Left-behind kids

The juvenile justice system has already recognized many best practices, such as community-based alternatives, to addressing non-violent juvenile offenses.

However, youth accused of violent crimes are “left-behind” as these recommendations are often not applied to them. Instead, they are sent to the adult system, or outdated, ineffective youth prisons in the juvenile justice system.

Youth in the adult system do very poorly–they are vulnerable to rape and physical abuse, they are often placed in solitary confinement, and do not receive age-appropriate services. Even youth who commit violent or serious offenses are better served by the juvenile justice system.

In general, too many youths are confined, because the definition of serious and violent has ballooned out of control. Depending on the jurisdiction, a schoolyard fight can be “serious and violent,” or a school disciplinary issue to be dealt with outside of the criminal justice system.

When secure confinement is necessary, juvenile secure care facilities and programming should be created with three pillars in mind: reducing isolation and institutionalism, fostering positive relationships and focusing on reentry from day one.

Currently, youth detained in the juvenile system are often confined in large, rural youth prisons, where sexual and physical abuse runs rampant, and youth are less likely to stay connected to their family and community because of the rural locations.

Environment and design of juvenile facilities should be as home-like and deinstitutionalized as possible.

Youth should not be placed in solitary confinement as a form of discipline, and should not remain isolated more than a few hours. Staff should remain with the youth when they are isolated from their peers.

All efforts should be made to foster positive relationships with family, by reformulating and improving visitation procedures, and creating better relationships between staff and youth.

Innovative programs in Washington D.C., Missouri, and Germany can serve as positive examples in reformulating juvenile detention environments.

In the past decade, the United States has moved away from the “tough on crime,” harsh punishment model and instead has shifted toward rehabilitating juvenile offenders. This is because we recognize that juveniles are not the same as adults and therefore their mistakes should be treated differently. Unfortunately, however, the more rehabilitative approach is often completely tossed aside when youth are adjudicated for serious or violent offenses, even though they are still chronologically and developmentally children.

Research has determined that there are a set of punishments that should never be applied to juveniles because of their lacking maturity and their unique potential to be rehabilitated. Irrespective of the crime committed, death and mandatory lifelong imprisonment, for example, are never acceptable punishments for children. And indeed, the nation’s highest court has agreed.

While two million youth under the age of 18 were arrested in 2008, the vast majority—around 95 percent—were accused of non-violent crimes. Of the remaining 5 percent, accused of violent crimes, many will be transferred to adult court through judicial mechanisms such as direct file, waiver or statutory exclusion. Others will remain in the juvenile system. In this way, two teenagers charged with the same violent crime can have markedly different lives based up where they end up.

Although young people can be guilty of serious offenses with significant consequences for victims, and the state has a duty to ensure accountability and protect the public, it also has special responsibilities not to treat minors in ways that can permanently harm their development and rehabilitation. After all, nearly all youth will return to their communities one day and for this reason, the justice system should equip them to be able to do so successfully.

Policymakers have already incorporated best practices for rehabilitating and serving non-violent youth. States across the nation have cut down their youth prison populations by diverting more young people away from confinement and toward program-based alternatives. Indeed, some states have been so successful they have been able to close down some of their youth prison facilities. However, very little existing literature discusses the plight of the “left-behind kids” who have committed violent offenses and are still being sent to outdated and ineffective youth prisons.

Accordingly, the present study argues that even juveniles who commit violent crimes are best served when they remain in the juvenile system. Second, it asserts that we should limit the number of youth who end up in secure placement, and that this might mean reorienting the system’s definition of the types of youth that need confinement. And finally, the paper discusses best practices with respect to secure confinement for those who do require a higher level of care.