
The Number of Youth in Juvenile Detention in California Has Quietly Plummeted - gscott
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/public-safety/the-number-of-youth-in-juvenile-detention-in-california-has-quietly-plummeted/
======
king_panic
VICE's "Raised in the System" feature on juvenile prisioners shows how
detrimental sending kids away to juvenile detention centers is. They are 30
times more likely to be sent to prisons as adults, completely unequipped to
integrate back into society when they return from detention and the crimes
they're sent away for can mostly be explained by adolescent tendencies that
most people grow out of.

~~~
lifeformed
Putting a kid in there almost feels like a purposeful reinforcement of the
same behavior. It feels like society is saying, "Oh, you're looking for a
career in crime? Let's put you in crime college for a few years so that you'll
be better prepared for your new life of crime when you get out."

~~~
ryandrake
Also, our society is set up so that once you are labeled a criminal, that
label sticks with you for the rest of your life. Many aspects of legitimate
law-abiding life, particularly employment and housing, get harder once you’ve
been convicted of something, even after you’ve served your time. Every
application that asks for your criminal history or “have you ever been
convicted” cements this class distinction.

If we want fewer repeat offenders, maybe we should stop punishing them after
they fulfill their punishment.

~~~
meesles
On the flip-side, however, many average people don't want former criminals in
their society, near their kids, etc.

How do you separate the ones who actually want to get back on track and live a
normal life, and the ones that plan on committing more crimes as soon as they
get out? If you were to offer your home as a halfway house or something
similar, would you feel safe without any sort of guarantee for your safety?

~~~
rootusrootus
I would start by drawing a distinction between misdemeanors and felonies,
since that could be done immediately. Make it so everything less than a felony
conviction is not part of a background check. Including arrests, etc. So as
long as you've not been convicted of a felony, then you get to say no to all
those filter questions on job & housing applications.

Then I would make it a requirement that every state offer a realistic way to
have felonies expunged by petition after a certain length of time. Prove
you're not a problem, get back to a clean record.

Honestly, there are a lot of people I don't want around me or my kids who
haven't been convicted of a crime. It's hardly a perfect filter as it is.

------
40acres
"Tough on crime" was always a dog whistle to signal to (most) voters that
politicians were willing to lock up minorities for comparably minor crimes.
It's good to see that the winds have shifted towards a more just system
although there is a long way to go.

I think there are many factors that contribute to this trend and would love to
see a paper which goes into the details. I would bet that prosecutors have a
lot to do with this. Prosecutors have so much power in our criminal justice
system due to what charges they choose to bring forward.

~~~
gascan
This seems like revisionist history. From the seventies thru the beginning of
the nineties, the national homicide rate was double to triple what it is
today. We had real crime problems in the "Tough On Crime" era, and we were
hitting record crime rates.

A lazy Wiki snip:

 _Violent crime nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Property
crime more than doubled over the same period. Since the 1990s, however, crime
in the United States has declined steeply._

I'm sure there was probably always some racial influences, e.g. perhaps people
were more willing to hand out harsh sentences because the defendants were
mostly black. But to say that "Tough On Crime" was really just a cover to
marginalize african americans & nothing more... it just seems like a stretch
when you suggest everyone was in on it.

~~~
diob
I really encourage you to read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age
of Colorblindness.

Hand waving away racial influences is convenient to some, but definitely not
to those affected by it. If you look into the statistics, you'll see that
primarily minority communities were targeted by the "tough on crime" era. And
these touted "tough on crime" policies only had the effect of enslaving and
crippling generations of minority communities.

The crime rates are nearly similar among all races, and it's actually been
shown that whites use more drugs than minorities. The thing is though, police
don't patrol white communities. They also let white people off the hook. If
you're not white though, the tradition is "one strike" (see Bill Clinton's
damning policy). Hence, you get in trouble for something any kid might do at
16, and you get locked into a system of control and degradation for the rest
of your life.

Please, please, please, do not defend the dark parts of American history.
Especially when they're still going on.

~~~
throwaway5839
"The crime rates are nearly similar among all races" Do you have any stats to
back that up? Everything I find says the opposite.

A Channel 4 News fact check says:
[https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-
amer...](https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-
commit-crime) "Blacks were disproportionately likely to commit homicide and to
be the victims. In 2008 the offending rate for blacks was seven times higher
than for whites and the victimisation rate was six times higher."

You can look at the stats yourself:
[https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf](https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf)
See Page 3 Table 2. This is the "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
Victimization Survey" where they ask victims of violent crime demographic
information about the offenders. This avoids any question of bias from the
arrest rates. Doing the math, black people offend at a rate 2.4x higher than
whites.

I disagree that whites are left off the hook: "The probability of arrest given
the commission of a crime is higher for whites than it is for blacks for
robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, whereas for rape the
probability of arrest is approximately equal across offender race. "
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Arrests_and_sentencing)
[https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-
abstract/81/4/1381/22345...](https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-
abstract/81/4/1381/2234598?redirectedFrom=fulltext)

I tried to find data about offender rate for property crime, but every
discussion said that since the victims don't encounter the offenders, there is
no good way to estimate offender race.

I'm not defending anything in American history. I just want to set the facts
straight.

~~~
dnomad
BTW, how pathetic is it to use a throwaway account to post this nonsense and
then rush in to down-vote replies?

~~~
rectang
Hi dnomad. Though I'm personally inclined to agree with the gist of your
arguments, the way you're presenting them violates the HN guidelines.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone
says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

Even if you believe someone is arguing in bad faith, the exercise of
responding to their best possible interpretation forces us to sharpen our own
arguments and makes us stronger. It's a worthwhile constraint.

I hope you'll find a way to accommodate yourself to the guidelines and stick
around; if not, I hope you'll find a venue that suits you. Regardless: keep on
keepin' on, amigo.

------
squirrelicus
Anyone have any evidence that suggests this is because there are fewer
juveniles that should be in prison, or if we're imprisoning more accurately,
or there are more juvneiles that aren't in prison but should be?

There's a lot of nuance here and I haven't found any good data on what caused
the change -- just political bloviation

~~~
40acres
If you look at the data, in general America's youth has been "doing better"
compared to the 80s and 90s. High school graduation rates are up [0], juvenile
crime is down [1], teenage pregnancy is down [2], tobacco use was down for a
long time but is seeing an uptick due to e-cigs [3]. Generally the youth
population is doing better and I think that all reflects in the detention
rate.

0: [https://www.usnews.com/high-schools/best-high-
schools/articl...](https://www.usnews.com/high-schools/best-high-
schools/articles/2018-05-18/see-high-school-graduation-rates-by-state)

1:
[https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05...](https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05200)

2: [https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-
development/reproduct...](https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-
development/reproductive-health-and-teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-and-
childbearing/trends/index.html)

3: [https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-
development/substance...](https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-
development/substance-use/drugs/tobacco/trends/index.html)

------
beat
Steven Pinker talks about the root causes for this in _Better Angels of Our
Nature_. He argues that crime has been trending steadily downward for
centuries. There was a blip of increasing crime, at odds with the trends, that
lasted from about the early 1960s to the late 1980s, and he offers some
explanations for that blip. But in general, crime should continue to fall.

The US homocide rate has been dropping steadily since 1991, from 9.8 to about
4.5 today. (The post-WWII peak was 10.2 in 1980.) It stands to reason that a
drop in juvenile crime would track the drop in adult violent crime.

~~~
TomK32
I though lead paint and lead in gasoline was a good candidate for the blip?

~~~
beat
Pinker attributes it to cultural shifts, not causes like lead paint.

I googled and found his discussion of the subject. It's worth reading.
[https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0002.206/\--deci...](https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0002.206/--decivilization-
in-the-1960s?rgn=main;view=fulltext)

~~~
rossdavidh
I really liked Pinker's book, but that was imho one of the weaker sections.
For one thing, it more or less says that violence dropped because of "cultural
shifts", which is more or less a description of what happened, not an
explanation.

~~~
enraged_camel
Yeah, sounds like hand-waving to me.

------
smsm42
Wait, so California made if very hard to put a youngster in juvenile
detention, and the number of youngsters juvenile detention plummeted. Is there
some deep meaning behind this that I am missing? It's like saying "we
reclassified most crimes from felony to misdemeanor and the number of felonies
decreased dramatically!" Well, duh!

The thing to check would be what happened to crime/reoffense rates. And _then_
making conclusions. But that didn't happen in the article.

~~~
beat
Yes, there is a deep meaning you're missing... namely, that the drop in
juvenile detention mirrors a drop in crime across all parts of society.

~~~
smsm42
I see no such comparison in the article. It may be so, or not - I have no
idea. I know general crime rates are mostly declining (though it depends on
place and crime - it's not universal) but I have no idea whether the drop in
juvenile detention is the same as in crime, more or less. If it's the same,
does it mean the reform described in the article had absolutely no effect and
the reduction in detention is caused by other trend that was outside of
reformer's control? Or does it mean absence of detention actually reduced the
crime, causing virtuous cycle? If it's falling faster, how much this actually
reduces the crime? None of these questions - which are vital for understanding
the matter - were even mentioned, let alone answered.

------
docker_up
In SF I've seen first-hand groups of youths filling up their backpacks with
store items and running off laughing. They don't even run more than a block
before slowing down to walk because they know nothing will happen. Thousands
of dollars of items are taken but because of the new law where theft under
$1000 per person is considered a misdemeanor, nothing happens. I talked with
the merchant and she said that the police in SF don't even respond. It's
shocking to me, maybe I'm naive, how quickly the changes in law get exploited
to the maximum.

~~~
nostrademons
Property crime is rampant in a lot of the Bay Area. Violent crime has hit
historic lows. I've learned to never keep valuables in your car and always
lock your doors, but I also feel safe walking around in a number of places
that historically have had really bad reputations, like even the Tenderloin.

I wouldn't be so quick to blame changes in laws, though. In my experience,
property crime is up because the _police don 't do anything_ when they get a
report of a theft or burglary. If there's a fight, drug deal, or even just a
drunk person stumbling around, the police will be out in force. If somebody
got robbed, well, good luck, they'll take your statement and then you're on
your own.

Now, perhaps that has to do with incentives and the police knowing that the
offender isn't going to jail even if they pick him up for burglary. But it
seems like there could still be a healthy middle ground where property crime
offenses still result in fines, restitution, community service, and probation
without needing to lock kids up in prison.

~~~
dwaltrip
What incentives cause police to care about stumbling drunk people but not
petty theft or property crimes?

Are they rewarded for arresting drunk people?

~~~
manfredo
The city refuses to enforce property crimes. Even if the police make an
arrest, nothing comes out of it. Many residents consider it to be
"criminalizing poverty", thus it is socially unacceptable to enforce property
crimes. Sure, there are specific roles (e.g. the District Attorney) that have
control over this, but they answer to city hall, and they respond to voters'
desires. Ultimately it's on us residents for how property crime became de-
facto legal.

~~~
erikpukinskis
I think it starts with the fact that being penniless is illegal. You can’t
poop, you can’t build shelter. You can’t vend small items like snacks or
clothing. All of that is illegal. So poverty truly is illegal in SF.

So, the poor will be criminalized regardless of whether they steal, what’s
their incentive not to steal? From their perspective, they’re already
criminals for not being rich, why not act like it?

Add to that the fact that most plots of land were illegally seized and resold.
So from a moral perspective the landowners in SF are criminals too.

The city needs to take those issues seriously before they can reasonably
expect the poor to cease their mischief. Without a navigable legal framework
for the poor to subsist, and without a property court committed to restitution
of stolen land, I don’t see how we can in good faith demand people refrain
from stealing iPhones.

~~~
manfredo
Not all of the people committing property crimes are homeless. For example:
[https://www.insideedition.com/inside-wave-smash-and-grab-
car...](https://www.insideedition.com/inside-wave-smash-and-grab-car-
robberies-plaguing-san-francisco-46736)

~~~
erikpukinskis
Did I suggest they were?

------
supernovae
I'm willing to bet decriminalization of weed is a huge factor of keeping kids
out of prison.

Just hope we continue to learn how to build a system that restores dignity,
treats the causes of criminal activity and focuses on keeping people out of
the system. Hard to do when many prisons are moving to for-profit private
facilities.

~~~
Janeman544
Marijuana and Tobacco are not cool anymore for kids. Part of the reason why
Vaping became a fad is because the youngsters did not bother with all kinds of
smoking.

The numbers show that teenage drinking and smoking has been going down year on
year since the 90s. Vaping changed at but I think that trend is a short lived
too.

~~~
njharman
It's not just or even mostly the direct "kid smoked weed went to jail". It's
growing up in a culture of drug war were the police are the enemy cause they
round up, hassle, and jail your older brothers, parents, everyone you know for
doing things you know are not criminal. The pushers, gangs, lookouts, mules,
etc. Surround kids with crimes and criminals, they will pick up the lifestyle.

Pot is not a gateway drug. But pot illegalization was a gateway into crime.

------
fipple
This is where Singapore style caning can be much more humane than
incarceration without throwing the whole city to the dogs. A few minutes of
searing agony, a few days of recovery, a lifelong lesson to never do that shit
again, without putting you in crime college or preventing you from ever
getting a job again.

------
rossdavidh
The one thing I didn't see mentioned in any of this is, are we certain that
we're not just sending underaged kids to regular prison? I would like to think
not, but if we're charging them as adults...

But hopefully that's not something we do. Right?

------
chrisbrandow
Not a single mention of the continually corroborated elemental lead
hypothesis.

Rick Nevin specifically calls out the juvenile crime/incarceration rate as the
canary in the coal mine.

Whether one agrees that it’s correct or not, it certainly deserves a mention

------
EngineerBetter
"sew their chaos"?

I'm curious - I would've expected this to be "sow" as in "sowing seeds". Is
this an American spelling?

~~~
jacobolus
No, that’s a mistake.

------
expathacker
Could it be that the "greatest generation" were just really bad parents? The
men came back from WW2, and then again Korea, completely broken with PTSD"?

The boomers didn't deal with nearly as much war as their parents. Violent
crime peaked exactly 18 years after Roe vs Wade. An entire generation was
allowed to wait until they were ready to be intentional parents rather than
accidental.

------
debacle
"Tough on Crime" is no longer en vogue in most parts of the US.

That likely has a huge impact.

------
komali2
>No one painted this portrait so well as John Dilulio, the criminologist who
popularized the term. A self-styled tough researcher, he surveyed juvenile
prisons, where he saw “vacant stares and smiles” and “remorseless eyes”
staring back at him. These kids “pack guns instead of lunches,” he wrote. They
roam the streets in “‘wolf packs,’” and “‘maim and kill on impulse.’”

Sure sounds like sound science /s. I wish more politicians/the general public
weren't so vulnerable to Appeal to Emotion fallacy. A guy wandering through a
juvenile prison and being spooked shouldn't count for jack shit in
policymaking.

~~~
snambi
Hahahaha... well said.

------
njharman
I blame legalization. When you make common activities not illegal, less
illegal activity happens. Shocking, but true.

