Decriminalizing Racialized Youth through Juvenile Diversion

4区 法学 Q1 Social Sciences
Traci Schlesinger
{"title":"Decriminalizing Racialized Youth through Juvenile Diversion","authors":"Traci Schlesinger","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2018.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary:In the context of juvenile justice, writes Traci Schlesinger, diversion can mean two things. Informal diversion includes police officers' decisions to warn and release, probation officers' decisions not to report violations, prosecutors' decisions not to prosecute, and judges' decisions to dismiss cases. Informal diversion sends youth out of the system, lets them remain at home, and asks nothing further of them. Formal diversion includes decisions by intake workers—including police, school resource officers, probation officers, and sometimes prosecutors or judges—to move cases away from formal court processing to programs that provide services but also include requirements.Because diversion can keep young people from deeper involvement with the juvenile justice system, it has the potential to ameliorate the processes through which racialized youth become criminalized at much higher rates than legally similar white youth. The research evidence, Schlesinger writes, offers clear suggestions in three areas: which youth should be diverted, which officials make good gatekeepers for diversion programs, and which implementation principles are most important. Her key recommendation is that jurisdictions should use informal diversion to decriminalize low-risk youth and formal diversion to keep high-risk youth away from court processing and in their communities.Schlesinger notes several challenges to making diversion policies successful. For one, she writes, jurisdictions must use risk assessments that don't replicate or exacerbate racial disparities. In addition, she says, formal diversion works best when youth can access services in the communities where they live, rather than in the justice system. This condition is becoming more difficult to achieve as cities and states have increasingly chosen to spend their limited funds on facilities within punitive systems rather than within communities, for example, by closing community-based mental health centers and then opening new facilities in a local jail. Finally, jurisdictions must ensure that diversion programs are properly implemented and that the youth who begin diversion programs actually complete them.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2018.0003","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future of Children","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2018.0003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

Summary:In the context of juvenile justice, writes Traci Schlesinger, diversion can mean two things. Informal diversion includes police officers' decisions to warn and release, probation officers' decisions not to report violations, prosecutors' decisions not to prosecute, and judges' decisions to dismiss cases. Informal diversion sends youth out of the system, lets them remain at home, and asks nothing further of them. Formal diversion includes decisions by intake workers—including police, school resource officers, probation officers, and sometimes prosecutors or judges—to move cases away from formal court processing to programs that provide services but also include requirements.Because diversion can keep young people from deeper involvement with the juvenile justice system, it has the potential to ameliorate the processes through which racialized youth become criminalized at much higher rates than legally similar white youth. The research evidence, Schlesinger writes, offers clear suggestions in three areas: which youth should be diverted, which officials make good gatekeepers for diversion programs, and which implementation principles are most important. Her key recommendation is that jurisdictions should use informal diversion to decriminalize low-risk youth and formal diversion to keep high-risk youth away from court processing and in their communities.Schlesinger notes several challenges to making diversion policies successful. For one, she writes, jurisdictions must use risk assessments that don't replicate or exacerbate racial disparities. In addition, she says, formal diversion works best when youth can access services in the communities where they live, rather than in the justice system. This condition is becoming more difficult to achieve as cities and states have increasingly chosen to spend their limited funds on facilities within punitive systems rather than within communities, for example, by closing community-based mental health centers and then opening new facilities in a local jail. Finally, jurisdictions must ensure that diversion programs are properly implemented and that the youth who begin diversion programs actually complete them.
通过青少年转移使种族化的青少年去罪化
摘要:Traci Schlesinger写道,在青少年司法的背景下,分流可能意味着两件事。非正式分流包括警察发出警告和释放的决定、缓刑监督官不报告违法行为的决定、检察官不起诉的决定以及法官驳回案件的决定。非正式的分流让年轻人离开体制,让他们留在家里,对他们没有任何要求。正式分流包括招生工作人员——包括警察、学校资源官、缓刑监督官,有时还有检察官或法官——决定将案件从正式的法庭处理转移到提供服务但也包括要求的项目。由于分流会使年轻人无法深入参与少年司法系统,因此有可能改善种族化青年被定罪的过程,因为与法律上相似的白人青年相比,种族化青年的犯罪率要高得多。Schlesinger写道,研究证据在三个领域提供了明确的建议:哪些年轻人应该被分流,哪些官员是分流计划的好看门人,以及哪些实施原则最重要。她的主要建议是,司法管辖区应利用非正式分流将低风险青年非刑罪化,并利用正式分流使高风险青年远离法庭处理和社区。施莱辛格指出,要使分流政策取得成功,有几个挑战。她写道,首先,司法管辖区必须使用不会复制或加剧种族差异的风险评估。此外,她说,当年轻人能够在他们居住的社区获得服务,而不是在司法系统中获得服务时,正式分流效果最好。随着城市和州越来越多地选择将有限的资金用于惩罚系统内的设施,而不是社区内的设施上,这种情况变得越来越难以实现,例如,关闭社区心理健康中心,然后在当地监狱开设新的设施。最后,司法管辖区必须确保分流计划得到妥善实施,并确保开始分流计划的年轻人真正完成分流计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Future of Children
Future of Children Multiple-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Future of Children is a collaboration of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution. The mission of The Future of Children is to translate the best social science research about children and youth into information that is useful to policymakers, practitioners, grant-makers, advocates, the media, and students of public policy. The project publishes two journals and policy briefs each year, and provides various short summaries of our work. Topics range widely -- from income policy to family issues to education and health – with children’s policy as the unifying element. The senior editorial team is diverse, representing two institutions and multiple disciplines.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信