Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Law Juvenile Justice Reform Massachusetts Juvenile Justice Reform: A Measure in the Incorrect Direction Juvenile Justice THESIS STATEMENT: The Great and General Court of Massachusetts has erred in reforming the juvenile justness system by implementing policies and processs that will harm juveniles and topographic point society at hazard. On July 23, 1995, an interloper viciously attacked and stabbed Janet Downing about 100 times in her Somerville place. The revolting Downing slaying and resulting apprehension of Edward O & # 8217 ; Brien Jr. , a 15-year-old juvenile whom prosecuting officers say committed the flagitious offense, sent shockwaves through the province. When Somerville District Court Judge Paul P. Hefferman ruled that the Commonwealth seek Mr. O & # 8217 ; Brien as a juvenile, those shockwaves grew in strength, and the citizens of Massachusetts, fed up with increasing young person force and perceptual experiences of an uneffective juvenile justness system, demanded the passage of tough new Torahs to cover with repetition and violent juvenile wrongdoers. The Great and General Court of Massachusetts headed these demands for reform of the juvenile justness system and enacted statute law that, among other things, abolishes the test de novo system in the juvenile tribunals, requires the test of juveniles charged with slaying, manslaughter, aggravated colza, physical colza of a kid, nobbling, assault with purpose to rob or slay and armed burglary in big tribunal and permits prosecuting officers to open to the public juvenile proceedings when they seek an grownup sentence. Although advocates tout these steps as a perspicacious solution for the annoying job of juvenile delinquency, get rid ofing the test de novo system, supplying for automatic grownup tests and opening juvenile proceedings to the populace when prosecuting officers seek an grownup sentence works to the hurt, non the benefit, of juveniles and society. Therefore, the policy shapers of Massachusetts should revoke most subdivisions of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act and develop other policies to cover with the lifting job of juvenile offense. I. A SINGLE TRIAL SYSTEM PREVENTS COURTS FROM PROVIDING RAPID ASSISTANCE TO JUVENILES IN NEED, DOES LITTLE TO SERVE JUDICIAL ECONOMY AND PLACES A SIMILAR BURDEN AS THE DE NOVO SYSTEM ON VICTIMS AND WITNESSES. Advocates of a individual test system for juveniles argue that the test de novo system wastes judicial resources by giving suspects a 2nd bite at the apple and traumatizes victims and informants by coercing them to attest at two proceedings. However, these advocates fail to admit that the de novo system allows Judgess to rapidly supply juveniles with the rehabilitative aid they need. The advocates, unsurprisingly, besides fail to admit that a individual test system may put a greater load on judicial resources and a similar load on victims and informants. The de novo system benefits juveniles by promoting bench tests, which often result in the fleet disposal of rehabilitative aid. For many juveniles, delinquency is a reaction to a assortment of situational stressors. Statisticss indicate that the huge bulk of juvenile delinquents are exposed to mistreat and pretermit, harsh or fickle parenting, and socioeconomic want. Experts believe that if the juvenile justness system is to rehabilitate juveniles and do them productive members of our society, it must turn to these jobs every bit fleetly as possible. A de novo system encourages juveniles, many of whom want judicial aid, to bespeak a bench test. Likewise, under a de novo system, defence lawyers are encouraged to urge an initial bench test because the tribunal & # 8217 ; s determination does non adhere clients if it is non in their involvement. On the other manus, a individual test system discourages juveniles and defence lawyers from bespeaking a bench test. Because jury tests are more drawn-out than bench tests and may drag out for over a twelvemonth, the current policy of promoting juveniles to seek an initial jury test denies them the rehabilitative aid they need for a important period of clip. Therefore, the de novo system is the preferable pick when covering with juveniles because it encourages bench tests and, concomitantly, the fleet disposal of rehabilitative aid. As celebrated earlier, one of the primary statements for making off with the de novo system is that it wastes judicial resources. However, upon closer scrutiny one realizes that the de novo system really furthers judicial economic system. Under a de novo system, procedural precautions can be done off with or relaxed at bench tests without fright of go againsting rights of suspects. Courts have found the riddance of procedural precautions at bench tests in a de novo system to be constitutional because the bench will widen all precautions to the suspect at a new jury test if he/she so chooses. Although no statistics could be found which indicate the figure of suspects appealing de novo bench test determination, a tribunal employee estimates that it was about 3 % . Thus, 97 % of juvenile instances were disposed of through bench tests, which are less dearly-won and clip devouring than jury tests. While 3 % of the instances resulted in two proceedings, the value obtained from bench tests appears to significantly outweigh the costs incurred by entreaties. Therefore, the de novo system may really foster judicial economic system more than a individual test system. The other primary statement for a individual test system is that doing victims and informants testify at two tests is unjust. The 3 % estimation that the de novo system requires that victims and informants testify at two tests really infrequently. Furthermore, replacing the de novo system will non extinguish the demand for necessitating some victims and informants to attest at two tests. Appellate tribunals have the power to change by reversal a test tribunal & # 8217 ; s determination and order a new test. In instances where the test tribunal & # 8217 ; s determination is reversed, victims and informants must attest once more. Give the strong province involvement in reforming juveniles, protecting society and conserving judicial resources and the fact that a one test system besides requires some victims and informants to attest twice, the load placed on informants and victims by the de novo system can non be considered unreasonable. In amount, the de novo test system better suits the demands of juvenile wrongdoers, society and the tribunal system for several grounds. First, under the de novo system, Judgess can efficiently supply the rehabilitative aid that juveniles need. Second, the de novo system does non look to burthen judicial economic system. In fact, despite advocates & # 8217 ; claims to the contrary, the grounds appears to bespeak that a de novo system really furthers judicial economic system. Finally, although a little load is placed on those victims and informants who are forced to attest at two proceeding, this load exists in a one test system and is outweighed by the strong province involvement in rehabilitating juveniles, protecting society and conserving judicial resources. II. AUTOMATICALLY TRYING JUVENILES CHARGED WITH MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, AGGRAVATED RAPE, FORCIBLE RAPE OF A CHILD, ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO ROB OR MURDER AND ARMED ROBBERY CONTRADICTS THE NOTIONS UPON WHICH THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS FOUNDED AND, ULTIMATELY, PLACES SOCIETY AT RISK. Besides extinguishing the de novo system, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act besides provides for the automatic test of juveniles charged with slaying, manslaughter, aggravated colza of a kid, assault with purpose to rob or slay and build up robbery in big tribunal. The automatic test proviso is unneeded in visible radiation of new processs that provide for a post-trial amenableness to rehabilitation finding. Furthermore, automatically handling certain juveniles as grownups goes against the traditional intents of the juvenile system, and, finally, poses a greater hazard to society when correctional governments release the wrongdoer. The proviso supplying for automatic test in big tribunal of juveniles charged with slaying, manslaughter, aggravated colza of a kid, assault with purpose to rob or slay and build up robbery in big tribunal is indefensible in visible radiation of extra commissariats contained within the Juvenile Justice Reform Act that eliminate pretrial transportation hearings and replace them with post-trial amenableness to rehabilitation hearings. Scott Harshbarger, the Attorney General of Massachusetts and writer of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, states that the automatic transportation proviso is necessary to turn to the & # 8220 ; the time-consuming and onerous nature of the transportation hearing process. & # 8221 ; In other words, Mr. Harshbarger advocates handling juveniles as grownups in certain instances because it is excessively much of a fuss to carry on a pretrial hearing to find whether the juvenile is conformable to rehabilitation. Mr. Harshbarger & # 8217 ; s place is particularly confusing in visible radiation of the proviso in the Juvenile Justice Reform Act that supplants pretrial transportation hearings with post-trial amenableness to rehabilitation hearings. Under the new system, the legislative assembly has eliminated pretrial transportation hearings in juvenile tribunal and mandated that the tribunal clasp tests foremost. If the juvenile is found guilty at the test, the tribunal holds a station test amenableness hearing in concurrence with the condemning warming. Once the tribunal makes a finding as to whether the juvenile is conformable to rehabilitation, the justice can enforce three possible sentences: ( 1 ) an grownup sentence ; ( 2 ) a juvenile sentence ; or ( 3 ) commit the juvenile to the Department of Youth Services until he/she reaches the age of 21. As the legislative assembly has eliminated the onerous nature of the transportation procedure, Mr. Harshbarger & # 8217 ; s principle for the automatic test proviso makes no sense. Furthermore, the grownup test proviso efficaciously denies juveniles charged with certain offenses rehabilitation chances and defies common sense by reassigning juveniles out of the juvenile system where an grownup sentence may be imposed by a justice who is familiar with the demands of juveniles to the grownup condemnable system where Judgess are non familiar with the demands of juveniles. In add-on to being unneeded in visible radiation of the riddance of transportation hearings in the juvenile justness system, the automatic test proviso contradicts the traditional doctrine of the juvenile jus

tice system. The fundamental principle upon which the founders based the juvenile justice system is that juveniles are different from adults and need different treatment. Throughout its history, the juvenile justice system has strived to uphold this principle by providing benevolent and less formal means than adult courts for dealing with the unique problems of juvenile offenders. For instance, juvenile courts typically subscribed to the philosophy of rehabilitation, rather than punishment, and closed proceedings to the public to protect juveniles from harmful stigma. Massachusetts, in providing for the automatic trial in adult court of juveniles charged with certain crimes, moves away from the traditional benevolent, rehabilitative philosophy of the juvenile justice system and toward a retributive or “just desserts” philosophy. Critics dismiss this contention, stating a judge in the adult court still has the authority to impose a juvenile sentence on the offender. However, given the adult criminal court’s goal of punishment and lack of experience with juveniles, a judge is likely to impose a juvenile sentence only in the rarest of cases. Moving away from the traditional philosophy of the juvenile justice system by automatically treating certain juveniles as adults increases their propensity for crime and increases the risk to society. Studies indicate that juveniles tried as adults typically do not receive longer or more severe sentences than those juveniles tried in the juvenile court. The studies also suggest that juveniles tried as adults have a higher rate of recidivism than those juveniles with like profiles who are charged with similar offenses and tried in the juvenile justice system. The higher rate of recidivism for juveniles tried as adults is likely the result of their being released into society undereducated, unsocialized, unemployable and in their physical prime. In other words, the adult criminal system sets juveniles up for failure by making them into the very model of what we wish to avoid. Therefore, if one truly values public safety, he/she should not support automatic transfers to adult court for certain juveniles because they will eventually return to society and, in most cases, to crime. To recap, the automatic trial as adult provision contained within the Juvenile Justice Reform Act is unnecessary, contradicts the traditional notions of the juvenile justice system and jeopardizes public safety. The abolishment of transfer hearings and creation of post-trial amenability hearings has eliminated the need for automatic transfer to a court. Additionally, the adult transfer provision counters the benevolent, rehabilitative philosophy of the juvenile justice system by shipping juveniles whom society can rehabilitate to the punishment oriented adult criminal court. Finally, the policy of treating juveniles as adults is likely to backfire because they eventually return to the streets undereducated, unsocialized, unemployable and in their physical prime, which often results in a return to a life of crime. III. OPENING JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS WHERE PROSECUTORS SEEK AN ADULT SENTENCE IS UNFAIR TO JUVENILES WHO RECEIVE JUVENILE SENTENCES AND RESULTS IN HARMFUL STIGMATIZATION. Under the reformed juvenile justice system a prosecutor can seek an adult sentence for a juvenile via two methods. The first, called direct file, permits the prosecutor to file the complaint in adult court. If the prosecutor pursues this method, the state tries the youth in adult court and the proceedings are open to the public. The second, and more troublesome method, allows the prosecutor to try the juvenile in juvenile court and seek an adult sentence there. These proceedings are also open to the public and are unfair to juveniles who do not receive an adult sentence. Furthermore, opening juvenile proceedings to the public stigmatizes juveniles as criminals for the rest of their lives. The section of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act that allows the opening of juvenile hearings to the public where an adult sentence is sought will expose some juveniles to public scrutiny even though they ultimately receive a juvenile sentence. Currently, a Massachusetts prosecutor has the option of opening juvenile proceedings to the public by seeking an adult sentence. Although prosecutors seek an adult sentence, the judge still has the discretion to sentence the offender as a juvenile after a post-trail amenability to rehabilitation hearing. Thus, it is entirely possible and probable that a number of cases in juvenile court which result in a juvenile sentence will be open to public scrutiny. Such a system is unfair because it allows prosecutors to throw open the doors of secrecy in juvenile court even if there is little chance of an adult sentence being imposed. Opening juvenile proceedings to the public also results in juveniles carrying around the taint of criminality which may lead to recidivism. Generally, proceedings in juvenile court have been closed to the public and press to prevent the stigmatization of minors and encourage rehabilitation. Allowing prosecutors to open juvenile judicial proceedings to the public will undermine rehabilitative efforts by creating a self-perpetuating stigma of delinquency, placing an accompanying stigma on family members, which could impair the juvenile’s familial relationships, encouraging youths to commit crimes for publicity or attention and contributing to a deterioration in the juvenile’s interaction with his peers, the educational system and the surrounding community. Because prosecutors are frequently unconcerned with the interests of juveniles and cater to public sentiment, the decision to open juvenile judicial proceedings should be left in the hands of an impartial decision maker. To summarize, prosecutors should not have the option to open juvenile proceedings where they seek an adult sentence to the public because it is unfair to juveniles who receive juvenile sentences and undermines rehabilitative efforts. Opening hearings to the public in juvenile court when the prosecutor seeks an adult sentence will result in some cases being held subject to public scrutiny even though the judge imposes a juvenile sentence. Such an arrangement is unfair to juveniles who are amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system. Additionally, opening juvenile hearings to the public is likely to undermine rehabilitative efforts by creating a self-perpetuating stigma of delinquency, placing an accompanying stigma on family members, which could impair the juvenile’s familial relationships, encouraging youths to commit crimes for publicity or attention and contributing to a deterioration in the juvenile’s interaction with his peers, the educational system and the surrounding community. Therefore, prosecutors should not have the power to open juvenile court proceedings to the public by seeking an adult sentence. IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Massachusetts Great and General Court, in attempting to reform the juvenile justice system, has embarked upon a noble and worthwhile endeavor. However, the reforms instituted by the legislature are the product of faulty perceptions and erroneous beliefs rather than informed policy making. If the citizens of Massachusetts are truly interested in changing the juvenile justice system for the better, it is not too late to petition the legislature to repeal and amend the detrimental sections of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act. The citizens of Massachusetts could also contact their representatives and ask them to introduce new legislation that benefits both juveniles and society. One may wonder that if the Juvenile Justice Reform Act is bad public policy, what policies should be implemented to reform the juvenile justice system. Perhaps the first step our legislature should take is to implement preventative programs, such as parenting classes, after school and summer athletic programs and academic intervention, to keep juveniles from entering the juvenile justice system in the first place. Not only are such interventions and programs effective, they are also cheaper than incarceration. The average yearly cost of incarcerating a juvenile ranges from $35,000 to $64,000. On the other hand, the average cost of academic intervention is approximately $4,300 and a year at Harvard costs $30,000. Therefore, for the amount that it takes to incarcerate one juvenile for a year, the Commonwealth could prevent approximately 14 juveniles from entering the juvenile justice system. In addition to implementing preventative programs, Massachusetts should examine the rehabilitation programs and measures of other states and adopt those that are effective. Although most states have moved toward recognizing punishment and accountability as the goals of the juvenile justice system, no state has entirely eliminated the philosophy of rehabilitation. Many of these states have proven rehabilitation programs and measures in place. For instance, Utah has founded the Intermountain Specialized Abuse Treatment Center in Salt Lake City to rehabilitate juvenile sex offenders, and California has established boot camps for juvenile delinquents. By examining the rehabilitation programs of other states and adopting those that are effective, Massachusetts could design a new and successful rehabilitation system for juveniles. A third and more practical possibility is that Massachusetts could increase funding to its existing juvenile rehabilitation system. In 1989, the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, an agency devoted to helping youths choose productive, crime-free lives, while keeping the public safe, was named the best juvenile agency in the United States by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. However, several years later the Department of Youth Services came under fire when several youths in its custody died, and a youth who was away without leave participated in a double murder. Officials at the Department of Youth Services maintain that the agency has fallen into disarray as a result of budget cuts and overcrowding. Thus, by increasing the budget of the Department of Youth Services, the Commonwealth can restore the agency to its former prominence and, at the same time, add vitality to the philosophy of rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system.