Chapter 11
PROCESSING OFFENDERS THROUGH THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
v Juvenile Laws
v Status offenses – remain the main distinguishing feature of juvenile laws
v Incorrigible, unmanageable, etc. define what amounts to a “property” relationship between parent and child
v ambiguity gives those in authority great discretionary power
v often leads to arbitrary decisions based on subjective value judgments
The Rights of Juveniles
• Kent v. United States (1966) – first major US Supreme Court decision regarding juvenile court
– Concerned certification as adult
– Kent, a 16 year old, raped and robbed a woman and was certified without a hearing, with no lawyer and was sentenced to 30-90 years!
– Court ruled that due process must be observed
– Abe Fortas remarked that “the child receives the worst of both world; that he gets neither the protection accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children.”
– Prior to being waived to an adult court, a juvenile had a right to (1) a hearing on the move, (2) access to social service reports, and (3) a statement of reasons for the waiver.
In re Gault
• The most famous decision (go to my web site for details and a little about Gault himself, including a recent photo)
• 15-year-old Gerald and his friends one night made some lewd phone calls to a woman that lived nearby
– She recognized his voice and called the cops
– Gerald was found guilty and committed to the Boys Industrial School until his age of majority – 21 years
• In short, he got a 6 year sentence for an offense that would bring at best a 6 month jail term if committed as an adult
• Was not allowed to confront witnesses, not provided a lawyer, his parents were not even notified that he had been arrested
• Ariz. Supreme Court affirmed the decision
The Supreme Court Decision
• Supreme Court overruled
• Justice Abe Fortas, again, had the classic statement, as he wrote that:
– “the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.”
• The Court held that at the adjudicatory hearing stage, juvenile court procedures must include
– (1) adequate written notice of charges,
– (2) the right to counsel
– (3) privilege against self-incrimination
– (4) the right to cross-examine accusers
– (5) a transcript of the proceedings, and
– (6) the right to appellate review
Other Major Decisions
• In re Winship – ruled the juvenile court should adhere to the standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” instead of “a preponderance of the evidence” as in civil courts
• McKeiver v. Pennsylvania – ruled that jury trials are admissible but not mandatory (recall this was a big issue in the Crouse case)
• Breed v. Jones – similar to Kent in that it dealt with waiver but in this case the youth had already been adjudicated in juvenile court, then tried in adult court for the same offense, which is “double jeopardy”
– Court ruled that the waiver must be made before being adjudicated
Right to Treatment
• Several court cases have dealt with the theory behind juvenile justice, namely that the aim is rehabilitation
• Inmates of the Boys’ Training School v. Affleck (1972)
– minimal standards were established, such as sufficient clothing to meet seasonal needs, proper bedding (sheets, pillow cases, etc.), personal hygiene supplies, minimal writing materials and access to books and other reading materials, daily showers, and others
– Amazing that these were not being met at the time!
• US has investigated conditions of confinement in more than 100 juvenile facilities in sixteen states
– Currently monitors conditions in more than 65 facilities that operate under settlement agreements with the United States.
Structure & Process of Juvenile Court
• Many are huge bureaucracies with several 100 personnel
– Judges, probation officers, lawyers, psychologists, medical staff, etc.
– Some are called “Family Courts” (e.g., Las Vegas)
• Different terminology for the stages in the process.
– petition = indictment
– adjudicatory hearing = trial
– dispositional hearing = sentencing hearing
– aftercare = parole
– Commitment = sentence
– detention = jail
– taking into custody = being arrested
• See figure 11.1
Police action
• An important statistic:
– 1974 - less than half of the cases where a juvenile was taken into custody by the police resulted in a referral to juvenile court
– 2002, almost ¾ (71%) were referred to the juvenile court
• Reflects trend toward increasing formality in our response to human problems.
• Does this mean that the offenses committed by youths are getting more serious and thus require more formal processing? No.
– The offenses for which the majority of youths are charged remain minor—as they have always been (see Table 11.1)
Referrals to Juvenile Court
• From 1990-1999 changes were:
– Drugs – up 169%
– Obstruction of justice – up 115%
– Simple assault – up 95%
– Disorderly conduct – up 67%
– Violent index crime – down 7%
– Index property crime – down 14%
• Juvenile court handling minor offenses more than ever
• No wonder about 1/3 of all cases are dismissed!
Detention & Race
• Table 11.4 – no matter what offense, black kids rank highest, followed by Hispanic, Native American and White
• Huge discrepancies in some cases
– Drugs – black detention rate 7x greater than whites (same ratio for violent index crimes)
• Why the discrepancy?
– No racial differences in terms of drug use
– Are blacks any more “violent” than whites? Only if you measure this by arrests, for in reality whites are far more violent (which race kills the most people?)
Diversion
• An attempt to prevent further penetration
• Is this “new widening”?
– What does this mean?
– 1000 cases, 300 diverted to alternatives = 700 cases (1000-300)
– 1000 cases, 300 not normally found within the system = 1300
– Let’s say you start a new truancy program and instead of such cases being handled within the school, they are processed through a special program within the court – this is not true diversion, this is net widening
• Ideally, you want problems handled without formal processing
– A kid has problems at home, seek family counseling
Probation
• Boston shoemaker John Augustus – 1841
• Took responsibility for drunks, then took children’s cases, diverting them from prison – true diversion!
• 1869 - the Mass. required that an agent of the state be present if child might end up in a reformatory
– They were to search for other placement, protect the child’s interests, investigate the case before trial, and supervise the plan for the child after disposition.
– 1878 Mass. created first official State probation system with salaried probation officers
• What began as a volunteer activity, in time became institutionalized and bureaucratized
An “arm of the court”
• Probation officers soon became little more than an “arm of the court,” and many of the first officers were former policemen
• In many states today both probation and parole officers are designated as “peace officers” with many carrying both a badge and a gun
– sign on the office wall of the chief probation officer in California that read: “Trail ’em, “Surveil ’em, Nail ’em, and Jail ’em”
– Lot of “cop wannabees”
Duties of a Probation Officer
• intake - provide preliminary investigation of cases as they first come into the system
• Investigation - produces the social history report
• supervision - surveillance, casework, counseling
• Large case loads (50-100 or more) has led to Intensive supervision (IS)
• House arrest - “official” form of “grounding.”
– Electronic monitoring - “new age” form of punishment that was originally inspired by a Spiderman comic strip
• Neither IS nor house arrest has been proven very effective (business likes it however)
A dubious Record of Achievement
• Despite reforms, the court does little more than process cases
• Most delinquents get better through “maturational reform” – they grow up!
• Jerome Miller - Diagnosis virtually never determines treatment; treatment dictates diagnosis
– In short, they usually have a preconceived notion of what they want to do and then apply a diagnosis to fit
– Sort of like the Bush administration “fixing the facts to fit the policy”
Giving Up on Delinquent Youth: Transfer to Adult Court
• Three methods of certification
– Legislative waiver or statutorial exclusion – some offenses automatically excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction, most commonly homicide
– Judicial waiver – the judge makes the decision
– discretionary waiver – gives power to the DA
• Judicial waivers and prosecutorial discretion are often arbitrary, fluctuating from judge to judge and jurisdiction to jurisdiction; they follow no consistent pattern – except that blacks get waived most often
Race & Waiver
• LA County study
– Blacks were only 13 percent of the juvenile population, they accounted for 95% of the cases waived to the adult court.
– Rates per 100,000 - Latinos were 6 times more likely and blacks were 12 times more likely than whites to be transferred.
• South Carolina - during a 10-year period (1985–1994) 80% waived were blacks.
• Study of four Southern states between 1980 and 1988
– Number of waivers increased by over 100 percent.
– Largest increases were for drug offenses (152% from 1987 to 1991).
– suggests that the movement to transfer youth was more of a political issue than a public safety issue (only 1% of cases are waived)
Has Certification Worked?
• In a word, no.
• Perhaps this is why there has been a decline in waivers in recent years
• Even conservative criminologist John DiIulio warned that “Most kids who get into serious trouble with the law need adult guidance. And they won’t find suitable role models in prison. Jailing youth with adult felons under Spartan conditions will merely produce more street gladiators.”
• Increases chance of suicide & victimization by adults
• Higher recidivism rates