“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.