| | |
|
YvetteFerrerFirstPaper 5 - 16 Aug 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | The Line-by-line
1) Accountability – Really? There have been a few studies about recidivism rates among teen court defendants. Those studies are inconclusive due to lack of consistent testing strategies. Some studies indicate recidivism is as low as three to eight percent while others indicate recidivism exceeding twenty to thirty percent. (pg. 9 - http://youthcourt.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/183472.pdf) | |
<
< | 2) Money – Now there’s a real motivator. The Texas Penal Code states, “a fine not to exceed $500 shall punish an individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.23 (West). So every case goes through Teen Court is $500 lost to the state. However, it is possible that Teen Court still saves the Court money if the cost of processing is less than the cost would be in normal court. The average cost of operating a Teen Court in 2000 was $32,822 per year. (Pg. 3 http://youthcourt.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/183472.pdf). However, this is not representative as only 6.67% of Teen Courts in 2008 are operating with that budget and 30.67% operated with less than $10,000. (Pg. 17 - http://youthcourt.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/183472.pdf ) Given the low operating cost it seems possible that some programs many save money. | >
> | 2) Money – Now there’s a real motivator. The Texas Penal Code states, “a fine not to exceed $500 shall punish an individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.23 (West). So every case goes through Teen Court is $500 lost to the state. However, it is possible that Teen Court still saves the Court money if the cost of processing is less than the cost would be in normal court. The average cost of operating a Teen Court in 2000 was $32,822 per year. (Pg. 3 http://youthcourt.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/183472.pdf). However, this is not representative as only 6.67% of Teen Courts in 2008 are operating with that budget and 30.67% operated with less than $10,000. (Pg. 17 - http://youthcourt.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/183472.pdf ) Given the low operating cost it seems possible that some programs many
save money. | | | | |
<
< | 3) Keeps offense of the juvenile’s record – Sweet, but not much in this for the State. | >
> | You're still depending
too much on spell-checking and too little on proofreading. So here
the wrong word is used, but because it is correctly spelled, you
don't find the error.
3) Keeps offense of
the juvenile’s record – Sweet, but not much in this for the State.
Again. | | | 4) A positive learning experience – In some ways the program can be seen as a negative experience. Kid drives drunk and finds out that s/he can walk for no more than community service. And now is free to commit again as a first offense. At best kids learn something about the system. From reading the Plano Teen Court Website and other research, it seems the biggest motivating factor for Teen Courts is engaging teenagers in the system. But evidence is insufficient to show is Teen Court achieving that result. So is another motive for Teen Courts existence. | | | So why did I do so much community service? To win. I was competitive. Thrilled by the high of winning. So maybe that’s it? I hoarded community service hours through a form of competitive community service. I measured my success by the wins, losses, and hours. So really what Teen Court provided me and other student attorneys was a semi-intellectual way of keeping score. | |
<
< | It really wasn’t about the defendants, it was about us, the teen attorneys - the “elite.” This was about “upstanding” students adding to our resumes. We were raking in the community service hours, not for the fuzzy feeling, but to get into the elite colleges. Teen Court was a two-for-one steal -- community service and credentials. All so we could go to elite colleges, attend the best law schools, get the best jobs, and live in suburbia with our 2.5 kids. Plano Teen Court was self-perpetuating system to facilitate the attorneys not rehabilitated the teens. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | It really wasn’t about the defendants, it was about us, the teen attorneys - the “elite.” This was about “upstanding” students adding to our resumes. We were raking in the community service hours, not for the fuzzy feeling, but to get into the elite colleges. Teen Court was a two-for-one steal -- community service and credentials. All so we could go to elite colleges, attend the best law schools, get the best jobs, and live in suburbia with our 2.5 kids. Plano Teen Court was self-perpetuating system to facilitate the attorneys not rehabilitated
the teens.
And again.
This is more tightly-edited than the last draft. Proof-reading is
obviously a habit you still need to perfect.
From my point of view, the route to continued improvement here, as I
said last time, is to widen the focus just a little bit more. The
final comment, that this is not a rehabilitative process, is almost
unnecessary: rehabilitation has never been an objective of Texas
justice in any form. But there's more that could be said about what
this institution and its associated practices mean than just that
it doesn't mean rehabilitation, or that those who most benefit appear
to be the "attorneys."
Maybe we would know more if we knew exactly how cases are sent to the
Teen Court. Why would a DUI be sent there? When is a DUI a Class C
misdemeanor in Texas?
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |