Juvenile Competency and Pretrial Due Process: A Call for Greater Protections in Massachusetts for Juveniles Residing in Procedural Purgatory

While juvenile courts continue to balance and reevaluate the dual goals of community safety and rehabilitation of youth, juveniles who are not competent to stand trial have been left without sufficient procedural protections. This paper examines Massachusetts’ approach to juvenile competency, due process, and pretrial procedure, within a national context. The inadequacies of the Massachusetts juvenile competency laws are not unique. Currently there are nineteen states that either entirely lack juvenile‐specific competency legislation or merely incorporate inapposite adult criminal statutes and standards into the juvenile context—making it difficult or impossible for those juvenile courts to dismiss or divert a delinquency petition following an incompetency finding. Massachusetts and states similarly situated should adopt explicit statutory language to delineate the basis for a juvenile incompetency finding and the grounds for dismissing delinquency complaints pretrial after an incompetency finding has been made. This paper proposes that Massachusetts adopt a timeline for effecting such dismissals based in part on the amount of time a juvenile could face if committed to the juvenile correctional authority following an adjudication of delinquency. The paper also recommends best practices of states that are pioneering juvenile legislative reforms like dismissal timelines and incompetency presumptions. Finally, we suggest a more stringent regulatory framework be put in place governing the pretrial detention of youths who have been found not competent to stand trial—a framework that recognizes and preserves the juvenile's substantive rights to education, mental health and rehabilitative services. Without legislation, juveniles found not competent to stand trial remain subject to the prospect of indefinite locked detention, often without access to the necessary services that contribute to future success as well as attainment of competency. This lack of due process runs counter to the foundational goals of the juvenile justice system.     

A Practical Approach to Evaluating and Improving Juvenile Justice Programs

For more than a decade, the juvenile justice field in the United States has been dominated by the seventh “moral panic” over juvenile delinquency. This panic led to an overreaction to juvenile delinquency by legislators and juvenile justice officials. The main consequence is a “crisis of overload” in many state and local juvenile justice systems across the country. Tools are available to help juvenile courts effectively manage the overload of court clients. Most important, a new method has been developed for evaluating existing programs against research‐based standards that have been synthesized from juvenile justice program evaluations. This tool enables states and localities to take a practical approach to improving juvenile justice system programs.     

Juvenile delinquency and the juvenile justice system: U.S. and India

The paper deals with comparative issues in the definition, nature, and extent of juvenile delinquency, juvenile law, juvenile justice with special reference to India and the United States. Through an analysis of comparative data on patterns of delinquency differentials on the variables of sex, age, social class, and type of offense, the paper identifies the similarities between the two countries. The paper notes one exception regarding patterns of delinquency that indicate a relatively negligible involvement of the Indian juveniles in the crime of rape due to the cultural and socialization differences. The paper discusses the provisions under the Children Act of 1960 in India and points that both in philosophy and practice, the parens patriae doctrine in juvenile justice fares better in the Indian context. Unlike in the U.S., juveniles in India do not have certain Constitutional due process rights, such as the right to an attorney, yet the children courts in India serve as criminal courts and the Indian act provides for greater procedural safeguards. The paper also suggests that the disposition of juvenile cases in India results in lesser hard-core institutional commitment than in the U.S. and that the maximum period of punishment does not exceed the limits provided for the offense as stipulated by the Indian act.     

Factors related to recidivism for youthful offenders

Little is known about youth who were previously placed in a detention facility and what factors predict a subsequent recidivism to placement. This study of a two-county juvenile offender population (one urban and one rural) investigates what demographic, educational, mental health, substance dependence, and court-related variables predict recidivism to detention placement. Findings from logistic regression analysis indicate that seven variables significantly predict juvenile offenders’ recidivism placement, some expected and some unexpected. Predictors that made recidivism more likely include youth with a previous conduct disorder diagnosis, a self-reported previous suicide attempt, age, and number of court offenses. Conversely, predictors that made recidivism less likely include race (Caucasian), a previous attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis, and a misdemeanor conviction. These findings indicate that the use of a community-based suicide and mental health screening and referral approach may help to identify and assist these high-risk youth in receiving needed services prior to juvenile court involvement or during delinquency adjudication.     

CHALLENGES FACING CROSSOVER YOUTH: AN EXAMINATION OF JUVENILE‐JUSTICE DECISION MAKING AND RECIDIVISM

Although a substantial amount of research documents the increased likelihood of maltreated youths to engage in delinquency, very little is known about them once they cross into delinquency. These youths are often referred to as “crossover youth,”“dual jurisdiction,” or “dually involved” youth, and based on a growing amount of research, it appears these youths face a number of challenges. They have significant educational problems, high rates of placement changes and high rates of substance abuse and mental health problems, and when they enter the juvenile justice system, they are more likely to stay longer and penetrate deeper into the system then their nonmaltreated counterparts. Using data from Los Angeles County (N= 581), the purpose of this study is to identify what characteristics among a crossover population are more likely to result in receiving harsher dispositions and higher recidivism rates.     

Psychosocial concepts in juvenile law

This study was designed to clarify the types of information about juveniles and their families that are relevant for three types of juvenile court decisions: (a) the pretrial detention of juveniles; (b) their transfer for trial in criminal courts: and (c) disposition decisions after delinquency adjudication. Predominant legal standards for these decisions are described, information relevance for the decisions is defined, and why past studies have failed to clarify the information needs of juvenile court decision makers is explained. Results of a study involving a national sample of juvenile court personnel include an empirically derived domain of psychosocial and behavioral characteristics of juveniles and their families relevant for courts' interpretations of controlling legal standards; factor analysis of the domain, describing dimensions of the domain of information about juveniles and families; and an examination of the relation of these information categories to each legal standard controlling the decision areas in question. The interpretation of results may facilitate decision making by juvenile courts, evaluations by mental health professionals who assist juvenile courts, and further research by social scientists who study discretionary juvenile court decisions.This research was supported by grant No. MH-35090 from the Center for Studies of Antisocial and Violent Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health, DHHS. Portions of the study were conducted in collaboration with the National Juvenile Law Center, Inc. of St. Louis. The authors wish to acknowledge Martha Bellew-Smith, Marcia Conlin, and Robert Rust, who contributed substantially to the conduct of the study. Others who participated at various stages are Steve Bellus and Sandra Seigel     

The King County (Washington) Systems Integration Initiative: A First Look at the Kent District Dual System Youth Pilot Program

King County is one of five counties in Washington State participating in the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change juvenile justice reform initiative. One key aspect of King County's Models for Change participation involves ongoing “systems integration” work intended to improve how youth who have cross‐over involvement in multiple systems—e.g., juvenile justice, child welfare, education, mental health, and/or others—are handled. These cross‐over cases often present a range of challenges to juvenile courts including substantial risk factors that increase their likelihood of continuing system involvement. This article provides a first look at an emerging pilot project in King County that is intended to improve how cross‐over cases are handled by child welfare and juvenile probation with the longer term goal of improving outcomes for these difficult cases.     

A Comparison of the Dispositions of Juvenile Offenders Certified as Adults with Juvenile Offenders Not Certified

Abstract In recent years, the transfer of juveniles to adult courts has been seen as one way of “getting tough” on juvenile crime. This study examined juvenile cases transferred to adult court, and compared them with a random sample of delinquents adjudicated in juvenile court for conduct that would constitute felonies if committed by an adult. The results indicated that juvenile cases transferred to adult court were far more likely to be pending and unresolved, as compared to the sample from the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, the results did not support the proposition that juveniles transferred to adult court would receive greater punishment than they could expect in juvenile court. Except for a small number of offenders, the prospect of transfer did not appear to provide a deterrent to crime.     

Saved By the Bell: Reclaiming Home Court Advantage for At‐Risk Youth Funneled into the School‐to‐Prison Pipeline

Far too often, minority students are faced with punitive disciplinary actions and are consequently directed to the “school‐to‐prison” pipeline. From education to discipline, implementation of policies that criminalize minor delinquent behavior pushes these students out of school and into the juvenile justice system. Traditional disciplinary actions that would land students in the principal's office have gradually transformed to students being handcuffed and thrown in jail. This Note proposes a model statute requiring states with a high criminal delinquency rate to implement school‐based youth courts in public high schools.     

Delinquency and Justice

Abstract

In an attempt to demonstrate the value of case study research on delinquency in American Indian communities, Tribal Court juvenile records from one western American Indian community, 1991 through 1998, were analyzed and interviews conducted with community members. Most arrests of juveniles were for alcohol possession and consumption, conduct offenses and status offenses. The most severe offense was simple assault. Youths were more likely to be detained for underage consumption than youths off reservation. Few bookings (26%) resulted in court hearings and all cases resulted in dismissal, deferred adjudication, or deferred sentencing. Girls had higher rates of arrest and detention than males. Interviews identified alcohol consumption and erosion of the extended family as correlates of delinquency.     

THE “TRUE” JUVENILE OFFENDER: AGE EFFECTS AND JUVENILE COURT SANCTIONING

Age is the only factor used to demarcate the boundary between juvenile and adult justice. However, little research has examined how age guides the juvenile court in determining which youth within the juvenile justice system merit particular dispositions, especially those that reflect the court's emphasis on rehabilitation. Drawing on scholarship on the court's origins, attribution theory, and cognitive heuristics, we hypothesize that the court focuses on youth in the middle of the range of the court's age of jurisdiction—characterized in this article as “true” juveniles—who may be viewed as meriting more specialized intervention. We use data from Florida for court referrals in 2008 (N = 71,388) to examine the decision to proceed formally or informally and, in turn, to examine formally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer) and informally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, and probation). The analyses provide partial support for the hypothesis. The very young were more likely to be informally processed; however, among the informally processed youth, the youngest, not “true” juveniles, were most likely to be diverted or placed on probation. By contrast, among formally processed youth, “true” juveniles were most likely to receive traditional juvenile court responses, such as diversion or probation.     

The questionable advantage of defense counsel in juvenile court

This article examines the issue of legal representation in serious juvenile delinquency matters in three diverse juvenile courts. The prevalence of legal counsel varied among felony referrals. Out-of-home placement was more likely to occur if a youth had an attorney, even when other relevant legal and individual factors were the same. Within each court, the results showed more likely of placement corresponding to seriousness of the case. Although this escalation was evident among cases with attorneys and those without, placement was more apt to occur when there was legal counsel. Given these findings, we offer recommendations for issues that should be considered and possible policy actions.     

Mental Health Services for Incarcerated Youth: Report from a Statewide Survey

The need for mental health care has been steadily increasing for youth coming into contact with the juvenile probation system. This paper presents the results of a statewide survey of juvenile probation departments and associated mental health, health care, court, and education personnel in California. The intent of the survey was to better understand the costs and associated contexts of caring for youth with suspected mental disorders in juvenile detention facilities. The burden of caring for these youth on detention facilities and their staffs is substantial. Implications for courts, policy planning, training, and further research are discussed.     

The Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth

Programs targeted at high-risk youth are designed to prevent high-school dropout, crime, drug abuse, and other forms of delinquency. Even if shown to be successful in reducing one or more social ill, a key policy question is whether the cost to society from that intervention program exceeds its benefits. Although the costs of intervention programs are often available, the benefits are more illusive. This paper provides estimates of the potential benefits from “saving” a high-risk youth, by estimating the lifetime costs associated with the typical career criminal, drug abuser, and high-school dropout. In the absence of controlled experimental data on the number of career criminals averted, one can ask the reverse question—How many career criminals must be prevented before the program “pays for itself?” Based on a 2% discount rate, the typical career criminal causes $1.3–$1.5 million in external costs; a heavy drug user, $370,000 to $970,000; and a high-school dropout, $243,000 to $388,000. Eliminating duplication between crimes committed by individuals who are both heavy drug users and career criminals results in an overall estimate of the “monetary value of saving a high-risk youth” of $1.7 to $2.3 million.     

Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases SIXTEEN KEY PRINCIPLES

This article is excerpted from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' landmark JUVENILE DELINQUENCY GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases, Chapter I, Foundations for Excellence, published in 2005. Beginning with a basic discussion of why separate courts for juveniles and adults continue to be necessary, the article describes the goals and key principles of a juvenile delinquency court of excellence.     

A 21st Century Developmentally Appropriate Juvenile Probation Approach

Principles of adolescent development have accelerated positive changes to the juvenile justice system. These changes have been most pronounced in reducing reliance on incarceration and in approaches to sentencing of youth tried as adults. While juvenile probation has made some developmentally friendly adjustments, it remains an area that is fertile for reform. Many of the principles and goals in this paper have been endorsed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), which “supports and is committed to juvenile probation systems that conform to the latest knowledge of adolescent development and adolescent brain science,” and which “recommends that courts cease imposing ‘conditions of probation’ and instead support probation departments’ developing, with families and youth, individualized case plans that set expectations and goals.” 1 NCJFCJ's July, 2017 resolution in support of developmentally appropriate juvenile probation services built on earlier NCJFCJ policies. From the time NCJFCJ adopted Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines in 2005, those policies have grown increasingly robust. 2     

ENSURING AUTHENTIC YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DELINQUENCY CASES: CREATING A PARADIGM FOR SPECIALIZED JUVENILE DEFENSE PRACTICE

In delinquency courts, juvenile defense attorneys are essential for guaranteeing children's due process rights and encouraging their meaningful participation in the proceedings. Yet, indigent defense delivery systems are largely failing youth accused of committing crimes. This article highlights the importance of developing systems that support the highly specialized practice area of juvenile defense. To protect their clients’ rights and meet their ethical obligations, juvenile defense attorneys must zealously advocate for their clients’ expressed interests and must strategically address the biases and misunderstandings prevalent in delinquency courts. Specifically, defense attorneys must vigorously challenge systemic race, class, and gender injustices; incorporate expert knowledge of youth development into their advocacy; and protect clients’ mental health and educational interests. Such holistic representation promotes rehabilitation and reduces recidivism. Because of numerous obstacles that currently impede defense attorneys from engaging in such exemplary practice, systemic reforms are necessary to support high‐quality defense representation and, ultimately, ensure that youths’ rights are protected.     

Juvenile Justice Processing:The entangled effects of race and urban poverty

This study addresses the issue of how race and urban poverty affect minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system, using data from 2,003 court cases referred to 13 urban Ohio juvenile courts in 1989. Results of logistic regression analyses show that: 1) minority offenders are more likely to be detained than whites; 2) detention status augments juveniles' chances of being adjudicated and confined; 3) minority juveniles who are from welfare families are more likely to be confined than their self-sustaining counterparts. A cultural stereotype based on juveniles' race and class constitutes the basis of differential treatment.     

SOME MISLEADING CONCEPTIONS IN SENTENCING RESEARCH

Most studies of sentencing practices in both adult and juvenile courts have compared the relative power to predict dispositions of “legal” variables, such as the seriousness of offense and previous arrest record, and “extralegal” variables, such as race and social class. It is suggested that this is a misleading model for research on the decision-making process in juvenile courts. Instead, results presented here indicate that the juvenile court uses a model of substantive decision-making oriented toward the character and social environment of offenders. Social background variables are found to be more important determinants of disposition than either “legal” or “extralegal” variables.     

Another permanency perspective:Family Drug Court

Because a staggering percentage of criminal court caseloads are intrinsically related to drug or alcohol abuse, general jurisdiction courts with rehabilitative “Drug Court” programs have experienced notable success. A similarly large number of juvenile and family court cases also involve substance abuse. The establishment of a “Family Drug Court” is allowing parents involved in abuse and neglect litigation to benefit from the juvenile justice system's social service mode of rehabilitation.