Protecting Juvenile Informants
The current drug-control strategies in use to win the war on drugs have been created by the current Executive Office Administration. This current policy is outlined by the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Obama. The policy is notably less punitive than the previous administrations War on Drugs policy. Those who are involved in the criminal justice system may see the focus on addiction as a disease becoming the main agenda. The strategy focuses on both the public health and public safety aspects of drug use and addiction. Drug addicts in the criminal justice system may find more avenues for treatment and alternative sentencing than in previous years. The current policy is concerned with prevention and public health. The current administration seeks to reduce drug use and its associated consequences in the United States (Office of National Drug Control Policy).
The relationship between drug use and delinquency is clear and demonstrates an overlap of problem behaviors. “Violent offenses increased markedly with the onset of drug use, as did the carrying of concealed weapons. Continued drug use has been associated with an increase in violent offenses and the frequency of carrying weapons. The onset of drug selling for these juveniles was associated with an increase in violent crime, and the percentage of drug dealers carrying guns rose steadily for those between the ages of 16 and 19. When drug use was discontinued, violent offenses decreased” (Huizinga, 1995). Protecting juveniles can be achieved in the current policy with prevention. Education and the realization that drug addiction is a public health issue can prevent drug use and protect the juvenile.
The use of child informants should be discouraged due to the inability to protect the youth and the reliability of information received from a juvenile. The juvenile’s age restricts available research into safety issues and deaths due to the sealed juvenile records and access to data. The use of child informants cannot be an accepted practice without demonstrating the ability to keep these children safe. The public has no accurate statistical way to note the danger that maybe caused to the child. This is no place for the United States to tread with its youth.
A "child informant" or "juvenile informant" is simply an informant who is under the age of eighteen years. Children under the age of 18 should not be in criminal courts as a defendant or as an informant/witness unless waived to the adult court or emancipated. This allows the documentation on the safety issues to be public and available to researchers. Informants used in court need to be emancipated as an adult to be allowed to be an informant. Only then can we bring to light the safety of the child in doing such acts as providing information on a potentially lethal individual, group or organization such as a gang. These children who testify or provide information could be killed and the documentation on the child’s demise is lost due to the status of age. Children sixteen and under should never be allowed to be an informant/witness in a criminal case. As law enforcement, we have a deontological ethical duty to save a child’s life superseded by none, including the successful prosecution of a vice crime.
The rationalizations set by the Supreme Court in the Roper v. Simmons death penalty case pertaining to the definition of minors should be applied. By their very nature, juveniles are less mature, and therefore less culpable than adults. The testimony given by a child is not sound and the information gathered from a child may not be reliable. The testimony of a minor can create an injustice “A recent study conducted by Northwestern University law professor Steve Drizin and UC Irvine criminologist Richard Leo examined 125 cases in which individuals were exonerated after giving false confessions. The researchers found that 32% of the cases involved minors. "They are more likely to go along, agree and comply with authority figures - to say what the police want them to say - than the general population" (Juveniles News and Developments: 2004, 2011). This fact creates an unjust prosecutorial advantage based on the fictional or embellished testimony of a child. The testimony may be coerced.
Research used by the Supreme Court in deciding the Roper vs. Simmons case stated that adolescence is a transitional period of life when cognitive abilities, emotions, judgment, impulse control, identity -- even the brain -- are still developing was cited by the National Research Council. “Questions concerning adolescent development are becoming more pertinent as scientific research has revealed that, both psychologically and physiologically, juveniles are very different to adults. Clearly, the implications of such research are far reaching. Recent research documenting the extent of change that can occur in the (adolescent) brain... has been heralded as one (of) the most remarkable findings in neuro-biology of the last decade…" (Juveniles, 2011) .
The opinion of the Supreme Court that recognizes the youth factor as a main consideration to desist in capital punishment notes a step in the evolving standards of decency. This evolving standard of decency carries an equal flip-side that should consider testimony of a child invalid or without merit. If the child cannot receive capital punishment for a crime then the testimony in adult court should be considered to be without merit based on the Supreme Court’s own opinions. We should not expect our children to live up to double standards of being a sound adult capable of accurately informing/testifying in one circumstance and child with an underdeveloped brain that warrants protection from the death penalty in the other. As A nation we adopted a presumption that juvenile offenders lack the capacity or maturity to be eligible for the death penalty. We must adopt the same presumption that juvenile offenders lack the capacity or maturity to accurately witness serious and important acts that could create punitive damages in adult court. The testimony of a child should be limited to direct abuse cases and supported by medical documentation.
Assuming the role of the arresting officer, the recommend next steps with the juvenile that offers himself or herself as an informant would be to advise on providing an anonymous tip. I would use the information as a base for the investigation and find another means of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and see to it that the child has no further involvement in the case. The child should be placed as far away as possible from the very real threat to the child’s life. I would not place the responsibilities of my job on a child.
Bibliography
Juveniles. (2011). Retrieved November 15, 2011, from The International Justice Project: http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/juvConst.cfm
Juveniles News and Developments: 2004. (2011). Retrieved November 15, 2011, from Death Penalty Information Center: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/juveniles-news-and-developments-2004
Huizinga, D. (1995). Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse. Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, 37.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2011, from The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/policy-and-research
No comments:
Post a Comment