Why You Should Care
Juvenile justice was
conceived as a way to intervene constructively in the
lives of teenagers in order to steer them away from the
adult criminal justice system. It has long been
recognized as counterproductive to label children as
criminals, because the description becomes
self-fulfilling. But for many black and Hispanics
children, juvenile justice serves as a feeder system
into adult courts and prisons.
Impact: The
racial disparities that characterize criminal justice in
America affect young people deeply, and cause minority
youth to be over-represented at every stage of the
juvenile justice system. Juvenile justice plays an
especially destructive role in the lives of minority
communities.
Racially skewed juvenile
justice outcomes have dire implications, because the
whole point of the juvenile justice system is to head
off adult criminality. For example, one pillar of the
juvenile justice system is the segregation of children
from adult prisoners. Placing more black and Hispanic
teenagers in adult prisons where they will come into
contact with career criminals serves to incubate another
generation of black and Hispanic criminals.
In the last decade,
juvenile justice policy has increasingly blurred the
distinctions between children and adults. Many states
and the federal government have adopted laws that
permit, encourage, or require youthful offenders to be
tried as adults and ultimately transferred into adult
prison populations. This ongoing erosion of the juvenile
justice system we have known for a century is disastrous
for juvenile offenders in general, but minority youths
suffer most from this policy shift because they already
bear the brunt of racially skewed law enforcement.
For example, minority youths are
disproportionately targeted for arrest in the war on
drugs. In Baltimore, Maryland, 18 white youths and 86
black youths were arrested for selling drugs in 1980.
One decade later, juvenile drug sale arrests had
increased more than 100 percent overall, and the almost
5-to-1 racial disparity that existed a decade earlier
had become a 100-to-1 disparity: white youths were
arrested 13 times for selling drugs in 1990--less than
in 1980--while black youths were arrested 1304 times, an
1400 percent increase from 1980.
These figures reflect the
broader national experience: From 1986 to 1991, arrests
of white juveniles for drug offenses decreased 34
percent, while arrests of minority juveniles increased
78 percent. All this despite data suggesting that drug
use rates among white, black, and Hispanic youths are
about the same, and that drug use has in fact been lower
among black youths than white youths for many years.
Similar disparities appear in relation to
non-drug-related crimes. While a National Youth Survey
found that the ratio of violent crimes committed by
black and white male youths was approximately 3:2, the
ratio of arrests for violent crimes between these two
groups was approximately 4:1, according to data from the
FBI. In California, from 1996-1998, Hispanic youth were
more than twice as likely, and black youth more than six
times as likely, to be arrested for a violent offense
than white youth. In short, whatever the age of the
offender, "black illegal activity is more likely to lead
to attention by the criminal justice system."
Over-representation of
minority youths in the juvenile justice system increases
after arrest. As a general matter, minority youths tend
to be held at intake, detained prior to adjudication,
have petitions filed, be adjudicated delinquent, and
held in secure confinement facilities more frequently
than their white counterparts. For example, in 1995, 15
percent of cases nationwide involving white juveniles
resulted in detention, while 27 percent of cases
involving black juveniles resulted in detention, even
though whites comprised 52 percent, and blacks only 45
percent, of the entire juvenile caseload.
These conclusions based on
national statistics were very recently reaffirmed in a
report released by the Youth Law Center and prepared by
researchers from the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency. The report found substantial
over-representation of minorities at all stages of the
juvenile justice system, and noted that three out of
every four youths admitted to adult prisons were
minorities, despite the fact that the majority of
juvenile arrests involved whites.
The experiences of
individual states are equally dismaying.
Disproportionate confinement of young Hispanics has been
documented in each of the four states with the largest
Hispanic youth populations-- Arizona, Texas, New Mexico,
and California. In Ohio in 1996, minorities represented
43 percent of the juveniles held in secure facilities,
despite representing only 14.3 percent of the overall
state juvenile population. Similarly, in Texas in 1996,
minority youths represented 80 percent of those
juveniles held in secure facilities, while representing
only 50 percent of the overall state juvenile
population. A 1990 Florida study determined that "when
juvenile offenders were alike in terms of age, gender,
seriousness of the offense which promoted the current
referral, and seriousness of their prior records, the
probability of receiving the harshest disposition
available at each of several processing stages was
higher for minority youth than for white youth." Black,
Hispanic, and Asian-American youths are far more likely
to be transferred to adult courts, convicted in those
courts, and incarcerated in youth or adult prison
facilities than white youths.
A recent study of Los
Angeles County juvenile justice trends carried out by
the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) is revealing. Under
California law, an under-18 youth may be prosecuted
either in juvenile court or adult court, may be
sentenced either to a prison term in a California Youth
Authority (CYA) facility, and then perhaps transferred
to an adult facility at age 18, or given probation. The
JPI study concluded that while minority youths are five
times more likely than white youths to be transferred to
a CYA facility by a juvenile court (a disturbing
disparity in and of itself), they are 10 times more
likely to be placed in CYA facilities by an adult
criminal court. The study found that although minority
youths comprised 75 percent of California's juvenile
justice population, they comprised almost 95 percent of
all cases found "unfit" for juvenile court and
transferred to adult court. Cases involving Hispanic
youth alone accounted for 59 percent of the cases deemed
"unfit" for juvenile court. By contrast, cases involving
white juveniles, who make up 24 percent of California's
overall juvenile population, were transferred to adult
court only five percent of the time. Black, Hispanic and
Asian youths in California are six, 12, and three times
more likely, respectively, to be transferred to adult
court.
The disproportionate number
of minority transfers to adult court cannot be explained
by the commission of more, or more serious, crimes by
minority youths. The JPI study found a 2.8-to-1 violent
arrest ratio between minority and white youths--that is,
for every white youth arrested for a felony, 2.8
minority youths were arrested. But after the felony
arrest stage, the likelihood of minority youths being
transferred to adult court as compared to white youths
increased to 6.2-to- 1. The ratio of adult court prison
sentences increased even further: Minority youths
arrested for violent crimes were seven times more likely
overall to receive prison sentences from adult courts
than white youths arrested for similar crimes. The
numbers for black youth were particularly stark. As
compared to a white youth who committed a violent crime,
a black youth was 18.4 times more likely to be sentenced
to prison by an adult court (Hispanics were 7.3 times
more likely, and Asian-Americans 4.5 times more likely,
than whites to be sentenced to a CYA facility by an
adult court). The JPI report concludes that "the
discriminatory treatment of minority youth arrestees
accumulates within the justice system and accelerates
measurably if the youth is transferred to adult court."
= The increasingly severe treatment of minority youths
in the California justice system has dramatically
changed the composition of the State juvenile prison
population. Whereas white youths made up 30 percent of
the CYA population in 1980, in 1998, they comprised 14
percent. In the next several years, Hispanic youths are
expected to comprise 65 percent of the CYA population.
The trend is continuing in
California. On March 7, 2000, that state(927320)oters
approved Proposition 21, the "Gang Violence and Youth
Crime Prevention Act," a measure first proposed during
his term of office by former Republican Governor Pete
Wilson and supported by current Democratic Governor Gray
Davis. Proposition 21 permits prosecutors to charge
youthful offenders as adults without obtaining the
approval of a juvenile court judge, and imposes longer,
sometimes mandatory, sentences on a broader range of
crimes committed by juveniles. Membership in a gang, for
example, carries with it a mandatory 6-month term. At
the same time, Proposition 21 eliminates certain early
intervention programs.
The consequences of
Proposition 21 are staggering. California taxpayers have
voted to spend an additional $1 billion for prison
construction at a moment when youth violence is
declining throughout the state. They have also voted to
incarcerate 15 and 16 year olds in adult prison, despite
the fact that teenagers incarcerated in adult facilities
are five times as likely to be raped, twice as likely to
be beaten, and eight times as likely to commit suicide
as adults in those facilities. Given the demonstrable
racial disparity in juvenile justice, there is little
question that the impact of Proposition 21 will fall
largely on minority youth.
Several national trends
parallel the California experience: "Tough on crime"
juvenile justice policies are in vogue, and minority
youths are the primary targets of these policies. First,
the overall under-18 population in state prisons is
increasing. In 1985, 3400 youths were admitted to state
prisons; by 1997, the number was 7400, more than double
the prior total. This increase was more pronounced than
the increase in arrests during that time. For every
1,000 arrests for violent crimes by minors, 33 youths
were incarcerated in 1997, as compared to 18 in 1985.
Second, the number of cases
transferred from juvenile courts to adult courts has
increased 70 percent in a decade, from 7200 in 1985 to
12,300 in 1994. The prison terms served by these youths
has also increased, from a mean minimum term in 1985 of
35 months to a mean minimum term in 1997 of 44 months.
Contrary to contentions that this development reflects a
surge of violent criminal activity by America's youth,
approximately two-thirds of the youths prosecuted in
adult court in 1996 were charged with nonviolent
offenses. Yet overall, in 1998, nearly 18,000 youths
spent time in adult prisons, and approximately 20
percent of these youths were mixed in with the adult
population.
Third, minority youths make
up the majority of those youths in the state prison
system. In 1997, Hispanic and black youths made up 73
percent of the overall under-18 state prison population,
a 10 percent increase from 1985
figures.
Fourth, the disparity
between the numbers of minority and white youths in
state prisons is increasing, especially for drug
offenses. In 1985, the number of black youths held in
state prisons for drug offenses was 1.5 times greater
than the number of white youths imprisoned for the same
offenses. By 1997, the number of black juvenile drug
offenders in state prisons was over 5.3 times greater
than the number of imprisoned white juvenile drug
offenders.
Finally, minority youths
are involved in an increasing number of the cases
transferred from juvenile to adult court: the number of
cases involving white youths that were transferred from
juvenile to adult courts increased approximately 50
percent between 1985-1994; transferred cases involving
black youth increased almost 100 percent, and are now
approximately half of all transferred cases, despite the
much smaller percentage of black youth in the overall
juvenile population. And cases involving black juveniles
were almost twice as likely to be transferred to adult
criminal court as cases involving white juveniles,
principally because of the relatively large number of
transferred (nonviolent) drug cases involving black
juveniles.
Background: Recent
years have brought an ever-increasing reliance on
juvenile justice policies that downplay rehabilitation
and favor incarceration of children in adult facilities.
This trend represents a major departure from a century
of U.S. juvenile justice practice -- and imposes grave
harm upon children and their families. Moreover, because
the racial disparities that occur throughout the
American criminal justice system mean that minority
youth are over-represented at every stage of the
juvenile justice process, punishment-based approaches to
juvenile justice play an especially destructive role in
the lives of minority communities.
In the past decade, nearly
every state has enacted or toughened laws making it
easier to try juvenile offenders as adults. On March 7,
2000, for example, California voters approved
Proposition 21, the "Gang Violence and Youth Crime
Prevention Act," a measure first proposed by former
Republican Governor Pete Wilson during his term of
office and supported by current Democratic Governor Gray
Davis. Proposition 21 calls for the increased
incarceration of 15-and 16-year-olds in adult
facilities, permits prosecutors to charge youthful
offenders as adults without obtaining the approval of a
juvenile court judge, and imposes longer -- sometimes
mandatory -- sentences on a broader range of crimes
committed by juveniles. Membership in a gang, for
example, carries with it a mandatory 6-month term. At
the same time, Proposition 21 eliminates certain early
intervention programs. In February 2001, an appeals
court ruled that the portion of Proposition 21 that
transfers from judges to district attorneys the decision
whether to prosecute a juvenile as an adult is an
unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers
by stripping courts of what is essentially a sentencing
decision.
Ill-conceived efforts to
facilitate the transfer of juveniles into the adult
justice system have not been limited to the state level.
For the past several years, Congress has considered
legislation that would permit U.S. Attorneys to
prosecute youths as adults for certain crimes and
require states to take the same approach with respect to
their juvenile offenders. Despite the disproportionate
impact of such measures on minority youth, these
proposals would also lift the requirement that states
collect data on racial disparities in their juvenile
systems. |