Tuesday, September 20, 2011
CJ homework: The Feminist Theory of Delinquency: Juvenile Prost...
CJ homework: The Feminist Theory of Delinquency: Juvenile Prost...: The Feminist Theory of Delinquency: Juvenile Prostitution The specific juvenile crime of prostitution correlates primarily with the f...
The Feminist Theory of Delinquency: Juvenile Prostitution
The Feminist Theory of Delinquency: Juvenile Prostitution
The specific juvenile crime of prostitution correlates primarily with the female gender and is perpetuated in society by the status as young women. Many juvenile females are victimized first, and then become involved in prostitution. This specific juvenile crime is on the rise due to factors involving human trafficking and a clientele with a demand for young females. This is noted by Larry Gaines in his book titled Policing in America “Prostitution is a compelling social problem because the number of underage people engaged in prostitution. Many female prostitutes are underage, and there is a significant clientele that prefers underage prostitutes. Prostitutes often have long histories of sexual and physical abuse by family members often beginning at the age of 10 or 12” (Gaines, 253).
Many young female children are forced in to the sex trade by adults. There is debate in Texas that revolves around the problem created by the blanket adoption of the Texas Penal Codes into juvenile law. This blanket adoption creates a conflict with the matter of fact on sexual consent needed to prove up the facts of prostitution. This issue became a Supreme Court Case that will be looked at in further detail. The adjudication of a 13 year old for prostitution was overruled and remanded due to this double standard that is created by law.
Consent is in question due to the fact that a child cannot consent to sex, prostitution requires consent to be an actor in the crime. If a juvenile cannot consent to sex – how can they be guilty of a consensual sex act for trade? These are not crimes, they are victimizations. It is a crime based on “Legal Fiction”. The other party to the crime is the actual perpetrator and should be charged with child endangerment, abuse and be registered as a sexual predator. The current treatment of juvenile females as the criminal while protecting the clientele only ensures this market will continue to grow. The clientele may think twice if they knew they would become a registered sex offender. This creation of second thought may indeed slow the sex trade and the number of female children becoming adjudicated for prostitution.
The society at large is under attack by the desecration of morals as the sex trade takes hold and the unidentified sex offenders continue to create the market demand for young children to be exploited. The laws do not go far enough into the causation of such crimes to identify at risk youth, or to seek out punitive or correctional results on the adult perpetrators of heinous crimes against children.
In re B.W. TSC case 08-1044 the Texas Supreme Court received jurisdiction over a case of a 13 year old female (B.W.) who was adjudicated for prostitution and was currently being held in corrections. In the opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Guzman it is summarized to say the intent of the legislature was not to create a sex offender at the age of thirteen by the blanket adoption of the Texas penal codes into the Juvenile Justice System. The adjudication of a thirteen year old child for prostitution causes the victimization of the child twice. One victimization by the child having to do the act, the other victimization for the lack of protection given to her by the prosecution of her – to the end of her adjudication (Supreme.courts.state.tx.us/, 2009).
The adjudication of B.W. creates a stigma that will follow her for the rest of her life and will prove fact to the Labeling Theory. She, B.W., will be known in future by parents, teachers and law enforcement as a prostitute. This negative cultural tagging will affect every aspect of her life including simple decisions, motherhood and employment abilities. This adjudication is inherently oppressive and destructive to the future hopes of a life ability to participate in the defended right to the pursuit of happiness granted the American citizen.
The adults, all of them, who used her services in any way as she earned her money should be identified and convicted of sexual assault on a minor child and hence be known as a registered sex offender. The rape of any other child of the age of 13 years would require the same action. Is it of any consequence that B.W. has received the label? She is in fact still a child and any person who assaulted her should be sought out and convicted. The failure in this case is in the confusion of law enforcements job description, the confusion of what is right caused by the labeling of a child – who was at one point an innocent child.
Police are more likely to arrest a female if she violates traditional role expectations for females, such as failing to obey parents, being sexually promiscuous, or running away from home (Bartollas, 96). The blinders of society to the female delinquent must be examined to discern where the justice lie in the crime B.W. is convicted of. In the growing use of children as sexual objects in the sex trade it must become clearly defined that no matter the assumptions of law enforcement about the child the Penal code violation lies with the adult sexual abuser.
The Feminist Theory of Delinquency argues “that girl’s victimization and the relationship between that experience and girls crime have often been ignored” (Bartollas, 81). This theory indicates that there is a direct causative result in crime due to the abuse of a female child. The female child that is delinquent is often acting in result of the crime perpetuated upon her. The causative factor of the result is more often than not ignored and the female child seldom ever gets help with the initial trauma. Females in the Juvenile Justice System are composed of a substantial number of victims (Bartollas, 2008, p. 81).
The female child’s experience in life can lead to criminality. A majority of juvenile female prostitutes report becoming a runaway first. The prostitution is second to the first status offense. A majority of female juvenile delinquents report first being victimized. “Those who study female offending, as well as those who work with female offender, have discovered a substantial number are victims of both physical and sexual abuse” (Bartollas, 81). When the female juvenile becomes a runaway she becomes impoverished and is left with little choice but to exploit themselves (Bartollas, 81).
In a preventative measure, the female juvenile run-away offender should be given intense attention. There should be a home study and investigation as to the causative action behind the flight from home. The child needs to be removed from the home if there is indication of any abuse. This simple action can prevent the exposure to the “streets” that lead to teen prostitution. This would be a proactive stance in the prevention of creating child female victims. In the detainment or re-locating of a runaway, care should be given to the type of setting they are placed. Detention centers would be too harsh of an environment for the victimized youth and contribute to further victimization of the child (Moss). This justice system overreaction could yield a criminal adult released instead of a reformed adult.
While it is true that “The shift from the philosophy of rehabilitation to retribution has led to more juveniles at a younger age being tried as adults” (Samaha, 2011, p. 191), the cases of juveniles charged with prostitution should not be included in this increase. The juvenile female offender held on prostitution charges, under the age of 17, should have charges re-labeled to a status offense similar to run away. The female youth can be taught ways to earn for survival other than being exploited. The societal correction in the criminal activity is education. These female offenders should be given a way to provide for themselves, not as in a certificate - but as in a degree. While in detainment the female can use educational grants to gain at least an Associate’s Degree through online classes. In returning to society they will lose the stigma created by the offense with education. Then they can become a productive, working citizen- to pay taxes. Our society can benefit from the proper protection and treatment of these female children.
Bibliography
(2009, January 21). Retrieved September 19, 2011, from Supreme.courts.state.tx.us/: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/08/08104401.pdf
Bartollas, C. M. (2008). Juvenile Justice in America (6th ed.). (V. Anthony, Ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Pearson Education Inc.
Gaines, L. (2008). Policing in America (6 ed.). Newark, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Matthew Bender and Company.
Moss, A. (n.d.). Prison Rape Elimnation Act:Implications for Women and Girls. Retrieved September 19, 2011, from CT Feature: http://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/resources/prea_implications_for_women_and_girls.pdf?rd=1
Samaha, J. (2011). Criminal Law (10th ed.). (C. Meier, Ed.) Belmont, CA, U.S.A.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
The specific juvenile crime of prostitution correlates primarily with the female gender and is perpetuated in society by the status as young women. Many juvenile females are victimized first, and then become involved in prostitution. This specific juvenile crime is on the rise due to factors involving human trafficking and a clientele with a demand for young females. This is noted by Larry Gaines in his book titled Policing in America “Prostitution is a compelling social problem because the number of underage people engaged in prostitution. Many female prostitutes are underage, and there is a significant clientele that prefers underage prostitutes. Prostitutes often have long histories of sexual and physical abuse by family members often beginning at the age of 10 or 12” (Gaines, 253).
Many young female children are forced in to the sex trade by adults. There is debate in Texas that revolves around the problem created by the blanket adoption of the Texas Penal Codes into juvenile law. This blanket adoption creates a conflict with the matter of fact on sexual consent needed to prove up the facts of prostitution. This issue became a Supreme Court Case that will be looked at in further detail. The adjudication of a 13 year old for prostitution was overruled and remanded due to this double standard that is created by law.
Consent is in question due to the fact that a child cannot consent to sex, prostitution requires consent to be an actor in the crime. If a juvenile cannot consent to sex – how can they be guilty of a consensual sex act for trade? These are not crimes, they are victimizations. It is a crime based on “Legal Fiction”. The other party to the crime is the actual perpetrator and should be charged with child endangerment, abuse and be registered as a sexual predator. The current treatment of juvenile females as the criminal while protecting the clientele only ensures this market will continue to grow. The clientele may think twice if they knew they would become a registered sex offender. This creation of second thought may indeed slow the sex trade and the number of female children becoming adjudicated for prostitution.
The society at large is under attack by the desecration of morals as the sex trade takes hold and the unidentified sex offenders continue to create the market demand for young children to be exploited. The laws do not go far enough into the causation of such crimes to identify at risk youth, or to seek out punitive or correctional results on the adult perpetrators of heinous crimes against children.
In re B.W. TSC case 08-1044 the Texas Supreme Court received jurisdiction over a case of a 13 year old female (B.W.) who was adjudicated for prostitution and was currently being held in corrections. In the opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Guzman it is summarized to say the intent of the legislature was not to create a sex offender at the age of thirteen by the blanket adoption of the Texas penal codes into the Juvenile Justice System. The adjudication of a thirteen year old child for prostitution causes the victimization of the child twice. One victimization by the child having to do the act, the other victimization for the lack of protection given to her by the prosecution of her – to the end of her adjudication (Supreme.courts.state.tx.us/, 2009).
The adjudication of B.W. creates a stigma that will follow her for the rest of her life and will prove fact to the Labeling Theory. She, B.W., will be known in future by parents, teachers and law enforcement as a prostitute. This negative cultural tagging will affect every aspect of her life including simple decisions, motherhood and employment abilities. This adjudication is inherently oppressive and destructive to the future hopes of a life ability to participate in the defended right to the pursuit of happiness granted the American citizen.
The adults, all of them, who used her services in any way as she earned her money should be identified and convicted of sexual assault on a minor child and hence be known as a registered sex offender. The rape of any other child of the age of 13 years would require the same action. Is it of any consequence that B.W. has received the label? She is in fact still a child and any person who assaulted her should be sought out and convicted. The failure in this case is in the confusion of law enforcements job description, the confusion of what is right caused by the labeling of a child – who was at one point an innocent child.
Police are more likely to arrest a female if she violates traditional role expectations for females, such as failing to obey parents, being sexually promiscuous, or running away from home (Bartollas, 96). The blinders of society to the female delinquent must be examined to discern where the justice lie in the crime B.W. is convicted of. In the growing use of children as sexual objects in the sex trade it must become clearly defined that no matter the assumptions of law enforcement about the child the Penal code violation lies with the adult sexual abuser.
The Feminist Theory of Delinquency argues “that girl’s victimization and the relationship between that experience and girls crime have often been ignored” (Bartollas, 81). This theory indicates that there is a direct causative result in crime due to the abuse of a female child. The female child that is delinquent is often acting in result of the crime perpetuated upon her. The causative factor of the result is more often than not ignored and the female child seldom ever gets help with the initial trauma. Females in the Juvenile Justice System are composed of a substantial number of victims (Bartollas, 2008, p. 81).
The female child’s experience in life can lead to criminality. A majority of juvenile female prostitutes report becoming a runaway first. The prostitution is second to the first status offense. A majority of female juvenile delinquents report first being victimized. “Those who study female offending, as well as those who work with female offender, have discovered a substantial number are victims of both physical and sexual abuse” (Bartollas, 81). When the female juvenile becomes a runaway she becomes impoverished and is left with little choice but to exploit themselves (Bartollas, 81).
In a preventative measure, the female juvenile run-away offender should be given intense attention. There should be a home study and investigation as to the causative action behind the flight from home. The child needs to be removed from the home if there is indication of any abuse. This simple action can prevent the exposure to the “streets” that lead to teen prostitution. This would be a proactive stance in the prevention of creating child female victims. In the detainment or re-locating of a runaway, care should be given to the type of setting they are placed. Detention centers would be too harsh of an environment for the victimized youth and contribute to further victimization of the child (Moss). This justice system overreaction could yield a criminal adult released instead of a reformed adult.
While it is true that “The shift from the philosophy of rehabilitation to retribution has led to more juveniles at a younger age being tried as adults” (Samaha, 2011, p. 191), the cases of juveniles charged with prostitution should not be included in this increase. The juvenile female offender held on prostitution charges, under the age of 17, should have charges re-labeled to a status offense similar to run away. The female youth can be taught ways to earn for survival other than being exploited. The societal correction in the criminal activity is education. These female offenders should be given a way to provide for themselves, not as in a certificate - but as in a degree. While in detainment the female can use educational grants to gain at least an Associate’s Degree through online classes. In returning to society they will lose the stigma created by the offense with education. Then they can become a productive, working citizen- to pay taxes. Our society can benefit from the proper protection and treatment of these female children.
Bibliography
(2009, January 21). Retrieved September 19, 2011, from Supreme.courts.state.tx.us/: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/08/08104401.pdf
Bartollas, C. M. (2008). Juvenile Justice in America (6th ed.). (V. Anthony, Ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Pearson Education Inc.
Gaines, L. (2008). Policing in America (6 ed.). Newark, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Matthew Bender and Company.
Moss, A. (n.d.). Prison Rape Elimnation Act:Implications for Women and Girls. Retrieved September 19, 2011, from CT Feature: http://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/resources/prea_implications_for_women_and_girls.pdf?rd=1
Samaha, J. (2011). Criminal Law (10th ed.). (C. Meier, Ed.) Belmont, CA, U.S.A.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
CJ homework: Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
CJ homework: Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003: Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 legislation arose from the massive amount of sexual a...
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 legislation arose from the massive amount of sexual assaults that are occurring in prison systems and jails. Sexual assault is present in Federal, State and local facilities this includes juvenile detention centers. A review of the facts that establish a need for such legislation is the preamble to the legislation. The back ground information to the legislation reveals “The total number of inmates who have been sexually assaulted in the past 20 years likely exceeds 1,000,000” (Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003, 2003). This is an unacceptable failure of the Criminal Justice System that creates a large scale disenfranchised population based on the unacceptable Constitutional violation of the 8th Amendment. It is cruel and unusual punishment to detain a citizen for a crime committed, in a facility where they are brutally sexually assaulted, sometimes to the point of having to be hospitalized.
This legislation defines the weaker population that has a predisposition to become sexually assaulted. The increase in incarcerated persons with mental illness also increases the victimization (Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003, 2003). “Young first-time offenders are at increased risk of sexual victimization. Juveniles are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult rather than juvenile facilities--often within the first 48 hours of incarceration” (Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003, 2003). The studies and facts mainly refer to the male incarcerated population and juvenile detainees. The facts presented at the beginning of the legislation cite women’s sexual assault with vagueness. This could be due to the lack of research and empirical data on women’s prison rape cases. This is lack of research is supported and defined in an article from The Prison Journal that states “Although several studies have examined consensual sexual activity in female correctional institutions, there has been little research conducted on in-prison sexual assault among incarcerated females” (Blackburn, 2008,p.352).
In the article Powerless in Prison: Sexual Abuse against Incarcerated Women, Nicole Summer points out an issue that pertains solely to women inmates. The following excerpt explains the dilemma "I am 7 months pregnant [and] I got pregnant here during a sexual assault. I have been sexually assaulted here numerous times! The jailers here are the ones doing it!"-- excerpt from a letter from an inmate in a jail in Alabama to Stop Prisoner Rape” (Summer, 2008, p. 1). The Act does not do enough for women in prison. This issue is not considered and the women being raped in prison often become pregnant. This dehumanizes the female inmate further than male rape victims. She must give her child up for adoption; there are very few prisons that allow mothers the ability to raise children. This is how slaves were treated. The women in prison are not the state’s actual “property”. They are American citizens who are paying for a mistake. They should not have to pay with Rape and giving up their child.
Summer reveals that “Guards have unlimited access to prisoners and their living environment, including where they sleep and where they bathe. With such an imbalance of power, the likelihood of sexual assault increases. Sexual abuse in prison can range from forcible rape to the trading of sex for certain privileges. While the latter may seem consensual to some, the drastic power disparity makes the idea of "consent" almost laughable” (Summer, 2008). While it is illegal for prison guards to have intercourse with women, the fact remains that it is occurring. The Act should have created a same sex law and have female inmates guarded by females only. This will not prevent all female prison rapes, yet, it will provide for a reduction in the abuse created by the conflict theory.
Correctional officers and prison staff are untrained and do not know how to adequately deal with the issue of prison rape. Little is known about the social influence, tolerance and aid in prevention that prison staff gives towards the issue of rape. Hensley reveals this by stating “Few studies have concentrated on examining correctional officers and their attitudes toward rape and prison sexuality” (Hesley, 2000). The fact that prison staff are not trained to prevent and report prison rape is of concern. This is one of the main issues that support the need for this legislation. Prison staff must be on the frontline defense in the zero tolerance stances that this legislation proposes. The Act provides for the training of prison staff.
The Act seeks to create a standard of zero tolerance for prison rape. This Act creates reporting standards for rape cases. This uniformity is needed in the States to ensure a standard to measure effectiveness of the Act while ensuring individual victims get help by the same standard. Each state has had different ways of reporting and documenting prison rape. This also creates barriers in accurate data needed to implement better standards and may do more to silence victims rather than help them. The uniform standardization of prison rape reporting is a significant step in the right direction.
PREA is focused on a plan to create accountability among the officials for the prison rape cases and reporting them. The primary focus of the Act is research on the subject of prison rape. PREA is an Act that creates more bureaucracy than preventative law. This is shown in the act itself. There are more committees and departments created than actual mandates on prevention. The act allows for funding to create research panels. “There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010” (Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003, 2003) this funding is more for preliminary research rather than prevention and inmate treatment an noted by an article was originally published by The Nation “ Eight years ago, Congress acknowledged the brutal fact of systemic sexual assault behind bars by unanimously passing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The Justice Department is now poised to issue final rules to implement the law” (Roth, 2011, p. 1) it seems like it is the preliminary research request before the law rather than the actual law. The fluff in the words do not go far enough to aid the inmate who is being raped as noted in the article Will the Justice Department Stand Up for Women Raped in Prison? “At some point in the near future, the attorney general will issue final rules. Those rules can be weak or they can be strong (Roth, 2011). This Act is more of a grandstanding on the subject matter rather than a zero-tolerance to prison rape. The issue is at least being focused on and there is now elected officials who will give lip service to such a hushed issue that creates massive despair in America. The Act is gender neutral therefore, unlike many other discriminatory practices; the blanket coverage will provide some protection to women, “The standards proposed by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission will apply to all agencies and populations under the law” (Moss, p. 3). PREA will help in the women’s side of corrections as noted by Moss “Both genders would be well served as we implement PREA if careful thought is given to ways in which men and women enter the system, do time…” (Moss, p. 3).
The implementation of PREA needs consideration of the DOJ towards the female incarcerated population. As the guidelines are set out the DOJ should take the fastest growing incarcerated population, 53% increase since 1995; (Moss, p. 1) , into account and take a serious action protecting women. There is a request in Roth’s, article Will the Justice Department Stand Up for Women Raped in Prison?, to get involved and insist the Justice Department protect these women at www.regulations.gov . If we do not demand protection at the implementation of P.R.E.A. it will be another loss for women and a wasted opportunity to advance women in society. PREA allows for state certification when compliance to the Act is adhered to. The punitive recourse in a violation or refusal to comply with the Act is stated as a restriction of federal funds. I personally think that prison officials, who turn a blind eye to prison rape, should go to prison.
Bibliography
Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003. (2003, SEPT. 4). Retrieved August 28, 2011, from Public Law: http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/PREA.pdf
Blackburn, A. (2008, September). Sexual Assault in Prison and Beyond: Toward an Understanding of Lifetime Sexual Assault Among Incarcerated Women. The Prison Journal, 88, 351-377.
Hesley, C. (2000, December). The History Of Prison Sex Research. The Prison JournalL, 80, 360-367.
Moss, A. (n.d.). Prison Rape Elimnation Act:Implications for Women and Girls. Retrieved 08 24, 2011, from CT Feature: http://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/resources/prea_implications_for_women_and_girls.pdf?rd=1
Roth, R. (2011, April 15). Will the Justice Department Stand Up for Women Raped in Prison? Retrieved 9 8, 2011, from RH Reality Check: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2011/04/15/will-justice-department-stand-women-raped-prison
Summer, N. (2008, January 15). Powerless in Prison: Sexual Abuse Against Incarcerated Women. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/73784
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 legislation arose from the massive amount of sexual assaults that are occurring in prison systems and jails. Sexual assault is present in Federal, State and local facilities this includes juvenile detention centers. A review of the facts that establish a need for such legislation is the preamble to the legislation. The back ground information to the legislation reveals “The total number of inmates who have been sexually assaulted in the past 20 years likely exceeds 1,000,000” (Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003, 2003). This is an unacceptable failure of the Criminal Justice System that creates a large scale disenfranchised population based on the unacceptable Constitutional violation of the 8th Amendment. It is cruel and unusual punishment to detain a citizen for a crime committed, in a facility where they are brutally sexually assaulted, sometimes to the point of having to be hospitalized.
This legislation defines the weaker population that has a predisposition to become sexually assaulted. The increase in incarcerated persons with mental illness also increases the victimization (Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003, 2003). “Young first-time offenders are at increased risk of sexual victimization. Juveniles are 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in adult rather than juvenile facilities--often within the first 48 hours of incarceration” (Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003, 2003). The studies and facts mainly refer to the male incarcerated population and juvenile detainees. The facts presented at the beginning of the legislation cite women’s sexual assault with vagueness. This could be due to the lack of research and empirical data on women’s prison rape cases. This is lack of research is supported and defined in an article from The Prison Journal that states “Although several studies have examined consensual sexual activity in female correctional institutions, there has been little research conducted on in-prison sexual assault among incarcerated females” (Blackburn, 2008,p.352).
In the article Powerless in Prison: Sexual Abuse against Incarcerated Women, Nicole Summer points out an issue that pertains solely to women inmates. The following excerpt explains the dilemma "I am 7 months pregnant [and] I got pregnant here during a sexual assault. I have been sexually assaulted here numerous times! The jailers here are the ones doing it!"-- excerpt from a letter from an inmate in a jail in Alabama to Stop Prisoner Rape” (Summer, 2008, p. 1). The Act does not do enough for women in prison. This issue is not considered and the women being raped in prison often become pregnant. This dehumanizes the female inmate further than male rape victims. She must give her child up for adoption; there are very few prisons that allow mothers the ability to raise children. This is how slaves were treated. The women in prison are not the state’s actual “property”. They are American citizens who are paying for a mistake. They should not have to pay with Rape and giving up their child.
Summer reveals that “Guards have unlimited access to prisoners and their living environment, including where they sleep and where they bathe. With such an imbalance of power, the likelihood of sexual assault increases. Sexual abuse in prison can range from forcible rape to the trading of sex for certain privileges. While the latter may seem consensual to some, the drastic power disparity makes the idea of "consent" almost laughable” (Summer, 2008). While it is illegal for prison guards to have intercourse with women, the fact remains that it is occurring. The Act should have created a same sex law and have female inmates guarded by females only. This will not prevent all female prison rapes, yet, it will provide for a reduction in the abuse created by the conflict theory.
Correctional officers and prison staff are untrained and do not know how to adequately deal with the issue of prison rape. Little is known about the social influence, tolerance and aid in prevention that prison staff gives towards the issue of rape. Hensley reveals this by stating “Few studies have concentrated on examining correctional officers and their attitudes toward rape and prison sexuality” (Hesley, 2000). The fact that prison staff are not trained to prevent and report prison rape is of concern. This is one of the main issues that support the need for this legislation. Prison staff must be on the frontline defense in the zero tolerance stances that this legislation proposes. The Act provides for the training of prison staff.
The Act seeks to create a standard of zero tolerance for prison rape. This Act creates reporting standards for rape cases. This uniformity is needed in the States to ensure a standard to measure effectiveness of the Act while ensuring individual victims get help by the same standard. Each state has had different ways of reporting and documenting prison rape. This also creates barriers in accurate data needed to implement better standards and may do more to silence victims rather than help them. The uniform standardization of prison rape reporting is a significant step in the right direction.
PREA is focused on a plan to create accountability among the officials for the prison rape cases and reporting them. The primary focus of the Act is research on the subject of prison rape. PREA is an Act that creates more bureaucracy than preventative law. This is shown in the act itself. There are more committees and departments created than actual mandates on prevention. The act allows for funding to create research panels. “There are authorized to be appropriated for grants under this section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2010” (Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003, 2003) this funding is more for preliminary research rather than prevention and inmate treatment an noted by an article was originally published by The Nation “ Eight years ago, Congress acknowledged the brutal fact of systemic sexual assault behind bars by unanimously passing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The Justice Department is now poised to issue final rules to implement the law” (Roth, 2011, p. 1) it seems like it is the preliminary research request before the law rather than the actual law. The fluff in the words do not go far enough to aid the inmate who is being raped as noted in the article Will the Justice Department Stand Up for Women Raped in Prison? “At some point in the near future, the attorney general will issue final rules. Those rules can be weak or they can be strong (Roth, 2011). This Act is more of a grandstanding on the subject matter rather than a zero-tolerance to prison rape. The issue is at least being focused on and there is now elected officials who will give lip service to such a hushed issue that creates massive despair in America. The Act is gender neutral therefore, unlike many other discriminatory practices; the blanket coverage will provide some protection to women, “The standards proposed by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission will apply to all agencies and populations under the law” (Moss, p. 3). PREA will help in the women’s side of corrections as noted by Moss “Both genders would be well served as we implement PREA if careful thought is given to ways in which men and women enter the system, do time…” (Moss, p. 3).
The implementation of PREA needs consideration of the DOJ towards the female incarcerated population. As the guidelines are set out the DOJ should take the fastest growing incarcerated population, 53% increase since 1995; (Moss, p. 1) , into account and take a serious action protecting women. There is a request in Roth’s, article Will the Justice Department Stand Up for Women Raped in Prison?, to get involved and insist the Justice Department protect these women at www.regulations.gov . If we do not demand protection at the implementation of P.R.E.A. it will be another loss for women and a wasted opportunity to advance women in society. PREA allows for state certification when compliance to the Act is adhered to. The punitive recourse in a violation or refusal to comply with the Act is stated as a restriction of federal funds. I personally think that prison officials, who turn a blind eye to prison rape, should go to prison.
Bibliography
Public Law 108-79-SEPT. 4, 2003. (2003, SEPT. 4). Retrieved August 28, 2011, from Public Law: http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/PREA.pdf
Blackburn, A. (2008, September). Sexual Assault in Prison and Beyond: Toward an Understanding of Lifetime Sexual Assault Among Incarcerated Women. The Prison Journal, 88, 351-377.
Hesley, C. (2000, December). The History Of Prison Sex Research. The Prison JournalL, 80, 360-367.
Moss, A. (n.d.). Prison Rape Elimnation Act:Implications for Women and Girls. Retrieved 08 24, 2011, from CT Feature: http://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/resources/prea_implications_for_women_and_girls.pdf?rd=1
Roth, R. (2011, April 15). Will the Justice Department Stand Up for Women Raped in Prison? Retrieved 9 8, 2011, from RH Reality Check: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader-diaries/2011/04/15/will-justice-department-stand-women-raped-prison
Summer, N. (2008, January 15). Powerless in Prison: Sexual Abuse Against Incarcerated Women. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from Alternet: http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/73784
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Juvenile Delinquents vs. Status Offenders
Juvenile Delinquents vs. Status Offenders
Status offender is a term for a juvenile who has committed an act that is an offense only because of the age of the juvenile. If they were an adult there would be no offense. Juvenile offenders are juveniles who commit offenses that are violations of the law at any age (Bartollas, 2008). The status offender and the juvenile delinquent create many separate and distinct problems for the juvenile justice system. The status offender is in the system based on who they are (age), not what they do (Samaha, 2011).
The problem with status offenders is what to do with them. If they are placed with the juvenile delinquents there is a risk of exposing the child to a harder criminal element. This can create adult offenders. Too hard of a hand can send the life of a status offender into a downward spiral ending in criminality, when they did not violate the penal code. Too soft of a hand on the status offender can create future criminals as well. The child becomes labeled with the intake into the juvenile justice system. If possible the least flex of punishment would be an advantageous option. It would be better if they were removed from the juvenile justice system. Status offenders are not accused of violence, theft, abuse, rape, murder, drug dealing or any other such criminal acts found within the criminal court system. Yet, in the juvenile justice system status offenders are treated as such, in some cases, status offenders are treated more harshly that the criminal actors of the same age. The status offender that has less interaction with the juvenile justice system will often “age out” of offending and not receive a lifelong label of delinquent.
Juvenile delinquents pose a problem for the juvenile justice system because of the varying age of the offender and how to punish them. There is a vast difference between the 10 year old offender and the 16 year old delinquent. Placement must be assessed on the age and degree of criminality of the child. Older delinquents are often waived to the adult courts. Do children deserve punishment proportionate to the gravity of the crime, or should the fact that they are children be taken into account? The apparent solution is based on what model the juvenile justice system is using. This is based on public opinion and the current trends in crime. There is no one standard or policy that leads the juvenile justice system. Different states have different guides. Texas falls under a legislative guide that provides recommendations on the protection and care of juveniles (Bartollas, 2008, p. 21).
The “chronic 6 percent” are arrested four or more times. They rarely “age out “of crime. Punishment has little effect on preventing future crimes of the chronic offender, the best solution it to limit opportunity to commit crime. The courts look at multi-pronged solutions to these cases. Research has shown that there are many factors that cause the chronic offenders to continue in the commission of crime. The crime control model is used with chronic delinquents (Bartollas, 2008, p. 25). The crime control model emphasizes punishment. This is not the best solution for chronic delinquents. The “hard line” does very little to influence recidivism rates and the chronic delinquent is not reformed by punishment. If the prison population is composed of 10 percent sociopaths, could the “chronic 6 percent” be the juvenile representation of the adult sociopath population?
Bibliography
Bartollas, C. M. (2008). Juvenile Justice in America (6th ed.). (V. Anthony, Ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, U.S.A.: Pearson Education Inc.
Samaha, J. (2011). Criminal Law (10th ed.). (C. Meier, Ed.) Belmont, CA, U.S.A.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
CJ homework: Thomas Geraghty's article "Justice for Children: H...
CJ homework: Thomas Geraghty's article "Justice for Children: H...: Thomas Geraghty's article "Justice for Children: How do we get there?" points suggestions for a more just juvenile system, The three that I ...
CJ homework: Federalist, Anti-federalists papers, Media, Public...
CJ homework: Federalist, Anti-federalists papers, Media, Public...: In the writing of the Constitution of the United States the framers were aware of the opposition that would fall upon the ratif...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)