Thomas Geraghty's article "Justice for Children: How do we get there?"

Thomas Geraghty's article "Justice for Children: How do we get there?" points suggestions for a more just juvenile system, The three that I find in order of most importance are “[the courts] must preserve individualized decision making with respect to the culpability and the developmental needs of the children”; “procedural protections {(including the right to a jury trial)” as granted in the Constitution} and removing status offenders from the system.

The suggestion “[the courts] must preserve individualized decision making with respect to the culpability and the developmental needs of the children” is deemed important due to the child’s state of mind and ability to understand the court proceedings – The plea decisions made by the court or agreed upon by the child must be comprehensible to the child.

“My colleagues and I leave the courtroom convinced that our client has understood little about the nature and purpose of the proceedings that he has just witnessed. He understands even less about the momentous decision that the juvenile court judge is about to make about his future. His lack of comprehension persists despite our repeated efforts to explain to him the significance of the transfer hearing.” http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-20840467/justice-children-do-we.html

This includes the mental state of the child. The determination of mental capacity by the court-related authorities has notable deficiencies and is lacking a set parameter. The quote is from a study done in Texas on this subject matter: "What we found was that while most jurisdictions value appropriate assessment and referrals — whether through the SAT or its comparable alternatives — not all are equally well-positioned to provide them," said William Kelly, professor and director at the Center. "These variations represent a central challenge to developing criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of referrals of juveniles with mental health or other needs."

Kelly said the findings and recommendations were presented to top administrators of the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC). As a result, both the TJPC and the UT Center for Criminology and Criminal Justice Research have indicated an interest in pursuing research aimed at systematically assessing juvenile mental health needs and programming across Texas. http://www.utexas.edu/news/1999/09/27/nr_courts/

A California a study indicates the mental health determinations should also take into consideration the gender of the child -

“* The unique needs of girls: Studies have found that girls in the juvenile justice system have experienced higher rates of physical neglect and higher rates of sexual and emotional abuse than boys. Additionally, delinquent girls suffer from mental health problems and experience traumatic life events at higher rates than boys.”

http://yubanet.com/california/CA-s-Juvenile-Justice-System-Ill-Equipped-to-Care-for-Girls.php

Due process of law and “procedural protections {(including the right to a jury trial)” is second on the list – I argue,once again, that juveniles are not second class citizens. The deserve full protection granted under the Bill of Rights.

The sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” The operative word is ALL. If the suggestion is that the juvenile courts more like a civil hearing, Well then, The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would allow for the right to a jury trial by stating “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” The United States is Rule of Law and the juvenile justice system is a creation of judicial activism-that has no fact or basis under the rule of law. The implementation of the actual laws set fourth by the Bill of Rights would help the juvenile justice system. The problem is within creating a jury of peers for the youth. The teen court model is effective and constitutionally sound. I support State-approved teen courts that implement restorative justice. If juvenile courts were open hearings I do firmly believe there would be less injustice to juveniles. When a hearing is closed the adults involved are removed from accountability. Status offenders should be taken out of the courts. The courts are not baby-sitters. The offender, if a runaway, should be paired with an employment agency and with employment be declared independent – and also be granted the right to vote (not in Constitution). The status offenders are guilty of trying to be an adult – some because of abuse at home, some youth do mature faster and some just do not do well sitting at a school desk all day in confused boredom. Let them grow up and get a job, even if it is hard labor or low paying – it beats the taxpayer carrying the payment burden of their detention. Allow them the option to go into the armed services at 16 for early training but no combat until 18. There are many ways the Juvenile Justice system can be reprogrammed to create productive adults, not the current creation of productive, angry criminals.

Federalist, Anti-federalists papers, Media, Public Opinion and the Vote

           In the writing of the Constitution of the United States the framers were aware of the opposition that would fall upon the ratification. The power given to the federal government left no room for individual rights in the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. The Americans were fearful of a government that was ignorant of individual freedoms and did not want to restrict their newly gained freedoms. Those in control of the government were fearful of the power of the "ignorant masses" and were aware of the changing opinions of the citizens. The mental trauma caused by the tyranny and oppression from English rule was too fresh on the minds of the people. A strong central government with very little limits was feared by the American public.

        The Federalist papers were published to educate and sway public opinion towards the ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights added to maintain the strength of the rule of the central government. Federalist writings implied that individual rights and liberty were protected under the original document. They argued that adding a Bill of Rights would undermine the authority of the government thus making in ineffective and weak. Without these papers circulated in the public the ratification would not have happened - even with the Bill of Rights added.

        The Anti federalist papers were circulated to point out the need for a Bill of Rights. They spoke against the strength of the centralized government with few limits and restraints. The Anti-federalists papers were in favor of limiting the central government. Anti-federalist papers created a movement for the adding of the Bill of Rights that protected the liberties of the individual. 

         The interesting point to this is that there were two sides publicly speaking pros and cons about the law of the land. This created the need to compromise and the Federalist and Anti-federalist each adapted their wants to meet the needs of the people. A balance was created because of the media and ratification was possible. 

         The media can be a tool for the American people to use that enables education and can expose governmental corruption. The media is also a tool that can be used by politicians to restrict education and full disclosure as well. Any spin can be sent out to the public from media. Education comes from gathering information from many sources therefore; restricting media to a few sources can create ignorance of a subject matter. The Freedom of speech must be maintained in all forms to protect freedom, although it is the public’s responsibility to become educated from many sources to form opinions and sway their vote. 

        The vote of an individual can be swayed by gossip, media and the opinion of others. This is why politicians, political action comities and researchers take polls, to see the social temperature of the public. They can go forward with their convictions or they can pull back and even change their previous convictions completely based on public acceptance. They do this because public opinion is a direct relation with vote. The Federalist and Anti-federalist papers in the beginning of this government are similar in the two party system we have now - each supporting different ideals and representing the ideals of their constituents, This is important to protect because it represents the people, creates a balance  and slows down the government so radical changes become more difficult.

        Final Summation, The Constitution with the Bill of Rights is a Yin-Yang type balance between the people and the government. The responsibility of the public is to be informed and educated by multiple facets of media, then to create the opinions that back up the vote to create political Zen for the individual and the country. The Federalist and the Anti-federalist papers much like the two party system we have today creates a balance of power.

“I am not a Democrat,                                 

  I am not a Republican,

  I am an informed voter..."

                     Dana Cowan, 2010    

Child Maltreatment

What are some of the consequences of child maltreatment?  Other than being illegal and against social mores, what impact does it have on society?  Is that impact greater than the act committed?

      A child that has been maltreated, and survives, is looking at a life long attempt to recover from this abuse. The long term effects of the initial action reek havoc in their lives and the lives of the ones close to the abused. Imagine a rock thrown into still water, The initial rock hitting the waters is comparative to the incidents of maltreatment; the ripples from the action are the life long effects of the incidents. The waves are strongest around the point of impact and equals the time into the teen life of the child. The strong waves are compared to the overwhelming disruptive emotional response from the initial abuse and can cause actions that are anti-social, lead to the use of drugs (an attempt to self-medicate) and even mental disorders such as PTSD - that is usually associated with war related disorders. The effects on a child can be as traumatic or even more traumatic than war is on a soldier. The ripples over time become less acute as the mind adjusts and tries to cope with the trauma and over time the mental trauma waves become less intense and more of a chronic mental issue. In time (reaching adulthood) the trauma waves from abuse slow and allow for recovery. Well, This is a hope for an outcome, Although many times maltreatment of a child can “break” the child’s mind :

The "typical" profile of a serial killer is a Caucasian male between the ages of 18 and 32. There will be evidence of child abuse in his background. In his background, he will show signs of the MacDonald triad which are bed-wetting beyond the age of ten, abuse to animals, and a history of arson. The serial killer will operate by himself. This set profile does not encompass every serial killer. There have been many serial killers that do not fit this profile. For this reason alone, the standard or set profile of a serial killer is used to aid in an investigation, not run it.

http://www.crimeusa.com/killer_profile.html

The maltreatment of a child even has the possibility to create serial killers, this obliviously impacts society in a very negative manner. Therefore , I think the impact on society compared to the act committed against the child are equal based on Newton's third law of action - To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction. The child pays for it first, then society pays for it second. Abuse of a child should be prevented at all cost. If a child has been abused an aggressive effort needs to be made to facilitate help for and prevent mental disorders in an effort to restrain the social impact that(without intervention) is sure to follow.

CJ Homework

Discuss the pros and cons of the intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court into the juvenile justice system? Overall, do you think it has benefited juveniles?

The discussion of opinions on the intervention of the Supreme Court in to the juvenile justice system leads to the querying of another question that must be pondered to deduce an opinion. Do you think a juvenile entering in to the system should be granted the same protection as an adult; In other words, Does the Bill of Rights cover all U.S. citizens – including children? My thought is yes. Therefore the pros of the supreme courts intervention are defined by granting the youth many of the same rights and protection afforded to adults. The con is the recent ruling in May stating that juveniles

May not receive life-without-parole sentences for crimes other than homicide. This majority opinion of the Supreme Court backslides on the previous rulings that have made the juvenile justice system more comparable to the adult system. The previous rulings were making progress towards establishing protection under due process of law. The 1967 ruling "In re Gault" granted

• The right to receive notice of charges
• The right to obtain legal counsel
• The right to "confrontation and cross-examination"
• The "privilege against self-incrimination"
• The right to receive a "transcript of the proceedings," and
• The right to "appellate review"
  This ruling of the court was followed by the dissenting opinion of Justice Potter Stewart who expressed concern that the court's decision would "convert a juvenile proceeding into a criminal prosecution." He held to the historical intent of the juvenile justice system, which was not to prosecute and punish young offenders, but to "correct a condition," and meet society's "responsibilities to the child."
  http://www.lawyershop.com/practice-areas/criminal-law/juvenile-law/history/
  The recent 2010 ruling of the court tends to agree with Justice Stewart's dissension opinion from 1967.
  Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a blistering dissent to the court's ruling, saying that the court has gone too far in this decision, which he predicts will "embroil the courts" for years because of its lack of guidance. Thomas said that 129 convicts spread across 11 states and federal courts shows that life terms for juveniles is already a rarity reserved only for the most brutal crimes. He was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia and, in part, by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
  "I am unwilling to assume that we, as members of this court, are any more capable of making such moral judgments than our fellow citizens,"  Thomas wrote. "Never before today has the court relied on its own view of just deserts to impose a categorical limit on the imposition of a lesser punishment."
  -Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the majority, but only on Graham's case, writing in a separate opinion that he would not outlaw life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of rapes and shootings. “Just because a victim miraculously survives shouldn't afford a criminal protection against life in prison”, Roberts wrote, citing the Florida case of Milagro Cunningham, a 17-year-old who beat and raped an 8-year-old girl before leaving her to die beneath 197 pounds of rock in a recycling bin at a remote landfill.
  http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/05/us_supreme_court_ends_life_sen.html
  
  My opinion is yes. The juvenile justice system has improved with the Supreme courts involvement even if the trends in rulings seem to waver. The Supreme court was ruling in a direction that made the juvenile justice system more like the adult criminal justice system, with the exception of the recent May 2010 ruling – on that I tend to agree with Chief Justice John Roberts opinion. I feel that the recent ruling has benefited juveniles too much. I do believe in rehabilitation for major majority of juveniles; Although I do feel that some people are inherently evil and you can not fix evil ( That’s Gods job – I will leave it to him). If at the age of 17 someone beat and raped my child and then left her under rocks in a trash dump I would want the life-without-parole because the criminal intent was to kill the child. I can only imagine what the 8 year old’s mother went through then and how she feels now knowing he may be released because of this recent ruling.

Historical Justice Themes

There are several historical themes discussed in the text (p. 12-16). Which of these themes do you think are of most importance to today's juvenile justice system?



The historical themes of most importance in today’s society and juvenile justice system are increased authority of the state, unsolvable nature of crime and get tough and go-soft approaches in said order. The negative and anti-social actions of children, whether through peer pressure, lack of insight or sheer momentary stupidity should not cause the adult they can potentially become to vanish. The need to re-insert these adjudicated youths to the society they came from is a responsibility of the state – now more than ever. If the state is going to assume parental power of the adjudicated youth then the state must also take on the responsibility of teaching the adjudicated youth as an accomplished and moral parent would ( this includes not only discipline, but nurture and love more so) focusing on the man or woman they have potential to become. This is more than teaching a trade to the youth, or schooling the youth. It is showing the youth that they are special and unique, that there feelings are valid – and they are worth something to somebody. Many offenders come from homes beyond what is imaginable to the everyday citizen. With the state assuming the parental role they must go the distance for these children.

The increased authority of the state theme is more prominent now than ever. The state can remove youths from homes – in most cases it is in the best interest of the child to do so. This authority has been granted in increments over time and is not going to change. Once you hand over authority it is rarely ever handed back. That is the reason this is of most importance of the themes. It is a theme that is growing and will continue to grow in society today as the states deem it necessary to remove more youth from their homes. Does this removal of youth from family further break down society- therefore setting up the creation of the next and larger generation of adjudicated youths?

The going in circles of the unsolvable nature of crime is as true today as in it's first conceptual thought. No matter what is tried there are still offenders and victims, there is no solution to the problem. The simple thought remains that we must do what we are able and what is just. The nature of human beings is not perfect. In fact, the juvenile seems to lean towards Hobbs “state of nature” in essence the stronger over power the week and little regard for much- they do not have the detailed conception they might get caught, rather juveniles exist in a state of instinct and immediate impulse reaction. To be animal is a humans birthright, we are born knowing how to eat, sleep – survival animal instinct qualities. Becoming human is learned over a long period of time- adolescence is a unique mix of human and animal instincts and depending on the lack of positive nurture administered to the youth during rearing could result in more animal styled thought process. The key to the unsolvable nature of crime is in the nurture of the criminal. This theme has allowed for advancements in treatment of adjudicated juveniles and advancements in their care. Even though there is no positive change in slowing the frequency that juveniles come into contact with the justice system.

The get-tough go-soft theme is the most humane way to deal with offenders. The practice of punishing the offender harshly due to others actions as found in reform and retrenchment is UN-just to the individual as most juveniles break a law or two, and one has been caught at a time when public policy has a zero tolerance due to others actions is not the equality granted to the American citizen. The

get-tough go-soft theme is reasonable and logically correct in the sense that every action has an opposite and equal reaction. The action of a hard crime has a hard penalty vice-verse for soft crimes. The fallacy in this theme (as in all of them) is set standards. In an adult court you have a jury that judges over the accused- the juvenile system makes no allowance for this, therefore a rigid set of penalties should be set, such as truancy 2nd offense = 20 days summer school (no exceptions). The concern is that there are very few adults involved in juvenile court and the records are sealed. How would you ever be able to check to see if some juveniles rights were being protected or if they received a fair trial, Juveniles are citizens – not fully developed.