Реферат: Law Enforcement and the Youthful Offender
l
Law Enforcement and The Youthful Offender
Juvenile delinquency is not a new invention; it is old as time. Socrates is
alleged to have observe: ”The children now love luxury. They have bad
manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders love chatter
in place of exercise. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room.
They contradict their parents. Chatter before company. Gobble up dainties at
the table, and tyrannize over their teachers.”
History also suggest that the separation of juvenile and adult offenders
dates back almost 2500 years, as early as fifth century B.C. under Roman Law.
The Twelve Tables of Roman Law, for example, made the theft of crops, when
perpetrated at night a capital crime. An offender under the age of puberty,
however, was usually fined and, on some occasions, flogged. Thus, as far back
as 451 B.C., juvenile crimes existed. Although juvenile delinquency has a
long history, youthful crime is now so alarming in extent and kind that we
must modify our approach to juvenile offenders.
Just how serious is the problem.
In the last ten years, crime in the United States has increased four times
faster than the national population! The problem is much more chilling when
one refers to statistics relating to juvenile crime. More crimes are now
committed by children under fifteen – by our more precious asset, the youth
of the United States – than by over twenty five! Reports from the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency and from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
show a staggering upsurge in the number of juveniles arrested foe serious
crimes.
So and what is juvenile delinquency? Juvenile delinquency means different things
to different people. To some, a juvenile delinquent is a boy or girl arrested
for a law violation. To others, a single appearance in juvenile court
identifies the delinquent. To many, the term covers a variety of antisocial
behaviors that offends them, whether or not the law is violated. Juvenile
delinquency is a blanket term that obscures rather than clarifies our
understanding of human behavior. It describes a large variety of youths in
trouble or on the verge of trouble. The delinquent may be anything
from a normal mischievous youngster to a youth that is involved in a law
violation by accidents. Or he may be a vicious assaultive person who is
habitual offender and is recipient of some gratification from his conduct. As a
blanket term, delinquency is like the concept of illness. A person maybe ill
and have polio or measles. The illness is different, the cause is different,
and the treatment is different. The same is true of delinquency. Like illness,
delinquency describes many problems that develop from varied causes and require
different kinds of treatment. So legally speaking, then, a juvenile delinquent
is a child (age defined by statue) who commits any act that would constitute a
crime if done by an adult and who is adjudicated as such by an appropriate
court.
The police concept classifies the delinquent as the statistical delinquent
and personality-disordered delinquent. The statistical delinquent is a
youngster who is involved in a delinquent act through impulsiveness or
immaturity. As an example, he is involved in an automobile theft without, at
that time, realizing the consequence of his actions. Such actions usually
occur “on the spur of the moment” while the individual is involved with other
youngsters. This youngster is not a recidivist and responds to agency
services provided. However he is a “statistic” because this impulsive
delinquent act is reported by the arresting agency and, in some cases, in a
subsequent referral to the juvenile court.
On the other hand, the personality-disordered delinquent is the youth who is
often involved in a series of antisocial acts that necessitates, in most
instances, a referral to the juvenile court and, in most cases, custodial
care or some type of official help.
So attempting to define a delinquent is extremely difficult. Juvenile
delinquency is not a simple term. It is very elusive and means many different
things to different individuals, and it means many different things to
different groups. When using the term ‘juvenile delinquency’ properly, one
realizes that almost everything a youngster does that does not meet with the
approval of individuals or groups may be referred to as a delinquent act. For
purposes of research, evaluation, or statistical records, such popular usage
is not acceptable.
There are ambiguities and variations in definitions of delinquency in the
United States. Many of the states do not agree on the description of a
juvenile delinquent. Statutory language is extremely broad and covers
virtually any form of antisocial conduct by juveniles. In virtually all
states, moral judgements of the community are an important ingredient in
defining a delinquent. Many children may be tried for not only violations of
sate statues or municipal ordinances but also for ‘ noncriminal behavior’
such as incorrigibility, truancy, and the use of obscene language. This are
crimes which, if committed by an adult, would result neither in arrest nor
court appearance. Age limitations here are a major problem because the states
set various and arbitrary upper-age limits on behavior deemed to be
delinquent.
Delinquency is often the result of a combination of factors, some of which
may be founded in environment of the child and others within the child
himself.
So before turning to the various theories of delinquency causation that are
discussed before, it is important to point out the correlative factors of
delinquency. Correlative factors relative not only to the physical contexts
of delinquency, but to the social-psychological climates closely associated
with delinquency.
The correlatives of delinquency are: age, sex, poverty, and social class
membership, primary group and schools.
And now I’d like to tell about this factors more closely. So the first is age
factor. If the causal roots of delinquency are debatable, there can be no
argument about the age factor. No matter what the category of time or
delinquency statistics – and they are both highly variable and both open to
serious question – one striking trend appears again and again: there is an
ever higher proportion of offenders among those of young age. The statistics
do seem to justify the following sets of conclusions: (1) the crime rate is
highest during or shortly before adolescence. (2) The age of maximum
criminally varies with the type of the crime (the age group of fifteen to
nineteen years has the highest official rate for theft auto; the age group
twenty to twenty-four has the highest official rate of robbery, forgery and
rape; and the age group thirty-five to thirty-nine has the highest rate for
gambling and violation of narcotic drug laws). (3) The age of first
delinquency and the type of crime typically committed at various age varies
from the area to area in cities, the age of first criminality is low in areas
of high rather than low delinquency (boys aged ten to twelve commit robberies
in some areas of large cities, while the boys of the same age commit only
petty thefts in less delinquent areas). And (4) The age of maximum general
criminality for most specific offences is higher for females than for males.
This trend is growing in many states and the importance of early
rehabilitative procedures before the individual is remanded to adult penal
custody is gaining wide support. Individualized treatment can best be
accomplished, it is being recognized, when individual is still young.
The second is sex factor. Boys are apprehended for offences approximately 3.5
times more frequently than are girls. The underlying reasons are not
difficult to locate. It is because of role-behavior difference and status
distinctions accorded to adolescence in the American culture, the society
expects girls to act differently tan boys, and surrounds their behavior with
restrictions that act as barriers to delinquent activity. Delinquency among
boys is induced largely by opportunities presented by the environment, while
among girls delinquency is due more often to emotional maladjustments and
personal inadequacies.
The third factor is poverty. Now few of the variables associated with crime
and delinquency have been more misunderstood than that of poverty. Contrary
to early investigations, recent studies indicate almost “null” relationship
between poverty and delinquency. This does not mean, however, that conditions
of poverty no longer breed crime and delinquency. Low economic status is not
a direct cause of delinquency. It is rather one of many variables that more
or less automatically “go together,” (including broken families, suicide,
certain types of psychosis, and alcoholism). But correlations and cause-and-
effect relationships are not necessarily synonymous. We can safely assert,
then, that although poverty and low economic standards are concomitant with
delinquency, they are not indispensable characteristics. To be “poor but
hones” is, in fact, the rule than the exception.
The forth factor is social-class membership: middle-class and lower-class
delinquency. Despite the professed democratic idea of a “classless” society,
a realistic appraisal of the contemporary social-economic map dictates an
irrefutable fact: Americans are stratified into hierarchical system of power,
prestige, and value-oriented groupings. Awareness of social stratification
groupings is unnecessary so long as people’s life styles, values, ideals,
motivations, and social intercourse are limited to sets of clique of like-
minded, similarly oriented people. American lower-class and middle-class
subcultures differ from one another at highly significant points. But the
most crucial differences, in terms of delinquency, relate to the vastly
different child–rearing techniques and social values instilled in children by
the two classes. At the risk of generalizing, it can be asserted that where
the middle class typically stresses parent/children relationship geared to
love and dependence through late adolescence, the lower class tend to give
their children physical and psychological freedom well before the adolescence
years. It is far from surprising, then, that delinquency finds far more
fertile ground in the lower class sectors of the typical city – and
particularly in those that are situated in slum areas. Bearing in mind what
we have already observed about the adolescent rejection of parental values
and need for peer-group identification, we can readily see the intense grip
that the gang – delinquent or “legitimate” – holds on the lower class
adolescent’s loyalties. More frequently - almost typically, in fact – the
middle class delinquent is a diametric counterpart of the lower class
delinquent. Where the lower class delinquent is smoothly socialized and well-
liked by hi peers, the former middle-class delinquent is often seriously
maladjusted ant at odds with his fellow adolescents.
So as one can see, the juvenile justice system has many segments. Police,
courts, correctional institutes, and aftercare services (the correctional
process that deals with the juvenile after institutionalization has taken
place is referred to as aftercare services). The interrelationship between
various segments of the system is, apparently, the most significant problem
in the juvenile justice system. In other words, the system is no more
systematic than the relationship between police and court, court and
probation, probation and correctional institutes, correctional institutes and
aftercare services. In the absence of functional relationship between
segments, the juvenile justice system is vulnerable to fragmentation and
ineffectiveness.
As previously noted, delinquency is a phenomena as old as history and as
complex as nuclear physics. Its causes are multiply, and the emphasis shifts
with the changes in society. Nor are all delinquents cast from the same mold
– they are individual human beings with all their differences. Because there
are so many possible causes of delinquency, a wide variety of factors tend to
be held responsible – separately or in combination. The individual himself,
his family, his neighbors, his school, his church, his place of residence,
his government – an endless list which is, thus, the reason for ambiguities
in theories. The result: everyone is responsible for delinquency and, of
course, when everyone is responsible for something, no one really is.
Traditionally, all efforts in prevention have been aimed toward containing
and repressing incipient delinquents through law enforcement agencies. In
recent years, there have been strong efforts to improve rehabilitative
processes for already identified delinquents so that the amount of recidivism
might be reduced. So the way to solve the delinquency problem is to prevent
boys and girls from becoming delinquents in the first place. Society is not
solving that problem because the emphasis is not placed on that all-important
job: prevention. Moreover, it appears that society is blocked by a
psychological wall of fallacies which keep everyone busy with impractical
plans that are doomed to fail right from the start. The correctional program
in the United States seems to be content with treating individual delinquents
after they have already committed delinquent acts, while such programs
overlook most entirely the factors that contribute to delinquency. Society
must find a way to correct the faulty home and environment before child
becomes a police case. It is both unfair and impractical to rely upon a few
private a agencies to do this large-scale, complex public job.
The primary responsibility of law enforcement is the control and prevention
of crime and delinquency through the enforcement of laws that are necessary
for the good order of society. Since many criminal are committed by minors
under the age of eighteen years, a large proportion of police works involves
the detection, investigation, apprehension, and referral of these juveniles.
In addition, law enforcement agencies are concerned with minors who come to
their attention for noncriminal reasons. The initial handing of neglected
children, for example, is often a police matter; and police officers also
have the responsibility of dealing with runaway, incorrigible, and wayward
youngsters.
In almost every aspect of their work with juveniles, the police must have
contact with at least one other agency in the community. It must be
recognized that the police services are only a part of the total community
effort to promote the welfare of children and young people. For police
services to be made more effective, then, they must be planned in
relationship to the overall community program as well as to the services
offered by individual agencies. Although police officers, and particularly
special juvenile officers, should be familiar with the contribution and
operation of all agencies in the community (an up-to-date directory of
agencies can be of great value), it is clear that the major part of their
work with children will involve contact with only a limited number of
agencies. This contact should normally be close and continuous and,
therefore, the relationship should be based on a clear understanding and
amicable acceptance of the role of each of the participants. But in
conclusion I want to say that there is often a lack of communication between
the police and other young serving agencies in the community resulting in
mutual criticism and feelings of hostility. Police sometimes say such
agencies fail to advise them of action taken concerning juveniles brought to
their attention. Agency personnel, on the other hand, often attribute the
hostility and bad behavior of the juveniles turned over to them by the police
to the unsympathetic “treatment” given them by the police. Social agencies
personnel, including probation officers and even some judges, see only
effective treatment. On the other side, some police see such agency
personnel as unrealistically soft and permissive even to the extent of being
“played for suckers” by cunning, worldly wise “young punks.” Feelings such as
these on both sides are certainly not conducive to effective communication to
say nothing of real cooperation.
