“We cannot run society for the privileged and allow a significant proportion of the population to be marginalized. It impacts the quality of life for all of us if we have “throw away” people. A justice system which tolerates injustice is doomed to collapse.”
-Leonard Noisette, Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, N.Y.

The problem of racial disparity in the criminal justice system is one of the most challenging facing American societies today. Many of the racial tensions and problems in society are seen in high-profile criminal cases and in the work of the prison and jail population nationally.

Addressing these problems is critical for many reasons. If the criminal justice system is to be viewed as effective and fair, then it needs the support and cooperation of all citizens and all communities. The perception of bias or unwarranted disparities can only interfere with the development of confidence and trust that is critical to effective crime control policies.

Criminal justice system cannot eliminate all disparities. The high rates of juvenile minority involvement in the system reflect a complex set of social, economic, and community problems. But the Criminal justice system does have the opportunity, and the obligation, to address those disparities over which it has some control or influence. This may involve the use of resources, discretion, leadership, and coordination among the characters in the system.

The Justice system also has the challenge of undertaking a leadership role in the way that the nation addresses racial disparities generally. If jurisdictions can put in policies and practices that successfully reduce disparities in the criminal justice system, then policymakers in other fields can learn from the success and adapt to those successful practices and policies.

The corrections programs that have the greatest return on their investment are those targeted at juveniles. Many of the programs recreate the powerful socialization forces of functional family life. The effectiveness of a program depends on whether its implemented properly.

A study done by Washington state institute of Public Policy stated, “Compared to adult programs, programs for juveniles are, on average, more effective at reducing future crime and producing benefits that outweigh public cost.” The greatest opportunity to prevent crime is to stop criminals at an adolescent stage.

When looking at juvenile delinquency programs it’s important to see how effective and cost effective they are. Washington State institute of public policy studied five effective rehabilitation programs. Multidimensional treatment, Youth peace program, peer mediation process, Rites of Passage and Functional family therapy. All of these programs produced significant reduction in arrest, violent crime, recidivism of other crimes, improved family functioning and reduction of youth entering adult criminal systems. All positive outcomes that cost between two thousand and five thousand dollars per juvenile.

The programs that aimed to create powerful socialization forces of family life were the most effective. Programs such as the ones that were studied are both cost effective and reduce juvenile crime. Programs can work extremely well, however, not all programs reach their potential. The effectiveness of a program depends on how it is implemented. Policymakers need to deliberately take steps in the design of their legislation to get the resources to make sure the programs are carried out as indented. If programs are carried out as intended then effective juvenile programs will continue to reduce crime rates and prevent future criminals in the process. All it takes is a little initiation from our policy makers and a grasp on juveniles may tighten as the years pass by.

Jailing Juveniles

Everyday in America an Average of 7500 youth are incarcerated in jail. Nearly two thirds are minorities. With so many young people being arrested, many are placed in adult jails. Placing juveniles in jail puts them at high risk. Juveniles in jail have a greater risk of physical and sexual assault. According to U.S. department of Justice Statistics, “21%-25% of victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were youth under the age of 18.” With this being recognized, some of the jails have separated juveniles from the adult population. Those youth that are not placed into adult population have the unfortunate luck to be placed into isolation. Being placed into isolation can last up to 23 hours in a cell with no day light. This can lead to or exacerbate mental disorders of anxiety and paranoia. This then explains why youth have the highest suicide rate of all inmates. Youth held in jails are 36 times more likely to commit suicide in an adult jail then in a juvenile detention facility.

Then why are juveniles placed into jails with adults? The fact is that federal and state government has inadequate resources to deal with juvenile delinquency. The laws and policies differ so much between federal and state to state. There is no real clear cut path on how to deal with juveniles.

The only real solution to this problem is to make policies and laws that are equally used throughout federal and state juvenile justice systems. The focus on youth correctional programs instead of incarceration should be implemented on a more consistent manner. These programs equip the youth to be productive, self efficient and better citizens. All the qualities to help at risk youth prepare to enter society as a law abiding citizen. A need for assistance to state and counties to comply with new requirements of in jail removal for youth. A major key to stopping dangers of incarcerating youth in adult jails is to build effective policies which direct youth into effective juvenile programs. This will place juveniles on a better path rather than placing them in danger

Fixing Police Policy

“Officers with the authority to use force come into a careful balance of all human interest that is required. The policy of the department that Officers will use only that force reasonably necessary to effectively bring an incident under control while protecting the lives of the Officer or the other person.” (Mays and Ruddell 67)

Officers are suppose to be guided by policies that generally spell out the circumstances under which the use of force is permissible. But why is it we are always confronted with Police brutality or excessive force? This is a subject, which seems to linger on the cusp of policing. There are clear-cut policies, which are implemented when officers are put into certain situations. The use of force then becomes an instant factor on those certain circumstances. Those policies can be hard to implement when an Officer is trying to restrain an uncooperative suspect and is confronted with fear. The fear that can they can be injured or killed. These influences are what many officers perceive to be a threat, and then call for the use of force. Every officer knows the rules and procedures on the amount of force that is allowable in each situation. Officers are granted to meet force with a slightly more-than-equal force. This is established with the use –of-force continuum that guides officers in a progression of force options available. They can range from verbal commands, pain compliance, less than lethal and lethal force. Those policies help prepare Officers for all situations

Perceptions of minority crime, media images of minorities as criminals, racial hoaxes, contribute to stereotypes of minorities justify racial profiling. This may be because law enforcement tends to work closely with communities that are more involved. Some Officers may enforce the law rather vigorously more than others, often targeting groups because they do not conform into society. This may be because officers see minorities involved in crimes that increase likelihood of victimization. As in the case where four Oakland officers were gunned downed on March 21, 2009. A black man named Lovelle Mixon, age 26, a parolee fled after shooting the two officers following a traffic stop, then shot two more after a SWAT team entered an apartment in which he was hiding,” as reported by CBS. Its situations such like this that continues to increase tensions between police and minorities. The question now is did those officers use excessive force to make Mixon shoot? As far as it’s been reported, it’s a definite no. However the need to stabilize policies and make reform for Officer use of force is needed.

With policies implemented to helping Officers there is a need to bring a more stable policy to work with officers and all communities. Some of the policies implemented provide a solid understanding of what circumstances officers may use force. However, some of these policies seem to target individuals and can cause friction between the public and Officers. Departments need to ensure that Officers are fully informed of policies and consequences. Setting up early warning system can help deal with police abuse. It also comes down to Officers and the community. Officers are the first to be criticized, so it is with extreme importance that they use the proper policies.

A Never Ending Argument of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment can be a taboo subject when spoken about. With both sides displaying facts that misrepresent each others case, there is no apparent winner. However in a fact finding argument it can be seen that capital punishment lacks consistency among minorities and creates racial disparities in sentencing. It suggests that race plays a role in the application of the death penalty.

As of March 12, 2009 there are 3309 adults on death row in the United States. Of those inmates 41.7% (1379) are African American, 45% (1489) White, 11% (364) Hispanic and 2.3% (77)other This means minorities represent more than half of the people on death row. This in turn leads to ethnicity of offender verse victim. Of the 41.7% African Americans, 235 have been sentenced to death for killing someone that is White Only 15 White people of the 45% have been sentenced for killing an African American.

With all the facts taken into account and many of the issues at hand the biased corporal punishment of United States towards minorities, specifically African Americans, needs to be reevaluated and modified. The ineffective guidelines and constraints in capital sentencing process are resulting in decisions that are prejudice. It has been proven with many studies and presented with the statistical facts above that racial disparities in sentencing suggest that race plays a role in the relevance of the death penalty. It can be seen that states that do not have the death penalty have a better success rate on crime and have done much better in the past ten years than states who impose the death penalty. The sentencing guidelines that help guide decisions are aware or unaware show prejudice about who the worst kind of criminals is and who the more approving victims are. In no way does the criminal justice process have the right to decide who is worthy of capital punishment by the ethnicity or race of a person. It is our rights as American Citizens to have to equal protection under the 14th amendment. Equality must be presented to all races and ethnicities at all times to have a equal treatment during sentencing deliberation. Possible steps could include the exclusion of defendant and victims race if possible. With the jury, judge and prosecution being excluded from race, there might be a chance for a deliberation that is solely based on the criminal act rather than racial disparities. Exploring better solutions can be a key factor to destroying the ineffective guidelines and constraints in the sentencing process.

However the criminal justice process has taken the proper steps in Juvenile offenders receiving the death penalty. In March of 2005 the U.S. ruled that the death penalty for those who had committed their crimes at under 18 years of age was cruel and unusual punishment and hence barred by the Constitution.There had been 22 Juveniles executed from 1976 to 2005. It seems that sentencing guidelines that fail to adequately guide capital punishment for adults has been dismissed within OJJDP. Racial disparities continue to plague the court system. But with the application of death penalty removed, it seems that the justice process is looking in the best interest for the youth.

Policies and Minority Juveniles

Criminal Justice policies and practices are tightly coupled with political behavior. Politicians contribute to fear of crime and lead the public to believe that crime is a serious social problem that needs government intervention. That is where politicians implement policies that do not rehabilitate and crack down on juvenile delinquent behavior. With these policies in place they are able to demonstrate policy success without fear of losing any kind of support. “Getting tough” doesn’t help our society; it’s just a front that appeals to the mass public.

The federal government has provided millions of dollars to state and local governments to assist the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in their efforts to prevent youth delinquency. Yet the amount spent on prevention programs is sallow in comparison to what is spent on punishment and placement of juveniles in confinement. These so called “get tough” policies do not necessarily work. There is a need to identify what works in areas where these juvenile minorities reside. Programs that encompass effective early intervention with at risk children and families need to be developed. As stated in Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court by Barry Feld, “As minorities became urban Americas and the public attributed increase in crime primarily to minority youth, crime intersected to produce more punitive juvenile justice policies.” These policies have not been targeted at helping disadvantaged minority youth. The development prevention approach that focuses on risk factors in family, school, communities and individuals needs to be implemented. Policies need to be placed more around rehab than punishment.

Juvenile delinquency legislation seems to be more political campaigns rather than dealing with the actual problems. With a cost of 267 million dollars a year towards OJJDP we cannot keep putting away juveniles without trying to rehabilitate them. If the OJJDP can properly introduce effective rehabilitation programs, the amount of juveniles and their cost might significantly drop. In order to accomplish this, the justice system must first attempt to implement more policies for better rehabilitation efforts. Otherwise we will continue to put more money into a system which seems to be growing more every year. Rehabilitation is the answer to stop the growing juvenile delinquency population and helping put money back into America.

Why Are Minority Juveniles Targeted?

“Legal order only sustained slavery, segregation and discrimination for most of our nations history. And the fact that police were bound to uphold that order set a pattern for police behavior and attitudes toward minority communities.” L. Kelling and M. Moore’s, The evolving strategy of policing.

The Justice system is influenced by biases and stereotypes that are often incorporated into police decision-making. Perceptions of minority crime, media images of minorities as criminals, and racial hoaxes contribute to stereotypes of young minorities and help to rationalize racial profiling. Racial profiling refers “to any action that results in the heightened racial scrutiny of minorities or not” according to Gabbidon and Greenes, Race and Crime.

Then why are minority juveniles targeted more often? This may be because law enforcement tends to work closely with communities that are more involved. It would seem that minority based communities seem to stray away from police because of past incidents or problems that they have encountered or witnessed. This is the case of Johannes Mehserle, a BART Police officer, who shot and killed African American Oscar Grant on the video above. This so called accident is currently under investigation and seems to be a case of excessive force on another minority. With scenarios like this, minorities tend to stray away in fear of the law. According to a 2006 crime survey, "55% to 64% of minorities believe they are not treated as fairly as whites by police." This may be because of direct and indirect contact with law enforcement.

When there are limited opportunities in communities, youth tend to engage in criminal conduct or violent activities to doing whatever to maintain their status in the streets. Minority youths tend not to fit into certain standers and establish their own values, which involve “activities and behaviors that are in conflict with society.” (Gabbidon and Greene) Juveniles see what happens and tend to stay away from police. With no trust towards Law enforcement they fear them instead. With youth minorities engaging in criminal activities and behaviors, Officers are forced to keep peace and enforce laws. Some Officers may enforce the law more vigorously than others, often targeting minorities because they do not conform into society. This may be because minorities are involved in crimes that increase likelihood of victimization by the police. This then leads to the overrepresentation of juvenile minorities in the Criminal Justice system.