Sociology

It has been fairly well-established that being tough on crime, in and of itself, is expensive and that it does not necessarily reduce crime or contribute to a lower rate of recidivism.  One scholar has gone so far as to argue that the lock-em-up strategy is not working.  In fact, its having the opposite effect It actually makes the rate of certain crimes mushroom HYPERLINK httpwww.questia.comPM.qstaod100852172(Elikann 6).  Incarceration models have not reduced violent crime rates, with very minor exceptions, and they have not reduced criminal behavior among youth.  Unfortunately, as baby boomers age and occupy a larger percentage of the population, the primary crime-committing population decreases in raw terms.  This makes it appear that incarceration may work when in fact smaller numbers of youth are committing and recommitting violent crimes more than ever before.  This at-risk population is typically younger and the incarceration debates involve this group most directly.  The incarceration model has disproportionately impacted juveniles because many states have passed laws to have them treated as adults and imprisoned in adult facilities.  This paper will demonstrate how juvenile violence is increasingly being transferred to adult courts through the enactment and enforcement of blended-sentencing statutes in states across the country.  The social risk, refusing to treat juveniles like juveniles, is that juvenile violence is being increasingly ignored and that society is simply giving up on its youth by transferring violent offenders to adult courts.  This problem, however, can be remedied and this paper will present and discuss one alternative program (Family Functional Therapy) to incarceration through blended sentencing that has proven to have become enormously successful and cost-effective in reducing violent crime and recidivism rates among the juvenile population.

As an initial matter, juveniles should not be transferred to adult criminal jurisdiction and criminal facilities because this trend is becoming a common substitute rather a rare exception as intended by the relevant laws. Many states, for instance, have simply given up on trying to control violent crime committed by juveniles.  The result has been a national trend toward treating juveniles as adults.  The consequences, mixing juveniles with adult prison populations and forgoing viable treatment options, are devastating to many of these juveniles.  This trend is known as blended sentencing.  In California, with respect to violent juvenile crime, a sort of compromise has been reached with respect to blended sentencing.  This compromise depends on whether the juvenile is tried in a juvenile court or an adult court with criminal jurisdiction (Blended Sentencing  California Transfer Provisions 2).  Blended sentencing thus represents a growing trend to deal with juvenile violence by simply passing the buck to adult courts.

In addition, even when procedural safeguards are in place, the evidence suggests that judges often ignore mitigating factors and sentence juveniles as adults because of political pressures. Fairly recently, in 2005, a sixteen year old was convicted of a violent crime for his actions in an aggravated robbery.  The juvenile received a determinate sentence of 49 months in a juvenile facility thereafter, TYC filed a formal request asking that this juvenile be transferred to an adult facility in order to complete the sentence.  The juvenile received a hearing, but the judge ordered the transfer to adult criminal jurisdiction.  The issue presented was whether the judge abused his discretion.  The juvenile argued that the judge did abuse his discretion because (1) he had achieved certain academic goals, (2) he had enrolled in and participated in a vocational training program, (3) he had completed a chemical dependency class successfully, and (4) he had clean conduct marks from the juvenile facility.  On appeal, it was determined that the judge did not abuse his discretion because the nature of the offense and the juveniles background did not persuade the judge that adult criminal jurisdiction was inappropriate (Indeterminate Sentence Transfer Hearing 3).  A more careful reading of the case history suggests that juvenile violence, even an isolated incident, was enough to transfer this teenager to an adult facility despite persuasive evidence that treatment was both viable and working.  Thus, not only has this type of transfer to adult jurisdiction improperly become a substitute for juvenile jurisdiction and treatment, but the judicial system has bowed to public pressures and transferred juveniles to adult facilities even when the facts and the law suggest juvenile facilities or treatment options are preferable.

Finally, recent research has more persuasively demonstrated that Family Functional Therapy is a cost-effective program for preventing youth violence and also for decreasing recidivism rates among at-risk youth.  The clinical intervention model incorporated into the Family Functional Therapy approach is easily adaptable to a variety of circumstances, it produces consistent results even amidst ethnic diversity, and there exists a wealth of research data demonstrating its benefits.  The unfortunate reality, however, is that for a variety of reasons this approach has not yet been widely embraced by the juvenile justice system despite its demonstrated effectiveness.  What is significant about the Family Functional Therapy paradigm is that it is essentially an evidence-based practice.  This means that, rather then relying on unsubstantiated opinions or politically-motivated opinions, this approach instead limits itself to methods that have been proven to be empirically effective through careful research methods.  In this respect, for example, it has been noted that The developers and replicators of Functional Family Therapy have recognized that solutions require an integration of high quality science, tested theoretical principles, and extensive clinical experience in pursuit of specific functional goals (Alexander  Barton et al 2).  This evidence-based approach, in short, is based on initial research tests that are then repeated or replicated in order to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions and the exact factors that affect youth violence.  This approach has evidentiary support and is better for juveniles than transfers to adult facilities.

In the final analysis, it is a tremendous shame that Family Functional Therapy has not been more widely embraced and adopted as a method for dealing with the prevention of youth violence.  There is little doubt among academics, to be sure, that this approach prevents juvenile violence in a very cost-effective manner.  While it is a good sign that some states and local governments are expressing interest in this approach, the fact is that the pace has been too slow.  The time has come to address youth violence more urgently and Family Functional Therapy has thus far proven the most effective type of approach.  Blended sentencing is not about positive social change.