Society’s preconceptions, fears convict nation’s youth

  Chris Diaz Diaz is a second-year
political science and Asian American studies student with an
English minor. E-mail him at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Chris Diaz

Just last week 13-year-old Lionel Tate was convicted for the
brutal beating of a 6-year-old girl named Tiffany Eunick. His
defense, which blamed the World Wrestling Federation’s
constant portrayal of violence on television, failed to prevent
Tate from becoming the youngest person in the State of Florida
sentenced to life imprisonment.

The beating of a young girl weighing a 118 pounds less than her
aggressor causes many of us to feel anger and disgust towards
Lionel Tate ““ it’s terrible that such an innocent girl
had to experience a ghastly, untimely death at the hands of an
irresponsible child. But regardless of the way we feel toward
Tate’s actions, we need to recognize that Tate is still only
a 13-year-old boy.

Many would contend that Lionel Tate got exactly what he
deserved. After all, he did turn down an offer from the prosecution
that would have reduced the charge to second-degree murder and the
sentence to three years in a juvenile prison with 10 years
probation. But can anyone really feel comfortable saying that they
sent a 13-year-old to life imprisonment?

Although nothing can completely excuse Tate from committing this
heinous crime, the court’s sentence still seems too harsh for
a juvenile his age.

The trying of Lionel Tate as an adult is indicative of a growing
national trend undermining the juvenile justice system. In an age
where juvenile delinquency appears to be increasing, the majority
of our society believes that the best available deterrent to our
youth’s misconduct is the infliction of harsher punishments
for specific violent crimes; supposedly, setting a strong example
represents the best means of preventing others from following the
same wayward path.

As a result of this general belief, laws and policies such as
California’s Proposition 21 have been passed, making it much
easier to try and penalize juveniles according to the same criteria
and standards established for adults.

Most people assume that such a trend is valid in light of the
“increasing” number of violent crimes committed by
juveniles. They believe that our youth is on the verge of
destruction ““ they’re joining violent gangs, shooting
everyone, taking illegal drugs here and there and stabbing people
in the back whenever they get the chance.

  Illustration by GRACE HUANG/Daily Bruin Sure, such a
description may be an exaggeration of reality, but one cannot deny
that today our youth carries the stigmatism of being a potentially
volatile generation. Excessive attention to incidents such as high
school, middle school or gang-related shootings has incriminated
our youth as being an extremely dangerous bunch filled with
drugged-up anger waiting to be vented out in violent acts of
aggression.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Violent
Crimes Index (i.e. the combined arrest rate for murder and
non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robber, and aggravated
assault), however, juvenile arrests in 1999 were the lowest since
1988.

The Violent Crimes Indexes for each year of the past two decades
indicate that during 1988 and 1994 there was a clear increase in
the amount of violent juvenile crime, but since 1995 that amount
has been steadily decreasing. When broken down according to each
specific crime, juvenile arrests in 1999 were the lowest since 1984
for murder; the lowest since 1983 for forcible rape; the lowest
since 1991 for aggravated assault; and the lowest since at least
the early 1970s for robbery.

Unfortunately, the false assumption that our youth is creating
more and more mayhem continues to instill fear throughout the
public; this fear, in turn, encourages most people to press for
protective measures that push for the stern treatment of young
criminals.

Despite clear indication from studies that improvement has been
taking place, many continue to believe that stricter standards and
harsher punishments against juveniles should be implemented.

Clearly, the evidence provided in this article is not intended
to argue that juvenile delinquency problems no longer exist; our
youth continue to commit violent crimes and still lack proper
guidance in many respects. But juvenile delinquency has always
existed and, according to these figures, there is no reason for
fearing any exponential increase in juvenile violence.

These figures emphasize the invalidity of the common perception
of our youth as an increasingly dangerous generation of murderers,
rapists, thugs and thieves ““ a misconception that initially
prompted unwarranted attacks on our youth and the juvenile justice
system.

Such a negative portrayal might have had some weight in the late
1980s and mid 1990s when juvenile crime rates were increasing, but
their decline in recent years has illustrated how such a presumed
characterization can no longer be applied. The
“super-predator” generation predicted has not emerged,
and thus the attempts that further criminalize an entire generation
have no merit whatsoever.

Allowing this misconception of our youth to continuously
manifest itself in the treatment of juvenile offenders will be
detrimental on both an individual and social level. Firstly, it has
been shown that juveniles sentenced to adult institutions are more
likely to be sexually assaulted, beaten by staff or attacked with a
weapon.

By making it easier to try young offenders in courts abiding by
standards created for adults, we increase the likelihood of placing
individual juveniles in unnecessary physical danger.

Secondly, those juveniles who spend time in adult prisons show
an increased likelihood of returning to a life of crime following
their release. Instead of preventing criminal tendencies in the
child and lowering the overall crime rate, we end up doing the
exact opposite by predisposing them to a criminal lifestyle.

More importantly, however, emphasis on this misconception will
only undermine juvenile crime prevention and rehabilitation
programs such as Children at Risk or the Quantum Opportunities
Program that have been proven to be more efficient and
cost-effective than incarceration. These programs not only do a
much better job at targeting the roots of juvenile crime, but have
also been shown to rehabilitate repeat juvenile offenders.

Such preventive and rehabilitating measures are necessary in
strengthening not only the individual child but also the parents
and communities that play integral roles in the child’s
development. Money and resources should be devoted to these types
of programs as opposed to the already expanded, overcrowded adult
prison system.

Instead of sending a positive signal to our youth, the
undermining of the juvenile justice system elicits the message that
we have already given up on them. True, children such as Lionel
Tate should be held accountable for the unacceptable crimes they
may have committed, but we cannot ignore the potential for their
personal growth and change.

By simply throwing our youth into prisons we don’t improve
the problem, we only intensify it.