NCJ Number
59895
Date Published
1977
Length
37 pages
Annotation
THE REPORT EXAMINES JUVENILE DETENTION CENTERS IN HUDDERSFIELD, GREAT BRITAIN, THROUGH A DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DETENTION, A SURVEY OF INMATES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SENTENCING GUIDELINES.
Abstract
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MAGISTRATES AND PROBATION OFFICERS FOCUSED ON THE TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL THAT IS MOST LIKELY TO BENEFIT FROM A DETENTION CENTER. RECONVICTION RATES, THE CRIMINAL AND PERSONAL HISTORIES OF DETENTION CENTER BOYS, AND CHANGES IN SOME DETENTION CENTER PROGRAMS TO EMPHASIZE TREATMENT RATHER THAN PUNISHMENT WERE EXAMINED. THE STUDY CONCLUDED THAT DETENTION CENTERS WERE MOST USEFUL IN CASES OF FIRST OFFENDERS OR JUVENILES WITH A FEW PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS WHOSE BEHAVIOR WAS A RESULT OF AN ADOLESCENT IDENTITY CRISIS. OFFENDERS WITH AN ESTABLISHED RECORD OF DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR OR WHO ARE MENTALLY OR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED SHOULD NOT BE SENTENCED TO A DETENTION CENTER. A SURVEY UNDERTAKEN BY THE RESEARCH BRANCH OF THE PROBATION OFFICE TESTED THE VALIDITY OF THESE CONCLUSIONS. INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED ABOUT 96 PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN SENTENCED TO A DETENTION CENTER IN 1974 AND 1975 AND WHO WERE SUPERVISED BY A HUDDERSFIELD PROBATION OFFICER. A GENERAL OFFENDER PROFILE WAS CONSTRUCTED, AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SENTENCE WAS ANALYZED FROM THE VIEWPOINTS OF THE MAGISTRATE AND THE PROBATION OFFICER. SURVEY RESULTS INDICATED THAT THERE WERE NO OVERALL STANDARDS BEING APPLIED TO DEFENDANTS TO DETERMINE THEIR SUITABILITY FOR A DETENTION CENTER, AND THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN MAGISTRATES AND PROBATION OFFICERS AS TO WHICH OFFENDERS SHOULD BE SENT TO DETENTION CENTERS. THE SURVEY ALSO SHOWED THAT MOST JUVENILES SENT TO DETENTION CENTERS WERE UNSUITABLE AND LIKELY TO REOFFEND. IF ONLY OFFENDERS WITH A HIGH PROBABILITY OF REHABILITATION ARE SENT TO DETENTION CENTERS, THE PROBLEM OF THE DISPOSAL OF THE REMAINING CASES MUST BE RESOLVED. ALTERNATIVES COULD INCLUDE LONGER SENTENCES IN TRAINING SCHOOLS OR A NONCUSTODIAL SENTENCE. WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF OBTAINING LOW RECONVICTION RATES, THE FIRST STUDY'S SENTENCING CRITERIA WERE SUMMARIZED. THESE GUIDELINES MAY OCCASIONALLY BE UNACCEPTABLE TO MAGISTRATES AND PROBATION OFFICERS BUT CHANNELS FOR DISCUSSION MUST BE KEPT OPEN BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS. BIBLIOGRAPHIES ARE PROVIDED. (MJM)