The name of Jerome Miller is now being strongly associated with the reform within Massachusetts’ juvenile judiciary system, which had taken place while Miller acted as the President of the National Centre on Institutions and Alternatives. The actual essence of this reform is being defined in the article “Myths about Juvenile Justice”, which is available on the web site of Cliffs Notes: “In Massachusetts, the governor replaced all the reform schools with some 200 different non-profit programs, including group homes and individual intensive treatment for the worst cases.
Researchers found that a decade after Massachusetts closed its reform schools; the recidivism rate was much lower than in states that continued to rely on reform schools and prisons. In Massachusetts, 24 percent of juveniles who had been released for 36 months were reincarcerated or recommitted. In contrast, Texas had a recidivism rate of 43 percent and California a rate of 62 percent.” (Cliffs Notes, 2009). Nowadays, Miller is being praised by Liberal Medias as an individual solely responsible for improving criminological situation within a state; due to the fact that the rate of recidivism among Massachusetts’ juvenile offenders appears to be lower then in other states.
However, it does not take a possession of strong analytical skills, on the part of just about anyone, to realize that there are actually no good reasons to believe that such situation came into being because of Miller’s “progressive genius” – whereas, California had long ago been turned into the battlefield between Hispanics and very much everybody else, Massachusetts’ governmental officials managed to prevent their state from following California’s footsteps, for as long as the implementation of “celebration of diversity” policy is being concerned.
In other words, there are many purely objective reasons for the crime rates in Massachusetts to be lower then anywhere else in U.S. – Massachusetts’ cold winters alone account for lower rates of recidivism among state’s juvenile offenders as compared to situation in Southern states, which continue to serve as magnets to criminally-minded “amigos” from across the border.
The same article, from which we have already quoted, states: “Researchers found that a decade after Massachusetts closed its reform schools, the recidivism rate was much lower than in states that continued to rely on reform schools and prisons” (Cliffs Notes, 2009). This might very well be the case, but what was the rate of juvenile recidivism in Massachusetts, before Miller’s “deinstitutionalization experiment” had began? Apparently, “researches” did not bother to research this.
And, the reason they did not, is because statistics point out to the fact that, even before Miller was given a green light to proceed with his reforms, the rate of juvenile recidivism in Massachusetts was lower then in most of other states. Therefore, I do not necessarily agree with suggestions that Miller’s manipulations with state’s funds (establishing 200 “non-profit” programs) can serve as a good example of how responsible policy-makers should proceed with combating juvenile crime.
At the same time, I am far from implying the utterly counter-productive essence of Miller’s reforms. After all – the punitive methods of instilling criminally-minded youth with the sense of social responsibliness have long ago proven to be utterly ineffective, especially in such highly consumerist society as American. Ever since their time in elementary schools, children are being taught to believe that the ultimate purpose of their lives is to get a job that would allow them to make as much money as possible, while applying the least amount of effort (American dream). Therefore, it is quite natural for youngsters to consider becoming involved in criminal activities, as the shortest path towards fast enrichment.
This is the reason why overwhelming majority of incarcerated juvenile offenders have a hard time agreeing with suggestions that they had been punished justly – after all, by becoming involved in criminal but highly lucrative activities, they simply proved their allegiance to American values of individualism, industriousness, and adventurousness. They pursued a standard “American dream”.
For as long as the treatment of juvenile offenders is being concerned, politicians and criminologists can be divided on Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives suggest that young criminals should be treated as harshly as possible, while being forcibly instilled with “Christian values” in reform schools. Liberals, on the other hand, suggest that it is not the juvenile offenders who commit crimes, but unfortunate environmental circumstances, to which these offenders have been subjected in their early years (“poverty”, “racism”, “sexual abuse”). And, as it appears from the philosophy of Miller’s reforms, he clearly belongs to Liberals.
However, even a person not overburdened with too much of intelligence, is quite capable of recognizing Liberal and Conservative approaches to dealing with juvenile offenders, as being equally wrong, simply because these approaches totally ignore the biological mechanism of young people becoming criminally minded. Apparently, Liberals and Conservatives are simply incapable of realizing a simple fact that the best way of addressing juvenile crime is preventing such crime from occurring in the first place. And, it is only science that provides us with the answer of how this can be accomplished – neither “punishment” nor “community-based education”.
Thus, Miller’s reforms cannot possibly be effective, simply because Liberal wishful thinking serves as their ideological premise. Apparently, Miller was smart enough to get hold of millions and millions of taxpayer money, in order to finance his “deinstitutionalization experiment”. Part of this money has been paid to “independent” sociologists, so that they would provide Medias with favorable sociological data, as to the actual outcome of Miller’s reforms. By the time Miller’s reforms will be proven as such as had very little to do with improvement of criminological situation in Massachusetts, the “innovator” will say – “even though the experiment did not work out, it was still worthy of trying”.
And, of course, it will never occur to anyone that Miller should actually be held accountable for wasting taxpayer money.
The conclusion of this paper can be summarized as follows: Miller’s reforms can be described as neither “good” nor “bad”. The “innovator” had simply taken an advantage of the fact that, as time goes by, more and more Americans realize that Bible-thumpers should be removed from position of exerting a strong influence on formation of educational and jurisprudential policies in this country. However, given the fact that these reforms are being concerned with “reeducation” rather with “prevention”, it will only be logical, on our part, to suggest that Miller’s reforms will inevitably end up on the long list of neo-Liberal failed social experiments.
Bibliography
Cliffs Notes (2009). Myths about juvenile justice. Web.
Miller, G. (2000). American Gulag. Yes! Magazine. Web.
Watson, J. (2007). Racist Mexican gangs “ethnic cleansing” Blacks In L.A. Prison Planet. Web.