Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jesse Mathewson
Juvenile Offenders Race and Ethnicity 2
Abstract:
Juvenile crime in the United States is epidemic; the sheer number of juvenile offenders
ensures a thriving corrections industry far into this century, unfortunately with those numbers
come the racial and ethnic disparities. Understanding why there are disparities is important when
attempting to understand the base causes for the large amount of juvenile crime in the United
States. Many advancements within the justice system help reduce the number of racially
motivated arrests; however, there has not been nearly the impetuous to reduce the root causes for
the crime levels and the disparities that exist. The following paper address’s the advancements,
disparities and takes a look at possible root causes as well as potential fixes.
Juvenile Offenders Race and Ethnicity 3
discussing the possible disparities with juvenile offender’s race and ethnicity. The most recently
publicly available statistics are 2007 for juvenile offenders. It is important to understand that in
many cases juvenile arrests are not reported to the Uniform Crime Report of the Federal Bureau
In 2007 law enforcement agencies in the United States made an estimated 2.18 million
arrests of persons under the age 18. (Puzzanchera, 2009) Of the approximately 14 million arrests
made for all crimes and ages in 2007 statistics show that juvenile arrests equaled approximately
15% of all arrests made. Juvenile arrests equaled over 18% of all adult arrests which means for
every 18 adults arrested one juvenile was also arrested. Obviously, these are arrest statistics and
do not properly reflect completed cases and incarcerations. According to Puzzanchera (2009) in
2007, although black youth accounted for just 17% of the youth population ages 10 through 17,
black juveniles were involved in 51% of juvenile Violent Crime Index arrests and 32% of
Accordingly, the crime types seem to be the real variables here and not the alleged
disparity of arrest numbers. In fact by looking at the basic numbers, it is obvious that there is no
real disparity in arrests on a general scale, as the current numbers per the 2000 census reflects
almost 18% of the population meaning that the 17% percent arrest rate is lower than the
population numbers in general. However, close to 60% of African Americans live in urban areas,
and because a large percentage of the crime occurs in urban areas due to the increased number of
Juvenile Offenders Race and Ethnicity 4
people it is a relative certainty that a greater number of African Americans may, in fact, be
arrested or incarcerated for specific crime types versus other racial or ethnic groupings.
An interesting point of fact however, is the decline in the past 15 years of violent crimes
committed among African American juveniles. From 1993 a sharp drop has been noted in violent
crimes among African American juveniles with a relatively stable but not declining level for
Caucasian juveniles. It should be noted that from 1986 until 2007 there was a general increase in
aggravated assault cases resulting in a disparity of data. However, as Puzzanchera (2009) stated
in his report, “The racial composition of the U.S. juvenile population ages 10–17 in 2007 was
78% white, 17% black, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian.” Although this is
still an “over-representation,” regarding the correlation between certain crime types and African
American juveniles it should be noted that the other minority categories are not generally over-
represented.
Various forms of legislation and legal precedent have been passed or decided in an
attempt to reduce the general disparity and the air of racial bias that pervades the American
Juvenile Justice system. One of the first of these legislative attempts was the Fourteenth
Amendment; adopted July 9, 1868 this amendment directly followed the civil war and countered
the earlier legal decision (Scott v. Sanford) regarding Black citizenship. The Fifteenth
Amendment; adopted in 1870 this amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.” In the following years there were several Jim Crow
laws passed, the Democrat Party legislated many of these laws that created a “separate but equal”
status for Blacks and Whites, another name for this was segregation.
Juvenile Offenders Race and Ethnicity 5
The Civil Rights Case, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) stated, “That all persons within the jurisdiction
of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the
land or water, theatres, and other places of public amusement, subject only to the
conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to citizens of every
During the beginning of the 20th century there were unfortunately more Jim Crow laws
passed on a local level in many states. The legal decision Brown versus Board of education
(1954) stated, “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of, "Separate but
equal" has no place.” With this decision many changes began and within 10 years legislation
(Civil Rights Act of 1964) was being passed that ensured the equality of all men in a positive
manner, with civil rights leaders like Martin L. King Jr. and organizations like National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, (NAACP) these rights were ensured.
Sociologically however, the idea as it was taught for so many years of segregation has resulted in
Within the Juvenile Justice System there seems to be prejudicial treatment, however, they
may simply be disparities. No one can deny that racism has existed and still does in isolated
instances however, it is not institutionalized. The criminal justice system is set up to judge all
equally, there are some arguments that state a law that requires a large fine is unfair for some
urban black youth as their families make less money than a suburban white youth families. This
is, however, the unfortunate side effects of societal differences and not a racist approach within
Juvenile Offenders Race and Ethnicity 6
the criminal justice system. To be fair fines must be within the same range for all who commit
similar crimes; however, it is with bail that the true disparities can be seen.
Bail amounts according to the Eighth Amendment (1791), “Excessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Unfortunately, the terminology allows a much broader approach in applying bail for instance is it
equal to a person’s monthly, annual, bi annual or more salary. According to the decision in Stack
versus Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951) Justice’s Jackson and Frankfurter stated, “In allowance of bail,
the duty of the judge is to reduce the risk by fixing an amount reasonably calculated to hold the
In establishing that exorbitant bail amounts would not be allowed this case has helped
guide sitting justices for decades. According to a Justice Policy Institute report published 2002,
between the years 1985 and 1995 the proportion of minority youth in detention (pre-trial)
increased and eventually represented the largest number of detained juveniles. The report went
on to say, “Because detention is a key entry point from which youth further penetrate the
juvenile justice system, decisions made at detention can have a profound impact on
disproportionality – for better or worse.” (Schirali, Ziedenberg, 2002, Pg. 3) So what is the
solution, what is the true cause and is there one simple fix or will it take multiple approaches?
There exists obvious disparities and the reasons are not as clear as it may seem, while it
remains obvious that white juveniles are just as or more involved in the consumption of illegal
substances there is a definite disparity in pre-trial detention for this offense. While some
researchers claim that racism is far more prevalent, it can also be assumed that these disparities
are based on flawed policy approaches within the Justice System as well. While the Federal
Juvenile Offenders Race and Ethnicity 7
profiling unfortunately, this does not necessarily signify an immediate change. In fact it is far
more likely that law enforcement that have been on the streets for much longer could be using
old techniques simply because they have used these approaches for many years and they have
In martial arts and law enforcement tactical training it is normal procedure to train with
repetitive approaches as this generates a “mental” memory similar to the muscle memory
phenomena that exists for body builders and hand to hand fighters. It is likely that the only way
to ensure these “racist” behaviorisms no longer occur is to ensure that “rookie” law enforcement
officers are no longer placed with older law enforcement agents for training, or that if they are
the seasoned law enforcement is rigorously screened to ensure that negative race-based habits are
Another area of concern is pre-trial detention and sentencing, at present it seems that
statistically there is support for the idea that the true “profiling” lies within this system. Of
course there is also the possibility that this is simply a matter of approach, in many cases bail
may, in fact, be the same or similar in amount; however, in many cases the larger numbers
placed in pre-trial detention are, in fact urban kids who cannot pay the amount regardless.
minorities being incarcerated one could assume that the judiciary themselves are at fault.
However, this may be the result of the disparity in the abilities of public defenders versus
paid legal representatives. Public defenders do not necessarily have the funding or sources
available to formulate a proper defense. Public defenders may be more likely to take a plea
bargain than a paid defender based on fund alone, in many cases private investigators and
Juvenile Offenders Race and Ethnicity 8
professional witnesses can be hired to provide additional information and help put the state’s
case in jeopardy. Due to a disparity in income levels minority defendants and those defendants
with public defenders, regardless of race, are less likely to have the funding available for these
luxuries. As a result they are more likely to accept a plea deal versus having charges dismissed or
Conclusion:
The question should be at this stage, is racism institutionalized or are the race related
issues more inflated than they seem? In looking at the statistics, it seems that race issues are in
fact, institutionalized; however, when one looks at the general law enforcement policies up until
recently it becomes apparent that in many cases profiling has evolved based on generally held
prejudices and not the statistical evidence as seen above. In fact accepting the recent rise in
counter terrorism training and the potential terrorist threat there is little evidence that supports
tool and used alone it can have a negative social impact. Within the juvenile justice system there
is obvious discrepancies in many areas, pointedly in pre-trial detention and sentencing. While
arrests are generally within the accepted ratios, it is the trial and sentencing phase that seems to
be the obvious current problem. Amended approaches to current policing and judicial approaches
could help change the current disparity that exists. With additional research in this area we will
be able to assess better the changes necessary to serve the community at large and reduce the
References:
U.S. Supreme Court. Argued December 9, 1952. Reargued December 8, 1953. Decided
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483
U.S. Supreme Court. Submitted October Term, 1882 Decided October 16th, 1888,
bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=109&invol=3
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR.asp
story and its implications. JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE, (pg. 3), Retrieved from
Juvenile Offenders Race and Ethnicity 10
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/02-
01_REP_ORMultnomahDMCSuccess_RD.pdf
Stack vs. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951) , . (2010). Stack et al. v. boyle, united states marshal.
on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit.
no. 400. Argued October 18, 1951. Decided November 5, 1951, Retrieved from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=342&invol=
1#4