WK3RF
Week Three
Juvenile Court Process
Introduction
Last week you learned about the broad discretionary powers of the police and the informal juvenile justice system, including schools, local not-for-profit agencies, and so on. Now you will turn to the formal juvenile justice system in which discretion begins to give way to rules and processes, specifically within the juvenile court process.
This Week in Relation to the Course
A juvenile enters the more formalized juvenile justice system through the intake process. Experts over the years have recognized this border of the system as something like a semipermeable barrier through which certain juveniles are processed (somewhat like oil through an oil filter) and find that there is no way back through the barrier. They must go forward, further and deeper into the system. Some, more critical of the potential negative impact of the system because of the inertia it develops in processing youth who come into contact with it, see it as a downward spiral, where once a youth gets caught in the outer edge he or she is drawn inward, each moment decreasing the youth’s chances for success.
Keep in mind that, no matter how formalized the process becomes, it is still a civil, not criminal, process for youths. As the prosecutorial component is drawn into play, however, the system becomes increasingly adversarial; the more adversarial, normally, the more due process is accorded to the youth. The language gets tougher and, in a growing number of states, it is becoming standard practice to automatically transfer certain kinds of cases to adult court. At this point, even if youths are only 15, 16, or 17, they are treated as adults in adult criminal court.
There is much passion on the part of all players in the processing of a juvenile through the system. In part because of this personalized and emotional regard for the youthful offender, mechanisms have been put into place that attempt to objectify decision making at several points in the process. One such mechanism is to determine through measurement what the individual youth’s risk-and-needs level might be. In this way, decisions may be made to more effectively match the youth with whatever dispositional alternatives are realistically available through the system.
Discussion of a Key Point, Thread, or Objective
Intake
due process
Inculpatory or exculpatory evidence
Confidentiality
plea-bargaining
with/without prejudice
waivers
transfer hearing
capital punishment
risk/needs
false negatives
false positives
Practical Applications and Questions
At this point, you have been introduced to many of the juvenile justice system’s strengths and weaknesses. You have seen that the more formal the system becomes, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between the best interests of the youthful offender and the best interests of the public. How would you feel about abolishing the juvenile court system? With what would you replace it?
How Tools, Readings, and Simulations Help Solidify Concepts
As you read this week’s materials, keep an open mind. You will see that while attempts are made to standardize the what and why of actions taken, there are still major disagreements in how to best deal with juveniles. No matter how formalized the process may become, there is very little evidence of true black or white. Again, try to think of someone you know personally who has experienced the system first hand either as a client or as a system professional.
Summary
The juvenile justice system as we know it is the end product of years of trial and error, of case law and Constitutional tests, of social theory and social work, and perhaps most importantly, public opinion. The system still makes mistakes, with both the youth and the public as victims. The current trend appears to lean in favor of a tightening of the system and how we define, as well as deal, with juvenile crime. More states are resorting to transferring serious and problem juvenile offenders to adult court for prosecution and disposition in the adult criminal justice system. As with most historical “swings of the pendulum,” this kind of radical departure from the status quo tends to raise more questions than it answers.
