And Justice for Some, Conclusion

Conclusion

Historically, the most punitive and restrictive sanction facing youth charged with a criminal offense involved court-ordered placement in a residential facility–particularly public training schools. The recent past, however, has revealed growing sentiment away from the early juvenile court's original goals of diversion and treatment towards punishment, accountability and public safety. In addition, state legislatures are increasingly moving away from case-specific decisions to transfer juveniles to criminal court in favor of transfer decisions based on the offender's age or offense seriousness.

As the blurring of the line between juvenile and criminal court increases, so does the likelihood that these trends will disproportionately effect minority youth. Already, African American juveniles are overrepresented with respect to their proportion in the population at every decision point in the process (Figure 16). African Americans were :

Figure 16

Unfortunately, the cumulative disadvantage of minority youth will continue to spiral as states continue to pass more punitive laws allowing youth to be charged as adults and, therefore, subject to adult sanctions such as prison and the death penalty. Thus, as legislative trends push beyond the boundary of juvenile justice, the continued amplification of minority youth in the system–as well as the consequences resulting from such a system–will continue as well, unless significant action is taken at the federal, state and local levels.

While "Equal Justice Under Law" is the foundation of our legal system, and is carved on the front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the juvenile justice system is anything but equal. However throughout the system, minority youth–especially African American youth– receive different and harsher treatment. This is true even when White youth and minority youth are charged with similar offenses. This report documents a juvenile justice system that is "separate but unequal."

It is time for a nationwide effort to identify the causes of this differential treatment of minority youth and a concerted campaign to provide a fair and equal justice system for our youth.

Sources

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1998). National Corrections Reporting Program, 1992 and 1996 [United States], prison admissions data [machine-readable data files]. Washington, DC: BJS.

DeComo, R. (1993, September). The Juveniles Taken into Custody Research Program: Estimating the prevalence of juvenile custody rates by race and gender. NCCD Focus. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1999). Crime in the United States, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Krisberg, B., & Austin, J. (1993). Reinventing juvenile justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, Inc.

U.S. Census Bureau. Population Division, Population Projections Branch. (1999, June 4). U.S. population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1980-1998. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/uspop.html.

U.S. Census Bureau. Population Division, Population Projections Branch. (1999, October 6). Population estimates for states by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1980-1998. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/uspop.html.

Snyder, H., Finnegan, T., Stahl, A., & Poole, R. (1999). Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1988-1997 [data presentation and analysis package]. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice [producer]. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [distributor].

Snyder, H. (1999). Juvenile arrests 1998. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Endnotes

  1. Leonard, K., Pope, C., & Feyerherm, W. (eds.). (1995). Minorities in juvenile justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE , Inc.
  2. Leonard & Feyerherm. (1995).
  3. Hamparian, D., & Leiber, M. (1997). Disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles in secure facilities: 1996 national report. Champaign, IL: Community Research Associates.
  4. Males, M., & Macallair, D. (2000). The color of justice: An analysis of juvenile adult court transfers in California. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth.
  5. Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
  6. Strom, K., Smith, S., & Snyder, H. (1998). Juvenile felony defendants in criminal courts. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  7. Strom, K. (2000). Profile of state prisoners under age 18, 1985-97. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  8. Leonard & Feyerherm. (1995).
  9. Amnesty International. (1998). Betraying the young: Human rights violations against children in the U.S. justice system. AI Index: AMR 51/60/98.
  10. Hamparian & Leiber (1997).
  11. It should be noted that the current status of minority representation may differ from the summarization found in Hamparian & Leiber (1997).
  12. Snyder & Sickmund (1999).
  13. Juveniles taken into custody research program: FY 1994 annual report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, forthcoming.
  14. This method was described in Disproportionate minority confinement: lessons learned from five states. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1998).
  15. More specifically, the State Juvenile Corrections System Reporting Program (SJCSRP) identifies prevalence as the estimated proportion of the at-risk population of youth who are likely to be committed to the custody of state juvenile corrections systems by age 18.
  16. Strom (2000).
NEXT PAGE | PREVIOUS PAGE