Juvenile Criminals

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
User avatar
Minutes2Midnight
Rookie Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:49 am
Location: Toronto, ON
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby Minutes2Midnight » Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:30 pm

So - how do WE make a difference? I think my point was more along the lines of what the articles above say... that gruesome disgusting crimes deserve a sentence (Death preferably) but how do you stop them when they're 7,8,9? The parents from what I understand from officers in my family (and please, any pro can correct me on this) shelter their children when the Police are involved and make it sound like nothing at all is wrong with their kids, meanwhile 7 year old Jonny beat the shit out of his neighbor twice. Is it even possible for any of us to make a difference, give Police and judicial system more power to intervene at an earlier age?

We need to adapt a government system like France... where health care, child care, mid-wives, all that stuff is free no matter what your family status is. If you can't afford child care, your kid isn't staying at home getting in to trouble. The YCJA needs a MAJOR overhauling here... and i'm sorry - a personal opinion on this one, but the non release of names and pictures when kids are stabbing and shooting people? Harper... you're fucking retarded.
“My God. We've had cloning in the South for years. It's called cousins.”"

User avatar
Banned
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 12:59 am
Location: British Columbia. CANADA
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby Banned » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:02 pm

VanB wrote:
Jim Hackler wrote:"Jail has a negative payoff," he says. "It re-victimizes the young criminal."


This is where I stopped reading. What kind of fucking bullshit thing is this to spout off about?


Yeah, I didn't like that one either. I was going to delete it, but I leave quotes and articles whole or I'm no better than a reporter.

I think he is looking at the angle that criminals are not born, but rather they are raised. A lot of them have really messed up childhoods that we wouldn't wish on anyone. Their reward for bad parenting = a jail cell.

Now before everone starts asking me for granola recipes, I think his arguement is a little weak. Their fault or not, if they are a danger to society, society has a right to be protected from them and society's right to protection outweighs their boo-hoo crappy childhood. The justice system is too quick to recognize that an offender, young or oterwise, is not responsible for the criminal they became and too quick to forget that their primary function is to protect society from these "not my fault" criminals.

I am pretty sure that Jim Hackler is now teaching a police foundations program in Alberta. Hear he has a student that agrees with his wrong path approach to child correction.
I didn't say it would be easy - I said it would be worth it: Art Williams

User avatar
Canadian Blue
King Poobah
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:37 pm
Location: Northeast Saskatchewan
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby Canadian Blue » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:26 pm

We need to adapt a government system like France... where health care, child care, mid-wives, all that stuff is free no matter what your family status is. If you can't afford child care, your kid isn't staying at home getting in to trouble. The YCJA needs a MAJOR overhauling here... and i'm sorry - a personal opinion on this one, but the non release of names and pictures when kids are stabbing and shooting people? Harper... you're fucking retarded.


I think all of that shit came in before Harper was ever Prime Minister bud. So far he's the only political leader that actually agrees with the notion that violent criminals should actually be punished.

As for France, that system has high costs. One only needs to look at the massive unemployment and mass rioting amongst the wayward immigrant youth in the suburbs of Paris.

So how do we fix the problem? While boot camps and jail cells for these violent youngsters are clearly the most satisfying options in the public mind, "warehousing" is hardly the solution, the experts concur.


The experts in question happen to be left wing Green Party members who believe all of our problems can be solved through the use of group therapy.

"Jail has a negative payoff," he says. "It re-victimizes the young criminal."


After all, the justice system isn't meant to bring about justice for actual victims who will most likely be forced to pay taxdollars for said thugs therapy.

Hackler points to Europe, where problem kids are placed in outreach programs with "normal" kids.

"It will be one of those problem kids with 10 normal kids in a program and you get this normalizing influence of peers," he says.


Or conversely, the one bad kid can corrupt the ten others.

As Canadians, argues Cohen, we are "philosophically" reluctant to intervene in the private lives of other citizens.


Apparently, Canadian's should have more nostalgia for the Stasi. However I prefer having privacy rights AND the notion of individual responsibility where if I commit a crime I'll be punished.

But it is essential, he says, that we change this hands-off philosophy. We need a more holistic and integrated approach to risk-assessment and management, he argues.


No thanks, I value liberty over bullship utopian idealism. If someone truly wants to be good, they should choose to be good without coercion from the state. If they instead go the other route they should face the full consequences of their actions.

Either way I'm looking forward to the day that these forward thinking idealists can perfect the Ludovico technique.
Last edited by Canadian Blue on Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
goaliegibson
Regular Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby goaliegibson » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:29 pm

remember this is Canada. The criminal is treated like the victim, and the victim is treated like garbage in the courts.
Image

User avatar
ryan.p
Rookie Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:18 am
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby ryan.p » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:45 pm

km wrote:
I think it's time for everone else to get good at ignoring SD_SC1 - easily the most successful troll in the history of Blueline....


That's easy! Go into the User Control Panel, then click on Friends and Foe's from the top menu. Enter the user name of your foe and just like magic they are gone! :swords:
| Now on board with VanB's 5 step program |

User avatar
Dirty Harry
Rookie Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby Dirty Harry » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:06 pm

ryan.p wrote:
km wrote:
I think it's time for everone else to get good at ignoring SD_SC1 - easily the most successful troll in the history of Blueline....


That's easy! Go into the User Control Panel, then click on Friends and Foe's from the top menu. Enter the user name of your foe and just like magic they are gone! :swords:


I did that too and no longer have to read her posts. It's magical I tell ya'!

:thumbsup: DH
Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

User avatar
Canadian Blue
King Poobah
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:37 pm
Location: Northeast Saskatchewan
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby Canadian Blue » Wed Nov 19, 2008 3:22 pm

For anyone interested, I found an article that utilizes basic common sense when talking about violent young offenders.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29826.html

Young & Arrestless
The case against expunging juvenile arrest records
T. Markus Funk | February 1996 Print Edition

Daniel Doe (a pseudonym) is a violent man who, like most violent men, was also a violent teen. At age 12, police arrested him for vandalizing a neighbor's house--he had destroyed the furniture, spray-painted the walls, and drowned a caged pet bird in the bathtub. Two years later, he was burglarizing an apartment when the elderly occupant returned home and confronted him. In the scuffle that ensued, the old man broke his hip. When the man died from pneumonia several days later, Daniel was charged with and convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Daniel's first "adult" arrest came at age 19, when he broke into an occupied home and severely beat the 45-year-old woman who lived there. By the time he was sentenced for that attack, however, his juvenile record, pursuant to Ohio law, had been "expunged"--destroyed. For the second time, Daniel was a first-time offender. Hence, a Cleveland judge, ignorant of Daniel's violent, extensive, felonious past, sentenced him to probation. Two months later, Daniel burglarized yet another house, this time beating the 81-year-old man who lived there to death.

Had the judge known of Daniel's violent criminal past and his demonstrated lack of any rehabilitative potential, there's little doubt that Daniel would have gone to the penitentiary before he had the opportunity to kill the old man.

But the judge didn't know because the law said that he shouldn't know.

Most states have statutory provisions that allow--or even mandate--the expungement of juvenile records once the juvenile turns a certain age. Sometimes the records are actually destroyed; sometimes they are merely "sealed." The practical effect of such legislation is to allow a minor who has committed criminal or, in the lingo of the juvenile courts, delinquent acts to permanently erase his or her record, usually at age 17 or 18. The stated goal of this policy is to allow the juvenile offender to enter adulthood with a proverbial clean slate, thereby shielding him (or, less likely, her) from the negative effects of having a criminal record.

Supporters say expungement is an enlightened practice that merely forgives youthful transgressions. But expungement is actually an astonishingly counterproductive policy that benefits only young criminals. The practice prevents society from acting on the simple fact that those who have committed crimes in the past are likely to commit crimes in the future and hence should be treated differently from true first-timeoffenders.

By making it virtually impossible to collect meaningful data about juvenile delinquents, expungement also makes it difficult to evaluate crime-prevention and rehabilitation programs. Outside of the criminal justice sphere, the policy has other deleterious effects. Employers, for instance, can't know whether potential employees are prone to stealing or other criminal behaviors. Given these various costs, it's not surprising that a number of states are seriously reevaluating the sealing of juvenile records.


Expungement laws hearken back to a simpler past. The practice "was designed to deal with delinquents who stole hubcaps, not those who mug old ladies," notes sociologist Rita Kramer in At a Tender Age: Violent Youth and Juvenile Justice (1988). Gargantuan increases in violent juvenile crime underscore the point. Today's juvenile offenders are generally distinguishable from their adult criminal counterparts only by their age--an arbitrary factor indeed. Juveniles are the fastest growing segment among violent offenders. Between 1983 and 1992, according to FBI estimates, violent crime committed by juveniles increased 57 percent. Murders and non-negligent manslaughter rates jumped 128 percent, aggravated assault 95 percent, and rape 25 percent. And cohort studies discussed in Neil A. Weiner and Marvin E. Wolfgang's Violent Crime, Violent Criminals (1989) show that juveniles account for up to 35 percent of all male police contacts.

The philosophy underlying expungement legislation can be traced to what is known as the Chicago School of Criminology, which, during the 1920s and '30s, championed environmental explanations of criminality. The Chicago School (the term refers to a broad-based intellectual movement that started at the University of Chicago) rejected traditional criminological theories that focused on issues of individual morality and volition and concentrated instead on factors external to the individual. This new model viewed America as a "criminogenic" society in which ghettos and slums taught the people who lived there how to become criminal by giving them deviant cultural values.

This environmental model reached its high-water mark in the early 1960s with Robert K. Merton's "Strain Theory," which posited that America's supposed obsession with ambition and economic success led to crime and deviance. Strain theory viewed delinquency as arising from the frustration felt by individuals who were unable to achieve culturally defined goals because they were denied the institutionalized means of doing so.

In the 1960s--the decade during which most expungement statutes currently in force were written--expungement advocates espoused what is known as the "labeling" or "social reaction" model. The labeling perspective is based on the premise that the very act of labeling those who are apprehended as "different" creates deviants who are different only because they have been "tagged" with the deviant label.

As criminologist Frank Tannenbaum, a prominent labeling-perspective theorist, argued in his 1983 book Crime and the Community, "The process of making the criminal...is a process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious; it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing,and evoking the very traits that are complained of." Hence, the only way to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents is to send them into adulthood with this label detached.


Aside from any philosophical and common-sense disagreements one may have with the labeling theorists, the major question regarding expungement is whether juvenile delinquents are "normal" kids who simply make youthful mistakes that are unlikely to be repeated in adulthood.

The answer is no.
Delinquents are substantially different from non- delinquents. Research suggests that delinquents are more defiant, ambivalent about authority, emotionally unstable, extroverted, fearful of failure, resentful, hostile, suspicious, and defensive than non- delinquents. In their book From Boy to Man, From Delinquency to Crime (1987), University of Pennsylvania criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang and his co- authors found that there is an extremely strong correlation between juvenile delinquency and adult crime, and that juvenile delinquency is the "best predictor of adult criminality." John Monahan, in his 1981 book Predicting Violent Behavior, has found that individuals with juvenile records are four times more likely to become adult offenders.

Similarly, a study tracing the criminal careers of 1,000 juvenile boys discussed in Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck's Of Delinquency and Crime (1974) found that 73.2 percent of those who could be located had been officially cataloged as repeat offenders within 10 years of their first appearance in juvenile court. An extensive FBI study discussed by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, in Point Blank (1991), estimates that 74.7 percent of all murderers had arrests for violent felonies or burglaries, and murderers averaged four prior major felony arrests over a criminal career of at least six years. Those figures do not even begin to approximate the actual criminal histories of those individuals, since being arrested is itself a highly atypical consequence of violating the law. It is also worth noting that those figures would be even higher if juvenile expungement statutes did not artificially deflate them.

In fact, expungement statutes also make it virtually impossible to collect the kind of data that might lead to more effective crime prevention. In a 1992 article in the Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, Carlton Snow, the former dean of Willamette University College of Law, argued that expungement statutes "impinge on a democratic society's ability to inform itself about all aspects of the criminal justice system....Regardless of whether juvenile records are merely `sealed' or actually destroyed, the data becomes less available for research purposes." The result: The general public is unable to evaluate the juvenile justice system accurately, and sociologists and criminologists are left less able to study important aspects of criminal behavior.

And, as the case of Daniel Doe illustrates, expungement often prevents the courts from adequately assessing the danger a younger criminal poses to society.

The functions that judges perform at sentencing--one of which is to determine the convict's rehabilitative potential, as evidenced by his response to prior convictions--are simply too important to allow incomplete information concerning the nature and seriousness of an individual's criminal past to interfere with the proper dispensation of punishment.

That's one of the major points in United States v. Davis, a 1995 case involving a convicted felon's due process challenge to the United States Sentencing Guidelines' directive to consider juvenile convictions in calculating a defendant's prior criminal history. Writing for the court, Judge William J. Bauer of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals powerfully stated: "[I]t is imperative that the defendant's sentence account for his criminal history from the date of birth up to and including the moment of sentencing. The consideration of the defendant's juvenile record is essential, because it is clear that the `magic age' of eighteen, seventeen, or sixteen, whatever it may be in a specific state, cannot wipe out all previous contacts with the law. The pubescent transgressions...help the sentencing judge to determine whether the defendant has simply taken one wrong turn from the straight and narrow or is a criminal recidivist."

Expungement similarly interferes with effective law enforcement, since police officers are impeded in their efforts to identify patterns of criminal conduct. There is voluminous case law stating that arrest records serve a valuable law-enforcement purpose, that the dissemination of criminal records promotes the public welfare, and that even "unresolved" arrest records provide significant information and aid in the resolution of criminal actions. When the police are investigating criminal activity, for instance, they routinely examine the prior criminal records of potential suspects to see if there is evidence of a modus operandi. Juvenile records are routinely withheld, making the police's job that much more difficult.

Expungement exacts costs beyond crime and punishment. It prevents employers from making fully informed hiring decisions, such as whether applicants are likely to pilfer. Compelling employers to hire individuals without full insight into their criminal propensities is a heavy penalty to force upon businesses. In Privacy, Secrecy and Reputation, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner says that arguments for expungement are "particularly weak in the context of employment, where competition exacts a heavy penalty from any firm that makes irrational employment decisions."

Perhaps more important, expungement forces employers into a very risky position from a workplace liability perspective. Under the common law, an employer has a duty to provide a safe work environment, and this duty has gradually been extended to hiring safe employees, since, in terms of legal analysis, a dangerous employee creates risks comparable to a defective machine. As Carlton Snow has pointed out, "Under the theory of vicarious liability, hiring applicants with expunged juvenile records is potentially
hazardous for employers and employees alike." Since an employer can be held liable for an employee's torts while on the job, says Snow, "complete knowledge about an applicant would allow an employer to take appropriate steps to decrease any liability resulting from an employee's subsequent conduct."


The explosion in juvenile crime and the growing intellectual disenchantment with expungement statutes are beginning to have an effect: A number of states are rethinking the policy of sealing or destroying juvenile records. This past spring, for instance, Connecticut passed a law that allows delinquency records to be disclosed to police, school officials, social service workers, and "anyone with a legitimate interest in the information." Republican Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge is pushing to make "it harder to expunge
juvenile records" and legislation passed last February lets judges review juvenile records before setting bail. Similar initiatives are underway in Louisiana, Texas, and Kentucky, where Democratic Gov. Paul Patton has announced a plan to "lift the secrecy of juvenile court proceedings for convictions of serious felony crimes."

At bottom, expungement statutes are attempts to lessen the penalty that public opinion places upon former offenders. But the "stigma" of having been a juvenile delinquent should only be of concern insofar as it incorrectly characterizes an individual who has been able to reform his life since his brief brush with the law as a juvenile. If a former delinquent remains engaged in criminal activity, then it is clear that the juvenile justice system has failed in its goal of rehabilitation, and concern for the offender should be replaced with concern for protecting society from a predatory recidivist.

And even if one accepts the notion that those who have committed a juvenile indiscretion will outgrow their reckless behavior, it remains necessary to differentiate between those who in fact can be rehabilitated and those whose rehabilitative potential is negligible--i.e., career criminals.

But current expungement statutes rarely make such a distinction, choosing instead to delete a teenager's crimi-nal record upon reaching majority (or sooner), regardless of whether it consists of a one- time arrest for public urination or numerous convictions for assault, burglary, or rape. While expungement may be appropriate for the one- time child offender (who presumably has been rehabilitated), it is wholly inappropriate for a young chronic criminal who, based on numerous incidents of re- offending, shows no rehabilitative potential. As the number of offenses increases, the underlying delinquency becomes more troublesome, and it is likely that an anti- social pattern will continue throughout a criminal's adult years.

Given that adult criminality is often predicated upon juvenile delinquency, it follows that criminals have the most to gain, and that society the most to lose, from any expungement scheme that allows individuals to start with a "clean slate"--or, more appropriately, a cleaned slate--upon reaching majority. That expungement is being challenged both intellectually and politically indicates that the costs may have finally become too much to bear.

Haweater
Seasoned Member
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2002 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby Haweater » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:00 pm

Dirty Harry wrote:
ryan.p wrote:
km wrote:
I think it's time for everone else to get good at ignoring SD_SC1 - easily the most successful troll in the history of Blueline....


That's easy! Go into the User Control Panel, then click on Friends and Foe's from the top menu. Enter the user name of your foe and just like magic they are gone! :swords:


I did that too and no longer have to read her posts. It's magical I tell ya'!

:thumbsup: DH


Me too. Now if people would just stop quoting her I would be completely free

User avatar
Zeppelin
Rookie Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby Zeppelin » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:16 pm

Criminal records of young offenders get expunged after a period time; however, I think that police records and the like kinda linger around forever. Just can't be used against the kid when he's charged as an adult, right? The bottom line is that no matter what, the police will always know what the history of the kid is. Whatever sillyness the courts do is beside the point. There always a ways to a means.
How many more times....

User avatar
CourtOfficer
Site Admin
Posts: 6036
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby CourtOfficer » Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:06 pm

It goes away after a period of time if the FPS stays inactive. If they continue to commit crimes as an adult, their youth record sticks around. At least that's what I've found.

CO

User avatar
Banned
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 12:59 am
Location: British Columbia. CANADA
Contact:

Re: Juvenile Criminals

Postby Banned » Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:24 pm

CourtOfficer wrote:It goes away after a period of time if the FPS stays inactive. If they continue to commit crimes as an adult, their youth record sticks around. At least that's what I've found.

CO



What I was taught (whether this is current or not I do not know) is that a youth record remains active until there is a 5 year crime free period and the offender has passed his 18th birthday. As in if a youth is convicted of an offence at age 16, his youth record will be deleted at 21 providing there were no convictions within the 5 year period. If there are any convictions within the five year period and post the 18th birthday the youth record is permanently attached to the adult record. Police records are forever and permanent but derrogatory information from youth records are inadmissable if a youth record has been expunged and remain as investigative tools only.

But like I said, I don't work with criminal records so I don't knw if this is current.
I didn't say it would be easy - I said it would be worth it: Art Williams


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MC07 and 3 guests