160 6 Court and the Legal System-—-Juvenile Foremicsdata unambiguously documenting how rehabilitative programs serve to protect the
community from future acts of violence, it is unlikely that the communities and
the legislature will refrain from imposing more stringent retributive sentences on
juveniles.
On the other hand, those who support the retributive model in sentencing
juvenile offenders must be able to offer explanations as to why, in an era of severe
determinate sentencing, young boys such as Kip Kinkel continue to commit heinous
crimes. Since 1992 there have been 16 publicized cases of juveniles shooting people
on school grounds in the United States [National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC")
Research, 1998]. These cases do not provide evidence that determinate sentencing is
reducing the severity or frequency with which juveniles commit crimes. Moreover,
those who support the retributive model need to provide evidence that determinate
sentencing does in fact curb recidivism among juvenile offenders. However, some
current literature refutes this position by showing that youths who receive alternative
dispositions to incarceration have lower rates of recidivism (Weaver, 1992).
Suggestions for Future ResearchThe literature lacks longitudinal studies comparing the rehabilitative approach to
juvenile sentencing with the retributive approach. Such studies are difficult to con-
duct due to the legalities involved in obtaining juvenile records; however, these
inquiries are imperative for drawing conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ei-
ther approach. Moreover, there are currently no studies which attempt to detect the
bases tor the discretionary decisions made by juvenile court judges. It is crucial to
understand why judges are sentencing some juveniles to life in prison, while others
are sentencing juveniles, with comparable crimes, to juvenile detention facilities or
treatment programs.
Additionally, research needs to be designed to examine existing rehabilitative
programs. These analyses would include program evaluations, examining the scope
of treatment services offered; the provision of specialized treatment programs; and
the nature and quality of treatment juvenile offenders receive in such programs.