Rhoads 1

Forrest Rhoads
Professor Jessica Alzen
California Baptist University
English 123
20 May 2017
Should Juveniles be Incarcerated or Treated?
In the United States, mass incarceration is at an all-time high and jail and prison

populations are staying the same. In the article Mass incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017 by

Peter Wagner attorney and Executive Director of the Prison Policy Initiative, gives us a good

understanding of how many jail facilities and inmates are within the United States. For example,

The American criminal justice system holds more than 2.3 million people in 1,719 state prisons,

102 federal prisons, 901 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,163 local jails, and 76 Indian Country

jails as well as in military prisons, immigration detention facilities, civil commitment centers,

and prisons in the U.S. territories (Wagner). With the United States national debt still around 19

trillion dollars, according to the New York Times, the cost to house each inmate is

approximately $32000. Another example of how mass incarceration is a big issue is found in an

article from Grace Wyler an editor for Vice News, Business Insider, and currently Southern

California News Group. The article Mass Incarceration in America. Says Today, more than

one out of every 100 Americans is behind bars, and the US has the largest prison population in

the world, both in terms of the actual number of inmates and as a percentage of the total

population. The numbers are staggering: The US incarceration rate is nearly 3.5 times higher

than that of Mexico, a country that has spent the last decade in the throes of an actual drug war,

and between five and ten times higher than those seen in Western Europe. There are more people

locked up in the US than in China. In fact, the US is home to nearly a quarter of the world's

prisoners, despite accounting for just 5 percent of the overall global population (Wyler). With
 Rhoads 2

this data, the United States criminal justice system appears weak compared to other countries and

may show that our government is not in control of its own nation. Many people may argue that

crime rates have gone down therefore, prison populations would be lower. However, Wyler

found, And the actual benefits of mass incarceration are minimal, at best. Sure, crime rates have

gone down since 1980, but studies have found the connection between increased prison rates and

lower crime is tenuous and small. In fact, a report released by The Sentencing Project this week

found that in states that have substantially reduced their prison population in recent years, like

California, New York, and New Jersey, the crime rate has actually fallen faster than the national

average (Wyler). This shows that the when fewer inmates are incarcerated crime rates are lower

on average, but the number of inmates remain the same.

Juveniles within the United States are an even bigger issue, because they are uneducated

and have undeveloped brains. For example, in the article Adolescent Brain development:

Implications for the Juvenile Criminal Justice System by Beatriz Luna and Catherine Wright

describes how the brain of adolescents are not fully developed until the age of sixteen to early

twenties. For example, (Figure

1) from "Adolescent Brain

Development: Implications for

the Juvenile Criminal Justice

System by Luna, Beatriz and

Catherine Wright, shows how

the amount of gray matter in the

brain changes in adolescent

years. Gray matter is in regions of the brain that involve muscle control, sensory perception,
 Rhoads 3

memory, emotions and speech. This allows connections between synaptic neurons and is the site

of information processing. A series of MRIs reviewed over the course of adolescent years shows

that gray matter increases before puberty, shows a peek during the pubertal period, and then

declines after puberty. The superior temporal cortex which is full of gray matter is the area that

supports social cognitive process and also shows a lack of development. Studies of MRIs have

also shown that the basal ganglia, the area of the brain that controls motivation has a low level of

development in childhood years. With these areas of the brain showing a lack of development

during adolescent years causes immaturities that are relevant to decision making and emotions.

Testosterone and estradiol have been found to be linked to gray matter during puberty. Another

area of the brain that is not fully developed is white matter. White matter consists of millions of

cables that connect the individual neurons within the different brain regions. Myelination is the

process of when the thickening of white matter occurs increasing the speed of neuronal

transmission and neuronal signal. This is the area of the brain that connects the gray matter

together and allows communication between them. Lack of development in this area also leads to

immaturities that effects emotional processing. Puberty is also linked to white matter changes

that includes the frontal lobe regions that has effects on socioemotional processing.

The immaturities related to the undeveloped brain of juveniles lessen moral culpability.

Culpability is how someone sees right from wrong and is associated with a persons intention to

cause harm. In this article, it is seen that teenagers can be impulse driven when rewards and

emotions are involved and especially when they are around their friends. This can cause

adolescents to take more risks and not think about their actions. It was also found that

immaturities in the brain can increase culpability at the time of the offence. The fact that

adolescents have undeveloped brains could be the fact that causes them to commit crimes. If
 Rhoads 4

their brains were fully developed and they could understand their actions, they may have chosen

not to commit the crime in the first place. In another article from The National Institute of Justice

titled From Juvenile Delinquency to Young Adult Offending by Robert Hoge et all says, most

states mark the legal transition from adolescence to adulthood at age 18, researchers question

whether the human brain is fully mature at that age (Hoge et all). The question is, does

adolescence end at eighteen?

This study found that youth

dont completely stop acting out

until their early twenties.

According to the graph (Figure

2) From the article From

Juvenile Delinquency to Young

Adult Offending for the National Institute of Justice by Hoge, Robert D, et all states, The

prevalence of offending tends to increase from late childhood, peak in the teenage years (from

15 to 19) and then decline in the early 20s The curve for violence tends to peak later than that

for property crimes. Girls peak earlier than boys. The curve is higher and wider for young males

(especially minorities) growing up in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (Hoge et all). This

shows that young adults havent truly learned or understand the consequence of their actions.

The United States needs to find different and more productive ways to teach, treat and

rehabilitate juveniles. In this research paper, I will argue that incarcerating juveniles only causes

more harm and makes them commit more crime. This problem can be solved by advocating

programs such as Aggression Replacement Tanning (A.R.T), substance abuse treatment and

standardizing them across the nation.

 Rhoads 5

First, the history of the current issues that the United States has on mass juvenile

incarceration started in the 1980s. Many states have passed bills that allow prosecutors to skip

Juvenile court and have a trial as an adult. The article Trends in Juvenile Justice State

Legislation 2001 2011 Written by Sarah Brown, talks about what has happened from 2001 till

20ll in the Juvenile Justice System within the USA. For example, A rise in serious juvenile

crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to state laws that moved away from the traditional

emphasis on rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system toward tougher, more punitive treatment

of youth, including adult handling. During the past decade, juvenile crime rates have declined,

and state legislatures are reexamining juvenile justice policies and rebalancing approaches to

juvenile crime and delinquency (Brown) Although juvenile crime rates have declined and

detention centers have lower populations, recidivism percentages remain about the same.

The fact that juveniles are being tried as adults are making things more worse than they

already are. It has been proven that it just makes them more violent or caused them to commit

more crime. For example, in an article from the Washington Post titled Adult System Worsens

Juvenile Recidivism, Report Says Written by Robert Pierre a Staff Writer for the News agency.

His article is written on why this change in legislation hasnt work as our government thought it

would. He writes, Those laws have not deterred other youths from committing crimes, nor have

they rehabilitated the youths sentenced under them, said Robert L. Johnson, dean of the New

Jersey Medical School, a member of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, which

was assembled by the CDC. "Not only does it not deter youth crime, it actually makes them more

violent," Johnson said. "It may salve our desire to punish. But don't get that confused with

rehabilitation. Don't make the mistake of believing that punishment will help anything. (Pierre)

Juveniles 14 years of age or older charged with committing certain types of murder or a serious
 Rhoads 6

sex offense, under Prop 21, are generally no longer eligible for juvenile court and prosecutors are

allowed to directly file charges against juvenile offenders in adult court for a variety of

circumstances without having to get the permission of juvenile court to do that.(Ballotpeda).

According to Ballotpeda.org fiscal impact from The California Legislative Analysts Office this

proposition cost the state $750 million dollars and has an annual cost of more than $330 million.

It would also cost local counties more than ten million up to $100 million and $200 to $300 up

front cost. This funding would allow the state and the juvenile court to expand treatment

facilities and incorporate new programs.

This is a turning point in juvenile incarceration, because institution population has

continued to increase. An article from the Prison Policy Initiative titled The Whole Pie 2017

by Peter Wagner and Bemadett Rabuy states that 34 thousand youth are locked up nationwide,

4,500 youth are locked up in adult prisons and 20 thousand are healed by the juvenile justice

system in residential facilities. This article found from the Juvenile Court Statistics from 2003

that This whole pie methodology also exposes some disturbing facts about the youth

entrapped in our juvenile justice system: Too many are there for a most serious offense that is

not even a crime. For example, there are almost 7,000 youth behind bars for technical

violations of the requirements of their probation, rather than for a new offense. Further, 600

youth are behind bars for status offenses, which are behaviors that are not law violations for

adults, such as running away, truancy, and incorrigibility (Ruby, Wagner). In my opinion,

detaining youth in detention facilities when they have not committed a crime should be banned

from all states. Laws and propositions need to be changed to allow youth to be able to have a

chance to change or be taught right from wrong.

 Rhoads 7

Next, to counter juvenile incarceration, the juvenile court and government need to

standardize and use treatment programs across the nation to rehabilitate adolescents. Treatment

programs such as intensive institutional treatment and multisystem therapies are being used

today to treat juveniles for multiple cases or crimes but space is limited because of funding.

Intensive institutional treatment uses Aggression Replacement Tanning (A.R.T). This is

conducted by teaching pro-social skills, anger control techniques, and how to make moral and

mature decisions. It is conducted by a mental health therapist with the help of the institution

staff. Multisystem therapies include Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, teaching family

and life skill training to teach youth ethical and more moral decisions. We can see an example of

how this treatment works in an article written by Michael Caldwell and Gregory Rybroek for

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. The article titled Reducing violence in serious

juvenile offenders using intensive treatment is a case study that that was done in 2005 at the

Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center in Wisconsin. The treatment program was developed to be

different than most juvenile correctional facilities. For example, During the study period MJTC

had one psychologist, one social worker, and a half psychiatry position for every 20 youth. By

contrast the JCIs had about one psychologist for every 75 youth, one social worker for every 40

youth, and one 8-h per week contracted psychiatrist for the institutional population of up to 500

(Caldwell, Rybroek). The importance of a more one-on-one environment allows the treatment

center to evaluate and treat each juvenile on a case by case basis.

There were 101 youth that were observed and were treated to the point of a recommended

release. The youth were not hand selected or excluded from the study for any reason. For

example, The treatment group consists of youth that were transferred to MJTC due to their

failure to adjust to the correctional institutional setting. They have been sufficiently disruptive or
 Rhoads 8

aggressive that they have, in effect, been expelled from traditional rehabilitation services.

There are no exclusion criteria such as low IQ, psychosis, neurological deficits, or antagonistic

resistance to treatment that would eliminate a juvenile for consideration for MJTC (Caldwell,

Rybroek). Caldwell and Rybroek compared to 147 youth that were transferred to the treatment

facility for the study that had similar cases. The Juveniles were a diverse group and consisted of

51% African-American, 38% White, 9% Hispanic, And 2% Asian or Middle Eastern males. The

results of the case study were reflected on a two year follow up to see if the juveniles re-offended

and commit more crimes. The youth that were treated had lower re-offense in each category

compared to the non-treated youth.

According to the graph (figure 3) from

"Reducing Violence in Serious Juvenile

Offenders Using Intensive Treament." for

International Journal of Law and

Psychiatry, vol. 28 by Michael Caldwell

and Gregory Van Rybroek state that, Within the two-year period 52% of the treatment group

recidivated versus 73% of the non-treated group. When it comes to recidivism in violence the

study found With regard to more serious violence, 37% of the comparison group was charged

with a violent felony, and 25% of those involved serious victim injury or death. By contrast, only

18% of the treatment group youth were charged with a violent felony, and only 7% involved

serious victim injury (Caldwell, Rybroek). This study was used to examine the outcome of

juvenile offenders that were proven unmanageable due to their violent past. This study proves

that juveniles can be rehabilitated even though they have been involved in violence.
 Rhoads 9

Another example of a great program that can benefit juveniles is substance abuse

treatment. An article written for The Journal of Criminal Justice by Stephen J. Tripodi and

Kimberly Bender titled Substance abuse treatment for juvenile offenders: A review of quasi-

experimental and experimental research is a literature review that highlights the effectiveness of

substance abuse treatment on alcohol and marijuana treatment. It is also written to evaluate and

compare the effects of individual-based interventions and family-based intervention. Individual-

based interventions are conducted on a one-to-one basis and versus family-based intervention

combine activities to build family support, trust, and education. Alcohol is the most abused

substance for Juveniles and alcohol causes more problems for adolescents. Teens that drink

usually drink excessively and it causes them to have impaired judgment and it reduces

inhibitions of their actions. For example, In 2008, 25% of 12th graders, 16% of 10th graders,

and 8% of 8th graders reported binge drinking (defined as having five or more drinks at a given

time during the prior two weeks (Johnston et al., 2010) (bender, Tripodi). These situations cause

more and more problems for adolescents such as comorbid mental health disorders (Rowe,

Liddle, Greenbaum, & Henderson, 2004) and neurocognitive deficits (Tapert, Brown, Myers, &

Granholm, 1999). Moreover, alcohol abusing youth generally have less motivation to succeed

academically (Baer, Garrett, Breadnell, Wells, & Peterson, 2007) and are at risk for subsequent

adult alcohol abuse and its related problems (D'Amico, Miles, Stern, & Meredith, 2008)

(bender, Tripodi. 2011). As you can see alcohol can cause long term negative affects to

adolescents.

Marijuana is the other most commonly used drug within juveniles and it is the easiest

drug to obtain. The percentages of juveniles that use marijuana are substantially high. For

example, the annual prevalence rates in 2008 for marijuana range were 33% for 12th
 Rhoads 10

graders, 24% for 10th graders, and 11% for eights graders (Johnston et al.) (bender, Tripodi.

2011). With more and more states making it legal to buy marijuana, it is easier for juveniles to

obtain and abuse this drug. Excessive marijuana use can lead to a huge list of medical related

problems. This study found that Excessive marijuana use has also been associated with

psychosocial risk (Volkow, 2005). Adolescents who abuse marijuana often demonstrate short-

term memory problems and difficulty maintaining attention in school (Ashton, 2001; Heishman,

Arasteh, & Stitzer, 1997; Pope & Yurgelun-Todd, 1996). Additionally, severe marijuana use is

associated with dropping out of high school and disruptions transitioning into adulthood,

including unemployment and juvenile/ criminal justice involvement (Brook, Adams, Balka, &

Johnson, 2002; Brook, Richter, Whiteman, & Cohen, 1999) (bender, Tripodi). As you can see

marijuana use can have a substantial impact on the decisions juveniles make on a day to day

basis

This case study aimed to identified all the studies that involved treatment for juveniles

that used and abused marijuana and alcohol within the justice system. The age group was

between 12-19 years old and was reviewed over a 50-year time span. The study used this criteria

to filter out the results, 1) tested an intervention to reduce alcohol or marijuana use (excluding

prevention studies, observational studies, and literature reviews/conceptual articles, 2) targeted

adolescents between the ages of 1219, 3) either took place in a juvenile justice setting or at least

50% of the sample were involved in the juvenile justice system, 4) examined quantitative alcohol

or marijuana use treatment outcomes, 5) provided necessary information to calculate effect sizes,

6) used a contrast condition for comparison (control group, wait-list control, or contrasting

treatment group as part of design) (Bender, Tripodi). This was used to make sure the results

were accurate so that treatment methods could be used correctly.

 Rhoads 11

The results of study were gathered from five different case studies that all showed

reduction in alcohol use. For example, Despite having longer outcome periods overall, family-

based interventions had a slightly larger average effect size than individual-based

interventions (Bender, Tripodi). Just like alcohol, marijuana also showed reduction in use from

the given treatment. However, only three case studies showed a significant drop in marijuana

use. For example, family-based interventions still produce a higher average effect size than

individual-based interventions (Bender, Tripodi). When it came to treatment the most effective

programs were family-based instead of individual-based treatments. The reasons the study found

that individual-based treatment was ineffective was because the youth refuse treatment because

of many reasons. For example, These reductions in effect size may be due to the challenges

inherent in working with adjudicated youth, including difficulty engaging youth in treatment, a

high incidence of involuntary clients encouraged to participate in treatment by other authority

figures, and a preponderance of individual, familial, and social risk factors among youth

involved in the juvenile justice system (Bender, Tripodi.). According to Sara Rhoads, A Deputy

Probation Officer for Riverside County, juveniles tend to skip treatment because it is not the cool

thing to and they also skip treatment for attention. The idea of treatment within the Juvenile

justice system needs to be changed to be a more positive activity.

This review of multiple case studies shows positive outcome for marijuana, alcohol and

several intervention treatments. Bender and Tripodi feel that further treatment needs to be done

to find what works best for juveniles. For example, Investment in adapting existing interventions

for juvenile justice-involved youth and development of specialized treatments followed by

rigorous evaluations of these approaches is likely to be a fruitful effort for improving the lives of

youth offenders and their families. (Bender, Tripodi). These programs are being used in some
 Rhoads 12

counties, including Riverside County, California. The Riverside County Probation Department is

opening the Alan M. Crogan Youth Treatment and Education Center (YTEC) in Summer, 2017.

This facility will offer Social Awareness Programs, pro-social activities, community

involvement, and family reunification to rehabilitate the youth that are sentenced to a treatment

program

With juvenile incarceration is at an all-time high since the early 2000, because of bills

that have been passed by the government and our nation. Treatment must be used when it comes

to juveniles instead of locking then away. Studies like the two discussed in this research paper

have been proven to help and change youth. There is also research that has been done to see

when adolescents tend to stop committing crime and it is around the same age and I is suspected

to be in ones late twenties. Although people may argue that they need to answer for their crimes,

their lives have just begun and they have a long time to answer for them. Incarceration,

especially in an adult prison or jail for juveniles, has also been proven to worsen youth and cause

them to commit more and worse crimes. I believe that rehabilitation programs and treatment will

give us the most change and move or nation into a more positive direction. In the future if you

are able to vote on bills regarding juvenile incarnation, please consider this research paper and

remember that everyone deserves a second chance especially juveniles.

As Christians, we should care about juvenile incarceration, because children are given to

us as gifts from God. We see an example of this in the book of Psalm. Behold, children are a

heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward (Psalm 127:3 ESV). Parents in the

United States neglect their children and do not show them the love they deserve. Children have

the right to know and understand that Jesus loves them and died for their sins. As Christians, we

should be role models to children that havent had anyone to look up to. There are many ways
 Rhoads 13

that Christians can help and reach out to children that are in the justice system. For example,

many local churches and have programs that go to juvenile halls or group homes. Another way

that Christians can get involved is by volunteering at a juvenile hall or group placement program

facility to let the kids know that you are there for them and Jesus loves them. It is our job to

preach Gods word and show everyone including children that he is the only thing that will

change their life.

 Rhoads 14

Works Cite

Ballotpeda. Report Advertisement California Proposition 21, Treatment of Juvenile Offenders

(2000) n.d Web. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_

Treatment_of_Juvenile_Offenders_(2000)

Brown, Sarah. Trends in Juvenile Justice State Legislation : 2001-2011. June 2012. Web

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/trendsinjuvenilejustice.pdf

Caldwell, Michael F. and Gregory J. Van Rybroek. "Reducing Violence in Serious Juvenile

Offenders Using Intensive Treament." International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, vol.

28, 01 Jan. 2005, pp. 622-636. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.07.001.

Greeters, Hans and Walter Hellinckx. "Evaluating Effects of Residential Treatment for Juvenile

Offenders by Statistical Metaanalysis: A Review." Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol.

9, 01 Jan. 2004, pp. 401-415. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00043-0.

Hoge, Robert D, et all. From Juvenile Delinquency to Young Adult Offending National

Institute of Justice 11 March 2014. Web. 20 May 2017.

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/Pages/delinquency-to-adult-offending.aspx.

Luna, Beatriz and Catherine Wright. "Adolescent Brain Development: Implications for the

Juvenile Criminal Justice System." APA Handbook of Psychology and Juvenile Justice.,
 Rhoads 15

Kirk Heilbrun, et al., American Psychological Association, 2016, pp. 91-116. APA

handbooks in psychology series. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/14643-005.

Pierre, Robert, Washington Post Adult System Worsens Juvenile Recidivism, Report Says 30

November 2007. Web. 16 June 2017. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2007/11/29/AR2007112901936.html

Ruby, Wagner. Prison Policy Initiative Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2017. 14 March

2017. Web. 16 June 2017. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2017.html

Tripodi, Stephen J. and Kimberly Bender. "Substance Abuse Treatment for Juvenile Offenders:

A Review of Quasi-Experimental and Experimental Research." Journal of Criminal

Justice, vol. 39, no. 3, May 2011, pp. 246-252. EBSCOhost,doi:10.1016/

j.jcrimjus.2011.02.007.

Wyler, Grace. Mass Incarceration in America Vice. 25 July 2014. Web. 20 May 2017

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mass-incarceration-in-america.