2 Case Examples w/ Structure of the Juvenile Justice System

Structure of the Juvenile Justice System

Tom Jones is a sixteen-year-old repeat juvenile offender who has just been detained by the police for attempted murder.

To begin with, now that law enforcement has Jones in th6eir custody, because he is a repeat offender, they will take their time processing him. Why? This is in hopes of annoying the offender, and maybe this will instill in said persons mind that disobeying the law is unsatisfactory. While the offender is being processed, the parents or guardians will be notified. 

After the offender has been processed, Mr. Jones will be detained into a detention center so that he can be prosecuted. At this time, his Attorney, and representative on his behalf will meet with him, and attempt to get his version of the story, and see if there is a bail hearing. Jones Attorney will meet with the Prosecutor and see if they can work out a diversion, or some kind of lower sentence, or plea. The chances that Jones will get to see his family before court are slim to none, unless it is by way of a TV screen. 

Under the Prosecutors discretion, he will then transfer the case through the Criminal Justice system, by way of Juvenile Court intake system, because of Jones age. During this time, Jones is still being held in detention, and still being questioned, and as well as decided if he is in the right frame of mind, and what caused him to actually attempt to murder someone. 

After speaking with Jones, decisions will be made if he should be given diversion or prosecuted. At this point he is given a formal processing, which can result in a judicial waiver, or a dismissal. Jones, being that he is sixteen, has a chance of being waived into the adult court system, should the Judge see fit, because it is attempted murder. The Judge must thoroughly read over the case, and the circumstances, and decide what road he should take. 

Because Jones is a repeat offender, and is sixteen, I would waive him over to the adult system. If you want to act like an adult and attempt to take a person’s life, then in this case, we will treat you like one. Therefore, the Judge decided to enact his ruling with a Judicial waiver and place sixteen-year-old Tom Jones back into the Criminal Justice system and try him as an adult. 

At this point the system will argue that he is a minor, and he is not capable of handling himself in the adult system, but the Judge responded with, “He should’ve thought of that when he tried to kill so and so.” And banged his gavel. 

Once in the criminal justice system as an adult, Tom Jones is no longer protected, and he can now be tried as adult. However, that is not what the Judge wants in this case. All he wants is simple. He wants to give Tom Jones six months, without parole in an adult facility, and then one year on adult probation. He then wants him to return to School, or obtain a G.E.D. if Jones gets a G.E.D. he wants him to obtain a job immediately after that. After sentencing the Judge says to Jones, “I don’t want to see you again.”

Jennifer Smith is a fifteen-year-old first-time offender who has just been detained by the police for vandalism.

Once detained, the officers in question called Miss Smiths parents. While they were trying to get a hold of her parents, Miss Smith is shaking and crying. It was and is her first time acting out, and she was only trying to make new friends, and following along with the peer pressure. She was sick and tired of being bullied, and was convinced this would stop it, if she followed along, Instead, when the cops pulled up, they all ran away laughing, leaving her to get caught. 

The Police could not get Smith to calm down, no matter how much they tried, and unfortunately, no one was home to answer the phone either, so they were forced to detain her in the detention center until a parent or guardian could be reached. 

Because of the fact of the situation, the officers had planned on letting Smith go with a warning. But, no one could be reached. So, this turned out worse than anyone, even law enforcement had planned. However, there is an advantage to this scenario. 

While in detention, the Prosecutor read the report, and knew that the parents and/or guardians had been tried to be contacted. The prosecutor tried as well. As did the court appointed Attorney. The report from the Arresting officer said in detail, “I had no intention of making an arrest. However, parents and/or guardians could not be reached, and my hands were tied on this matter.”

The Prosecutor under discretion, referred the case to through the Criminal Justice System, and sent it onto Juvenile Court intake. The representative on Smith’s behalf, and her court appointed Attorney showed up together. Smith was still upset and crying, and shaken. She explained the scenario to everyone, and the two read the report from the officer. Smith was informed she wasn’t even supposed to be there, but no one could reach her parents. Now they wanted to know if there was anyone else they could get a hold of. Smith lowered her head to the table and bawled. Everyone was stunned. 

The Attorney and several case workers decided to check out the residence where Smith lived. The mail had been stacking up the whole time Smith had been in custody. No one was home, and there were no cars in the drive. They decided to speak with the neighbors, and were enlightened with the results. 

No one ever saw anyone come or go other than Jennifer Smith. They watched her come and go to School every day. They would watch her come and go with groceries from the store too, never did they ever see anyone else. She was always quiet, never played her music loud, never had any company either. 

The Attorney met with the prosecutor who explained their findings, together they looked up the birth records of Jennifer Smith, only to learn that she was collecting death benefits from both of her parents who had been killed. Jennifer Smith was living alone, on her own successfully at the age of fifteen, and no one knew it, and somehow the system never recognized it.

Together the prosecutor and Attorney met with Jennifer Smith and they wanted answers. They explained what they had learned. Smith looked at them and said, “My Aunt was supposed t be taking care of me. She did for several months. Then she met a guy, and he said he didn’t want the burden of me. They left, and that’s all I know. That was six years ago. Fortunately, before she left, she started a bank account for me, so I could do my own banking, and handle my own money. The house is paid for in the settlement. I do just fine. I keep my grades up! This was my first mistake! I don’t need anyone!” She cried out. 

The Prosecutor and the Attorney both went to the Judge with everything they had learned, and the case was dismissed. The Judge had given Miss Smith a financial burden waiver, so no fees were instituted on her for the time she was put into detention. He also assigned her a representative to assist her with her needs and help her with anything and everything that she needed, and home care was assigned to her, as well as health care.

References:

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/images/flowbluemedwebalt2.gif

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/index.html

Criminology: The Crime Causation Therories (2 described)

     The Crime Causation Theories are as follows:

     Strain Theory, Social Learning Theory, Control Theory, Labeling Theory, Social      Disorganization Theory, Critical Theories, Integrated Theories, and of course there will be future crime theories. 

     The first one I wish to address with you will be:

The Strain Theory:

     Looking at this theory you see the word stain. What do you think when you see it? Maybe to strain your muscle, correct? 

     This is what it means, to strain. In other words, you are suffering, or struggling, or even stressing about something. 

     This sets you up just a little to perceive the beginning of what the strain theory is about. Now let’s move on a little more so that you may continue to understand more thoroughly.

     Individuals who are subject to the strain theory are usually those who are enduring harassment from work, or school or even home, who are trying to escape it. Now don’t get me wrong, this is just one example for you. It could be something else. For instance: it may be a child dealing with constant screaming from their parents, this may happen in two ways. Maybe the child is being screamed at, or witnessing the parents scream at one another. The strain theory could also be a way for an abused child to escape the abuse of the beatings, or name calling. Whatever the case may be, these individuals are seeking revenge for those who have wronged them (in their rational eyes) and they are using the crime of say petit theft and getting away with it, as an illicit drug to make them feel better about themselves. 

     Money is the biggest cause of the strain theory. No matter how much you make, the bills keep coming. Utilities never end, the bills keep piling up, and there is no escaping them. You pay them to zero, and next month they are even higher. There are individuals out there who will then think that selling drugs, or even themselves will help them make money faster. Before they even think about the consequences, they are thinking about cleaning up their debts. Next thing you know, they are trying it, and actually succeeding, and making a profit, so they do or try more, and what happens next? They get caught. That high they were feeling of paying off that debt, the accomplishment, just managed to get them deeper in debt, and give them a criminal record too. Was it worth it?

     You see, not only is or was it the money, but with the money, comes respect. You see, while the newly found drug dealer, who thought he had it kept under hat, was catching up his bills, people would actually now be able to come him and ask for money. Now he could lend it and feel good about himself. He was feeling good, and his friends now thought of him a better light, or so this newly drug dealer thought. His wife was going out more, smiling more, and there was less fighting between the two of them. He thought things were better, and maybe they were. But now that he is arrested and in jail, how does he look and feel?

      Strain theory is one that life leads you there. When you are down and out, and feeling like there is nothing else you can do. You are left with no other choice but to act out, and make changes. Life made you do this, no one else. Those abusive parents, the economy, the boyfriend that dumped you, your cheating husband, being left alone all day and all night. Your kids are grown, you have empty nest syndrome, no one cares about you, no one knows you exist, your depressed, what the heck. No one will notice…

The next theory I would like to address is: Social Learning Theory:

     First let us look at the first word in this theory. We see the word social. Therefore, we know this theory is going to have to do with more than one person. Next, we see learning, therefore we know that this theory is something that someone is being taught or learning. Put the two together and we then realize that it will be a learned behavior. 

     Now let’s look a little deeper, shall we? This is when you are exposed or maybe even raised with or by, or hang out with a person who does things that are against the law. Maybe you don’t know for certain, but as you learn, you will eventually know that this individual is committing wrong doing. This is when we as people need to learn to ask when we are uncertain, even if it’s a teacher or a friend.

     “Hey, my Dad just took me to the grocery store, and I thought it was kind of weird, but we walked out of the store with the entire cart full of groceries and didn’t pay. He said it was ok, that he knew the Manager. But I never seen my Dad throw groceries in the car so fast in my life. He didn’t even check to see if I was buckled. I think he did something wrong. Did he?” A child asks his teacher. 

     If only it were this simple, but it’s not, because more often than not, children are very protective of their parents. 

     Later down the road, this child becomes an adult and is having problems feeding his family. They applied for food stamps, but its taking forever to get a response. He and his wife are both out of work, she is injured, and he has been trying to find work. This young man remembers his father walking in and out with groceries and getting away with it. He even remembers tattling, and nothing happened. This young man hopes he can be this lucky, because he must provide for his children, he is the man of the house. So, he goes to the store, and tries to do the same thing his father did. The only thing different, is he gets caught. This is a learned behavior, Dad got away with it, so will I. This young man even prayed beforehand, “God you know I am desperate and my family is hungry, protect me just as you did my Father. Amen.” 

     Although it was a learned behavior, the world learned too. His father conducted this crime in the 80s when there were no cameras. The Son committed in the 90s when there were cameras and security. Fail. 

     A mother and her daughter are in the mall walking and talking. The daughter is thirteen. The mother walks beside a stand full of balls and pushes it over, and balls roll everywhere all over the mall. The mother puts her hand over her mouth, “Oh my! I am so sorry!” She exclaims. The mother and daughter proceed to walk away, and down to another floor of the mall. As they get to this floor, the mother spots a stand of several gumball machines, and pretends to lose her balance and knocks them all over. Gumballs, and toys go everywhere. “Oh my I am such a klutz today!” she says. The daughter looks at her mother. As they walk away she proceeds to chuckle and nudges the daughter. On the next floor, the daughter spots a shelf full of jewelry, Knick knacks, and other pretties. The daughter falls into it, and completely falls down. “Oh honey, are you ok?” The mother asks. “Yes, Mom. I think I inherited your klutziness.” The mother bends down to help the daughter up, giggling, and stuffing things into her purse. As they both stood up to brush themselves off, a security officer, cleared his throat and said, “Will you two please come with me?” 

     Although at first, the daughter didn’t know what was going on, she eventually caught on. And now she will regret it, because the two are caught. She was taught a learned behavior by the social learning theory, just that quick. Like the snap of a finger.

     Although it isn’t this quick and easy to teach, sometimes it can take years, months, and it truly just depends. Bullies teach their descendant bullies at Schools to take over when they leave. They don’t want a School left without someone being pushed down the stairs, or their head being flushed in the toilet, or being locked into the locker. You see? Social learning theory. Although School bullying is a minimal crime, it is still sad and annoying. Someday, hopefully it will end, but let’s face it, many of us have been put through it. In fact, bullying continues in the Armed forces. It is something that never ceases, and often leads people to suicide, while at the same time, makes others stronger. 

     Social Learning Theory even happens online, as with cyber bullying and cyber stalking. More often than not, this theory is a lot like ‘Monkey see, monkey do.’ Kind of thing. When people see, someone picking on someone, there will be a crowd and some will join in and follow. While others will walk away. Now mind you, they won’t defend your honor, or go to the principal, or facebook or twitter, and explain that they witnessed, it but yes, they will turn their back and walk away. Not everyone follows the bad crowd. 

     Do my theories explain all incidents of crime? No, of course not. There are a lot of crimes, and a lot of ways they can happen, and a lot choices, and these two are far from the most common. The theories were created for a reason, and just as I have stated, there will be future crime theories. Just as there will be future crimes, because we live in an ever-changing world. Crime is not going to stop, not now, not ever. As criminologists, we just have to keep adapting, and resolving issues, to learn with their crimes. 

      I do not think my theories best explain incidents of crime, I just understand these theories best, because I have been victimized on several occasions. I have had my identity stolen, to the point that the IRS assigns me a number yearly. I have been wrongfully arrested and charged. Fortunately, those were dropped, but unfortunately, they will remain on my record because of a computer program that allows users to text themselves and pretend that another user did it. These kinds of things disgust me, and because of this, I have learned there is no such things as: ‘Innocent until proven guilty.’ 

References:

Agnew, Robert. "Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency." Criminology 30 (1992): 47–88.

Akers, Ronald L. Social Learning and Social Structure. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998.
Anderson, Elijah. Code of the Street. New York: Norton, 1999.

Bandura, Albert. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1986.

Braithwaite, John. Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Bursik, Robert J., Jr.; and Grasmick, Harold G. Neighborhoods and Crime. New York: Lexington, 1993.

Chesney-Lind, Meda; and Sheldon, Randall G. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Belmont, Calif.: West/Wadsworth, 1998.

Cloward, Richard; and Ohlin, Lloyd. Delinquency and Opportunity. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960.
Cohen, Albert K. Delinquent Boys. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1955.

Cohen, Lawrence E.; and Felson, Marcus. "Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach." American Sociological Review 44 (1979): 588–608.

Cornish, Derek B.; and Clarke, Ronald V. The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.

Elliott, Delbert S.; Huizinga, David; and Ageton, Suzanne S. Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1985.

Felson, Marcus. Crime and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, 1998.

Gottfredson, Michael; and Hirschi, Travis. A General Theory of Crime. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Greenberg, David F. "Delinquency and the Age Structure of Society." Contemporary Crises 1 (1977): 189–223.

Hagan, John. Crime and Disrepute. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press, 1994.

Hirschi, Travis. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1969.

Matsueda, Ross L. "Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency: Specifying a Symbolic Interactionist Theory." American Journal of Sociology 97 (1992): 1577–1611.

Matza, David; and Sykes, Gresham M. "Juvenile Delinquency and Subterranean Values." American Sociological Review 26 (1961): 712–719.

Merton, Robert K. "Social Structure and Anomie." American Sociological Review 3 (1938): 672–682.

Messerschmidt, James W. Masculinities and Crime. Lantham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1993.

Messner, Steven F.; and Rosenfeld, Richard. Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1997.

Patterson, Gerald R.; Reid, John B.; and Dishion, Thomas J. Antisocial Boys. Eugene, Oreg.: Castalia Publishing Co., 1992.

Sampson, Robert J.; and Groves, W. Byron. "Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory." American Journal of Sociology 94 (1989): 774–802.

Sampson, Robert J.; and Laub, John H. Crime in the Making. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Sutherland, Edwin H.; Cressey, Donald R.; and Luckenbill, David F. Principles of Criminology. Dix Hills, N.Y.: General Hall, 1992.

Sykes, Gresham; and Matza, David. "Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency." American Journal of Sociology 22 (1957): 664–670.

Thornberry, Terence P. "Towards an Interactional Theory of Delinquency." Criminology 25 (1987): 863–891.

Tittle, Charles R. Control Balance: Toward a General Theory of Deviance. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1995.

Vold, George B.; Bernard, Thomas J.; and Snipes, Jeffrey B. Theoretical Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.