Chapter 3 Supplement Specific Justice Systems

and Victims' Rights

• In 1997, U.S. juvenile courts handled an estimated 390,800 delinquency cases in which the most serious charge was an offense against a person. Person offenses include assault, robbery, rape, and homicide. The 1997 person offense caseload was 97% greater than in 1988 (Scahill May 2000).

• The majority of person offenses involved charges of simple assault or aggravated assault. Together, these two offenses accounted for 81% of all person offenses processed in 1997 (Ibid.).

• The number of people under eighteen years old who are sentenced to adult state prison each year more than doubled between 1985 and 1997--from 3,400 to 7,400 (BJS 2000).

• In 1998, law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made an estimated 2.6 million arrests of persons under age eighteen (OJJDP December 1999).

• Juveniles were involved in 12% of murder arrests; 14% of aggravated assault arrests; 35% of burglary arrests; 27% of robbery arrests; and 24% of weapons arrests in 1998 (Ibid.).

• Juvenile victims are substantially less likely than adult victims to have their violent crimes reported to the police or any other authority (OJJDP November 1999).

• In 1998, 18% of all persons arrested nationally were juveniles (ages eighteen and under) (FBI 17 October 1999, 210.)

• Juveniles are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in the four hours following the end of the school day (roughly 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.) than at any other time of the day (National Center for Juvenile Justice September 1999, 34).

• On a typical day in 1997, nearly 106,000 juveniles were being held in a residential facility as a result of a law violation (Ibid., 31).

• One in five juvenile arrestees carried a gun all or most of the time (Ibid., 69).

• Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. made 2.8 million arrests of persons under the age of eighteen in 1997, or in other words, one in five arrests made by law enforcement agencies involved a juvenile (Ibid., 115-116).

Five areas of change have emerged as states passed laws designed to crack down on juvenile crime. These laws generally involve expanded eligibility for criminal court processing and adult correctional sanctioning, and reduced confidentiality protections for a subset of juvenile offenders. Between 1992 and 1997, all but three states changed laws in one or more of the following areas:

• Transfer provisions. Laws made it easier to transfer juvenile offenders from the juvenile justice system to the criminal justice system (45 states).

• Sentencing authority. Laws gave criminal and juvenile courts expanded sentencing options (31 states).

• Confidentiality. Laws modified or removed traditional juvenile court confidentiality provisions by making records and proceedings more open (47 states).

In addition to these areas, there was change relating to:

• Victims' rights. Laws increased the role of victims of juvenile crime in the juvenile justice process (22 states).

• Correctional programming. As a result of new transfer and sentencing laws, adult and juvenile correctional administrators developed new programs.

The 1980s and 1990s have seen significant change in terms of treating more juvenile offenders as criminals. Recently, states have been attempting to strike a balance in their juvenile justice systems among system and offender accountability, offender competency development, and community protection. Many states have added to the purpose clauses of their juvenile codes phrases such as:

• Hold juveniles accountable for criminal behavior.

• Provide effective deterrents.

• Protect the public from criminal activity.

• Balance attention to offenders, victims, and the community.

• Impose punishment consistent with the seriousness of the crime (OJJDP 1999).

• National Youth Court Center (NYCC). To establish a central point of contact for youth court programs, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) established NYCC in 1999 at the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA). There are now more than 650 youth court programs throughout the country, with hundreds of jurisdictions ready to develop new programs. All adhere to the same underlying philosophy: hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions, educate youth about the judicial and legal systems, and empower youth to be active in their communities. NYCC manages an information clearinghouse that provides information on operations and practices of youth court programs in the U.S., maintains a searchable database of information about active and developing youth court programs, and maintains a youth court Web site <www.youthcourt.net>. The Center also provides training and technical assistance, including national training seminars consisting of two tracks--a beginner track for new or developing youth court programs and an advanced track for operating programs. NYCC is currently in the process of developing national guidelines to assist youth court programs in developing policy and implementing practices that promote accountability and integrity in the juvenile justice system. National Youth Court Center, PO Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910 (606-244-8215) (Vickers May 2000).

• The Deschutes County (Oregon) Juvenile Community Justice Department (JCJD), with support from the Office for Victims of Crime Training and Technical Assistance Center (TTAC), developed two victim evaluation/assessment surveys to determine the scope and quality of services the agency provides to victims of crime. In a series of questions that are ranked on a scale, "yes/no", or open-ended, the JCJD attempted to discern the following information directly from victims:

1. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Juvenile Community Justice staff?

2. Were you treated respectfully and with consideration by the staff with whom you had contact at Juvenile Community Justice?

a. Could you tell us more about your contact with our agency and staff?

3. Was our staff knowledgeable regarding issues that were important to you?

4. What services did our staff provide to you?

5. Were you provided with information about victim services available to you from our agency, as well as other programs in our community?

a. If "yes", was this information helpful and easy to understand?

6. Were you informed about your rights as a victim of crime?

7. Did you receive timely notice of the status of court hearings related to your case?

8. Did you receive information about requesting restitution to help compensate for any financial losses you may have incurred, and to hold the youthful offender accountable?

a. If "yes", was the restitution information helpful and easy to understand?

9. Did you have the opportunity to give input that defined the harm that was caused by this offense, addressed how the offense affected you and your family, and requested appropriate restitution to compensate for any financial losses you incurred?

10. If you had any safety concerns resulting from your victimization, did our agency offer you the opportunity to address them?

11. How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Juvenile Community Justice staff?

Two surveys were developed for cases that are processed formally and informally. The victim assessment surveys provide opportunity for additional comments, as well as information about volunteering for the agency. They offer the chance to engage victims in a meaningful manner, and utilize their input to improve the agency's programs and services for victims (Deschutes County JCJD 2000).

• Teens, Crime and the Community (TCC), a partnership between the National Crime Prevention Council and Street Law, Inc., funded by OJJDP, is a national program that combines education and action to reduce teen victimization. Through community service projects, TCC provides a forum for youth to take a stand against violence and become part of the solution to improving their schools and communities. With the help of dedicated teachers and other staff, TCC teaches young people about the effects of crime; how to recognize and prevent crime; and how to report crime, be a good witness, and help victims. More than half a million teenagers in forty states have participated in TCC since it began in 1985 (Youth in Action 1999).

• The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has highlighted key elements of the new accountability-based juvenile justice system role outlined by the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges' Commission in 1997. Among the elements of the new accountability-based juvenile justice system role are the following:

- To regard crime victims and the community, in addition to juvenile offenders, as clients.

- To make community restoration and victim reparation by offenders a priority.

- To ensure that offenders understand the impact of their crimes.

- To develop community service options that are valued by communities and crime victims.

- To educate the community about its role (OJJDP September 1999).

Back to Table of Contents