| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Juvenile Court: The Fallacies of a Hopeful System | >
> | Juvenile Justice | | | -- By DavidGarfinkel - 25 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | During one of my summers in college, I served as a volunteer law clerk for one of the District Attorney's Juvenile offices. This was my first true introduction to criminal justice, entering with an optimistic mindset about the potentials of this special branch, but ending cynical and pessimistic. As a result of my experience, I was able to compare the actual process and outcome to the ideals set forth by the system, and realize what has become its true purpose. | >
> | During one of my summers in college, I served as a volunteer law clerk for one of the District Attorney’s Juvenile offices. This was my first true introduction to criminal justice, entering with an optimistic mindset about the potentials of this special branch, but ending disappointed and concerned about its problems. | | | | |
<
< | Ideals of Juvenile Justice | >
> | Purposes of Juvenile Justice | | | | |
<
< | There are several overarching ideals or purposes of criminal justice. First is justice. The American adversarial system is expected to have a process by which the prosecution and defense in front of a jury vigorously fight for their respective side, with the hopeful
outcome that those who did commit the crime are convicted and those who did not are found not guilty. The next is punishment, which is self-explanatory. The third ideal is removal, in which the justice system removes, generally through incarceration, those who are deemed too dangerous to live among normal society. Finally, criminal justice is supposed to help rehabilitate those who can learn the error of their ways, thereby preventing future crimes. | >
> | There are several overarching ideals or purposes of criminal justice. First is justice. The American adversarial system is expected to have a process by which the prosecution and defense in front of a jury vigorously fight for their respective side, with the outcome that those who did commit the crime are convicted and those who did not are found not guilty. The next is punishment, which is self-explanatory. The third ideal is removal, in which the justice system removes, generally through incarceration, those who are deemed too dangerous to live among normal society. Finally, criminal justice is supposed to help rehabilitate those who can learn the error of their ways, thereby preventing future crimes. | | | | |
<
< | The Juvenile Court system is supposed to reflect these ideals, but adjusted for the younger age of the defendants. For justice, a similar process is supposed to be carried out but without the presence of the jury so as to shorten the length of the process and thereby take up less of the juvenile’s life. Punishment occurs, but taken a step down from the normal prison system on the belief that they don’t deserve as harsh or as severe of an environment as their adult counterparts. Juvenile delinquents are removed from society, but primarily to what are known as camps rather than prisons, with the Youth Authority being the last resort. Finally, rehabilitation. This ideal is meant to play the most prominent role, especially when looking at some of the mission statements of the various states, and is predicated on the beliefs that juveniles can be much more easily led down the right path and they are at the age where problems can hopefully be nipped at the bud. | >
> | The Juvenile Court system contains these ideals, but contains elements tailored for the unique situation of the minors. For justice, juveniles have their own system without juries which speeds up the process, decreasing the burden on the defendant and allowing the allocation of resources to areas that may be more helpful in dealing with crime. Punishment occurs, but focused primarily on sending convicted defendants to camps rather than traditional prisons. More importantly, it is done to separate juveniles from adult criminals, preventing exploitation and abuse and decreasing the influence such criminal elements might have on minors. In addition, it provides forms of socialization for troubled children that protect other school children while instilling attitudes and skills that may serve to prevent future criminal activity. Finally, the ideal of rehabilitation takes a prominent role, since it is predicated on the hope that minors could be more easily reformed so that they could be productive and law abiding adults. A prominent feature of this is the practice of striking offenses from a juvenile’s record, so that he will not be adversely affected in attaining future education and job opportunities. | | | | |
<
< | The rhetoric here is
awkward and, if it is not simply obscure, at some variance with what
I have been led to expect by previous reading. No mention is made of
the differences in levels of responsibility for consequences assigned
to children and adults. "Rehabilitation" is discussed as though the
processes of change in children and adults were similar. Nothing is
said about the importance of privacy and a full clearing of the
record with respect to the offenses committed by children. Nor is
anything said about the importance of protecting children from
exposure to concentrations of adult criminality.
General Outcome
The outcomes that are expected unfortunately do not seem to match up with reality. Instead of reformed juveniles, we see a large recidivism rate in which many juvenile’s convicted of felony charges already have an arrest record. In addition, many adults who are later arrested for felonies or gang related activities will have been arrested at least once before as a juvenile. So instead of nipping the bud, we let the flowers of crime blossom.
"Nipping it in the bud,"
which was merely a maladroit metaphor in the last paragraph, has now
become an expression of policy, despite the fact that it has
inappropriate connotations (we are not killing juvenile flowers in
order to prevent infection of the whole plant, for example). Nor is
recidivism an outcome that varies from expectation. Complete success
in rehabilitation would be the shocking
surprise.
The Reality
Why It Fails
The question that then arises is why does this particular system fail. One important explanation is that the actual process of Juvenile Courts results in disrespect for the system and prevents the attainment of the system’s goals.
Instead of the idealized form of justice we expect, juveniles get short changed. During a time when they are being taught about civics, they are brought into a courtroom with no jury, a supposedly fundamental right. The juvenile’s fate is not decided by his peers, but by a judge who most likely fits the stereotype, an older white male who may have not chosen to sit on that court or did so for reasons with no relevance to justice. Instead of an adversarial process, the juvenile is forced to go through what is best described as the DMV of law. Most of the defendants will not have a real trial, but will be processed through by a prosecutor that is doing her mandatory rotation and a public defender with numerous other cases to deal with. And the speed of the process is not shortened, but still takes considerable time, where the juvenile will continue to miss significant amount of school or training.
The Juvenile System is also selective about who is worth saving. Certain juveniles are deemed so lost that they are tried as adults. Trying such younth as adults has increasingly been shown to make things worse, resulting in a more violent individual. Even among those who are allowed to remain in Juvenile Court, they are still segregated. In addition, the older the juvenile, the harder it is for him to get past criminal offenses stricken, which makes his early adult years even harder. The most notable form this takes is the placing of a strike on the person’s record. So while saying we wish to rehabilitate these minors, we leave a huge scar in the process. And in the end, most will be returned to the elements that help contribute to deviant behavior.
Your primary criticisms
are not directed at the paradigm of juvenile justice established in
the 1960s, but against the remnants of an older system, which before
In re Winship, for example. permitted conviction by
preponderance of evidence; and against the "reforms" which
legislators posturing on anti-crime platforms imposed in a deliberate
attempt to bypass the system: trial of juveniles "as adults," and
prosecutor-empowering rules preventing the clearance of records. If
these are your concerns, you should be saying not that the juvenile
justice system is failing, but that supposedly anti-crime legislators
broke it, and we should return to the design "liberal" America began
implementing in the era of the Warren Court.
Its True Purpose Then
In light of the actual reality of the system, what purpose does it serve? It is very difficult to argue that it serves justice or rehabilitates those placed into it. Out of the original ideals, it mainly continues to serve as a means of punishment and incapacitation. But there are other purposes it has come to serve. First, it contributes to the mythology of American criminal justice and an easy bandage to society’s problems. As part of the mythos, it convinces the layman that we have a fair and just system that understands the need to treat juveniles differently from adults. As a bandage, it covers up the underlying tumor that represents the problems that serve as the actual causes of juvenile delinquency. It is politically easier to establish a Juvenile Court than deal with the underlying problems of a poor public education system and the causal factors behind the strong correlation between race/class and crime rate. Finally, Juvenile Courts serve as a means of creating a bureaucracy that helps expedites the process of sending juveniles to separate facilities. In reality, the system is designed to legitimize essentially what is a built in version of plea bargaining.
It's a little difficult
to see where this last conclusory proposition comes from. Your
point's not covered elsewhere in the essay, and its substance is
obscure: wouldn't we want and expect the negotiated disposition to be
the predominant outcome of a juvenile justice system at work? Where
the alternative is a bench trial, and where the docket does not
contain a significant proportion of complex frauds or other offenses
requiring the prosecution to mount significant evidentiary
demonstrations based on non-police witnesses, a defendant who wants
to go to trial will be uncommon, while the prosecutorial motives to
insist on trial are equally likely to be absent. From a social point
of view, individualization of treatment and conserving budgetary
resources for rehabilitation efforts are always more important than
holding a higher number of trials.
I'm not sure you've
convincingly explained what's wrong with juvenile criminal justice
for any class of reader. For those who believe the system needs to
be as close to their imagination of adult incapacitation and general
deterrence as possible, you've offered no arguments, not even the
cliche ones, for reconsidering that opinion. And for those of us who
believe in juvenile criminal justice as an alternative system of
socialization for troubled children who have harmed others, you've
primarily criticized changes inserted into the system by its enemies,
without explaining the nature of that struggle, and without directly
pointing to the primary cause of the emiseration you decry: a full
generation of political power for those who prioritized the wealth of
the rich at the expense of the children of the
poor.
The best route to a
stronger essay, it seems to me, is to decide what you think should be
done to improve the juvenile justice system, and to analyze the
political and other obstacles to making the desired
improvements. | >
> | Current Problems with Juvenile Justice
Unfortunately, there are many problems with the system. First concerns punishment. A significant number of prosecutions and sentences do not comport to principles of proportionality, especially in respect to status crimes like truancy and running away. This results in increasing the burden on tax payers and the system’s financial resources. Financial problems result in a lack of probation and community orients services as well as overcrowded and understaffed detentions centers. Similar to adult criminal statistics, certain minority groups are over represented in the system. The recidivism rate is much higher than should be expected for a system that tries to prioritize rehabilitation.
Possible Solutions
Many of the problems and solutions can easily apply to criminal justice in general. Of course, the most effective solutions will address the underlying problems that result in juvenile crimes, primarily public education, poverty, and border control (possibly abortion access if follow Freakonomics). An important solution would be to make prosecution and sentencing more proportional to the crimes, decreasing the use of detentions for juvenile defendants. This requires providing greater access to probationary and community services, especially for those dealing with addiction and mental health. Another important reform is to encourage greater socialization and education that teach independence and important skills. Living in a constantly supervised community environment doesn’t comport to normal social development, and makes it difficult to return to normal society. A major consequence of this is inability to function and tendency to return or join the criminal elements, notably gangs, which had contributed to previous criminal activity.
Barriers to Reform
One important barrier is the political process. Reform is always a difficult thing to accomplish when dealing with entrenched institutions. This is especially so when politically powerful groups have a strong interest in maintaining the present system. In California, the Prison Guards Union has served as a strong impediment to reform efforts. A large proportion of the voting population strongly believes in a disproportionate existence of violent crime in the United States. This belief is significantly colored by the spike of crime during the 90s and the doomsday predictions of a future youth crime wave. These ideas are out of sync with the reality of decreasing violent crime, which juvenile prosecutions are out of proportion with. In addition, there is substantial resistance to the idea that teenagers have very different psychological, even biological, makeup than adults, requiring different responses by the criminal justice system to help punish and rehabilitate more effectively. The over represented poor and minorities have comparatively little influence in the political process, and their correlation with crime discourages the political majority from supporting initiatives to reform the system. Politicians, by pushing for more stringent criminal punishments, can deflect the public from seeing the true problems of the system, the underlying wealth disparity and racial divide that is politically much harder to address. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|