Dreikurs's Legacy and Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court PDF

The Legacy of Dreikurs: A Discussion of Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court Madeline S. Reed, Kaleigh K. Urban The Journal of Individual Psychology, Volume 78, Number 3, Fall 2022, pp. 386-394 (Article) Published by University of Texas Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jip.2022.0032 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/868260 [ Access provided at 7 Nov 2022 06:05 GMT from Ebsco Publishing ] The Legacy of Dreikurs: A Discussion of Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court Madeline S. Reed and Kaleigh K. Urban Abstract Juvenile transfer is the mechanism by which juveniles who offend are charged, tried, and sentenced by the adult judicial system with the goal of enacting harsher punish- ments and deterring criminal behavior. Using Rudolf Dreikurs’s ideas on belonging, goals of misbehavior, reward and punishment, and delinquency, we argue that the transfer of juveniles to adult court is unnecessary and also harmful to juveniles and to society. Keywords: juvenile transfer, juvenile offending, Dreikurs, belonging, goals of misbehavior, juvenile delinquency In the 1980s in the United States, juvenile crime increased, and with it, the perceived need for systems to manage rehabilitation (Trulson et al., 2020). Because crime was increasing, American public opinion was that juvenile treatment was too lenient to be able to decrease offenses (Bryson & Peck, 2019). One way states began to deal with this problem was to enact legislation that sent juveniles who committed more severe crimes into the adult criminal justice system. This path was deemed necessary for juveniles who were considered unable to beneﬁt from youth rehabilitation or those whose crimes were deemed “adult” crimes (Trulson et al., 2020). Some states enacted “tough on crime” policies, such as reducing the age thresh- old for entering the adult criminal system and setting stricter policies for crimes that could not be processed in juvenile court (Bryson & Peck, 2019). Lawmakers believed that these harsher penalties would result in reduced juvenile offenses (Kruh & Brodsky, 1997). Between 1987 and 1994, transfer cases to adult court increased by 73% (Bryson & Peck, 2019). The mechanisms of juvenile transfer to adult court vary by jurisdiction. One such mechanism is a judicial waiver, ﬁled by a prosecutor. Following this motion, a juvenile court judge decides whether the case will be sent to adult criminal court. A transfer may also happen automatically in cases where crime or offender age excludes the juvenile from juvenile court. This transfer is called a mandatory or automatic waiver. A third mechanism is The Journal of Individual Psychology, Vol. 78, No. 3, Fall 2022 © 2022 by the University of Texas Press Editorial ofﬁce located in the College of Arts and Sciences at Lynn University. Published for the North American Society of Adlerian Psychology. Dreikurs’s Legacy and Juvenile Transfer 387 prosecutorial discretion, in which the prosecutor may ﬁle the case immedi- ately in the adult justice system (Bilchik, 1999; King, 2018). King (2018) described the most commonly accepted factors for juvenile transfer: public risk, likelihood of rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system, and criminal sophistication. This three-factor model was part of the juvenile justice decision in the Supreme Court case Kent v. United States and has been commonly used for psycholegal decisions regarding judicial waivers. The term psycholegal decisions refers to legal decisions in which psychological factors are considered. Public risk is a prediction of danger- ousness or prediction of future violence. This parameter considers person- ality factors to address the risk of reoffending (Kruh & Brodsky, 1997). The likelihood of rehabilitation, also known as treatment amenability, assesses the extent to which the juvenile can be rehabilitated within the juvenile justice system. This parameter considers personal and environmental factors that may predict responsiveness to treatment (King, 2018). Criminal sophis- tication, or maturity, determines the extent to which a juvenile understands and appreciates the offense and can participate adequately in their defense (Kruh & Brodsky, 1997). Other variables that may inﬂuence this factor are social maturity and practical knowledge, indicating a propensity for further criminal involvement of an antisocial nature (King, 2018). Other factors have been presented over time in different cases at the discretion of the prosecution or in defense against judicial waiver, but the factors presented here are widely held to be the primary considerations in decisions of juve- nile transfer to adult criminal court. Juvenile transfer to adult court is problematic for several reasons. Juve- nile court is designed to rehabilitate the juvenile, whereas the adult judicial system emphasizes both rehabilitation and punishment (Bilchik, 1999). The juvenile judicial system gives more weight than the adult system to extra legal factors such as circumstances and psychology. Sentences in the juve- nile justice system vary widely according to individual needs, and they may include community- or family-based interventions. Overall, the juvenile justice system is designed to be a more compre- hensive treatment and rehabilitation intervention that considers the malle- ability and developmental immaturity of juveniles. Juveniles in the adult justice system are therefore at risk of harm from the harsher nature of the adult judicial system. Juveniles in the adult system are at higher risk of sui- cidal behaviors and physical and sexual abuse than are juveniles who re- main in the juvenile system (Hanh et al., 2007). The juvenile transfer reforms were designed to reduce juvenile offending. However, juveniles transferred to adult court are 34% more likely than juveniles with similar offenses tried in juvenile court to reoffend (Bishop & Frazier, 2000). Juvenile court is an essential mechanism through which children are rehabilitated and re integrated into the community. 388 Madeline S. Reed and Kaleigh K. Urban Views of Misbehavior Rudolf Dreikurs (1964) believed that juveniles have an innate desire to belong in their community and that misbehavior is a result of discourage- ment experienced by the juvenile. Juveniles misbehave when constructive behaviors fail to meet their needs and they feel discouraged. Juveniles may struggle to reach their goals of belonging through means that are not pro- ductive, which may result in criminal behavior. They may attempt to seek attention, power, and revenge, or display inadequacy, in an effort to have their needs met. When juveniles have been discouraged, they may have a diminished sense of social interest and may act out in antisocial ways. For Dreikurs (1991), because juveniles feel discouraged while holding on to the need for belonging, they progress through acting-out behaviors to attempt to meet their needs. Juveniles may begin with attempts to gain atten- tion; they may feel that they do not belong unless they remind the commu- nity they are present. When juveniles misbehave and receive attention, the behavior may stop in the short term, but in the long term, it will continue. If attempts are unsuccessful, juveniles may attempt to gain power through misbehavior. They may misbehave in a way that asserts the idea that they are superior to others in an effort to have a sense of belonging. Juveniles may get into a power struggle until someone submits to them. If these efforts do not allow juveniles to have their needs met, they may attempt revenge. In revenge, they may misbehave because they feel that they are not lovable or will not receive love, which causes them pain. They may use revenge to cause others pain or to share their pain with others and then connect through that shared experience. Juveniles may then progress to misbehavior as a display of inadequacy. Acting out may be a way to fulﬁll their own or others’ thoughts that they are hopeless. Others may give up on the juvenile because of these behaviors, further afﬁrming their inadequacy. Currently, public opinion commonly views juveniles who commit crimes as ﬂawed and requiring punishment to deter further misbehavior. Dreikurs (1991) asserted that behavior comes from a sense of not belong- ing to the community and always has a purpose. He argued that treatment of misbehavior should examine the motives behind the behavior and ad- dress the needs of the child in an effort to decrease the behavior. He re- garded unconditional acceptance and reinforcement of positive behavior as an effective treatment for misbehavior. This unconditional positive regard and reinforcement of appropriate behavior will likely result in an increased feeling of social interest in the juvenile. This may increase the likelihood that a juvenile will want to engage in prosocial behavior and decrease criminal behaviors. Dreikurs’s Legacy and Juvenile Transfer 389 Reward and Punishment Dreikurs (1958) believed that the punishment of a child is no longer ef- fective in today’s society. Because society strives to move toward equality for all people, he believed that punishment and reward are inequitable because someone in power must enforce them. Dreikurs asserted that among equals, if a child is punished, the child will work to get revenge. This method then makes the child resentful of caregivers and society. Dreikurs (1958) believed in allowing natural consequences to happen to children. Because there are still negative outcomes to their actions, they can learn without having to be punished. Parents are then seen in a more positive light because they are not viewed as constantly punishing the child. Dreikurs stated that the only person who can help inﬂuence the child and change their behaviors is a person whom the child sees as positive, rather than one who controls the child. This positive regard instills in children the belief that they are loved and adequate, which will deter misbehavior. They then grow to be more self-determined and have a sense of independence in their actions. Additionally, not using a reward and punishment system removes external motivation. This may support the child in the development of conﬁdence and drive. This also removes children’s fear of rejection and punishment, making them less likely to feel low self-worth. Dreikurs (1958) described an ethnic group studied by the cultural anthro- pologist Margaret Mead to demonstrate mutual respect among individuals. The group gave children tasks to do when they were young to help the com- munity. This allowed them to feel pride and build responsibility and commu- nity feeling. If children made a mistake, they were not punished but instead aided by their parents to ﬁx the problem. They were encouraged to show emotion. The members of this group did not insult one another but instead approached one another formally to bring up concerns. Dreikurs explained the importance of equality in a group and described how to effectively raise individuals without reward or punishment in an effort to build independence and respect. Dreikurs stated that punishment causes more authoritarian be- haviors in the individual and society because the child’s upbringing also affects their interpersonal relationships. This ethnic group exempliﬁed the implementation of equality and respect in raising children and demonstrated how it led to individuals acting in an equal, more cooperative way. Approaching Delinquency Dreikurs (n.d.) explained delinquent behavior as rebelling against so- ciety, learning faulty values, and lacking social interest. In this, juveniles 390 Madeline S. Reed and Kaleigh K. Urban feel as if the world is against them and act out against the community through criminal behaviors. Dreikurs described ideas of a group rebelling against those who establish themselves as dominant, with the inferiors being women, people of color, low-wage laborers, and children. He wrote that today, people are more willing to stand up and ﬁght against the dominance of the majority. Dreikurs also emphasized that communities are responsible for individuals’ deﬁant behavior. These individuals feel defeated and dis- couraged by adults in their community in different environments, including home and school. Juvenile offenders work on distorted system values and complete their goals destructively, in a deviant way. If the community is not included in the treatment, the juvenile is not likely to become rehabilitated. Dreikurs (n.d.) argued that juvenile delinquency should be solved through group treatment to increase social interest. In a group setting, the juvenile can connect to a therapist and a group to feel understood. When trust is built with the therapist, the therapist can introduce more positive ﬁgures from society, helping the juvenile build positive views and connec- tions back into society. To include the community in the juvenile’s treat- ment, Dreikurs suggested that the juvenile perform constructive efforts for the community and show a sense of responsibility. He suggested aid for parents to teach them how to use goal-directed behavior with their children, such as giving children more accessible choices while maintaining order, evolving, and improving their community. Without community treatment, juveniles may feel socially isolated and hostile. Treatment teaches the child to feel signiﬁcant in socially acceptable ways. Last, to reintegrate the juvenile into the community, there must be ef- forts to reintegrate them into society and to create mutual respect between the juvenile and other community members (Dreikurs, n.d.). This rehabil- itation can be done through aiding in work for the community to better integrate into the community instead of feeling isolated. Furthermore, for Dreikurs, isolation does not beneﬁt juveniles, as they are not being reinte- grated into the community. Application to Juvenile Transfer Rudolf Dreikurs drew on Alfred Adler’s theory that behavior is fun- damentally goal directed, asserting that the goal of misbehavior is to feel belonging and that acting out is a misguided attempt to achieve this goal (Kohn, 2006). Because offending behaviors are a misguided attempt to feel belonging, juveniles who commit offenses attempt to reconnect with those around them. Therefore, they must be kept in the juvenile court system, where they may be rehabilitated and taught how to live cooperatively in so- ciety. The three psycholegal transfer factors outlined in Kent v. United States Dreikurs’s Legacy and Juvenile Transfer 391 that are widely used for juvenile transfer decisions are public risk, likelihood of rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system, and criminal sophistica- tion. Dreikurs’s ideas on misbehavior and punishment withstand time, and his legacy supports an argument against any psycholegal factors that may be used in consideration of waiving a child out of juvenile court and into adult court. Risk to Community Public risk is the likelihood that a juvenile will be a danger to others in the community; it encompasses the likelihood of a juvenile reoffending in the future. Dreikurs’s (1958) view of criminal behavior is that the applica- tion of harsh punishment today will cause the juvenile to act in revenge. Juveniles become victims of the judicial system, which seeks to punish and control them. They may feel betrayed by society and therefore seek revenge with more offending behavior. Therefore, juveniles are more likely to offend when put into the adult system because adult courts emphasize punishment rather than rehabilitation. By providing treatment and learning opportuni- ties, juveniles will gain more intrinsic motivation to be functional and con- tributing members of society. Dreikurs (1958) also argued that using punishment and power against juveniles will lead them to act in ways that emphasize power over others, such as in offending behaviors. The juvenile is not being taught how to effectively cooperate and communicate and may be at risk of using their power against others, thereby perpetuating violent and illegal behaviors. Treating juveniles with dignity and respect will change their mindset to be- come more cooperative and productive in the environment. Amenability to Treatment The likelihood of rehabilitation, also known as amenability to treatment, is the chance that a juvenile will be rehabilitated if kept in juvenile court, given responsiveness to treatment. Dreikurs (1962) believed that natural consequences aid in rehabilitation because these consequences motivate the juvenile toward proper behavior. These natural consequences can be fa- cilitated through the juvenile justice system. Individuals need to understand the social order under which they live to grasp the consequences of their behavior. Therefore, a juvenile is likely to be rehabilitated in the juvenile justice system because the natural consequences of the offending behaviors and interaction with the judicial system will compel behavior change. Dreikurs (1991) developed the four misguided goals of behavior, which, if applied to the justice system, support juveniles’ amenability to treatment and rehabilitation. According to these goals, if juveniles offend to gain atten- tion, they are communicating that their need for belonging is not met, dem- onstrating their desire to have a place in society. Transferring them to adult 392 Madeline S. Reed and Kaleigh K. Urban court will further alienate them from society because they will be treated as if they do not belong. Individuals with criminal records are seen as unﬁt and unequal to the rest of society. This stigma reduces the chances of having a sense of belonging in their community. This is especially true for juveniles sent to prison, because they then have an incentive to continue offending behaviors to belong to the community into which they have been forced. If juveniles are offending to gain power, Dreikurs argued that they need to be taught to use power productively. This can be provided only through treat- ment and education, not punishment. Punishment will only teach that the primary means of belonging is through asserting dominance through power. With treatment, juveniles can be taught how to get their belonging needs met without holding power over others. If juveniles are offending out of revenge and then receive punishment for the crime, they will react with deviant behavior again because they will try to get revenge against society, which has further harmed them. There is a greater likelihood that juveniles will be rehabilitated in the juvenile justice system because they will receive the care to stop the cycle of offending be- haviors. The juvenile system seeks to meet the needs of the juvenile, there- fore reducing the chances of wanting to get revenge against society. If the juvenile is offending out of a sense of inadequacy, harsh punishment will re- sult in the juvenile feeling even more hopeless. The use of harsh punishment suggests that a person is not good enough and must be controlled by force. Constantly reminded of their inadequacies through punishment, the juvenile will start to believe they are ﬂawed and will continue behaviors in line with those beliefs. Juveniles are less likely to reoffend if given the love and care they need in treatment to build a belief system based on their adequacy. Moreover, Dreikurs (1991) introduced treatment options effective for juveniles. Dreikurs found that individual treatment or punishment is ineffec- tive because the community needs to be included in the treatment method. This treatment would include better rehabilitation services for individuals to effectively transition and thrive in their society. Additionally, commu- nity ﬁgures, including teachers and parents, should receive better training to continue supporting juveniles in society. Dreikurs also emphasized the idea of group treatment so that juveniles could relate to one another and the therapist. The therapist then can act as a trusted consultant to introduce and positively view various community ﬁgures. By doing this, juveniles have an increased positive view of their experiences and a greater sense of belong- ing in their community. Criminal Sophistication Criminal sophistication or maturity is the extent to which juveniles can understand and appreciate their criminal behavior and assist in their de- fense. Dreikurs (1991) believed that juveniles have not learned yet about Dreikurs’s Legacy and Juvenile Transfer 393 the consequences of their actions and therefore have problems with inter personal interactions and deviant behavior. Therefore, they cannot understand the consequences of their actions, and punishment becomes in- effective because they become vengeful without learning from their actions. Juveniles may understand societal values, but they may not have learned how to achieve them without using destructive behavior. Therefore, they cannot understand the impact of their offending behavior because they have not been taught how to achieve their goals otherwise. Conclusion At the end of the 20th century in the United States, public opinion de- veloped into a tough-on-crime discourse, which has produced a judicial system in which punishment is valued over rehabilitation. It was believed that more punishment would deter people from crimes. Harsher penalties were designed to reduce crime for juveniles, and many children were ex- cluded from the juvenile justice system to inﬂict more punishment on them. The unintended consequences of this system are that juveniles are often left without guidance, care, understanding, and social interest. Without the rehabilitative services of the juvenile court system, these acting-out behav- iors will likely remain as juveniles continue in their misguided attempts to feel belonging. Dreikurs strongly believed that encouragement, as opposed to punishment, is essential to human development and improved behavior. Harsh punishment of juveniles may lead to adults who are discouraged and disconnected. Juveniles need to feel understood and respected to be guided into independence and cooperation. Our justice system is failing juveniles who have lost their sense of belongingness. Instead of building them up, we are tearing them down further and driving them away from society through harsh punishment. Juveniles need to remain in the juvenile justice system, where they may be rehabilitated to feel valued, be taught how to contribute, and rebuild their sense of belongingness. References Bilchik, S. (1999). Juvenile justice: A century of change. Ofﬁce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojp.gov/pdfﬁles1/ojjdp /178995.pdf Bishop, D., & Frazier, C. (2000). Consequences of transfer. In J. Fagan & F. Zimring (Eds.), The changing borders of juvenile justice: Transfer of ado- lescents to the criminal court (pp. 227–276). University of Chicago Press. 394 Madeline S. Reed and Kaleigh K. Urban Bryson, S. L., & Peck, J. H. (2019). Understanding the subgroup complexi- ties of transfer: The impact of juvenile race and gender on waiver deci- sion. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 18(2), 135–155. https://doi.org /10.1177/1541204019869398 Dreikurs, R. (n.d.). The delinquent in the community. Unpublished manu- script, Rudolf Dreikurs Collection, U.S. Library of Congress. Dreikurs, R. (1958). The cultural implications of reward and punishment. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 4(3), 171–178. https://doi.org /10.1177/002076405800400302 Dreikurs, R. (1962). The ABC’s of guiding the child. Unpublished manu- script, Rudolf Dreikurs Collection, U.S. Library of Congress. Dreikurs, R. (with Soltz, V.) (1964). Children: The challenge. Hawthorn. Dreikurs, R. (1991). The challenge of parenthood. Plume. Hanh, R., McGowan, A., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., Moscicki, E., Price, L., Snyder, S., Tuma, F., Lowy, J., Cory, S., & Stone, G. (2007). Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile to the adult justice system: A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5609.pdf King, C. M. (2018). The psycholegal factors for juvenile transfer and re- verse transfer evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2298 Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Asso- ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Trulson, C. R., Craig, J. M., Caudill, J. W., & DeLisi, M. (2020). The impact of adult prison transfer on the recidivism outcomes of blended-sentences juvenile delinquents. Crime & Delinquency, 66(6–7), 887–914. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0011128720911640 Madeline S. Reed, MA ([email protected]), is a PsyD student at Adler Uni- versity, with an emphasis in substance abuse treatment. Her major interests are forensic psychology, especially adult and juvenile diversion programs, and human sexuality. Kaleigh K. Urban, MA, is a doctoral student at Adler University. Urban is currently in the child and adolescent emphasis, and has worked with di- verse youth, especially those who have more severe psychopathology, in- cluding in hospital, school, and community settings. Copyright of Journal of Individual Psychology is the property of University of Texas Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Dreikurs's Legacy and Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript