NCJ Number
93886
Journal
Prosecutor Volume: 18 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1984) Pages: 21-25
Date Published
1984
Length
5 pages
Annotation
The abolition of the juvenile courts and the giving of lengthy sentences to young offenders, particularly second offenders, could deter them from crime and thus reduce the crime rate, even if, for reasons of space, the sentences of older offenders would have to be shortened.
Abstract
James Q. Wilson views selective incapacitation of habitual offenders as the most effective means of reducing crime. This assumes, however, that habitual offenders are identified and incarcerated relatively early in their criminal careers and that their removal from the public domain is not followed by an equal or greater number of new offenders. These assumptions do not appear to be warranted. Deterrence, i.e., increasing the severity of punishment, is likely to have a greater impact on crime-rate reduction. Severe sentences can have a deterrent effect on criminal behavior even though the percentage of arrests and convictions may not increase, much as a large lottery jackpot can be an incentive for persons to purchase lottery tickets in spite of the low probability of winning. A thoroughgoing use of deterrence policy should involve the abolition of the juvenile justice system. Children under 13 years-old would be dealt with by parents, and where parental control is demonstrably lacking, they would be handled by social agencies acting in loco parentis. Persons over 13 years-old would be dealt with through adult laws and courts. Most first offenders would receive probation, but a second conviction would lead to serious punishment regardless of whether the offender is deemed likely to become a high-rate offender. Because of the tendency for this policy to increase the use of prisons, space shortages would be dealt with by shortening the sentences of offenders over 35 years-old.