Juvenile Justice Outline
Ch. 1 Introduction *7
A. Origins: there was only one court system (infancy was a defense (*7.02) until the Progressives. They believed a benevolent government could eliminate social ills (like crime) with the help of social science experts. Not until end of 19th c. did age become an important classification. Tension between self-determination (everyone is responsible for their own conduct) and determinism (more modern theory, there are forces outside of the actor’s will that predetermine his conduct). The reality is somewhere in the middle. Progressives say the need for a non-punitive parens patrie alternative for young people; *7.02(B).
Constitutional challenges to the juvenile court: Commonwealth v. Fisher: reflective of 1905. Court held juveniles do not have a right to due process. D argued that it is a criminal court and DP must be respected. Court replied “Legislature has the power to intervene without any process at all.” Under this act L was preventing young people from becoming criminals in the future. Not a criminal proceeding to right to trial by jury.
B. The Constitutional Domestication of the Juvenile Court
In re Gault: *7.03(B). 1967. 15 year old D and friend made an obscene phone call; D on probation at the time. D taken from school without notice to his parents, they heard about it from the parents of D’s friend. Mother was told D was in juvie and there would be a hearing the next day, at the hearing the officer filed a petition, but didn’t give parents any factual basis for the charges, complainant not present, and no record of the proceeding. At a subsequent hearing, D said he only dialed and his friend talked. D’s mother asked for complainant to be present, not done. Court found he was a delinquent for violating a law that prohibits obscene language in the presence of a woman or child. He was sentenced to juvie until his 21st birthday. Had he been an adult he would have served no more than 2 months and paid no more than $50. AZ SC said DP was required in these proceedings, but that DP had been met. US SC disagreed, held that in proceedings for determining whether a juvenile is a delinquent with the consequence that he may be committed to a state institution DP requires:
(1) Notice of charges (enough in advance to allow a reasonable opportunity to prepare), must set forth factual basis with particularity,
(2) Parents and child must be notified of right to counsel, and that state will appoint one for free,
(3) Right to confront, privilege against self-incrimination, and right of cross-examination.
This was not met. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the 14th A limited to adults only. Court talks about 2 different concepts that are important:
1) Parens patriae: state acts as parent to all its citizens, including children
2) In loco parentis: state may step in and act in place of the parents in a particular case where the parents have been irresponsible.
“Unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure.” DP is basic and essential for the rights of citizens against the powers of the state, produces more reliable determinations. This was not an indictment against the juvenile court system; states just must keep with DP. Confidentiality is really an illusion. There was an ideal of leniency by the kinder judge to touch the heart of the errant youth, but six years for a phone call was not a good example.
Lanes v. State: TX court of criminal appeals. Probable cause requirement (in state and federal constitutions) applies to children. Good comparison between purposes of the two systems.
Defining Childhood – Age is important for sentencing guidelines, for transferring juvenile into the adult system, for where you incarcerate. Children are more rehabilitative, need continuing education, and need to be kept away from hardened offenders. *7.02(B)
“Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty”: emerging knowledge about psycho-social development and neuro-biological development shows children should be treated differently. Developmental immaturity mitigates culpability. Difference between excuse (no punishment at all) and mitigation (continuum, does not absolve entirely). Remember blameworthiness is built into the law for adults as well. Under principles of criminal law, culpability is mitigated when:
1) There are deficiencies in the actor’s decision-making
2) When the criminal act was coerced, or
3) The crime was out of character for this person
These authors have 3 sound propositions applying this to juveniles:
1) A teen’s level of cognition and psycho-social development will shape their choices in a way that is different than an adult.
2) Because an adolescent’s decision-making capacity is constrained they are more vulnerable to coercion.
3) Teens are still developing their personalities. Cannot assume criminal behavior means bad character. Cannot make a conclusion yet.
Delinquency: every state has a statute that defines delinquent behavior.
Status offenses apply only to juveniles: incorrigibility, truancy, breaking curfew, running away, drinking, use of tobacco, not following the instructions of parents, teachers and other officials. Many young people engage in these things as a result of unformed character. Status offenses have been decriminalized in most jurisdictions. It involves basically anything that is not criminal conduct.
CHINS (Child In Need of Supervision)
PINS (People In Need of Supervision)
1) CA statute, “a person under the age of 18 who persistently refuses to obey the reasonable orders of his parents”, could be almost anything
2) OH statute, “any child who does not subject himself to the reasonable control of his parents by being wayward or habitually disobedient”, of course there are other ways to engage in a status offense. A person who attempts to marry w/out parent’s consent, who does something like engage in prostitution, who is found in a disreputable place, etc.
3) Another statute talks about “endangering morals…” Very broad.
TX 51.02: Definitions
TX 51.03(a): Delinquent Conduct is
Ch. 2 Juvenile Court Jurisdiction *8
Juvenile Justice Administration in Social Structural and Demographic Context
Juvenile Court Jurisdiction: Criminal Violation, the court has jurisdiction over delinquent conduct, *8.03
1. Criminal Law Jurisprudence: CL Infancy Mens Rea [a person under 7 is incapable of formulating the mens rea necessary to commit a crime. Between 7 and 14 rebuttable presumption he is incapable of formulating mens rea; 14 and over subject to same laws as adults. The defense is based on the notion that an individual so young will not be deterred nor rehabilitated because they are still formulating their character]
In Re Tyvonne J: boy found a pistol and took it to school, other kids didn’t believe him. One said, “Shoot me” and he did. Issue: whether infancy defense applies in juvenile court. Redundant, but L hadn’t eliminated the defense. D argued the system has failed and the defense should be allowed. In this case a statute said juvenile proceedings must be conducted separately, the children are not to be called criminal. Juvenile court is merely an exercise of the state’s power over the general welfare of children. Connecticut had indeterminate sentencing for juveniles. The purpose was to rehabilitate, cou
ed. Fundamental fairness means they have the right to plead insanity. Dissent thinks the whole thing unnecessary because statute gives plenty of opportunity for the judge to take account of mental health before sentencing.
c. Function of competency is to make sure D can help in his defense, makes for a more reliable outcome.
d. Other jurisdictions say that insanity as a defense is not available but when it is raised it confers some different treatment. Dusky, an adult D must have “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding [and have a] rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him…and have the capacity to assist in his defense.” Some glimmer of understanding, not a high bar. Almost ½ states have statutes that a child deemed incompetent cannot be tried.
e. AZ statute is pretty standard. A Minn. court said the right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent is a fundamental right.
3. Punishment, Treatment, and Sentencing Juveniles
Smith v. State: kid had a switchblade, sentenced to 5 years in kiddy prison; an adult could serve no more than one year so D argues violation of EP. Court says the younger the child the greater the potential for the court to sentence him to a juvenile facility for a longer period of time. Jurisdiction will end at 21. Court reminds us that EP clause DOES NOT mean we cannot classify, only comes in where purposes are not legitimate. Have to find the test (1) rational basis/permissive review (right is not fundamental) D has to show there is NO reason for this classification, very hard to knock down a statute using this, (2) or strict scrutiny (either suspect class or impinges on fundamental right), here burden is on person defending the statute to show an empirically grounded class…that supports the classification. Court notes that age is not a suspect class’ purpose is to rehabilitate.
Gault did not say that punishment could not be different for kids and adults, only that you must have DP to make decision.
In Re Eric J: D claimed he was treated differently from adults, violation of EP. The adult statute has three levels of punishment and can be bumped up or down. The juvenile statute says nothing more than punishing is limited to the max punishment for an adult; did not have to show aggravation. Court says adults who are guilty and sent to prison are not similarly situated to kids sent to training schools. This seems wrong. But courts say this a lot, we regulate kid’s conduct all the time, and parents control them as well. Purpose of punishment for kids (at least on the surface) is rehab, for adults it is quid pro quo. Adults have been subject to determinate and for kids it is indeterminate.
Discussion of what benefits come from being sentenced as a juvenile, can request early release anytime, wardship may be terminated any time, no criminal record attached, no disqualification from holding office, kids held in a separate area.
