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.