Week 6: Child Identity Development and Justice

 

Is our identity born of uncontrollable internal factors, or does the environment shape our self-image as children, and later, who we believe we are as adults? This seemingly ever-present question is one that sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, and intellectuals across the board have been considering for many years. The film Identity Crisis: Self-image in Childhood, investigates this exact question, and seems to conclude, seemingly positively, that a child’s surroundings make all the difference when it comes to constructing self-image. For students contemplating the juvenile justice system, the case made in the film has many important implications. Here I will discuss some of the specifics of the film, including aspects of identity formation and development that the documentary poses as influencing youth’s perceptions of social characteristics, their own potential, and their likelihood of engaging in criminal activity.

The documentary unfolded to present the argument that factors such as a child’s family’s economic position, views about physical appearance and attributes (including gender and ethnicity), and familial relationships and friendships influence a child’s self-image. One of the most significant points made within the documentary, was the weight that a child’s socio-economic position has on a child’s growth. In the film, the audience is introduced to James, who is being raised by his mother. James’ mother lives in constant fear of her ex-boyfriend, and must rely on government assistance to escape her situation. The only stability availably to James remains in the positive experience of being at school. When asked to differentiate between the family living in a large, stately house and a smaller shabby house, James demonstrated that he believed rich, good people lived in the nicer house and that the smaller house belonged to poor people. When asked about what the child living in each of the houses would like to be when they grew up, James responded: “Umm, I don’t know yet” (Identity Crisis: Self-Image in Childhood, 2005). Just as the researchers posited, it seems that socioeconomic factors certainly influence a child’s perception about their future and of their own potential. Particularly in James’ cases, which was one marked by uncertainty of a home, with broken family ties and with a parent who was uncertain of her own future, it seems quite apparent that James has been influenced by his surroundings, and that those influences reflect directly on his own self-image.

Next, I would like to discuss the aspect of physical appearance associated with body image. It was surprising, or at least unexpected, to hear that a child’s body image was so greatly impacted by their parents’ own body image; but from Rebecca’s story, and because I felt I could relate through my own experience, I am persuaded to believe it is the case that even at such a young age, we acquire meanings and learn to judge our own body and how food can have such an influence through how our parents view themselves. If this is the case with food and body image, it seems possible that how parents conduct themselves and view themselves can have great impact on how a child might conduct and view themselves. I think this point was even made in the case of William, as presented through the film, who we are told, is a replica of his father.  

On another point relating to physical appearance and attributes, the film also illustrated how race and gender play a role in constructing identity. We’re introduced to Tyrese:

“I think Tyrese will have a harder time than some of the other children—yes, because he’s black. But also because he’s a black male. And because he’s dyslexic. So he’s got a lot of things stacked against him”  (Identity Crisis: Self-Image in Childhood, 2005).

 On his mother’s view, race and gender greatly factor into the shaping of Tyrese’s identity by raising some of the obstacles that come with being a certain race and gender. According to the film, children who are four and five years old already know much about race, ethnicity and the stereotypes attached to them, so it is important for parents, teachers, guardians, etc to work to challenge such stereotypes. Tyrese’s mom, Marie, demonstrates this, by exposing Tyrese to subjects and knowledge associated with black history. And it seems that by the case study involving Tyrese, Marie’s efforts have worked: he was the only black child to chose (from the pictures of a white, black, Hispanic and Asian child) to play with another black child. So what kinds of implications do positive perceptions of race have for child identity development? When I saw the example of Tyrese and of the case study he was associated with, I remembered an example in my own childhood, of when I could relate. My brother (who resembled my light-skinned mom with German in her background), would always say my sisters and I (who resembled my tan-skinned dad who was Mexican) that he was “four drops German” and that we were only one drop German. Looking back now, I think of it as a silly story; but when I was a child, his expression truly seemed to impact my views of what was better—and of exclusivity. There doesn’t seem to exist a definitive answer, but it would appear that having a positive perception of one’s own race and ethnicity seems to affect our sense of belonging.

 On the whole, I found that I agreed with most of the points made throughout the film. The information presented in the documentary was well-argued and illustrated, and I was made to see how socioeconomic disposition, physical image and appearances and familial relationships and friendships influenced a child’s self image.

“For four year olds, gender is so fluid, it’s better to stick with the rules: rigidity” ((Identity Crisis: Self-Image in Childhood, 2005).

What I thought was quite interesting as well was the film’s findings about gender and appearance: mainly that children didn’t know too much about it, and so their opinions on it were influenced by ‘rigid’ norms of what a girl looks like and does, and what a boy looks like and does. But the film questioned the way children differentiated between appearance and gender, and marked it as flawed. So this brought me to a question of my own, and that is, what’s the difference between how a child cognizes gender and appearance and other factors like economic class? I think in most ways, rigid norms govern the way children condition their opinions and views of external people and things, and of their own identity. So, as the film mentions, it is our obligation to challenge those norms and stereotypes that children pick up.

In that vein, I think it might be beneficial to dig deeper into the research of child cognition, and also how we might best challenge those norms and stereotypes we pick up as children. How do we teach a child to think critically about their environment, and to challenge their assumptions without jeopardizing their own identity—including constructing a positive self-image and their likelihood of engaging in criminal activity.

Work Cited
Identity Crisis: Self-Image in Childhood. Films Media Group, 0. Films On Demand. Web. Accessed on 28 February 2011. <http://digital.films.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=12280&xtid=>.

Week 4: Youth, Interrogation and Capital Punishment

                 As I read through the articles and viewed the film attached to this week’s subject of youth and capital punishment, I came to one paramount conclusion: we’ve only begun to scratch the surface—that is, we have only minimally begun to understand youth and how to manage those youth who have committed crimes, especially violent crimes. This is especially apparent in the history of the juvenile justice system—which originated with the purpose to provide rehabilitation but has shifted to espouse a more punitive approach. This punitive approach has effectively resulted in things such as trying juveniles in criminal court, bestowing harsher sentences, and most gravely important, the institution of capital punishment for young offenders.

       So why then, in 2005, did the Supreme Court strike down the death penalty for juveniles?  Madlyn C. Morreale and Abigail English in their piece “Abolishing the Death Penalty for Juvenile Offenders: A Background Paper” and Laurence Steinberg and Elizabeth S. Scott in “Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence” give very compelling rationale for eliminating the juvenile death penalty. Here, I will try to outline some of those reasons in accordance with the film Death Row Kids and the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Roper v. Simmons.

       First, it might be beneficial to consult Steinberg and Scott when it comes to framing the death penalty issue: that is, in terms of excuse versus mitigation. Their writing expresses: “The public debate about the criminal punishment of juveniles is often heated and ill-informed, in part because the focus is typically on excuse when it should be on mitigation. It is often assumed, in other words, that the only alternative to adult punishment of juveniles is no punishment at all—or a slap on the hand” (2003). In this sense, our perception of juvenile offenders is often wrongly interpreted to be a ‘black and white’ or transparent issue. When in truth, the issue covers a lot of gray area. By viewing cases, where the death penalty is involved, through the lens of mitigation, we rightly enact a scale of proportionality, where youth who commit crime aren’t allowed to just ‘get away’ with their crime, but are reasonably reprimanded for the crime they have committed.

       Both articles, by Morreale &English and Steinberg &Scott provided a lot of support for the use of mitigation as a means for eliminating absolute sentencing for youth—among the weightiest of support was evidence for psychosocial immaturity, which, it must be mentioned, was also alluded to in Kennedy’s delivery of the court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons:  “From a moral standpoint, it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed” (2005). In “Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence”, Scott gives a number of psychosocial factors that account for differences in decision making by adolescents and adults, including a sensitivity to peer influence, attitudes toward and perception of risk, future orientation and the capacity for self management (Scott, 2003). It is interesting to note here, that in the film, at least one of the interviewees, Soriano, experienced a significant amount of peer pressure. On another level, both Soriano and Jacobs illustrate certain other factors of psychosocial immaturity which include a skewed perception of the risks and the capacity for self management. Soriano’s story makes Scott’s point about psychosocial factors quite poignant.

“…I didn’t know he had a gun, and when we got inside the store, he tells me: ‘Here, get this gun’.  I said: ‘What do you want me to do with a gun’. And he says: ‘I want you to point it at the clerk’… So when I get to the counter I point this gun at the clerk… I don’t want to hurt this man… I knew better than that” (Death Row Kids, 2003).

Separate from the points of mitigation and subsequently psychosocial immaturity, is an idea that the death penalty has a disparate impact when it comes to race. Morreale and English write that Blacks and Latinos make up a disproportionate amount of those on death row (2004). Additionally, the film Death Row Kids mentions that poverty is also heavily correlated in the case of juveniles who have been given the death penalty (2003). With this compilation of facts, we must first ask ourselves whether or not the figures are merely coincidence. If they are not, as Morreale and English express it seems appropriate to suggest that maybe we need to partly treat this issue as a social problem.  

 “I grew up knowing that I had to die for a crime…and I know one day they might have to stick a needle in me… but I know that I didn’t continue in [those] ways” (Oswaldo Soriano, Death Row Kids).

       It seems that the death penalty is an issue marked with doubt and question—this alone is justification enough for the Supreme Court, in Roper v. Simmons, to deem the death penalty unconstitutional. But I’d like to draw attention to the court’s decision in one other way: in the fact that it relies so heavily on an ‘evolving standard of decency’ of national and international society. Should the changing attitudes of society be given weight in such an issue? Or is it just enough to say that we cannot institute capital punishment for juveniles, without knowing the whole truth?

Works Cited

Films for the Humanities and Sciences."Death Row Kids" 2005. Online video clip. Arizona Universities Library Consortium. FMG Video On Demand. Accessed on 14 February 2011. http://digital.films.com/play/ VGL58V

Lane, C. (2005) 5-4 Supreme Court Abolishes Juvenile Executions. The Washington Post, A01-A02.

Morreale, M. C., & English, A. (2004). Abolishing the death penalty for juvenile offenders: A background paper. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(4), 335-339.


Parker, Jeff. (Cartoonist). (2005). "No Death Penalty for Juveniles". Accessed on 14 February 2011. http://www.cagle.com/news/DeathPenaltyJuveniles/main.asp

Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. The American Psychologist, 58(12), 1009-18.

Week 3 Juvenile Offenders in Adult Prison: Prompt, Certain Modest Punishment

In this week’s examination of the juvenile justice system, we are afforded a clearer look into the experiences of incarcerated youth. Both Aaron Kupchik’s writing, “The Correctional Experiences of Youth in Adult and Juvenile Prisons” and the film Juveniles Locked Up, seem to be getting at one overarching point: that the way we manage youth in our currently ailed system needs to be modified. In this writing, I will offer some points, collectively pulled from Kupchik’s article and the presented film in order to understand some institutional and organizational problems of the juvenile justice system.

Kupchik’s comparative research on youth in adult versus juvenile correctional facilities, though not completely certain, offers some provoking impressions of contemporary methods for managing youth within the justice system. For one, the article offers a trend in sentencing, and a basis for Kupchik’s research; specifically that youth, more and more, are being “prosecuted and punished in criminal rather than juvenile courts” (Kupchik, 2007; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). This finding is a little troubling; it seems that society has taken an attitude advocating for harsher punishment—previously reserved for adult criminals—and has applied it to youth who have perpetrated crime. As the film expresses: “…our society has come to the point where the age of the defendant is no longer a mitigating factor—… 14-year-olds are being sentenced to life behind bars” (Juveniles Locked Up, 1995). Similarly, the fact that most youth are being tried in criminal court, rather than in juvenile courts, seems to signify a partiality to integrate the adolescent and adult populations into adult prisons, where inmates are assumed to fall through the cracks, and have less of a probability for rehabilitation. 

                

On this framing, Kupchik explores juvenile incarceration and arrives at a couple of appealing findings. Overall, Kupchik found that youth experiences of incarceration differed significantly and complexly when it came to juvenile facilities and adult prison. Concerning youth incarcerated in adult prisons, Kupchik found that his subjects reported higher positive feedback, than in juvenile facilities, for access to institutional services. Still though, staff mentoring and fairness were reported much more positively by youth in juvenile facilities (2007). For the question as to which was better, Kupchik seemed to offer that although juvenile facilities possess their shortfalls, they were much more desirable than adult prison.

“These results do not…suggest that juvenile facilities entirely fail to give rehabilitative services to young adults. On the contrary, if one assumes that fostering a correctional environment in which staff act as mentors toward inmates is more difficult than hiring additional counselors and teachers (which seems like a reasonable assumption), then these results might be a partial—but significant—victory for the juvenile facilities” (Kupchik, 2007).

            

Still, Kupchik’s article leaves a lot to be desired. We know that juvenile facilities have a great many improvements to make, and that they differ significantly from adult prisons—where do we go now? In this way, the film picks up where Kupchik leaves off. After analyzing a negative picture of the juvenile justice system, it was really refreshing to hear of a program that actually seems to work: Last Chance Ranch. By offering rehabilitative services in an informal manner—without the cuffs, chains and bars, Last Chance Ranch gets it right. Last Chance Ranch shows that smaller facilities, where the staff can better supervise works better for incarcerated youth.

“Prompt, certain, modest punishment” (Juveniles Locked Up, 1995).

           
What was also interesting about the film’s framing of juvenile justice, was that it seemed to advocate for something completely different than what we see in the contemporary justice system: shorter, definite sentencing. In my opinion, combining such a system with programs like Last Chance Ranch is something that needs to be explored. Like the article and film suggest, it isn't enough anymore to combat or treat juvenile crime with severe punishment—the societal prescription for matching the punishment with the crime just isn't working. We should think twice and three times before sending a sixteen year old boy to adult prison; because, as Kupchik suggests, there is a difference between adult prison and juvenile facilities. 


On these points I can agree with the article and film, but as it has been suggested, juvenile justice is dark and unexplored territory. We have explored juvenile justice by looking for commonalities and correlations between youth, between programs of punishment, etc. but I think we also must rely on the divergences and discrepancies—in other words, I don't think just one program will work. We need to research and institute a diversity of treatment and rehabilitative programs, for a diversity of youth. We simply cannot rely on a flat, static painting of the young criminal.

Works Cited


Kupchik, A. (2007). The correctional experiences of youth in adult and juvenile prisons. Justice Quarterly, 24(2), 247-270 .


Films for the Humanities and Sciences."Part 1: Juveniles Locked Up" 1995. Online video clip. Arizona Universities Library Consortium. FMG Video On Demand. Accessed on January 31, 2011. http://digital.films.com/play/ HVKF9S 

Week 2 Youth Experiences of Incarceration in the US: A Case for Play

  

            Questions related to the subject of incarcerated youth are tough and complex ones. It seems incomprehensible to hear of children committing crimes of drug use, assault or murder. We can’t understand the issue, and most of the time we’d rather not discuss it; but youth crime and incarceration is, no doubt, something that must be confronted. One of the most prominent questions academics and social scientists raise today is: why? What causes a youth to commit his or her first crime? After viewing the films Juvenile Corrections Facilities and Stuart Brown Says Play is More Than Fun, it would seem that the correlation between play, deprivation and kids who have been incarcerated is profound, and needs to be explored a little more.

In his research, Stuart Brown places a great amount of importance on play. He even suggests, specifically from his work with mass murderer Charles Whitman, that play deprivation can lead to a greater vulnerability to commit crime (2008); and it would seem that his hypothesis has some truth to it. In the film Juvenile Corrections Facilities, a boy named Conrad is introduced. Conrad has a pretty lengthy rap sheet and has been barred from attending every public school in the state of Arizona (2005). When asked “why?”, Conrad responded:

“I got hooked on drugs. Doing drugs with my mom… I grew up being abused, physically and emotionally and mentally by my mom” (Juvenile Corrections Facilities, 2005).

Because Conrad grew up in such a tumultuous environment, where he was exposed to a great deal of abuse, and where he his life consisted mostly of drug use, he was unable to acquire the problem solving, social skills that are typical and necessary to a child’s development, which brings me to my next point: that aspect of play which includes curiosity and exploration.

            “Now, one of the things about play is that it is born by curiosity and exploration. But it has to be safe exploration” (Brown, 2008).

            When Stuart Brown mentions this, he seems to give ‘play’ a background, or a necessary setting in which it can occur. His specific remark about the little boy who is anatomically curious reminded me of a segment of the juvenile incarceration film where we are introduced to the girl’s juvenile corrections facility. For these girls, where the majority of them have been sexually abused, home life is anything but safe. Particularly, it seems to be unsafe in the sense that many of these girls have sustained sexual abuse—their emotional health is compromised, not only because they seem to grapple with ideas of unhealthy intimate relations, like Jerilyn, a perpetrator of child molestation and a victim of it herself, but also of a more generally wholesome enthusiasm to explore, to play. Jerilyn mentions: “I don’t want to grow up. I don’t want to become an adult. I want to stay home. I kind of missed out on three years of my teenage life, being locked up. And that sucks” (Juvenile Corrections Facilities, 2005).

            In further investigation of play, Brown interestingly mentions a type of play he calls ‘rough and tumble’ play. Brown expresses: “Rough and tumble play is a great learning medium for all of us. Pre-school kids, for example, should be allowed to dive, hit, whistle, scream, be chaotic; and develop, through that, a lot of emotional regulation…” (2008). Once again, we remember Conrad, who struggles with being hyperactive and needs medication to function healthily and normally. Part of the problem may be that Conrad was exposed to drugs at such an early age, but one might suspect that another cause of Conrad’s inability to function without medicinal treatment may have to do with the notion that he was unable to develop, as a child, those very essential regulatory behaviors that come about through play, or more specifically, through rough and tumble play.

            In sum, the points Brown makes are good ones, and they illustrate a strong correlation between play, play deprivation and juvenile incarceration. In many of the cases mentioned,  instances of juvenile incarceration arise from bad family life, which recognizably seemed to lead to play deprivation. So, with all this research evidence on play and play deprivation, there seems to be a little bit of disconnect between how juvenile incarceration facilities operate and how they should operate. In our peering into juvenile facilities, incarceration seems to be characterized mostly by isolation, and only some interaction; and even though we should harbor a good amount of healthy skepticism, especially since some of these youth are prone to violent crime—taking into account play is something that should be approached apprehensively, but not ignored.

Works Cited

Juvenile Correction Facilities. Films Media Group, 0. Films On Demand. Web. 31 January 2011. <http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=11717&xtid=>.

Schierlitz, T. (Photographer). (2008). Taking Play Seriously [Photograph], Accessed on January 31, 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/magazine/17play.html?_r=1>

TED Talks."Stuart Brown says play is more than fun." May 2008. Online Video Clip. Accessed on January 31, 2011. <http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html>

Week 1 Blog Post: "How old is 15?"

How old is fifteen really? Is it too young an age to make certain decisions, to act in certain ways? In a segment of his comedy act, Dave Chappelle discusses these questions with a mix of crude humor and candor—and even though some of his words are a little tough to digest, the subject is something that needs to be raised, needs to be investigated, needs to be resolved.

“But it keeps coming up. There’s a lot of confusion around that age. Anytime fifteen comes up, people freak out."

 —Dave Chappelle, "How Old is 15 Really?"

In his mention of Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnapped and held only eight miles from her home for an entire nine months, Chappelle actually derides Smart's capacity to escape from her kidnappers. He then posits the case of a seven year old African American girl who was kidnapped in Philadelphia and successfully escaped her kidnappers—bringing up the point of discrepancy in maturity and competency. Why is it that fifteen year old Elizabeth Smart could not escape her kidnappers while another child, who was only seven, could?

Such examples seem to call into question how children can seem different from each other: how fast they develop emotionally and mentally. I couldn’t help but notice that as Dave Chappelle discussed his own memories of being fifteen, how different they seemed from mine. While Chapelle mentioned smoking reefer and being out late doing stand-up comedy, I remember being yelled at for staying out past eight-thirty or for going to a movie on a school night. So, on one view the age of fifteen is old enough, and on another, it’s too young.

Subsequently, Chappelle brings up a case involving a fifteen year old African American boy in Florida who was tried and sentenced to life imprisonment for killing his neighbor by practicing wrestling moves that he saw on TV. In each case—that of Elizabeth Smart, the seven year old girl, and the fifteen year old boy, we see a different version of the capabilities possessed by a child. In Elizabeth Smart’s case, our belief that the age of fifteen characterizes naivety and innocence is confirmed. Most of us would not expect a fifteen year old girl to defend herself or escape from someone trying to hurt her; and when we hear of cases where a child is actually able to defend his/herself, we count it as extraordinary (as in the case of the seven year old African American girl in Philadelphia).

Keeping this in mind, how is it that we can straight facedly sentence a fifteen year old boy to life in prison? Should there exist a discrepancy between the fifteen year old who is considered ‘too young’ and ‘old enough’? And is that discrepancy, as Dave Chappelle suggests, not only a matter of competency and maturity, but also one of other factors—particularly race? In some cases, the discrepancy based on competency and maturity has been accepted because of the nature and details of a certain gruesome crime; but our justice system has allowed this discrepancy to become the rule rather than the exception to the rule. As Chappelle shamelessly expresses, the ambiguity of such a discrepancy is problematic: "If you think that it's okay to give him life in jail, then it should be legal to pee on them" (Dave Chappelle, "How Old is 15 Really?").

Works Cited

"How Old is 15 Really?." YouTube.com. Web. 24 Jan 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym2wN6mqXoQ&feature=player_embedded.