Academic literature on the topic 'Juvenile detention'

Juveniles are not physically and mentally mature compared to adults. Therefore, the Juvenile Act was enacted to protect, educate and re-socialize these juveniles. In other words, the juvenile law is based on the parent patriot. Therefore, juveniles are being dealt with juvenile crimes or juvenile delinquency through juvenile protective disposition rather than criminal punishment. However, recent juvenile crimes are indistinguishable from adult crimes. In other words, it has as much cruelty and ferocity as adult crime. Whenever these juvenile violent crimes occur, there has been an argument for a reduction in juvenile age. But juveniles are faster at reflection than adults. And it is possible to re-socialize through education. Therefore, age reduction is not the only alternative. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the relationship between the reduction of juvenile age and juvenile crime. Therefore, this paper will investigate the juvenile age of each country. Then, we will examine whether there is a common part about the juvenile age of each country. If there is no common juvenile age in each country, criminal policy measures will be devised. To this end, it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of juvenile protective disposition. In addition, an individual educational environment for juveniles living in juvenile Detention Center should be created. Admissions to juvenile detention centers are not simply to give penal effect to juveniles. If you return to society through juvenile detention center, you have to find a job that suits you. In other words, juvenile detention centers should provide education suitable for the talents and aptitudes of juveniles. In addition, the problem of overcrowding in juvenile detention centers must also be solved. The living room should be a place where confidentiality can be guaranteed for juveniles in sensitive times. Therefore, overcrowding of juvenile detention centers should be prevented in advance.

Palestinian law takes measures against juveniles over the age of 12 and before the age of 15 years. Precautionary and correctional measures are considered to be taken, but with the possibility of introducing a reformatory event, in some cases exceeding two years. In this study, we shall try to address the issue of the detain juvenile, importance and necessity of the detain. The same should be done in the same way as the balance between these two procedures. This must be limited to exceptional cases. The judiciary should decide on the length of the sentence without ruling out the possibility of early release of a juvenile. The goal of the criminal justice system is the reintegration of the juvenile into society. We will try in this paper to balances between Palestinian legal texts and the reality of the juvenile and the need for investigation and arrest in general. Keywords: Palestinian law, Juveniles, The Protectıon.

Reform-oriented laws in the area of juvenile justice, despite their specific intent, generally have negative as well as positive potential. Changes in law designed to reduce the juvenile population under state control are a case in point. Research shows that the effect of such laws often is to increase rather than decrease the number of juveniles subject to official control. When the effect of a law designed to reduce the population of juveniles under state control is to cause that population to increase, it is commonly called “net widening.” The present study examines a recent change in Florida's juvenile detention law that was designed, in part, to reduce overcrowding in the state's secure detention facilities.

Juvenile status offenses were created to protect against unnecessary physical detention of juveniles. Petty actions by teenagers are expected. Researchers have found that physically detaining juveniles in detention centers for behaviors such as truancy, running away, etc., did more harm than good. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 was enacted to create guidelines and prevent unnecessary detainment of juveniles. An amendment to the act in 1980 allowed judges to detain juveniles regarding status offenses if specific criteria were met. What seemed to be a minor change sought to protect juveniles from their own unruly conduct, i.e., running away or violating a court order. Ultimately, discretion to detain a juvenile began to be used very often. The undermining of status offenses has gained attention from many officials. The North Dakota Governor, Doug Burgum, did not hesitate to sign House Bill 1035 when it was made available to his office. The bill addresses the loophole, though the benefit has yet to be measured.

In a study of 32,000 referrals to juvenile court, the effects of a program to deinstitutionalize status offenders on detention decisions, intake screening, and final dispositions were examined. Although the results of a general comparison of preprogram and postprogram court actions showed relatively little change in court policies, the data did indicate a slight general trend toward less use of secure detention, a greater use of informal hearings, and a lower rate of juveniles placed on probation or in institutions. Differential treatment based on race was evident throughout the 5-year period. Whereas the rate of secure detention of black juveniles declined overall, it increased for black status offenders, especially females. There was a substantial decrease in the use of formal hearings and in the severity of final dispositions for all cases involving black juveniles.

Research has documented a connection between juvenile delinquency and criminality in adulthood. However, research examining why some individuals engage in criminal behavior only as juveniles, whereas others continue to perpetrate crime into adulthood, is still needed. This study examined trait anger as a mediator of relations between a history of juvenile detention and perpetration of three subtypes of intimate partner violence (IPV) in adulthood. Results suggested that trait anger significantly mediated relations between a history of juvenile detention and (a) physical assault and (b) psychological aggression, but not sexual coercion. Addressing anger in juvenile delinquents may be useful in intervention approaches designed to reduce IPV. Further investigations are encouraged to longitudinally explore other explanatory variables in the link between juvenile delinquency and IPV.

This study is an outcome evaluation of a secure unit of one juvenile detention center in the Midwest. The primary purpose of this study was to elucidate the relationship between a secure detention placement and recidivism on a sample of Midwest juvenile offenders. Besides the examination of recidivism of the total sample, this study examined differences between two subsamples of the institutionalized juveniles, those in a treatment program and those in detention only. The importance of demographics, prior admissions, length of stay, frequency of institutional misconduct, and exposure to treatment was examined. Results suggest a significant negative relationship between the age at admission and recidivism, and a positive one between prior admissions and recidivism. Length of stay, institutional misconduct, and treatment did not reach significance. This study did not find support for the effectiveness of juvenile detention in recidivism reduction. Implications of findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Thesis (M.S.)--Central Connecticut State University, 2001.
Thesis advisor: Stephen M. Cox. " ... in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Criminal Justice." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 53-54). Also available via the World Wide Web.

Juvenile Detention Center Effects on Futures of At-Risk Youth by Jennifer L. Turner MS, Walden University, 2014 BS, University of Maryland University College, 2011 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Forensic Psychology Walden University August 2019 Many juvenile offenders return to the justice system after serving their incarceration sentences. Detaining youth has a negative impact on their mental health, education, employment, and ability to secede from a criminogenic life course. Identifying detention center effects on youths' futures can provide further insight on why the current approach does not successfully deter youth from secondary delinquency. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore future effects on incarcerated youth. A qualitative research design using a phenomenological paradigm was used to investigate study constructs. Labeling and social learning theories served as theoretical frameworks. Labeling theory was used to describe impact on youth after they receive a label of juvenile delinquent. Conceptualization on learned criminal behaviors in incarceration environments was made using social learning theory. Data was collected from personnel directly involved with juvenile incarceration, release, and rehabilitation. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. Coding software, bracketing, and concept mapping were implemented for data analysis. Detention centers attribute to a decrease in abilities required for youth to become functioning society members. Implications for social change include enhancing knowledge for professionals working to rehabilitate juveniles in effort to increases ability for future success. Participants specifically noted a lack of collaboration and understanding on how to implement evidenced-based practices into juvenile offender rehabilitation. Collaboration between the JJS, detention center staff, parents, and community programs is necessary to address this social problem.

Using the theory on Representative Bureaucracy, this study considers the minority representative role, which suggests that administrators who are minorities are more inclined to represent minority interests. This study examined whether officers perceive themselves as advocates based on shared demographics and whether they develop attitudes toward reducing youth violence. Considerably more researchers conduct studies in adult prisons than juvenile correctional facilities, which focus on rehabilitation for youth. Therefore, this study further examines youth correctional staff attitudes toward inmates. The way correctional officers' treat minors may impact the amount of violence in juvenile detention facilities. The purposes of the study are to determine whether bureaucratic representation can have an impact on preventing violence, and to understand what factors lead officers in perceiving they have different roles. The two types of bureaucratic representation are passive and active. Passive representation, such as race, ethnicity, and gender, may shape role perceptions because attitudes are constructed by demographic characteristics. Active representation consists of decision-making behavior reflected in measurable policy outputs that are responsive to minority interests. This dissertation seeks to determine whether minority officers perceive themselves in passive or active terms, and how that representation relates to their particular strategies for dealing with youth violence. To determine how officers perceive themselves, this study incorporated mixed methods of both qualitative and quantitative research to examine how officers implement decisions in their positions. This study uses survey research from the Performance Based Standards from the U.S. Department of Justice and interviews with individuals who worked with inmates in California juvenile detention facilities to determine the relationship between minority officers and attitudes toward youth violence. Regression models, including year, were conducted for each hypothesis as a predictor in the model. Multiple regression analysis was used to demonstrate the relationship between independent variables and a single dependent variable. The data have information on facilities as well as staff and inmates within those facilities. Due to the nested nature of the data, multilevel regression models were also conducted when examining outcomes measured at the staff and inmate level.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Leicester in association with School of Professional and Continuing Education, University of Hong Kong, 1996.
Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print.

This research utilised a range of deterministic and stochastic analyses to establish whether Queensland's juvenile justice system processes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders differently. The impetus for this research stemmed from the continued high rates of Aboriginal over-representation within Australia's criminal justice system, despite diversionary measures to reduce such over-representation, and a commitment by the Queensland Government to reduce by 50% the number of Aboriginal peoples in custody by the year 2011. There are two competing hypotheses concerning the cause of this over-representation, (i) external factors such as socioeconomic disadvantage, unemployment or substance abuse, or (ii) systemic disparity within the criminal justice system. For this research, disparity is defined as the unacceptable use of discrimination; discrimination can be appropriate if it is used to define or enhance a situation, such as discriminating between offenders who are recidivists and those who are first time offenders. The inappropriate use of discrimination occurs for example, when harsher sentences are issued to offenders based on non-legal factors such as race or gender. Systemic disparity is therefore used here to represent the inappropriate use of discrimination against an offender by the criminal justice system. The second hypothesis, one of systemic disparity, provided the framework for this research, which posed the following primary question: Is there quantifiable evidence to support the existence of disparity acting against young male Aboriginal offenders within Queensland's juvenile justice system? Two separate but complementary studies were designed to address this issue: the pathways study and the trajectory study. The pathways study utilised 20,648 finalised appearances for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders in Queensland's juvenile courts, during 1999 to 2003. Three custodial decision-making stages (police custody, remand, and sentencing) were examined and two questions initially posed: Does the custodial decision made at one stage of the juvenile justice system impact on a subsequent custodial decision-making stage? Does criminal history, Aboriginal status, offence type or an interaction of these factors significantly influence the probability of (i) detention in police custody (ii) court remand (iii) a custodial order at sentencing? It was recognised that other legally relevant factors such as family structure and stability, school attendance and community ties might also influence these custodial decisions; however, for the purposes of this research it was not possible to include these variables in the analyses. Controlling for criminal history, findings from logistic regression analyses indicated that being detained in police custody increased the odds of being remanded into custody, and being remanded into custody increased the odds of a custodial order. Whilst Aboriginal status was not a consistent factor at any of these three custodial stages, there was clear evidence of disparity acting against the young male Aboriginal offender, particularly early in their criminal career. To examine these disparities further, these three custodial stages were modeled as eight processing pathways: four of which resulted in a custodial order and four in a noncustodial order. Using this processing model, a third question was posed: Do young Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders have different custodial pathways? Findings indicated that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders were in general, processed along similar custodial pathways that did not include police custody, remand or a custodial order. However, young male Aboriginal offenders were less likely than equivalent non-Aboriginal offenders to have been processed along this pathway and more likely to be processed along the pathways that included remand. It was found that young offenders with a chronic criminal history were more likely to be processed along these remand pathways, and Aboriginal offenders were more likely to have a chronic criminal history than non-Aboriginal offenders; there was clear evidence of disparity at specific custodial stages of the system. In addition, as young male Aboriginal offenders progressed deeper into the system there was evidence of cumulative disparity, particularly along the remand pathways, meaning that the probability of being in custody increases as the offender progresses from one custodial stage to the next custodial stage. Given the existence of disparity, acting within the juvenile justice system and against the young male Aboriginal offender, it was important to formulate viable solutions to such disparity, particularly in light of the Queensland government's commitment to reduce Aboriginal offenders in custody by 50%. Deterministic analyses and computer simulations were used to test the viability of various reduction scenarios suggested by the data. Despite in some instances, different results from the deterministic analyses and the computer simulations, overall findings indicated that to reduce custodial disparity whether at the remand stage, the custodial order stage, or in custody overall (the summation of police custody, remand and custodial orders) that reducing remand, regardless of whether the young offender had been in police custody or not, was the best overall solution. The trajectory study built on the findings of the pathways study, which had identified criminal history as an important factor in the processing pathways of young male Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Using the semi-parametric group based method, the criminal trajectories of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders in Queensland were modeled. These trajectories were based on the finalised appearances of two cohorts of young offenders aged 10 to 17 years of age: those born in 1983 and 1984 and who had turned 18 years of age in 2001 and 2002 respectively. All of these young male offenders had entered the adult system when they turned 17 years of age, and this data provided their complete juvenile history in Queensland. Prior analyses using this method had not considered Aboriginal status or race as a determining factor in these trajectory models, nor had these models been validated either internally or externally in published works. For this research, internal validity was considered as the correct classification of offenders into trajectory groups, and external validity as the ability to reproduce these results in a second or subsequent sample of juvenile offenders. Two questions were therefore posed in the trajectory study: Do young Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders have different criminal trajectories? Can the predicted model(s) be validated, both internally and externally? Initial findings indicated that the optimal trajectory models selected on prior knowledge and the Bayesian Information Criterion did not validate internally. This finding brought into question the trajectory results of other published works that had not internally validated their models. The models finally selected as optimal indicated that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders did not have a common criminal trajectory and could not be modeled as one population. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young offenders were modeled by a low-frequency group, a late-onset group, and a chronic trajectory group. However, the young male Aboriginal offender was more likely than the non-Aboriginal to have been in the chronic or the late onset group and less likely to have been in the lowfrequency group. External validation utilised an innovative but simple method that utilised all of the data in the modeling process along with a sample of this same data for validation purposes: 10% of the criminal profiles, which were characteristic of the trajectory groups, and a further 5% of randomly selected profiles were chosen for validation. All of the characteristic profiles, but only 50% of the randomly selected profiles were validated, and of the latter, the majority not validated was in the late-onset group. In total, 79.2% of the Aboriginal trajectories and 85.6% of the non-Aboriginal criminal trajectories were correctly externally validated. Overall, there are two important implications from this research for government. First, even though young male Aboriginal offenders are more likely to have a chronic criminal history than non-Aboriginal offenders, this factor does not account for all of the observed disparity acting against the young Aboriginal offender within Queensland's juvenile justice system: there is evidence of disparity within the system that is unaccounted for by either offence type or criminal history. Second, given this chronic criminal history, systemic solutions to systemic disparity whilst viable, will not ultimately resolve this problem: they are only short-term measures at the end of a very long justice system. Longer-term solutions are needed to address external factors such as socio-economic disadvantage, unemployment and substance abuse in Aboriginal communities, before these young people are exposed to the system. Continuing to concentrate on systemic solutions, to such an entrenched problem as Aboriginal overrepresentation and disparity, is a misdirection of system resources and is inconsistent with social justice.

This research utilised a range of deterministic and stochastic analyses to establish whether Queensland's juvenile justice system processes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders differently. The impetus for this research stemmed from the continued high rates of Aboriginal over-representation within Australia's criminal justice system, despite diversionary measures to reduce such over-representation, and a commitment by the Queensland Government to reduce by 50% the number of Aboriginal peoples in custody by the year 2011. There are two competing hypotheses concerning the cause of this over-representation, (i) external factors such as socioeconomic disadvantage, unemployment or substance abuse, or (ii) systemic disparity within the criminal justice system. For this research, disparity is defined as the unacceptable use of discrimination; discrimination can be appropriate if it is used to define or enhance a situation, such as discriminating between offenders who are recidivists and those who are first time offenders. The inappropriate use of discrimination occurs for example, when harsher sentences are issued to offenders based on non-legal factors such as race or gender. Systemic disparity is therefore used here to represent the inappropriate use of discrimination against an offender by the criminal justice system. The second hypothesis, one of systemic disparity, provided the framework for this research, which posed the following primary question: Is there quantifiable evidence to support the existence of disparity acting against young male Aboriginal offenders within Queensland's juvenile justice system? Two separate but complementary studies were designed to address this issue: the pathways study and the trajectory study. The pathways study utilised 20,648 finalised appearances for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders in Queensland's juvenile courts, during 1999 to 2003. Three custodial decision-making stages (police custody, remand, and sentencing) were examined and two questions initially posed: Does the custodial decision made at one stage of the juvenile justice system impact on a subsequent custodial decision-making stage? Does criminal history, Aboriginal status, offence type or an interaction of these factors significantly influence the probability of (i) detention in police custody (ii) court remand (iii) a custodial order at sentencing? It was recognised that other legally relevant factors such as family structure and stability, school attendance and community ties might also influence these custodial decisions; however, for the purposes of this research it was not possible to include these variables in the analyses. Controlling for criminal history, findings from logistic regression analyses indicated that being detained in police custody increased the odds of being remanded into custody, and being remanded into custody increased the odds of a custodial order. Whilst Aboriginal status was not a consistent factor at any of these three custodial stages, there was clear evidence of disparity acting against the young male Aboriginal offender, particularly early in their criminal career. To examine these disparities further, these three custodial stages were modeled as eight processing pathways: four of which resulted in a custodial order and four in a noncustodial order. Using this processing model, a third question was posed: Do young Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders have different custodial pathways? Findings indicated that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders were in general, processed along similar custodial pathways that did not include police custody, remand or a custodial order. However, young male Aboriginal offenders were less likely than equivalent non-Aboriginal offenders to have been processed along this pathway and more likely to be processed along the pathways that included remand. It was found that young offenders with a chronic criminal history were more likely to be processed along these remand pathways, and Aboriginal offenders were more likely to have a chronic criminal history than non-Aboriginal offenders; there was clear evidence of disparity at specific custodial stages of the system. In addition, as young male Aboriginal offenders progressed deeper into the system there was evidence of cumulative disparity, particularly along the remand pathways, meaning that the probability of being in custody increases as the offender progresses from one custodial stage to the next custodial stage. Given the existence of disparity, acting within the juvenile justice system and against the young male Aboriginal offender, it was important to formulate viable solutions to such disparity, particularly in light of the Queensland government's commitment to reduce Aboriginal offenders in custody by 50%. Deterministic analyses and computer simulations were used to test the viability of various reduction scenarios suggested by the data. Despite in some instances, different results from the deterministic analyses and the computer simulations, overall findings indicated that to reduce custodial disparity whether at the remand stage, the custodial order stage, or in custody overall (the summation of police custody, remand and custodial orders) that reducing remand, regardless of whether the young offender had been in police custody or not, was the best overall solution. The trajectory study built on the findings of the pathways study, which had identified criminal history as an important factor in the processing pathways of young male Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Using the semi-parametric group based method, the criminal trajectories of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders in Queensland were modeled. These trajectories were based on the finalised appearances of two cohorts of young offenders aged 10 to 17 years of age: those born in 1983 and 1984 and who had turned 18 years of age in 2001 and 2002 respectively. All of these young male offenders had entered the adult system when they turned 17 years of age, and this data provided their complete juvenile history in Queensland. Prior analyses using this method had not considered Aboriginal status or race as a determining factor in these trajectory models, nor had these models been validated either internally or externally in published works. For this research, internal validity was considered as the correct classification of offenders into trajectory groups, and external validity as the ability to reproduce these results in a second or subsequent sample of juvenile offenders. Two questions were therefore posed in the trajectory study: Do young Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders have different criminal trajectories? Can the predicted model(s) be validated, both internally and externally? Initial findings indicated that the optimal trajectory models selected on prior knowledge and the Bayesian Information Criterion did not validate internally. This finding brought into question the trajectory results of other published works that had not internally validated their models. The models finally selected as optimal indicated that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young male offenders did not have a common criminal trajectory and could not be modeled as one population. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young offenders were modeled by a low-frequency group, a late-onset group, and a chronic trajectory group. However, the young male Aboriginal offender was more likely than the non-Aboriginal to have been in the chronic or the late onset group and less likely to have been in the lowfrequency group. External validation utilised an innovative but simple method that utilised all of the data in the modeling process along with a sample of this same data for validation purposes: 10% of the criminal profiles, which were characteristic of the trajectory groups, and a further 5% of randomly selected profiles were chosen for validation. All of the characteristic profiles, but only 50% of the randomly selected profiles were validated, and of the latter, the majority not validated was in the late-onset group. In total, 79.2% of the Aboriginal trajectories and 85.6% of the non-Aboriginal criminal trajectories were correctly externally validated. Overall, there are two important implications from this research for government. First, even though young male Aboriginal offenders are more likely to have a chronic criminal history than non-Aboriginal offenders, this factor does not account for all of the observed disparity acting against the young Aboriginal offender within Queensland's juvenile justice system: there is evidence of disparity within the system that is unaccounted for by either offence type or criminal history. Second, given this chronic criminal history, systemic solutions to systemic disparity whilst viable, will not ultimately resolve this problem: they are only short-term measures at the end of a very long justice system. Longer-term solutions are needed to address external factors such as socio-economic disadvantage, unemployment and substance abuse in Aboriginal communities, before these young people are exposed to the system. Continuing to concentrate on systemic solutions, to such an entrenched problem as Aboriginal overrepresentation and disparity, is a misdirection of system resources and is inconsistent with social justice.
Thesis (PhD Doctorate)
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Full Text