The youth justice system affects people living in the U.S. aged between 12 and 17 years. These are the young people who commit offences and hence have to face disciplinary actions as per the current legal system. The youth justice system thus comprises of the corrective measures for the juveniles. In the U.S., the crimes committed by the youth affect every member of the community. As a result, the relevant authorities at the state and federal levels have adopted policies to address the issue of youth offenders. The policies form the basis for corrective system that deals with the matters that relate to the youth. The purpose of this paper is to review the current policies that have been put in place to address the issues that relate to youth in criminal justice system. The literature review will explore the shortcomings of the policies and provide probable solutions to address the current justice system issues and limitations.
Current Policies
The crimes committed by the youth differ significantly from those committed by the adults a hence necessitates a separate court system for the young offenders. There are different policies that are used to address the issue of youth crime; the policies are mainly implemented at the state level. The current model of the youth justice system is not very different from that applied for the adult offenders (Teplin et al., 2002). It is based on punishing the young offenders rather than rehabilitating them. Before, the setting up of the current juvenile justice system in the U.S., the focus was mainly on the patriae model. This model ensured that the nation played a guardian role when dealing the youth offenders; the state legally protected the youth from the adult wrongdoers through assuming roles similar to that of parents. It acted in the best interests of the children and ensured that care offered to the young offenders was equivalent to that parents could provide. The policy that informed the model was the welfare of the youth in terms of their developmental requirements and the need to ensure that they were not exposed to harmful environments (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). However, the policy of the patriae model experienced many challenges. For example, in the early 1970s, there was a common feeling that the prevalence of the juvenile crime had increased tremendously though there were no empirical findings to support the assumptions. This was the start of change in policies that related to juvenile crime and the emergence of the juvenile justice system.
The current policies on the criminal justice system for the youth trace back to the famous Central Park Jogger Case of 1989. Five young men were arrested and confessed to police of the offence; however, later investigations established that they were not guilty. The implication of the youth in the Central Park rape case and the predictions by influential people that the crime by young people was to rise and result in emergence of young “superpredators” led to states passing laws that were more punitive. Also, the laws made it easier for states to sentence juveniles in the adult criminal justice system. Key to the juvenile sentencing was the policies introduced at national level that called for measures to curb the spread of youth crime (Ryan, 2012). The policies led to the enacting of Repeat Offender Act of 1997. Even though the legislation was made to curb the anticipated rise in youth violence, this was never the case; in fact, statistics showed that the youth crimes were on a decrease. Despite the statistics that still point to a declining trend, the punitive policies and confinements of the young offenders in adult secured detentions have not changed. Only some few states have shown the will to adopt new policies, but so far the implementation has been limited.
Researches carried out to investigate the implications of the punitive policies have shown that an overwhelming majority of the young people who are presented in the adult courts are due to non violent crimes; in fact, Ryan (2012) noted that most of the young people being detained in the jails for adults have committed minor offenses. The researches have also established that the young people who are charged as adults are at risk of being assaulted by the adult wrongdoers and sometimes they can die in the prisons. Currently, it is a policy for most states that the youths who are charged of serious offences be placed in prisons for adults during the pre-trial process. The implication of this policy has been the exposure of the thousands of young people to extreme difficulties as it is not easy to ensure their safety in the adult confinement centers. Dutton (2013) noted that it is a delicate balance that the jail officials have to maintain in the holding centers. For instance, if they are not separated from the adults, their contact with the adults can lead to both emotional and physical harm; on the other hand, when they are separated, the youth end up in isolation for long period of time. Dutton (2013) pointed out such a practice is equitable to solitary confinement, which can lead to depression; thus, put the young offenders to serious mental health problems.
In relation to the findings by Dutton (2013), it is evident that the policies do not provide neither winning situation for the youth nor for the system. In fact, Toldson, Sutto and Fry Brown (2012) pointed out it adds burden to the system and the intended goal for correction is never achieved. The failure of the current policies to differentiate the minor and serious offenders compounded with putting them in adult confinement centers exacerbates the existing problem. The current policies have been characterized by the tendencies not to place the youth in rehabilitative processes and facilities which can give them development, support and educational programs. Thus, the punitive policy undermines the social development of the juveniles.
A according to Ryan (2012), the current criminal justice system in the U.S. is an outlier and violates the provisions of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which the U.S. has not adopted. The U.S. allows people under the age of 18 to be tried and jailed as adults. The international human rights convention provides that detained children should be separated from the adults. In addition, it stipulates that such children should not be subjected to inhumane punishments. This is contrary to the many state laws that allow the charged youth to be confined in jails for adults. Furthermore, Ryan (2012) added that most of the states do not provide safeguards. Despite the call for isolation, in the U.S., it has not remedied the issue as the process leads to isolating the juveniles and placing them on solitary confinement. This has been found to be mentally deliberating.
Weaknesses of the Policies
The American juvenile justice system is the primary correctional structure that is used to deal with the young offenders. The system includes police, court and correctional facilities. The policy applied in the system is normally punitive and entails incarceration of the youth, alternative schooling, probation, and community service. The punitive policy used in the adult system also applies to the juvenile system (Ryan, 2012). Despite the existence of the system, young offenders are subjected to adult courts in most of states across the U. S. In addressing the offences committed by the youth, there has been more inclination on the punitive side rather than the rehabilitative and developmental processes.
According to Ryan (2012), across the U.S., the juvenile correction system has not adopted strategies that reduce crime and improve the wellbeing of the minors; instead, the strategies employed increase the chances of the young people reoffending, waste billions of money and damage the prospects of the young people. There are glaring gaps in terms of the effective policies to address the issues that relate to juvenile justice system. For instance, Bernburg, Marvin and Craig (2006) argued that the policy of incarceration has become wasteful and counterproductive. The youth who come into contact with courts and are convicted end up with maimed futures. This is due to social and educational implications of the corrective system. As a result, after the serving the prison sentence, the chances of reoffending are very high.
Over the past two decades, the youth crime has dropped significantly. Despite the drop in the crime rate, many young people are still detained every day (Ryan, 2012). The detention centers for the youth were made to be temporary holding places for the youth who were considered to pose high chances of repeating offences before their trial. However, it seems that the government’s policy on detention of the youth has changed to ensure that it includes even the minor offenders. Today, most of the youth who do not even qualify being high risk offenders are put in the detention places during the pre-trial process. The impact of the policy of secure detention puts the juveniles to an environment that relates to that of adult jails instead of the family based interventions which the scholars have pointed out they are most effective. The secure detention renders the youth to overcrowded environment which predisposes them to environment that characterized by neglect and violence. Studies carried out on the current policy of youth correction show that the incarceration negatively affects the mental and physical wellbeing of the young people. Also, it reduces their chances to continue with their education and hence negatively affects their chances of getting meaningful employment in the future.
In fact, a study by one psychologist established that one third of the incarcerated youth who were diagnosed with depression indicated that it had started during the incarceration (Teplin et al., 2002). Other studies suggest that poor conditions of confinement areas contribute to increased probability of the youth to engage in suicide and self harm. In relation to the ability to secure employment and remain in the workforce, studies have shown incarcerated youth have reduced ability to acquire jobs compared to their counterparts who have not gone through the justice system. Also, their ability to secure employment is made difficult due to the criminal record and the stereotypes attached to ex-offenders. In relation to education, studies have also shown that youth who were once incarcerated have more learning disabilities compared to the youth who were not incarcerated.
In addition, studies on the current policies on youth criminal justice have shown that the punitive nature of the system which entails incarceration does not deter crime. According to Bjerregaard (2013), many Americans believe that the main aim of any punishment is to serve justice and act as a deterrent for people willing to commit similar crimes. In relation to the youth offences and the consequent sentences, there are no proven data that the punishments deter the reoccurrence of the offences. Indeed, many scholars have shown that the detained youth have high propensity of re-engaging in crime. In relation to punishment acting as a deterrent measure, an in-depth analysis of punishment by Vines and Day-Hairston (2005) found that in the past, different communities used punishment to deter and scare criminals. This historical perspective has become the basis of the opinion that since it is in the highest interest of the society to stop crime, then it should apply the highest deterrent to discourage others from engaging in similar crimes. Despite the study by Vines and Day-Hairston (2005), detailing the implications of the punishments in communities, it can be pointed out that the systems normally related to adults. The young people were punished at the family level and the punishments were mainly corrective and focused on the ability of the young offenders to reform. Based on this understanding, Scott and Steinberg (2008) argued that the young people are still developing and the factors that lead them to crime tendencies are very different from those of the adults. Therefore, deterrence measures meant for adults may not yield the same results in the case of the young people.
According to Scott and Steinberg (2008), the principle aim of any criminal justice is to ensure that criminals are rehabilitated and that the society is protected. Scott and Steinberg (2008) argued that doing justice and deterring the other from committing crimes are the ends of any criminal justice system. The youth justice system in America is more punitive with very minimal component of rehabilitation. With these shortcomings, it can be pointed out that the current policies of incarceration and detaining the youth in confinement centers for adults have not yielded the required results. In fact, the policies place the youth in situations where they are more likely to engage in crimes after the sentence. This is so due to limitations in education, interactions with adult wrongdoers, and the reduced chances of being employed due to their criminal records.
The differences have been attributed to social issues that create a rifle effect and in the long run, the youth are left at a disadvantage. Another shortcoming of the youth justice system in the U.S. has been cases of racial discrimination in the system. Blake, Darensbourg and Perez (2010) stated that there is overrepresentation of young African American males in disciplinary practices in the justice system compared to their white counterparts. The overrepresentation bars them from engaging in proper education. According to Nicholson-Crotty, Birchmeire and Valentine (2009), the African Americans are at a higher risk of being placed in the justice system which prevents them from schooling and securing employment. For example, in 2007, a report by the United States Department of Justice Bureaus of Statistics showed that there were over 1.5 million prisoners. Out of this number, 35% of the male prisoners were African Americans. This is a very high number bearing in mind that the population of the U.S. constituted of only 12.4% of blacks during the time of the report.
The implication of the findings is that an African American teenage boy is three times more likely to be jailed than a teenager from the white community. Therefore, the overrepresentation of the blacks in the criminal justice system bars the blacks from attaining proper education. Vines and Day-Hairston (2005) stated that there are situational variables that alter the development path for many African American young men. The young men feel detached from the society and the general feeling that their rights are being violated. Raphael (2006) noted the failing justice system for the minority black youths starts from the schools. The variables that contribute to the increased chances of young black men ending up in the youth justice system include being taught by teachers who are not prepared, harsher disciplinary measures compare to other students, feeling of detachment from schools and being referred for special education. When the factors are combined they lead to the overrepresentation of the African Americans in the correction services. The situational factors are referred to as the School to Prison Pipeline; they normally alienate the blacks from the normal school learning process and lead them to the criminal justice system. There is no empirical evidence that support the linear relationship between disciplinary measures that alienate African American from schools and the entrance into the corrective service in the justice system; though a study by Nicholson-Crotty et al. (2009) found that there is empirical support for School to Prison Pipeline in relation to the exclusionary disciplinary measures that are given to African American males in counties in the Midwestern United States. The study indicated that there was increase in the court referrals for the juveniles.
Implications of the Policies
As established from the review above, the national policy on prevention of crime among the young people emphasizes on prevention, control, rehabilitation, development and punishment. These aspects play an important role in the justice system based on the type of offence which is being addressed. Nevertheless, it seems that the aspects are overbalanced towards the punishment, and have resulted in long term imprisonment even for the minor offenders. Putting into consideration the implications of the policies, Bernburg et al. (2006) noted there is the need for policy change to ensure that the youth justice system is beneficial.
Criminal sanctioning of the young people by placing them in jails results in social obstacles that bar their vertical progression in the society. Some of the social implications of the current punitive policies which demean the youths include rejection from conventional groups. As noted, this forms the basis for the failure of ex-offenders to obtain employment; they also face exclusion from other social networks that are crucial for the youth development and barriers in securing loans for students. Miller (2010) argued that any form of punishment that excludes the young people from the rest of the society such as incarceration increases the risk of the young people being alienated from the society. Another shortcoming of the incarceration is that it has a high likelihood that the young offenders will not reintegrate fully into conventional society due to the infective rehabilitative programs.
In relation to the implications of the young justice system, Bernburg et al. (2006) carried out a study to examine the criminal embeddedness in respect to youth justice system intervention. The study participants were 870 adolescents. The researchers coded individual delinquency of the youth (Bernburg et al., 2006). Other variables that affect the criminal justice system such as the race, gender, financial status of the family, and substance abuse were controlled to ensure that the study was only inclined to justice system (Bernburg et al., 2006). Data was collected was collected and analyzed. The findings of the study established that, “juvenile justice intervention is significantly associated with serious delinquency in a subsequent period” (Bernberg et al., 2006, p. 82). These findings point to the causality nature of the current criminal justice system and resultant criminal tendencies of the young people. It substantiates the argument that the deterrence anticipation related to rehabilitative process via incarceration produces contrary results, i.e. increasing the chances of recidivism. Furthermore, their current policies fail to recognize the social developments of the adolescents. The incarceration may result in stigmatization, which in turn affects the reintegration of the young people back to their societies.
Strategies to Address the Shortcomings
The history of community crime prevention dates back to many years. However, documented crime prevention programs started in the 18th century in England when Henry Fielding, a playwright, and novelist mobilized citizens to address the root cause of crime and apprehend criminals. In the United States of America, the idea that citizens could participate in non-punitive programs to prevent crime started in 1930. Scholars from Chicago School of Sociology argued that the structural forces that operated in families and neighborhoods were the main causes of crime. Their work and views led to researches that found that poor socialization of urban children predisposed them to criminal opportunities. For example, lack of structured activities for the young people put them at greater risk of engaging in criminal tendencies compared to their counterparts who engaged in structured activities. In order to address the issue, commissions for crime preventions were formed to devise measures to address crime in cities and urban slums. The proposed measures entailed integrated approaches that are based on the crime being handled and the type of the offender. The following are the possible strategies that can be used to address the shortcoming of the current policies.
Youth constitute a special group in the general population. They are special because they are still undergoing, social, mental and physical growth. When they are put in the current system of the criminal prevention, the youth undergo different situations in the prisons that affect their developments. The uniqueness of the youth requires that they should be treated in a unique manner in order to avoid interference with their developments. The results of the current youth justice system policies have just achieved the punitive goals. Essential factors such as a corrective system that leads to the development of the young people and gives them the chance to grow up in the society are overlooked in the current policy system. Therefore, instead of investing in a system that has not provided the required results, policy changes should entail strategies that ensure that the minor offenders are not isolated from the society. The criminal justice system should overbalance towards remedial processes based at the society level rather than the incarceration.
The U.S. government has been relying on imprisonment as the main way to deal with people who conflict with the law of the land. This is mainly at the state level where the legal framework of majority of the states advocates for the incarceration. To address the challenges the policy change should entail the recognition that there are other forms of imprisonments that do no alienate the youth from the societal system. These systems include adoption of practices such as home detention, community service and the intermittent confinements. Across the U.S., studies have established that the over reliance on the incarceration has not solved the problem of crime. Furthermore, the young people who commit minor offences should not be subjected to the lengthy incarcerations. Such sentences should only be applied to the youth who are regarded as extremely violent and are dangerous if an alternative is used. Furthermore, detention of the high numbers of the youth has been found to increase the rates of recidivism for the detained youth.
Therefore, all the states need to have a policy change from the current punitive model to a rehabilitative model. This is achievable by use of diversion programs for young offenders who are non violent and have low risk of harming the society. This entails moving the offenders away from the current juvenile justice system to rehabilitative programs in order to prevent them from re-offending by impacting the right knowledge and societal values. According to Scott and Steinberg (2008), the policy of diversion is not new in the U.S.; the only problem is that it has been reluctantly applied. For instance, in the state of Minnesota, there are statutory requirements that allow the diversion of the young offenders. The statute recognizes the need to ensure that there is reduced conduct of the youth with the juvenile system. This is meant to avoid the delinquency record which is attached to the system. In relation to the viability of the policy, Minnesota has recorded great success. For example, in 2012, quarter of all the youth arrested in Minnesota were taken to the diversion programs instead of allowing them to get into the justice system. Due to the application of the policy, Minnesota has also recorded cases of reduced recidivism. The policy is based on restorative justice and it prevents juveniles from the legal courts. Also, the cost of implementation is low.
Howell and Howell (2007) added that the alternative to the detention gives the youth the opportunity to rehabilitate and grow up into adults who are productive. As it can be established from the various studies, the policy that informs the alternative detention initiative is based on ensuring that the development of the youth is not negatively affected. Having recorded substantial success in Minnesota, the federal government should adopt such policy and lobby for the state governments to adopt the corrective measures that benefit the youth. The adoption of the less punitive and off the courts policy will have tangible results in overcoming the shortcoming that have been experienced in the current policy framework. For example, it will ensure that the youth enjoy the most humane conditions for confinement, it will minimize the racial bias as currently witnessed in the corrective centers; for example, the justice system has been found to be disproportional in terms of the African American in the system compared to the white youths.
Even though many young people engage in criminal behaviors , studies have shown that as they grow up the criminal tendencies will ‘age out’ and majority of them desist from delinquency without undergoing a corrective process. Studies have also shown that the juveniles who cannot desist from delinquency, established of a relationship with a significant person such as a mentor and ensuring that the youths are directed towards meaningful employment leads them to ‘age out’ of criminal practices as they get into adulthood. Based on this perspective, it has been pointed out that incarceration of the young offenders disrupts ‘aging out’. This is attributed to the fact that detention denies the youth the natural engagement with school, peers, family and work. The mentorship program should be initiated in the public schools by attaching the youth offenders to prominent people to guide them through the corrective process.
The diversions programs have started being embraced in some states in the U.S. and have shown positive results for the young people. For example, they have been found to increase the public safety, they are cost effective. The aim of the diversion programs is reduce exposure of the juveniles to court system.
The other solution will be the reauthorization and strengthening the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The existence of such Act shows that there is already a legal framework on the juvenile justice system. Petrosino and Gucknburg (2010) noted that the only problem has been the lack of implementation of the policies and the shift towards the punitive system. According to Petrosino and Gucknburg (2010), one of the frameworks that need to be strengthened across the nation is the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which was enacted in 1974 to address matters that related to juvenile justice. The provisions of the act were overtaken by the prediction of a rise in violent youth as in 1989 following the Central Park Jogger case which saw many states opt for punitive and secured detention for the youth. The JJDPA advocates for a system for planning and advisory in all the U.S. states and territories. It also includes federal funding for delinquency prevention and improvement programs. Other key aspects for the JJDPA are that there should be a federal agency dealing with juvenile justice. This will be a shift from the overreliance on the police and the criminal justice system to deal with minor offences that can be addressed by setting up different social programs. The agency will be tasked with training of the youth, technical assistance, research and evaluation.
Measures that will ensure that states comply with the Act will be critical in revolution of the rehabilitation of the youth. It will ensure that states provide qualified counsel for the juveniles. Also, it will ensure that the states implement four core protections for the youth. The first protection is doing away with court orders orders that normally lead to noncriminal status of offenders in lock-ups, second protection is that it will ensure that youth are not detained in jails that are supposed to be for adults as the practice places them in danger of being harmed. It also increases their tendencies to engage in future crimes. In relation to removing the youth from the jails, the Act also advocates for sound separation of the youth from the facilities that are made for the adults. Finally, the Act places duty upon states to take measures to reduce racial and other disparities in the juvenile justice system.
There is a compelling researches on recidivism, competency, development of the adolescent brain and effective juvenile programs. The researches point to alternatives that can be applied by the authorities in the implementation of policy changes to the juvenile justice system (Ryan, 2012) lamented that in the past when the states were adopting the current practices, they did not have the current knowledge; thus, they are presented with the opportunity to reexamine and implement substantial changes to the statutes and policies. The policies should be based on basic principles that the needs of the youth differ from those of the adults and that there is the need to guide and protect them, it is everyone’s responsibility to guide the youth. It is also worth noting that the youth have constitutional rights which they should be accorded.
The implementation of rehabilitative programs should be based on an inclusive process in which the members of the society where the youth come from are included. This should be based on the understanding that the operational and the organizational structure of the preventive crime programs differ depending on the issue being addressed. The inclusion of people to participate in the program activities is normally based on collaboration of key stakeholders in the society. This includes the community, professionals, the police, religious leaders, schools, justice system, government officials, and social community workers (Clarke, 2009). Thus, the programs should include people and institutions that are in direct contact with the people who are likely to engage in criminal behaviors. For example, in order to reduce the delinquency among the young people, community leaders and institutions that shape the lives of the young people should be part of the programs. Crimes take place at the community level; thus, the community members are better placed to understand the issues that lead to crimes. Wider social circles that exist within communities have a great role in imparting conventional values to their members. The operational structure for the preventive programs entails participation of all members in decision making and the execution of their mandates.
Many studies have been undertaken to determine the impact of various programs that are meant to deter crime. Boisjoli, Vitaro, Lacourse, Barker, and Tremblay (2007) carried a study to examine the impact of rehabilitation programs. In a case evaluation of the treatment of young substance abusers, the treatment was found to reduce the rates of recidivism. The study established that rehabilitation is less expensive compared to imprisoning of the substance abusers and offenders. In the investigation of the impact of programs related to crime prevention, Welsh and Farrington (2010) expressed that crime is an art and can be evaluated using scientific programs. In relation to crime prevention programs, Welsh and Farrington (2010) found that some programs worked, others were promising while others did not meet the expectations. These findings show that preventive programs play a critical role in the corrective system.
The sentencing of the young people should be made simpler and less punitive; it should entail a component of correction in which the community is involved in the change process. A community based policy that fosters the rehabilitation of the youth should be embraced. Even though states have shown a shift from the punitive policy to a diversion policy where they need to ensure reduced contact of the youth with the courts and prisons, there is the need for integration of the current policies with community aspect. The rehabilitative processes of the youth do not take place in a void but in a community system. This will also play a critical role in the reintegration of the youth to the society.
There are also issues of exclusionary discipline practices such as suspension, expulsion that disproportionately affect African Americans than the other races at the school level. These processes have negative effect on education attainment and at later years, the children are at a disadvantage in the job market compared to their peers. The issue of poor delivery of education to the young black men has been exacerbated by the various stereotypes the media has for a.long time portrayed about the young black people. For example, they are usually depicted as criminals who should be feared and hence the law enforcers react to them in measures that are consistent with the stereotypes. The study by Blake et al. (2010) postulates that the increasing number of African-American drop-out cases in schools is because of the ineffective discipline techniques such as suspension, out of school punishment, and detention. In effect, the study proposes the need for school-based mental health practitioners such as school psychologists and counselors to work with the schools to avert the negative effects of the exclusionary disciplinary measures. These exclusionary disciplinary measures have been found to contribute to the youth transitioning to the justice system when they are still at school.
Conclusion
The current policy on the youth justice system is based on overreliance on confinement of the youths. From the literature reviewed, it is evident that there is no clear demarcation between the youth justice system and the adult justice system. Some states still subject the youth to secure confinements which violates their rights by confining the minor offenders in the corrective facilities which are mainly aligned to punishment rather than rehabilitation. The current system has a lot of cost implications which relate to the maintenance of the facilities. The cost of expanding and renovating the facilities is very high and yet it may not be beneficial to the youth. Also, most of the youth held in the correctional facilities pose little threat to the community. There is thus the need to adopt alternative policies to deal with the issue of youth offenders. The policies should be overbalanced towards rehabilitation and development of the youth rather than punishment.
References
Bernburg, J., Marvin, D., & Craig, J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67-88.
Bjerregaard, B. (2013). Criminal justice: Debating the moral, legal and political issues.” Criminal Justice Review, 38(1), 127-128.
Blake, J, J., Darensbourg, A., & Perez, E. (2010). Overrepresentation of African American males in exclusionary discipline: The role of school-based mental health professionals in dismantling the school to prison pipeline. Journal of African American Males in Education, 1(3), 196-211.
Boisjoli, R., Vitaro, F., Lacourse, E., Barker, D., & Tremblay, E. (2007). Impact and clinical significance of a preventive intervention for disruptive boys. British Journal of Psychiatry, 191(1), 415-419.
Clarke, R. (2009). Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current practice. New York: Springer.
Dutton, A. (2013). Next frontier of juvenile sentencing reform: Enforcing miller’s individualized sentencing requirement beyond the JLWOP context. The Journal of Political and Civil Rights, 23(1), 173-174.
Howell, J. C., & Howell, M. Q. (2007). Violent juvenile delinquency: Changes, consequences, and implications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, J. A. (2010). Sex offender civil commitment: The treatment paradox. California Law Review, 1(1), 2093-2128.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeire, Z., & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring the impact of school discipline on racial disproportion in the juvenile justice system. Social Science Quarterly, 90 (4), 1003-1018.
Raphael, S. (2006). The socioeconomic status of black males: The increasing importance of incarceration. Public policy and the income distribution, 1(1) 319-358.
Ryan, L. (2013). Youth in the adult criminal justice system. Cardozo Legal Review, 35(1), 1167-1170.
Scott, E. & Steinberg, L. (2008). Adolescent Development and Regulation of Youth Crime. Juvenile Justice. 18(2): 15-33.
Teplin, L., Abram, K., McClelland, G., Dulcan, M., Mericle, A., & Crotty, S. (2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry 59(12):1133–1143.
Toldson, I, A., Sutton, R, M., & Fry Brown, R, L. (2012). Preventing delinquency and promoting academic success among school- age African American males. Journal of African American Males in Education, 3(1), 12-28.
Vines, N. L., & Day-Hairston, B. O. (2005). Culturally Congruent Strategies for Addressing the Behavioral Needs of Urban, African American Male Adolescents. Professional School Counseling, 8(3), 236-243.
Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2010). The future of crime prevention: Developmental and situational strategies. New York: National Institute of Justice.