An expert on adolescent development explains why juvenile justice should be grounded in the best available psychological science rather than the harsh and ineffective policies of the past two decades.Dr. Steinberg is co- author (with Elizabeth S. Scott) of a new book called Rethinking Juvenile Justice.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
FYI: Juvenile Justice Issues on NPR Today
If you're by the radio or computer today, the 11:00 hour of the Diane Rehm Show on NPR will feature a discussion about juvenile justice with Laurence Steinberg of Temple University. From the show teaser:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I thought today's discussion with Laurence Steinberg was terrific. Really terrific. He identified so many of the problems with trying kids as adults that are borne out in the empirical data: it is not cost-effective, it does not reduce recidivism, it actually increases criminality, it is fundamentally contradictory to the tenets of the juvenile justice system, etc.
Also, Senator Steven Geller (D-Fl) called in and made the very same point I made last week in class when discussing the war on drugs: that the "soft on crime" label is deadly to politicians. To paraphrase the senator, if you as a politician support anything other than get-tough, "lock 'em up and throw away the key" policies, you are labeled "soft on crime" -- a tag that is particularly problematic because the "tough on crime" platform has so much traction with voters, despite decades of empirical evidence that many such policies are flawed and ineffective.
Patch, did you listen? What did you think?
I listened to most of it (Pap called midway through and interrupted some of it). I also thought it was a good discussion. Steinberg did a really good job but didn't really advocate anything mind-blowing or particularly innovative, he basically said what most of us already know: adult prisons aren't a good place for adolescent offenders and kids who end up there aren't likely to turn out very well. Most researchers agree with this, but it is hard to convince a public with a "get-tough" mentality.
I thought perhaps the most important point he raised was how lousy we are at predicting which kids are going to be the chronic, violent recidivists. One caller repeated an argument sometimes used to support get-tough policies: given that 10% of juvenile offenders are going to be chronic, violent criminals, it's unacceptable not to treat all youthful offenders harshly, lest those 10% get released and go on to commit more murders. (The caller basically said, I don't want one of those repeat offenders let out early, only to come and kill my mother.)
In response, Dr. Steinberg pointed out that we are so bad at predicting which kids are going to become those hardened criminals that it is unethical (and has negative consequences) to treat the whole group as if they were going to become career criminals.
That's not a point that I've heard made in the public debate of this issue very often.
Post a Comment