Blog Post #2

Life Sentence for a Juvenile?

        

        In today’s society, much attention has been given to juvenile crime. The common

thought by many is, “do the crime, do the time.” To some this phrase says it all, yet to

others this phrase represents all that is wrong with our justice system – both for juveniles

and adults. However, it is no question that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without

the possibility parole is a controversial topic.

        The intent of this blog, is not to persuade the public to choose a position on the

issue, rather it is to supply the open-minded reader with the knowledge and information

necessary to develop a rational, non-biased opinion. Furthermore, this blog will focus

primarily on the concerns of sentencing juveniles to a life sentence.

        In an article by David Greenwald, he notes, “… [in California] each new youth

offender given this sentence will cost the state upwards of $2.5 million” (Greenwald).

With that said, it is suffice to say that this sentencing process not only affects the

juvenile, but also the taxpayer. Better said, it affects all of society. Could this be the

representation of our tax dollars hard at work or hardly working? Is it possible that

society has merely become complacent with the notion that the problem will be resolved

by placing the juvenile into the justice system? Can we as society, not better develop a

legitimate fix for the problem, one that not only saves money, but more importantly saves

juveniles?

        While Greenwald identifies the monetary concern of sentencing juveniles to life

in prison, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, Christine Armer, focuses on an entirely

different concern. Her concern, equally as important to that of Greenwald’s, identifies the

likelihood of re-offending by juveniles. In a written statement, Armer noted that, “8

percent [of juveniles] went on to commit more than half of the repeat offenses and [were]

likely to become career criminals" (HollisterFreelance.com). As suggested, her research

concludes that only a small percentage of offenders will become repeat, habitual/career

criminals. With this re-offender percentage taken into account, it can further be suggested

that the states and the nation moreover, are throwing away endless amounts of money for

unjustifiable and illogical reasons. With only 8% of juveniles likely to become reoffenders,

it is only rational to suggest that all monies spent on the remaining percentage

of life sentence juveniles, those unlikely to re-offend, have been done in such a way that

simply advocates injustice. Ironically, while we see this reoccurring outcome of injustice,

we see it too, to be the actions of a great nation that takes pride in the enforcement of

“justice for all”.

        Evidence further suggests it is more cost productive to afford juveniles an

alternative form of punishment. Marc Levin, Esq. notes that in the state of Texas, “saving

a youth from becoming a chronic offender results in $1.7 million to $2.3 million in

avoided lifetime costs to taxpayers and victims” (Levin). In better explanation, Levin’s

data suggests identifying an alternative approach to juvenile sentencing. By way of

incorporating an alternative method, appropriate investments can be made, and the

implementation of correcting delinquent acts committed by juvenile’s can be initiated.

The result of initiating an alternative approach? The reductions in repeat crime offenses,

repeat crime offenders, and reckless spending.

        The last issue of this area, and possibly the most deserving of further research, is

that of juvenile brain development. Yian Lo of Neuro Law Blog notes that, “immature

development in the frontal lobe means that a juvenile is less capable of controlling their

impulses and understanding future consequences … these findings do not suggest that a

juvenile is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, but just [maintains] less

executive control and foresight during a momentary impulse” (Lo). With the previously

noted confirmation, and through factual supportive data, it is suggested that this topic remains in need of further review. Furthermore, it is in society’s best interest, that we develop an alternative to this extreme sentencing.

        The research previously mentioned does not imply that the criminal justice system

be rid of juvenile life sentencing; rather, it charges society to determine the appropriate

actions to better resolve an ongoing problem.
        The youth of today are the future of tomorrow. We owe it to ourselves, our children, and future generations to develop an alternative form of sentencing that will be more beneficial to all of society.

Sources:


Greenwald, David. “Yolo Judicial Watch.” Effort At Juvenile Justice Reform Triggers War of Words Between Sac DA and Senator Yee. Yolo Judicial Watch, 05 Aug 2010. Web. 25 Feb 2011
http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3647:effort-at-juvenile-justice-reform-triggers-war-of-words-between-sac-da-and-senator-yee&Itemid=100


Levin, Mark. “Getting More for Less in Juvenile Justice.” Texas Public Policy Foundation. Center for Effective Justice, Mar 2010. Web. 25 Feb 2011
http://www.njjn.org/media/resources/public/resource_1535.pdf

“Tracking repeat juvenile offenders.” HollisterFreelance.com. Hollister Free Lance News, 24 Feb 2011
http://www.freelancenews.com/news/62293-tracking-repeat-juvenile-offenders

Lo, Yian.  “Are Juveniles Offenders Incorrigible”?.” NeuroLaw Blog. NeuroLaw Blog, 23 Nov 2010. Web. 25 Feb 2011
http://blog.neulaw.org/?p=1569