to age.

• The upper age of jurisdiction refers to the age that dictates whether a youth’s case
is handled by the juvenile court or the adult court system. The majority of the states
consider anyone 17 years or younger as under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court
system.

• The minimum age of jurisdiction refers to the youngest age at which a youth can be
sent to the juvenile court system. The majority of states consider 10 years of age as
the youngest, although North Carolina sets the age at 6 years old.

Summary of Learning Objectives

Evaluate the rates of delinquency and the three primary techniques for measuring delinquency.

• National crime statistics offer a fairly complicated portrait of juvenile offending and
victimization. The statistics can sometimes be confusing and contradictory and must
be analyzed closely with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of how
we measure delinquency.

• The three measures of juvenile crime include arrest data, self-report surveys, and
victimization surveys.

• The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) is the primary source of arrest data. The UCR is
collected annually by police departments all across the United States and provides 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 past decade.

Analyze the benefits of using the three crime measurements together.

• All three measures of crime have strengths and weaknesses. Combining the three
measures gives us a deeper understanding of crime.

• The three measures of crime show congruence when analyzing trends over time.

Critical Thinking Questions
1. Do you think the federal government should mandate that all states agree upon

the age at which someone is considered a minor? Discuss the problems with this
approach.

2. Do you believe status offenses should be illegal? Do you think they should be han-
dled 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
age ambiguity Uncertainty surrounding
the age of entry into the juvenile justice
system.

age of jurisdiction The age that dictates
whether the juvenile court or the adult court
system has authority over a case.

availability heuristic The 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.

Summary of Learning Objectives

dark figure of crime Refers to crimes not
brought to the attention of the police.

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offend-
ers The statute that protects status offend-
ers and recommends that all juveniles clas-
sified as status offenders not be held for any
period of time in a detention facility.

juvenile delinquency Unlawful activities
of a minor child.

Monitoring the Future survey A national
youth crime survey on alcohol and drug use.

National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS) The most common victimization
survey; collected yearly by the U.S. Census
Bureau.

National Youth Survey (NYS) A self-report
survey that measures juvenile delinquency
using all the crime categories from the
UCR Part I with the exception of homicide
offenses and 60% of the Part II offenses; the
survey questions also dig into social issues
and attitudes.

parens patria (Latin for “parent of the
nation”) Refers to the court’s parenting role
that focuses on the welfare of the juvenile.

self-report surveys Data-gathering tools
that ask participants about their criminal
behavior.

status offenses Behaviors that are illegal
for juveniles but would be legal for adults.

Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Official
arrest statistics for juveniles and adults
compiled by the FBI.

victimization surveys Surveys that sup-
plement what is known about crime from
the UCR and self-report surveys by asking
victims to report whether they have been
victimized.

Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

▪ Summarize how early philosophies and religion shaped the treatment of children both before and during the
Colonial Period.

▪

Describe the shift in juvenile justice during the Colonial Period.

▪

Identify the key features of the Refuge Period.

▪

Explain how the juvenile and adult courts became distinct during the Juvenile Court Period.

▪

Analyze the evolution of juvenile rights during the Juvenile Rights Period.

▪ Describe the rationale and policies of the “get-tough” movement during the Crime Control Period.

▪

Evaluate the current changes that are taking place in the juvenile justice system.

2The Historical Context of
Juvenile Justice

BOSTON GLOBE/Associated Press

Chapter Outline
2.1 Introduction

2.2 The Early Years (to 1600)

▪ The Code of Hammurabi

▪ The Role of Religious Institutions

2.3 Colonial Period (1600s–1800s)

▪ The Age of Enlightenment

– The Penitentiary Act of 1779

2.4 Refuge Period (1800s–1899)

▪ Child-Saving Movement

▪ Prison Reform

2.5 Juvenile Court Period (1900–1960)

2.6 Juvenile Rights Period (1960–1980)

▪ Juvenile Rights and the Courts

– Due Process for Juveniles

– Standards of Evidence

– Preserving the Distinctions Between Adult and Juvenile Courts

▪ Juvenile Rights and Legislation

2.7 Crime Control Period (1980–2000s)

2.8 The Current System: Changing Times?

News stories ran with the headline “Beating Children for Jesus?” (Schiffer, 2001). The case
involved 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 chil-
dren. 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 atten-
tion 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 beat-
ings instilled discipline in children. The reverend was quoted by news agencies as 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” (Bryant, 2002). 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

Section 2.2The Early Years (to 1600)

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 compromis-
ing my soul” (Bryant, 2002). Reverend Allen served a two-year prison sentence for orchestrat-
ing the beating of the children in his congregation.

2.1 Introduction
The scenario just described may be rare today, but the role of religion in punishing deviance
is deeply rooted in the history of juvenile justice. Throughout history we see policies repeat
themselves. For example, policies or pun-
ishments used in the past commonly come
full circle into the future. Think, for exam-
ple, about how fashion or music repeats
itself. Those industries take from what
“worked” in the past and attempt to recre-
ate it for a new generation. At the same
time, we hope that the industry learns
from its failures and avoids those pitfalls
in the future. However, as we will see in
this chapter, juvenile justice often experi-
ences policy cycles that repeat both the
good and the bad.

The policy cycles experienced by the juve-
nile justice system are often influenced by
the social context of the time. Consider, for
example, the social context of the 1960s.
The 1960s was a period of great social
upheaval as our society became more
invested in the civil rights of minorities
and women but also led to more rights
for youth in the juvenile justice system.
Changes associated with the civil rights and women’s rights movements came about in part
because the political will and social forces existed to make them possible. When examining
juvenile justice, we see that social forces of the times have also influenced the philosophy of
the system. 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. Understand-
ing the historical context behind the juvenile justice system movement toward punitiveness
is crucial. The history of juvenile justice shows that certain policies and ideologies seem to
reemerge over time.

2.2 The Early Years (to 1600)
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 may be physical, sexual, or emotional.

akg-images/SuperStock
The civil rights movement, led by Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr., was realized in its time due
to political and social forces at play in the
1950s and 1960s. Similarly, social forces have
historically dictated trends and philosophies
within the juvenile justice system.

Section 2.2The Early Years (to 1600)

However, young people have not always been afforded rights and considerations. In fact, the
earliest set of laws governing children didn’t include protections for youth.

The Code of Hammurabi
The first comprehensive set of recorded
laws is referred to as the Hammurabic
Code. This code was developed by King
Hammurabi of Babylon in 1750 BCE.
Although some disagree about whether
the code represents the first formal set of
laws, the code is considered to be the most
comprehensive attempt at categorizing
behavior. The laws were designed to regu-
late not only blatant criminal behavior
(e.g., murder, violence) but also business
and property transactions (e.g., “If a patri-
cian [nobleman] 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 also parent-child
relationships (e.g., “if a son has struck his
father, his hands shall be cut off”). The laws specific to parent-child relationships are the earli-
est laws governing the behavior of juveniles. For example, the laws set forth a clear delinea-
tion of parent and child. Children who disobeyed their parents could be abandoned, maimed,
or even killed. (Visit http://www.commonlaw.com/home/legal-history-and-philosophy/
code-of-hammurabi for specific examples.)

The spirit of these laws is compatible with the early view of children as property of their
parents. This concept of ownership is referred to as patria potestas. Patria potestas gives the
father control over all family matters. Parents, especially fathers, 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, chil-
dren who were not physically well or were of a “bad temperament” were put to death (deM-
ause, 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 many countries today.

The Role of Religious Institutions
Religious institutions, particularly of the Christian faith, were a dominant force in the regula-
tion and punishment of criminal behavior in Europe. 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 Spotlight: Torture Devices. Although there are few accounts of how many juveniles were put

iStockphoto/Thinkstock
The Code of Hammurabi is the earliest collection
of laws addressing criminal punishment,
business, and the treatment of juveniles by their
parents through legal procedure. This is a piece
of the tablet itself from Babylon in 1750 BCE.

Section 2.2The Early Years (to 1600)

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).

Primitive forms of incarceration existed during this time as well. Confinement as a form of
punishment could be accomplished through a variety of mechanisms, including underground
mines, cages, or deteriorated buildings. Historians indicate that these early forms of incarcer-
ation housed men, women, and children together in deplorable conditions. Disease and abuse
were common but often ignored or overlooked as those who were punished were consid-
ered sinners, and so their suffering was considered justified. What’s more, the confined were
required to fight for food and basic needs for survival. 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 neglect of basic needs and unsanitary conditions that existed in
most facilities (Geltner, 2008).

Another commonly used form of confinement was referred to as transportation. As the
name suggests, transportation involved transferring criminals to other countries via ships.
This form of banishment for criminal behavior is also deeply rooted in religion. Used most
frequently in the 1600s, transportation was used to move deviants from Europe to North
America via ships. 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 newly formed
United States began rejecting the shipments of convicts from England, which then shifted
transportation to Australia. Eventually, every country began to reject the shipments of crimi-
nals. At that time, the transportation concept evolved to holding criminals in ships indefinitely.
These ships were often anchored off shore and referred to as hulks (Hughes, 1987). There are
few estimates of the number of juveniles transported during this time, but evidence suggests
that it was common for children to be sentenced to transportation for life (Sanders, 1970).

Religious influences are not as apparent in today’s juvenile justice system, but the church con-
tinues to play a role. For example, faith-based programs have become popular in prisons. For

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 particu-
larly brutal feature was the two spikes placed at eye level that would stab the indi-
vidual’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 individ-
ual would eventually be pulled apart limb from limb.

Section 2.3Colonial Period (1600s–1800s)

example, a program launched in a Texas prison in 1997 called the InnerChange Freedom Ini-
tiative teaches inmates values and life skills (see https://www.prisonfellowship.org/about/
reentry-support/innerchange-freedom-initiative/ for more information). These programs
teach youth to rely on religion to cope with pressures such as drugs and alcohol (Cullen &
Gendreau, 2000). Similarly, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are founded on
the principles of a higher power and God.

2.3 Colonial Period (1600s–1800s)
During the American Colonial Period, two influences remained constant: the authority of the
parent and the role of religion. In many respects, this makes sense in light of the influence of
the Puritans in early colonial days. Parents continued to be given wide latitude in dealing with
their children by any means including abuse.

Consider, for example, the Stubborn Child Law passed in 1646. The Massachusetts law dic-
tated 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, there are numerous accounts of
juveniles still being put to death during this time for minor crimes such as stealing clothing
or food (Rothman, 1970).

Although the notion that children were parental property persisted in the Colonial Period,
some improvements were made to the practices of incarceration across Europe during this
period. For example, the house of correction, or workhouse concept, developed. The work-
house concept refers to the idea that people in prisons should engage in hard work and dis-
cipline. The workhouse concept retained religious undertones, but the treatment of incarcer-
ated people 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 over the earlier insti-
tutions in terms of cleanliness; however,
more significant reforms were on the
horizon.

The Age of Enlightenment
An intellectual revolution occurred in
the 1700s, particularly in England and
France, but eventually in North America
as well. The revolution, referred to as the
Age of Enlightenment, began a seismic
shift in the philosophy of how lawbreak-
ers should be punished. The scholars
(also referred to as reformers) leading
this movement questioned the intended

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.

Section 2.3Colonial Period (1600s–1800s)

goal of the system of punishments of the time and whether a just and “enlightened” society
should be deploying torture and brutality on its citizens. They argued that people, particu-
larly those accused of less serious crimes such as theft, could be dealt with through a gradu-
ated system of sanctions with the same effects (i.e., a reduction of crime). In other words, they
argued that less severe sanctions could reduce crime without the social costs that resulted
from brutality.

This utilitarianist concept eventually gave way to an influential theory of crime: deterrence
theory (see Chapter 3). Deterrence theory originated from the work of Cesare Beccaria and
Jeremy Bentham. They argued against the use of brutal punishments that were often justified
based on society’s want for revenge rather than prevention of future crime. They proposed
that crime could be reduced by making punishments proportionate to the criminal act. Deter-
rence theory is based on the following main principles (Devine, 1982; Geis, 1973):

• Laws must be developed for crime to be prevented. Specifically, people must under-
stand laws in order to understand the behaviors society values.

• The purpose of punishment is crime prevention, not revenge.
• Punishment must be swift, certain, and with a degree of severity that simply offsets

the gains of crime.
• Prisons, which housed people of all genders, ages, and crimes committed, should be

abolished in favor of a system that separates people based on these characteristics.

The Penitentiary Act of 1779
One of the more notable prison reformers of the Age of Enlightenment was John Howard, a
sheriff in Bedfordshire, England. In the 1770s, Howard inspected local prisons 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’s publication, 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, prison-
ers were expected to work and 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 workhouse concept discussed earlier, the legislation’s focus on inspec-
tion and provisions for prisoners (e.g., diet, hygiene, medical care) provided a better context
for reformation through hard work (Devereaux, 1999).

In America, the prison system was limited relative to Europe at the time. Punishment in
America was more likely to rely on corporal punishment (public hangings, whipping, etc.).
That began to change in the mid-1700s, however, when many of the colonial states began
adopting policies championed by reformers in England. In particular, several states used
the workhouse 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 some improvements were made during this time in the American system, reform-
ers 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

Section 2.4Refuge Period (1800s–1899)

the child-saving movement and the House of Refuge are key features that emerged in what’s
known as the Refuge Period.

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 unsafe
and unsanitary conditions. The increase in deviance and the concerns about the welfare of
children led to the child-saving movement (McNally, 1982).

Child-Saving Movement
The child-saving movement was not lim-
ited to the Refuge Period. In fact, the move-
ment extended into the Juvenile Court
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 chil-
dren better opportunities and guide them
into a better life. They argued that the sys-
tem should consider the needs of the child
and focus services on rehabilitation rather
than rely on the punitive and adversarial
nature of the punishment system of the
time. Child savers also wanted to save chil-
dren 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). The
reformatories represented a significant
shift in how juveniles were being treated
and led to substantial prison reforms.

Prison Reform
The New York House of Refuge is considered 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 nine children (six boys, three girls) but grew to house 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

©Bettmann/Corbis/AP Images
During the Refuge Period, the child-saving
movement strove to improve rather than punish
juveniles. This photo captures North Market Hall
Mission School in London, 1850, which sought to
reform children and keep them off the streets.

Section 2.4Refuge Period (1800s–1899)

were required to spend most of their time working, developing literacy skills, and receiv-
ing religious instruction. You can read more at https://nyprisonorigins.com/nicholas/
house-of-refuge-and-reformatory-life/.

Another famous reformatory, referred to as the Elmira Reformatory, was designed for first-
time felony offenders ages 16 to 30. The Elmira Reformatory opened in 1876 and used a mark
system, with three levels of classification. The person 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, inmates
were required to follow the rules, attend school, and work for a period of at least six months.
If they refused to follow the rules, 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 again (Pisciotta, 1994).

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)

Although these reformatories were an improvement over the earlier facilities that simply
warehoused juveniles with adults, they came with unintended consequences. For example,
much like the earlier interventions for offenders, a central belief for these institutions was
that hard work and discipline would rehabilitate the person. Some accounts indicate that the
New York House of Refuge used a militaristic regimen of discipline, with children required
to engage in strict, long hours of work and corporal punishment given for failure to abide by
rules. Similarly, the Elmira Reformatory, though initially heralded as wildly successful, even-
tually came under intense scrutiny for its use of corporal punishment and brutality against
the residents (Singer, 1971).

The child-saving movement itself also came under criticism for subjecting youth to the
same harsh treatments the movement claimed to want to protect them from. 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 youth (regardless of their status as either dependent [i.e., abused, neglected
and/or abandoned] or criminal) would be subjected to long periods of incarceration. As
noted by Ventrell (1998),

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 Ref-
uge, approximately 90% of the children were housed as a result of vagrancy
or minor offenses. And it is unlikely that these children would have been con-
sequented without a House of Refuge as such minor offenses tended to go
unpunished by the law. (p. 13)

Section 2.5Juvenile Court Period (1900–1960)

In addition, critics argued that upper-class youth were not treated in this manner; rather
the child-saving movement was simply a mechanism of religious control asserted over poor
youth by the middle and upper classes (Platt, 1969; Ventrell, 1998).

During this period, the courts increasingly enforced the parens patria doctrine (from the Latin,
meaning “parent of the nation,” as mentioned in Chapter 1). This doctrine granted the system
the right or authority over children whom it deemed in need of its care. Such children could
include those who were delinquent, but also those children who were abused, neglected, or
abandoned by their parents. The increased involvement of the court system led to the next
significant period for juvenile justice, referred to as the Juvenile Court Period.

2.5 Juvenile Court Period (1900–1960)
Reforms continued well into the 20th century. In this era, the reform movement was referred
to as the Age of Reform or the Progressive Era. The child savers’ reform efforts continued
under the Progressive Era. Although they focused primarily on juvenile delinquents and “sav-
ing” them from their poor environments, the Progressives were focused on the individualized
treatment of the juvenile delinquent. They argued that biological and psychological problems
(as well as those in the environment, such as poverty) should be addressed in order to reha-
bilitate troubled youth. Most significant, however, was the shift away from moral or religious
explanations of crime to a focus on the individual’s biological or psychological health.

Several Progressive reforms emerged in the early 1900s. These reforms include four major
interventions, all of which remain in the system today:

• Probation
• Parole
• Indeterminate sentencing
• Establishment of a separate juvenile court

The Progressives believed that rehabilitation would be effective only if the system had mech-
anisms in place to ensure the state could gauge what was appropriate for each youth. For
example, they advocated for the increased use of community-based probation that would
allow delinquents to remain in the community to receive services. Borrowing from the Elmira
Reformatory, the reformers argued that release from institutions should be based on good
behavior. In that vein, they argued that indeterminate sentencing was needed so that the
state could better gauge its progress. For example, indeterminate sentences of varied lengths
(e.g., two to four years versus a flat sentence of three years) would enable the state to assess
whether juveniles were rehabilitated before they were released (Cullen & Gilbert, 2012).

The creation of a separate court for juveniles represented another significant shift in treat-
ment. Although a few states were already processing juveniles separately from adults (e.g.,
Massachusetts began using separate dockets and trials for juveniles by the late 1870s), the
first juvenile court was not formally established until 1899 in Illinois. The creation of this
court was authorized under the Juvenile Court Act of 1899. The act provided several guide-
lines to regulate the behavior of abused, neglected, and deviant youth, including the following
(Sanders, 1970):

Section 2.5Juvenile Court Period (1900–1960)

• A delinquent youth was defined as a child under the age of 16 who violated the
established laws of the state, county, or local government.

• A dependent or neglected child included one who was homeless or abandoned, or
who did not have proper parental care. A child under the age of 8 who had to sell or
peddle items would also be considered under this category.

• The judge should act as a parent or advocate for the child rather than rely simply
on punishment.

• Juveniles and adults should be separated for all proceedings.
• Juveniles and adults should be kept in separate institutions.
• There would be prohibitions on the detention of children under the age of 12.
• Probation officers would be appointed who would investigate the youth’s back-

ground and provide case management services.

The juvenile court movement became increasingly popular over the next several decades. By
1925, nearly every state had developed separate processes for juveniles. As a result, more
youth were processed through the system than ever before.

At the same time, President Taft estab-
lished the Children’s Bureau in 1912. The
Children’s Bureau was designated to over-
see the health and welfare of children,
which included issues such as infant mor-
tality, juvenile delinquency, exploited and
abused children, and family preservation
(Lindenmeyer, 1997). The organization
provided grant funding to states in order
to tackle some of these important issues.
A survey the organization conducted in
the early 1920s on the effectiveness of the
new juvenile court system, however, found
that the courts were not necessarily oper-
ating as designed (Roberts, 2004).

Although the juvenile court movement
spread rapidly—and maybe because it
spread so rapidly—many of the ideals
suggested were not realized. For example,
the original juvenile court concept was
intended to provide separate treatment
and rehabilitative services to juveniles in
an informal court setting. However, many jurisdictions were unable to provide separate ser-
vices. For example, separate facilities for juveniles simply did not exist in some jurisdictions,
and the Great Depression led to even further cutbacks for services. Judges were often not well
trained on how to handle and rehabilitate youth, and many others were simply not interested
in presiding over these cases. As a result, the range of services was inadequate, and most
children were subjected to the traditional punishments used before implementation of the
juvenile court (Roberts, 2004).

Associated Press
In 1934 Katharine Lenroot (left) was head of
the Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department
of Labor, and Dr. Martha M. Eliot (right), as
assistant chief, was devoted to the child and
maternal health division of the bureau. The
Children’s Bureau was founded by President Taft
in 1912 to review the juvenile court system.

Section 2.6Juvenile Rights Period (1960–1980)

Although initially criticized and challenging to implement, rehabilitation remained a central
focus throughout the mid-1900s. The focus makes sense if we consider the social context of
the time. Sociological theories of crime predominated during the early 1900s, arguing that the
environmental conditions of inner cities and the exposure to delinquent peers could account
for most of the criminality occurring at this time. In addition, the advent of the psychological
tests used for soldiers after World War I led to the increased use of classification tools to diag-
nose and prescribe treatment, popularizing the notion that positive behavioral changes were
attainable with thoughtful and measured methods. Finally, California developed the Califor-
nia Youth Authority (CYA) in 1941. The CYA was proposed as a radical change in juvenile cor-
rections at the time with a focus of prison being used to rehabilitate youth rather than punish
them (Greenwood & Turner, 2010).

2.6 Juvenile Rights Period (1960–1980)
The Juvenile Rights Period emerged at a time when there was a great deal of social change
and unrest in the United States. The 1960s ushered in a movement focused on the rights
of individuals. Many people began to question the reach of the juvenile court and whether
the parens patria model truly benefited the juvenile. People became increasingly concerned
about whether the system (both adult and juvenile) violated the rights of the accused. First,
there was apprehension over whether the system’s reach extended too far. In particular, sta-
tus offenders, dependent and neglect cases, and criminals were still processed through the
same mechanisms in the court system. Second, youth were being processed through the court
system without the due process afforded to adults. Finally, there was concern that the sys-
tem’s response to serious juvenile delinquents was inadequate. This section examines each of
these issues in detail.

Net widening refers to the system’s reach. By criminalizing minor offenses, such as the status
offenses, the system casts a wider net over the delinquent behavior of youth. For example,
critics questioned the need to treat those who skip school (i.e., truancy) in the same manner
as youth who commit more serious delinquent acts. In the 1960s, states began to take signifi-
cant steps toward decriminalizing status offenses and better delineating noncriminal behav-
ior such as dependency and neglect. For instance, California and New York were the first
states to create separate terms to delineate children who commit criminal acts from status
offenders and those who are classified as dependent or neglect cases. For example, New York
began using such terms as person in need of supervision (PINS). Other states adopted similar
terms, including minor in need of supervision (MINS); child in need of supervision (CHINS);
juvenile in need of supervision (JINS), and youth in need of supervision (YINS). These terms
identify youth who should be considered noncriminal and in need of rehabilitative services
rather than punishment.

With regard to status offenses, in 1971, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Jus-
tice Standards and Goals (1973) made recommendations for the entire criminal justice sys-
tem. The commission disseminated recommendations for each institution within the system,
including the police, courts, and corrections. The specific recommendations pertaining to
juveniles included the following:

Section 2.6Juvenile Rights Period (1960–1980)

• Diverting juveniles to treatment programs
• Decriminalizing certain offenses, particularly those relating to juveniles
• Unifying services for both adults and juveniles

Concerning status offenses, the commission argued that five categories should be given the
most priority. In each case, the commission recommended judicial involvement only in cases
where the juvenile exhibited a pattern of behavior. For example, the first category, school
truancy, should invoke court involvement only when a pattern of truancy warrants a need
for services. Similar logic was applied to underage drinking among youth: The court would
be involved only if the youth exhibited the need for services. Running away from home is
the third category. The commission argued that the court should intervene only when youth
are unable to support themselves or have not benefited from other services or intervention
attempts. The fourth category, disregard of parental authority, would invoke court involve-
ment only when the family’s capabilities to resolve the issue had been exhausted. Finally, the
commission recommended that the court not be involved in delinquent acts by a juvenile
younger than 10 years of age. Although this is still the case in many states, recall that in Chap-
ter 1 we identified six states that do allow for the prosecution of juveniles under the age of 10.

Juvenile Rights and the Courts
In addition to net widening, due process rights for juveniles also came under scrutiny. Crit-
ics argued that the informality of the juvenile court model, thought to protect the child from
harsh formal proceedings, actually deprived juveniles of many of the rights provided in adult
courts. For example, juveniles could be kept in the juvenile court system indefinitely under
the logic that the system was protecting them. When overcrowding occurred in juvenile facili-
ties, youth were simply housed in adult facilities. As a result, several landmark Supreme Court
cases changed how juveniles were processed through the system.

Due Process for Juveniles
The first set of cases outlined the due process rights of juveniles.

Kent v. United States (1966), 383 U.S. 541
A 16-year-old male defendant was arrested for burglary, robbery, and rape. The juvenile court
decided to waive the case to the adult system for processing. Kent’s attorney requested a hear-
ing on the matter of the waiver; however, the court did not grant the hearing and remanded
the case to the adult court. The juvenile was subsequently found guilty of burglary and rob-
bery but was found not guilty by reason of insanity on the rape charge.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court violated the defendant’s rights.
The Court noted that juveniles could not be deprived of core due process rights that should
be granted to them under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In particular, the justices
were concerned that juveniles could be remanded to adult court without a fair hearing. The
decision granted juveniles the right to a formal hearing, representation at the hearing, and
access to the records that would be reviewed by the judge prior to the hearing. The decision

Section 2.6Juvenile Rights Period (1960–1980)

also granted juveniles the right to a written justification for the order. The justification
should outline issues that the judges could consider in waiving a juvenile case to the adult
court, including seriousness of the crime, violence, maturity of the defendant, and treatment
resources available (Carmen, Parker, & Reddington, 1998).

In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1
A 15-year-old defendant was accused of making a lewd phone call. After a brief hearing before
the juvenile court, the defendant was remanded to a state reformatory for delinquents. The
lawyers argued that the defendant’s rights were violated, given that he received a punitive
sanction such as incarceration after an informal hearing.

In this case, the Supreme Court further defined the due process rights guaranteed to juvenile
defendants. The Gault decision led to four basic rights. First, defendants have the right to a
notice of the charges so that they have adequate time to prepare for the trial. Second was the
right to counsel. Defendants have the right to private counsel, or if they are unable to afford
counsel, they have the right to a public defender. Third, defendants have the right to confront
and cross-examine witnesses. Finally, the Gault decision confirmed that juveniles should be
granted the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and avoid self-incrimination (Carmen et
al., 1998).

Standards of Evidence
In the next case, the courts expressed con-
cern over the informal nature of the juve-
nile court.

In re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 358
A 12-year-old defendant stole $112 from a
woman’s purse. He was subsequently
found guilty in juvenile court and sen-
tenced to a state reformatory for a mini-
mum of 18 months that could be extended
to his 18th birthday.

The Supreme Court ruled that juvenile
court should have to consider the same
standard of evidence required in adult
criminal cases. At issue was the informal
nature of the juvenile court system, which
led to cases being handled comparably to
civil cases. In particular, the standard of
evidence used in juvenile court was one
of a preponderance of the evidence rather
than burden of proof beyond a reasonable
doubt. The preponderance of the evidence
standard is considered a lower standard

Belinda Images/SuperStock
In the re Winship case, a 12-year-old stole $112
from a woman’s purse and was found guilty.
This ruling made it clear that juveniles must be
convicted only if the standard of evidence is the
same as an adult court case would require.

Section 2.6Juvenile Rights Period (1960–1980)

by which the plaintiff must prove that there is more than a 50% chance that the crime was
committed. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard means that the evi-
dence suggests there is no doubt the person committed the crime. The Court ruled that, in
cases where the potential of incarceration existed, evidence against the juvenile defendant
must meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard (Carmen et al., 1998).

Preserving the Distinctions Between Adult and Juvenile Courts
In the next set of cases, the Court ruled for maintaining the informality of the juvenile court.
The rulings suggest at least partial support for maintaining the juvenile court’s parens
patria role.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971), 403 U.S. 528
In this case, a group of appellants claimed that their request for a jury trial was denied under
Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court was asked to review whether juvenile defendants
should have the right to a jury trial.

In this case, the Court preserved one facet of the informal nature of the juvenile court system.
In the McKeiver decision, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles did not have the right to a
jury trial. That being said, the Court did not suggest that there should be an absence of jury
trials in juvenile court but that the jury trial is not a constitutional right granted to juveniles.
Requiring a jury trial, according to the Supreme Court, would alter the inherent nature of the
parens patria doctrine, lessening the informal nature of the juvenile court system. The right
to bail and the right to a grand jury indictment are other rights not extended to defendants in
juvenile court (Carmen et al., 1998).

Breed v. Jones (1975), 421 U.S. 519
A 17-year-old male defendant was convicted in juvenile court of a robbery with a weapon. At
the dispositional hearing, the case was waived to the adult court system because the judge felt
that there were no suitable facilities for the care of this particular defendant. The juvenile was
subsequently found guilty in the adult system on the same charges.

In Breed v Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles could not be tried in the juvenile court
and then be tried again in adult court. This provision against what is referred to as double
jeopardy simply means the juvenile cannot be tried twice for the same crime.

Juvenile Rights and Legislation
While all of these landmark court decisions highlight the rights of juveniles, several other rel-
evant legislative and executive initiatives developed around the same time. First, the Uniform
Juvenile Court Act, passed in 1968, detailed standards that the juvenile justice system should
follow. The act covered the police, courts, and corrections and argued for the preservation
of rehabilitation as the guiding philosophy of the juvenile court. Second, the Juvenile Jus-
tice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 called for the deinstitutionalization of status
offenders and nonoffenders. In particular, the act called for a “sight and sound separation”

Section 2.7Crime Control Period (1980–2000s)

provision, meaning that juveniles cannot be detained in an institution where they can see or
hear adult offenders. This right extended to jails with several exceptions, including the recog-
nition that, on occasion, temporary provisions are needed. This act was also amended in the
early 1990s to mandate that states receiving funds reduce the overrepresentation of minori-
ties in the juvenile justice system (referred to as disproportionate minority contact). Finally,
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), created in 1974, acts
as a clearinghouse for information related to juvenile justice issues. The agency provides
grant funding for a wide range of juvenile justice initiatives.

2.7 Crime Control Period (1980–2000s)
The Crime Control Period represented a significant shift away from the rehabilitative nature
of the juvenile justice system from the Juvenile Rights Period. During the 1980s, the political
and social climate in the United States shifted away from rehabilitation to one of punitiveness.
This period is often referred to as the “get-tough” or “penal harm” movement. Some observ-
ers would suggest that this movement actually began to recycle long-forgotten policies of the
early philosophy of justice for juveniles. History was beginning to repeat itself.

Typical policies included an increase in mandatory arrest and sentencing policies, removal
of treatment programs in prison, and the use of punitive strategies such as boot camps and
chain gangs. The get-tough policies led to an increase in the use of confinement for juveniles.
These punitive policies were justified on the grounds of deterrence. As noted earlier, deter-
rence rests on the notion that the system can prevent crime by increasing the certainty, sever-
ity, and swiftness of punishment. Proponents claim that people make rational choices based
on how much pleasure versus pain they will receive by committing a crime. Logically, then, if
the expected pleasure can be offset by punishment, we should be able to deter future crime.

Social trends leading up to the 1980s provided a climate ripe for a punitive approach to crime.
For example, violent crime rates increased during the late 1960s and 1970s (Blumstein &
Wallman, 2006), and self-report surveys indicated that drug use among teenagers was on the
rise (Alberts, Miller-Rassulo, & Hecht, 1991). During this time, counterculture movies about
drug use also led people to fear that marijuana use among teens would lead to a life of chronic
addictions.

Due to these trends, researchers began to examine the efficacy of rehabilitation. Robert
Martinson (1974) argued that “nothing works” when it comes to rehabilitation. He and his
colleagues reviewed studies published in the late 1960s and 1970s and concluded that few
showed a treatment effect. In other words, few studies showed that rehabilitation programs
were lowering recidivism rates. Although Martinson later indicated that some studies showed
that certain treatment strategies were effective in reducing recidivism, his “nothing works”
statement was championed by those who felt the system coddled the offender rather than
focusing on the victim (Cullen & Gilbert, 2012).

In addition to questions of efficacy, the establishment of due process rights (see Section 2.6)
spurred a group of reformers called the justice model liberals to argue that the system should

Section 2.7Crime Control Period (1980–2000s)

abandon treatment in favor of preserving
the rights of juveniles. In particular, they
argued that indeterminate sentences and
parole boards should be abolished. Justice
model liberals were concerned about the
ability of the system (including parole
boards and officials who worked in prison)
to accurately assess when someone should
be released. They felt that the discretion
given to correctional officials meant that
people were being kept incarcerated lon-
ger and, as a result, were having their
rights violated (Cullen & Gilbert, 2012).
Conservatives agreed, not necessarily out
of concern for juvenile rights, but because
they felt the system did not sufficiently
focus on victims’ rights.

John DiIulio (1995), a Princeton researcher,
argued that the system should brace itself
for a new kind of juvenile delinquent he
termed the “super-predator.” These juve-
niles were thought to be gang-involved,
intensely violent boys who would roam the streets inflicting mayhem and brutality on the
public. As a result of these factors, the juvenile justice system (and the adult system) became
increasingly punitive.

The punitiveness of the system could be seen in many ways but especially in the increased
use of confinement, which rested on three primary arguments. First, advocates believed that
the confinement of juveniles would prevent and therefore reduce social costs associated with
delinquency. Second, proponents felt selective incapacitation could be used to reduce crime.
For example, if the system could confine the small portion of juveniles who were responsible
for a high proportion of criminal behavior, the overall crime rate would drop significantly.
Third, juvenile predators were assumed to be unlikely to respond well to community-based
treatment programs and as a result were good candidates for confinement.

A cost-benefit study by Edwin Zedlewski (1987) supported this view. Specifically, he calcu-
lated that the average offender commits 187 crimes per year at a social cost of $430,000. He
then estimated that if we locked up 1,000 more offenders, it would cost the criminal justice
system $25 million but prevent 187,000 crimes, which would equate to a social cost savings
of $430 million, per his original estimate. Hence, he resolved that it was far more costly to
keep criminals in the community than to prosecute and confine them through the criminal
justice system.

The get-tough movement also spurred a number of policies such as boot camps, Scared Straight
programs, supermax facilities for juveniles, and shock incarceration. One of the changes with
the greatest impact was a shift to the frequent use of waivers to adult court. States began to

iStockphoto/Thinkstock
To truly “get tough on crime,” incarceration
became the preferred remedy for criminal
activity because many researchers argued
rehabilitation did not work. By the 1990s,
Princeton researcher John DiIulio went so far as
to declare that society must prepare for
and against the coming “super-predator”:
the teenage male involved in gangs and
public violence.

Section 2.8The Current System: Changing Times?

enact legislation to make it easier to transfer juvenile cases to the adult criminal court system,
resulting in a dramatic increase in transferred cases.

This shift to punitive policies had its critics. For example, critics of the cost-benefit analysis
suggested that the estimates of social cost savings were too high and did not consider the
possibility of diminishing returns in that there is no guarantee that confinement would stop a
criminal career in its tracks (Zimring & Hawkins, 1988). Others worried that juvenile institu-
tions could act as crime schools and that for certain delinquents (particularly drug traffick-
ers) a replacement effect would be likely, by which a new delinquent would be immediately
replaced by another (Petersilia, 1992).

Still others argued against selective incapacitation on the basis of fairness and ethics. For
example, it would be unethical to confine some people for longer periods of time for some-
thing they might do in the future. Further, they argued that confined individuals are not given
the opportunity to show they would have done no harm. Von Hirsch (1976) argued that the
worst outcome would be to incapacitate people who are not a threat and thereby deprive
them of their freedom. Regardless, given the public and political will that existed at the time,
the get-tough movement churned on.

In recent years, however, these policies appear to be softening. It is difficult to say whether
the system will revisit the bygone years of rehabilitation as a guiding philosophy, but mount-
ing evidence suggests that the pendulum may be swinging back in that direction.

2.8 The Current System: Changing Times?
The current system has experienced several important shifts in how we treat and respond to
juvenile delinquency (see Table 2.1). Today cracks appear to be emerging in the get-tough or
penal harm movement. As noted by Listwan, Jonson, Cullen, and Latessa (2008), “Despite the
wildly punitive shift that has occurred in American corrections, ideological and policy space
exists to bring about alternative initiatives that emphasize social welfare and challenge the
effectiveness of inflicting pain on offenders” (p. 425). In other words, the justice system (for
both juveniles and adults) appears to be softening its approach to crime and punishment once
again. The shift appears to be partly due to the costs of confinement and the ineffectiveness
of punitive policies.

Evidence suggests that incarceration can lead to a host of problems, including increases in
recidivism and psychological distress, and that it continues to destabilize already disadvan-
taged communities and family units (Clear, 2007; Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew, Cullen, & Colvin,
2013). Studies suggest that policies and programs geared toward rehabilitation are not soft
on crime but are smarter ways to reduce delinquency. The criminal justice field has learned
a great deal throughout the years about designing and implementing effective correctional
programs. If implemented appropriately, effective interventions potentially have a payoff far
greater than what we have seen from the correctional system in the past.

Section 2.8The Current System: Changing Times?

Table 2.1: The history of juvenile justice

Period
Colonial
period

Refuge
period

Juvenile
court period

Juvenile
rights
period

Crime
control
period

Changing
times?

Basic
philosophy

Corporal
punishment;
role of
religion

Separate
confinement;
discipline;
reform of
individual

Formalized
process for
juveniles;
rehabilitation
remained as
a goal

Concern
over due
process
rights, net
widening,
and the
reach of the
system

Movement
away from
rehabilitation
to a punitive
philosophy

Potential
movement
toward
rehabilitation

Major
policies

Age of
Enlighten-
ment; Peni-
tentiary Act

Child-saving
movement;
House of
Refuge

Progressive
Era; Juvenile
Court Act

Landmark
court cases;
Uniform
Juvenile
Court Act;
OJJDP
creation;
Juvenile
Justice
Delinquency
Prevention
Act

Mandatory
minimum
sentences;
determinate
sentencing;
boot camps

Abandon-
ment of
many
punitive
policies;
death
penalty
ruling;
research
supporting
treatment
services

To illustrate, several get-tough policies directed toward juveniles have become less popular.
Boot camps (see Chapter 10) were popular for a number of years on the basis of deter-
rence theory and retribution. However, documented abuses and research by MacKenzie and
colleagues (MacKenzie, Brame, McDowall, & Souryal, 1995; MacKenzie, Wilson, & Kider,
2001) questioning the effectiveness of boot camps led most states to dismantle these pro-
grams. Similarly, studies show that Scared Straight programs, D.A.R.E. programs, and other
similarly situated policies have little effect on recidivism (Lipsey, 1992). At the same time,
however, support has increased for treatment interventions such as multisystemic therapy,
Functional Family Therapy, and a variety of prevention efforts (Andrews et al., 1990; Cullen
& Gendreau, 2000).

In addition, policymakers and researchers have been reexamining the effectiveness and
appropriateness of treating juveniles as adults. Studies find that transferring juveniles to
adult courts is not effective in reducing recidivism through a potential deterrent effect. In
fact, juveniles transferred to adult court were more likely to recidivate, were less likely to
have access to treatment services, and were at greater risk for victimization (Applegate, King
Davis, & Cullen, 2009). Regarding the ultimate punishment, the Supreme Court reversed its
earlier decision on the use of the death penalty for juveniles. The Court recognized that juve-
niles lacked the full maturity of adults and are more amenable to treatment than adults. It also
argued that there appeared to be a national consensus on the issue after a number of states
moved to abolish the death penalty for juveniles even after the Court ruled in the 1980s that
the death penalty was not unconstitutional for juveniles. Time will tell if the pendulum con-
tinues to swing toward rehabilitation.

Summary of Learning Objectives

Summary of Learning Objectives
Summarize how early philosophies and religion shaped the treatment of children both before
and during the Colonial Period.

• The juvenile justice system has experienced many philosophical cycles over
the years.

• The earliest set of laws governing children were not concerned with the care and
well-being of children.

• Religion has continually played an important role in the juvenile justice system as a
justification for both punishment and rehabilitation.

Describe the shift in juvenile justice during the Colonial Period.

• The Age of Enlightenment led to a fairly significant shift in the philosophy of how
criminals should be punished.

• A movement away from retribution and deterrence led to significant prison reforms.
These reforms were intended to provide safe environments where juveniles could be
rehabilitated.

Identify the key features of the Refuge Period.

• The child savers were reformers who wanted to provide children better opportuni-
ties and guide them into a better life.

• The New York House of Refuge was the first juvenile reformatory in the
United States.

Explain how the juvenile and adult courts became distinct during the Juvenile Court Period.

• The Progressive Era reforms focused on individualized treatment of the person by
examining both biological and psychological issues.

• In 1899, the first juvenile court was established in Illinois through the Juvenile
Court Act.

• The Juvenile Court Act provided several guidelines for how juvenile courts should
work, including the notion that the juvenile court should be informal in nature under
the parens patria doctrine.

Analyze the evolution of juvenile rights during the Juvenile Rights Period.

• In the 1960s, the system began to take steps to decriminalize status offenses.
• The Juvenile Rights Period ushered in a number of key court cases all focusing on the

due process rights of juveniles.
• The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 called for the deinstitu-

tionalization of status offenders.
• The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was created

in 1974 and is designed as a clearinghouse of information related to juvenile
justice issues.

Summary of Learning Objectives

Describe the rationale and policies of the “get-tough” movement during the Crime Control
Period.

• Relying on increasingly punitive strategies as a way to deter youth from commit-
ting crime is the central feature of the Crime Control Period. Notable policies dur-
ing this time included mandatory minimum sentences; transfers to adult court; and
increased use of prison, boot camps, and chain gangs.

• The get-tough movement led to significant increases in the juvenile justice
population.

Evaluate the current changes that are taking place in the juvenile justice system.

• There appears to be a softening of the punitive policies of the Crime Control Period,
although it remains to be seen whether the juvenile justice system returns to its
focus on rehabilitation.

• Researchers and policymakers now support using evidence-based strategies to
reduce delinquency.

Critical Thinking Questions
1. What is meant by the term parens patria? Does it still exist in today’s juvenile justice

system?
2. Do you think we should have a separate juvenile justice system or simply handle the

most serious juvenile criminals through the adult system and divert the rest? Justify
your answer.

3. Are you in favor of a return to a philosophy of rehabilitation for the juvenile justice
system? Why or why not?

4. Should the incarceration of juveniles be limited to only a certain age group (e.g., 16
years or older)? Should juveniles who are very young (e.g., 12 years old) be incarcer-
ated with those who are older (e.g., 17 years old)? Why or why not?

Key Terms
Age of Enlightenment A philosophi-
cal revolution in England and France in
the 1700s.

child savers American reformers who
were concerned that youth were still housed
with adults and that the focus of incarcera-
tion remained highly punitive.

Elmira Reformatory Established in the
1870s, this reformatory was designed for
first-time felony offenders between the ages
of 16 and 30.

Hammurabic Code The set of laws devel-
oped by King Hammurabi of Babylon in
1750 BCE. The first comprehensive set of
laws to be developed.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-
tion Act The 1974 law that called for the
deinstitutionalization of status offenders
and nonoffenders and for a “sight and sound
separation” provision by which juveniles
cannot be detained in an institution where
they can see or hear adult offenders.

net widening Growth of the juvenile jus-
tice system’s reach through criminalizing of
minor offenses.

Summary of Learning Objectives

New York House of Refuge The first
juvenile reformatory in the United States,
opened in New York in 1825.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
quency Prevention (OJJDP) The federal
office created in 1974 that functions as a
clearinghouse for information related to
juvenile justice.

patria potestas An early notion of
law that viewed children as property of
their parents.

Penitentiary Act of 1779 An English law
that called for a secure, sanitary prison
system that was subject to inspection and
intended to reform and not just punish.

Progressive Era Reform movement of the
early 1900s.

Stubborn Child Law Enacted in colonial
Massachusetts in 1646; stated that if a child
of 16 years of age was rebellious and stub-
born, the parents could bring the child to
court where the child could receive a death
sentence.

transportation An old form of confine-
ment in which criminals were moved to
other countries by ship.

Uniform Juvenile Court Act The 1968 law
that detailed standards the juvenile justice
system should follow, including the police,
courts, and corrections, and that argued
for the preservation of rehabilitation as the
guiding philosophy of the juvenile court.

workhouse concept The idea that people
in prisons should engage in hard work and
discipline.