RESUMEN
Public policy is unsettled with regard to juvenile status offenders--children who are subject to juvenile court jurisdiction for noncriminal behavior such as running away from home, incorrigibility, truancy, and curfew violation. In 1974, the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act initiated a national policy of status offender "deinstitutionalization," supporting the development of community-based treatment programs and prohibiting incarceration of these youths. In the following years, most states embraced this policy, sharply reducing status offender detention levels. This article describes factors that have recently worked to erode the federal and state commitment to a policy of status offender deinstitutionalization. These factors include widespread failure to develop adequate services for youths and families; the tragic deaths of runaway youths; rising fear of juvenile crime; and new statehouse majorities promoting agendas of youth discipline and accountability. The article references recent surveys and press reports on the number of runaways, truants, and curfew violators in the United States. In the author's view, policymakers today are torn between their desire to provide services to at-risk youths and families and public pressure to respond to all forms of youth misbehavior with tough new sanctions, including the incarceration of status offenders.
Asunto(s)
Defensa del Niño , Derecho Penal/normas , Institucionalización/tendencias , Delincuencia Juvenil/clasificación , Delincuencia Juvenil/legislación & jurisprudencia , Formulación de Políticas , Adolescente , Niño , Derecho Penal/métodos , Humanos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Participants searched for target letters in a short passage held in memory. In Experiment 1, participants were divided into two groups on the basis of a retrospective report concerning the type of representation used to store the passage in memory, and in Experiment 2, participants were instructed concerning the form of memory representation to use. Only participants using a visual representation missed more targets in the wordthe than in other words. Participants instructed to form a visual representation also made fewer content-word or phrase substitutions when learning the passage than did participants instructed to form an auditory representation. These findings show that choice of memory representation is flexible and that the representation used influences what can be retrieved from memory.