|
Juvenile Court Trend Analysis
by Michelle Calderon, Staff Writer for AnaiRhoads.org
06 June 2006
 E-mail this article
AnaiRhoads.org - The history of population growth has accounted for changes in trends in the crime index. For example, the crime index dropped in rate when a large number of the population had enlisted in the military during war times. At the same time, the aftermath of the baby boom, created again a large population that affected the rise of crime. Today, as a consequence of the “baby boomerangs” (the offspring of the baby boomers), there are now 39 million children in this country who are under the age of 10. This data indicates that America has more young children than we have had for decades. Millions of them live in poverty. Many do not have full-time parental supervision at home guiding their development and supervising their behavior. Trends in juvenile violence provide a somber and sometimes conflicting picture of the reality as well as the future of youth crimes in America. The issues are under debate because at times these crimes are rising, then fall and can be expected to increase further in the years ahead. The overall drop in crime hides a grim truth.
According to Snyder, 2003 in his article about current juvenile trend, there were an estimated 1,400 juvenile arrests for murder in 2001. “However, between 1997 and 2001, juvenile arrests for murder fell 47%. The substantial growth in juvenile violent crime arrests that began in the late 1980s peaked in 1994” (Snyder, 2003, p.2). Snyder further states that the rate of juvenile arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses (murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) declined. The research also acknowledges that juvenile crimes are more likely to be cleared by law enforcement agencies rather than those committed by adults. With this in mind, the estimated data may provide even a higher number as a result. Although one can consider these and many other statistics about juvenile crime trends are encouraging, there are reasons to remain vigilant. These are contradicting realities. It is hard to ignore the fact that the relatively low number of murders in 2001 is underscored by the fact that there were essentially the same number of murders in 2001 as in 1970, when the population was about 30% smaller.
One of the factors counted in the crime index is simple assault. Simple assault is to knowingly or recklessly cause bodily injury to another. Many crimes fall into this category. Many times, drugs and weapons are a factor worth considering. According to the data, the overall juvenile arrest rate for simple assault in 2001 remained at its all-time high. “While, there were substantial declines in juvenile arrests for murder (62%), motor vehicle theft (51%), and burglary (40%) and major increases in juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations (121%)” (Snyder, 2003, p.4). Obviously, other factors such as drug use and guns, and especially handguns, have played a major role in the surge of juvenile crime. Even more profound is the growing decay in social moral values that plague some inner cities where gangs are common.
Another area on this data is the statistics on crimes committed by females. According to Snyder, the arrests of females for various offenses are increasing more (or decreasing less) than arrest of males. “Females accounted for 23% of juvenile arrests for aggravated assault and 32% of juvenile arrests for other assaults (i.e., simple assaults and intimidations) in 2001. Females were involved in 59% of all arrests for running away from home and 31% of arrests for curfew and loitering law violations” (Snyder, 2003, p. 9). The population of females in the US account for approximately 51%. Perhaps this as well as the changes in social upbringing has been the cause of their rise in involvement with crime. Such factors as drug use and being raised in single-parent households as well as becoming teen parents may be due to the changes in living conditions and a growing acceptance from society about such issues. Stress in overall living conditions in today’s society as well as changes in gender roles surely have an affect. With more women being the bread-winner in today’s circle, female lead roles are constantly changing. This growing rate in female crimes can be attributed to this social change.
Additionally, juvenile arrests disproportionately involved minorities. “The racial composition of the juvenile population in 2001 was 78% white, 17% black, 4% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian. Most Hispanics (an ethnic designation, not a race) were classified as white. In contrast to their representation in the population, black youth were overrepresented in juvenile arrests for violent crimes, and, to a lesser extent, property crimes. Of all juvenile arrests for violent crimes, 55% involved white youth, 43% involved black youth, 1% involved Asian youth, and 1% involved American Indian youth. For property crime arrests, the proportions were 68% white youth, 28% black youth, 2% Asian youth, and 1% American Indian youth” (Snyder, 2003, p. 9). Poverty and urban decay have been factors that often involved many minorities. These as well as evidence of racial profiling and criminal justice biased toward those of ethnic background can be the cause of so many arrests. Some may be arrested for the same crimes that youths commit but not receive the same treatment.
Such statistics provide inconsistent views on data available. Certainly the way the information are collected, types of organization providing data and analysis, adjucated factors, number of arrests vs. unknown overall crime, number of crimes not counted as well as clearance rates create an incomplete picture of the statistics available. Another data worth looking into is the differences in rates from State to State. Snyder attributes this variation in juvenile arrest rates to reflect differences in juvenile law-violating behavior, police behavior, and/or community standards. There are many fundamental differences in standards, especially with the variety of people within the populations.
In summary, while the interpretation of reported clearance proportions is not straightforward, these data are the closest measure generally available of the proportion of crime known to law enforcement that is attributed to minors. The challenge for the future; therefore, is how best to deal with youth violence. Without a large-scale effort to educate and support young children and preteens today, we can likely expect a much greater problem of teen violence tomorrow.
To a large extent, the rise and fall of violent crime was predicted based on the changing size of the crime-proned group. Another factor to take into account is the fact that a large portion of most crimes are never reported to law enforcement. However, murder is one crime that is nearly always reported. The author admits it is hard to determine the responsibility of youths and adults to crime. Perhaps a different set of criteria must be obtained to determine a more accurate portrayal of trends in crime. For example, when an individual/youth commits more than one crime in a single incidence, make those charges count in the data. As it is, the most serious crimes are the only ones accounted for. Additionally, perhaps creating a separate table and analysis of recidivism so that the arrests that are portrayed, can be seen in a different light. It would be easier to have data available that can determine how many of the rates attributed to clearance come from the same group or individual. That surely would be more profound because it would be able to provide a more consistent series of events that can possibly provide keen insight to “individual” rehabilitation. Perhaps, it can eventually predict a truer picture of recidivism rates and change the balance of sentencing structures.
References:
Snyder, H. N. (2003). Juvenile Arrests 2001. (1-12).
Back
|
