Crime & Delinquency

Courts are giving increasing consideration to probationers', inmates', and parolees' challenges of various discretionary deci sions by correctional authorities. In general, this intervention is perceived by correctional personnel as undesirable and threaten ing to agency and professional autonomy. However, in proper perspective, judicial review of correctional decisions poses no substantial threat since courts generally ask only whether correc tion has acted in a reasonable way. Courts do not try to substitute their evaluation of the wisdom of decisions for the judgments of professional correctional personnel. Correction has usually re sponded to the threat of intervention by adopting a defensive position, claiming, under the guise of the right-privilege doc trine, that courts have no right to review agency decisions. This is self-defeating; in our society, courts have the last word in all situations where liberty is involved. A wiser strategy is for correction to make changes in certain practices and procedures to persuade courts of the competency and fairness of correctional discretion. The result will be judicial satisfaction with correc tional expertise and, at the same time, improvement in the ability of correction to articulate its policies and achieve its objectives.

Concern for protecting the neutrality of the judiciary has created a major vacuum between the police and the trial courts which, in turn, has precluded the police and the courts from establishing the kind of working relationships that are essential if some of the basic needs of the criminal justice system are to be met effectively.

The dilemmas that confront correctional personnel regarding methodological issues such as use of authority, value issues such as the concept of self-determination, and theoretical issues such as the "sickness" versus the "badness" of deviants are not unique to correction, but pervade all areas of social work. Social work has become doctrinaire on the use of authority, social work has oversimplified and overemphasized self-determination, and social work has confused normative and descriptive use of language with its emphasis on the "sickness" of deviants. Correction, because it has dealt with these issues the most realistically, can help to reconcile these dilemmas.

Many of the problems confronting us today have a significance quite different from the meanings traditionally ascribed to them and to the social contexts to which they relate. Our notions about "alienated and estranged" individuals need re- examination. It would prove profitable to examine the agencies, institutions, and organizations to which we uncritically subscribe and to apply the ideas of alienation and estrangement to the institutional framework itself. The stresses within law enforce ment, correction, welfare, and other "helping and service" agen cies suggest that the traditional services may be viewed as estranged and alienated from many people rather than the reverse.

Few studies deal with specific types of delinquent behavior. This investigation examines the runaway problem in two New York City precincts, one a low-income and high-crime area, the other a middle-income section. Attitude toward education emer ges as a pivotal factor. Parents in the high-crime area were apathetic toward education; some did not even know the name and location of the school the runaway supposedly attended. School problems also influenced the runaway from the middle- income section.

An important aspect of juvenile court proceedings concerns the impact of the expertence upon the child. The author studied the perceptions of the juvenile offender in court by interviewing 265 boys in three metropolitan juvenile courts before and after their court appearance. Before-and-after comparisons were ob tained on semantic differential ratings of potency and evaluation of self and judge. These are related to background factors (socio-economic class, family, and age), perception of participa tion in the court process, and perception of interest of the judge. Other perceptions are related to the personal characteristics of the judge.

The United States Supreme Court's concern for the juvenile's Constitutional safeguards has resulted in two historic decisions (Kent and Gault) affecting juvenile court procedures. Despite certain ambiguities, the ramifications and implications of these cases may bring order out of the procedural chaos plaguing thousands of juvenile courts. The Supreme Court has affirmed that in state proceedings which could lead to loss of liberty, juveniles have the right of due notice, the right of counsel, the right to remain silent, and the right to confront and cross- examine witnesses. Only time will tell whether the Bill of Rights will apply to state action in dealing with juveniles or whether such direct application must undergo a time-consuming meta morphosis, as was the case with adult criminal procedure.

This paper endeavors to understand and assess the last clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which holds that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted." This entails a review and analysis of the major case development and some of the firoblem areas—both solved and unsolved. Inasmuch as neither the purpose nor the typical proceeding of the juvenile court is penal, the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibition is inapplicable to it. However, treat ment of a juvenile within the jurisdiction of the court may involve punishment. When it does, he is protected, as an adult is, against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.