Brown Undergraduate Law Review — Vol. 2 No. 2 (Spring 2021)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Failure of the Treatment of Low-Level Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System resources. 48 including different common spaces. This is to prevent children from abuse and physical assault by adults. Not only is detention detrimental for youths?mental health, Similarly, placing low-risk juveniles in detention exposes it is also ineffective for rehabilitation. There is no greater youth to others who have committed actual violent predictor of future incarceration than previous detention, even as compared to gang membership, weapons, or a poor parental relationship. 49 Detention inherently pulls youth crimes. 56 These interactions may be a strong factor of increased recidivism rates. 57 further into both the juvenile and later criminal justice Overall, incarceration is costly and ineffective system. A study found that the incarceration of juveniles for truancy had no effect on later school attendance. 50 Detained juveniles, who do not re-offend and have no subsequent interaction with the criminal justice system, are still up to 40 percent less likely to graduate, and have reduced success in future earnings. 51 52 Exposure to juvenile court, even without incarceration, increases crime rates in young adulthood threefold. 53 rehabilitation, especially for low-level offenders. However, with the rise of school shootings, zero-tolerance policies, and the hysteria of juvenile superpredators, every state has changed their laws in some way to make it easier to incarcerate youth in the last 30 years. 58 Despite the abundance of research against and the cost of juvenile detention, more than 48,000 youth are currently confined in facilities away from home. 59 While detention is detrimental for all youth, the risk is greatest for youth incarcerated for status offenses and technical violations. A meta-analysis of risk in juvenile detention found that intensive supervision had no effect on rehabilitation and increased recidivism rates for some low risk offenders. 54 This can be explained through the same logic of sight and sound separation for juvenile offenders. Sight and sound separation requires juveniles placed in adult jails or prisons to be separated by ?sight and sound,? Informal and Flexible Procedures The child-savers assumed that the government would have the best interests of youth in mind. Therefore, due process protections were not extended to juvenile delinquency proceedings, which were considered civil instead of criminal proceedings. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson?s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice released a 48. Rani A. Desai et al., "Mental Health Care in Juvenile Detention Facilities: A Review." Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online 34 (June 2006): 204. 49. Holman and Ziedenberg. 50. Dean Hill Rivkin, ?Truancy Prosecutions of Students and the Right [to] Education,? Duke Forum for Law & Social Change, (2011), 139-161. 51. John Whibey, ?Juvenile incarceration and its impact on high school graduation rates and adult jail time,? Journalist?s Review, (2015). 52. Holman and Ziedenberg. 53. Uberto Gatti, et al., ?Effects of juvenile court exposure on crime in young adulthood.? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 54, no. 3, (2013), 291-297. 54. Edward J. Latessa and Christopher T. Lowenkamp, ?Understanding the Risk PrincipleL How and Why Correctional Interventions Can Harm Low-Risk Offenders,? Topics in Community Corrections, (2004). 55. The Coalition for Juvenile Justice, ?Sight and Sound Separation,? https://www.juvjustice.org/juvenile-justice-and-delinquency-prevention-act/sight-and-sound-separation. 56. Latessa and Lowenkamp. 57. McNelly, 117. 58. Holman and Ziedenberg. 59. Sawyer. Brown Undergraduate Law Review 14
The Failure of the Treatment of Low-Level Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System report that included unprecedented research on the juvenile justice system. 60 The report detailed the failures of the juvenile justice system, stating, ?the great hopes originally held for the juvenile court have not been fulfilled. It has due process and fair treatment. The Court went further to detail four specific protections that juvenile courts must provide when there is a possibility of incarceration: adequate written notice of charges, a right to counsel, not succeeded significantly in rehabilitating delinquent privilege against self-incrimination, and youth, in reducing or even stemming the tide of delinquency, or in bringing justice and compassion to the cross-examination. Justice Fortas?opinion outlined the unfruitful intentions of child offender.? 61 Among the failures detailed in the report, the progressive child-savers to create an informal, flexible a study discovered half of juvenile court judges had no court environment for juveniles. Justice Fortas wrote, undergraduate degree, hearings often lasted no longer than ?juvenile court history has again demonstrated that 10 minutes per child, and half of judges did not have unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, is access to a psychologist or psychiatrist to diagnose and frequently a poor substitute for principle and procedure.? 64 assist in treatment plans for children. 62 The report also The Court stated the Fifth Amendment privilege against noted that youth face the same retribution and punitive self-incrimination is ?unequivocal and without exception,? approaches of adult courts but without the same due and therefore applies to juvenile courts through the process protections. 63 Fourteenth Amendment. 65 The case that changed the landscape of due process In re Gault reversed and remanded the Arizona Supreme protections in juvenile courts, In re Gault (1967), came in Court on the grounds of due process. The Arizona the same decade as the Presidential Commission report. Supreme Court upheld the detention of Gault until he was The question before the Supreme Court in Gault regarded 21. Notably missing from this argument was any Equal the precise due process requirements in juvenile Protection standard for juveniles, which would entail that delinquency proceedings. The case concerned 15-year-old any citizen, regardless of age, deserves equal protection Gerald Gault who was committed to juvenile detention under the law. In a memorable line, Justice Fortas stated until he was 21 for making a lewd phone call while on ?under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does probation. In his proceedings, Gault was not notified of his not justify a kangaroo court?. 66 Notably missing from this right to remain silent, not given adequate notice to prepare argument was any Equal Protection standard for juveniles, a defense or access to an attorney, and was denied the which would entail that any citizen, regardless of age, rights of confrontation and cross-examination. The deserves equal protection under the law. neighbor to whom he made the lewd phone call was never called to testify. Justice Fortas?majority opinion held that states? juvenile delinquency proceedings (those that may result in incarceration) must measure up to the essentials of The Court extended further due process protections to juvenile court proceedings in 1970 with In re Winship, 397 US 358. In New York State, a 12 year old boy was 60. Cheryl Corley, ?President Johnson?s Crime Commission Report, 50 Years Later,? National Public Radio, (2017). 61. President?s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society" (Washington, D.C., United States Government Printing Office: 1967), 80. 62. Ibid., 80. 63. Ibid., 82. 64. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 18. 65. Ibid., 47. 66. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 28. Brown Undergraduate Law Review 15
Page 1 and 2: Spring 2021 || Vol. 2 || No. 2 b r
Page 3 and 4: BROWN UNDERGRADUATE LAW REVIEW 2021
Page 5 and 6: A Letter from the Editors ?current?
Page 7 and 8: THE FAILURE OF THE TREATMENT OF LOW
Page 9 and 10: The Failure of the Treatment of Low
Page 13: The Failure of the Treatment of Low
Page 21 and 22: TARGETING MUSLIMS AND CIVIL LIBERTI
Page 23 and 24: Targeting Muslims and Civil Liberti
Page 33 and 34: Standardizing Autonomy: Medical Com
Page 47 and 48: The Legal Precedents for Police Bru
Page 55 and 56: The Future of the Fourteenth Amendm
Page 57 and 58: THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE LAW REGIME
Page 59 and 60: while the latter is not. This does
Page 61 and 62: Created by an act of the GA in 1959
Page 63 and 64: shall be responsible for national s
Page 65 and 66:
?accounts for three-quarters of off
Page 67 and 68:
Introduction The concept of environ
Page 69 and 70:
the Convention. The language of the
Page 71 and 72:
Convention. First, the Nansen Initi
Page 73 and 74:
and other particularly vulnerable g
Page 75 and 76:
NATIVE SOVEREIGNTY, JURISDICTION, A
Page 77 and 78:
Native Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, a
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Potential Solutions to Jurisdiction
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
PROSCRIBABLE THOUGHTS: U.S. HATE CR
Page 93 and 94:
Proscribable Thoughts: U.S. Hate Cr
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
101
Page 103 and 104:
Featured Articles The Constitutiona
show all

Brown Undergraduate Law Review — Vol. 2 No. 2 (Spring 2021)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?