Meeting the Mandates of Gault: Automatic Appointment of Counsel in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings

In 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled that children facing delinquency charges have a constitutional right to defense counsel. Despite that mandate, state assessments of juvenile defense systems have consistently found high rates of waiver of counsel. Children are facing harsh punishments with potentially lifelong consequences without the benefit of a trained defense attorney at their side. Given the severity of the consequences of juvenile court involvement and society’s understanding of the developmental science behind adolescence, this article argues that to meet constitutional requirements, juvenile courts must automatically appoint defense counsel for all children facing delinquency charges.     

The right to counsel in juvenile court

Research Summary The U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault granted delinquents the right to counsel in juvenile courts. Decades after Gault, efforts to provide adequate defense representation in juvenile courts have failed in most states. Moreover, juvenile justice administration varies with structural context and produces justice-by-geography. In 1995, Minnesota enacted juvenile law reforms, which include mandatory appointment of counsel. This pre- and post-reform legal impact study compares how juvenile courts processed youths before and after the statutory changes. We assess how legal changes affected the delivery of defense services and how implementation varied with urban, suburban, and rural context. Policy Implications We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel. Despite unambiguous legislative intent, rates of representation improved for only one category of offenders. However, we find a positive reduction in justice by geography, especially in rural courts. Given judicial resistance to procedural reforms, states must find additional strategies to provide counsel in juvenile courts.     

Protecting Ohio's Children: Ohio Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to Prevent Nonparty Interference in the Protection of the Best Interest of a Child

Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 2(Y) allows juvenile courts to do what other courts cannot: designate additional parties to an action, allowing juvenile courts to better accomplish their statutory purpose of pursuing the best interests of children. However, sometimes this can lead to confusion about juvenile courts’ actions to protect children, especially when courts invoke Rule 2(Y) to stop interference with proceedings. This article will examine the historical foundations of Ohio's juvenile courts, the unique authority that they possess, and the conflicts that can arise due to interference with juvenile court proceedings. Ohio's juvenile courts have unique authority, and they can use that authority in a way that does not conflict with constitutional rights, while still working to protect the interests of children.     

Guardians Ad Litem and Children's Attorneys in Arizona: A Qualitative Examination of the Roles

An ongoing debate exists with little research support concerning the differences in the roles of guardians ad litem (GAL) and children's attorneys (CA) in dependency cases. Through qualitative interviews, this study examined GALs’ and CAs’ perceptions and execution of roles. Both executed their roles similarly and agreed the best interests of the child and the child's wishes are important. Shared goals included child safety, ensuring the child's voice is heard, keeping the family together, and minimizing the distress to the child. Challenges to executing their roles were often systemic, including overwhelmed courts and lack of community resources to serve clients’ needs.     

Trauma‐Informed Approaches to Juvenile Justice: A Critical Race Perspective

Youth of color experience disproportionate juvenile justice contact and recidivism. Trauma‐informed approaches may provide important support to these youth and improve their future outcomes. This paper describes dynamics of the various levels of the juvenile justice system (i.e., police contact, courts, correctional placement, aftercare) that perpetuate psychological trauma among adjudicated youth of color. This paper explores trauma‐informed approaches from a critical race theory perspective to address issues of systemic racial injustice in the juvenile justice system. Current and emerging models for trauma‐informed juvenile justice and implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed.     

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.     

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PROBLEM OF YOUTH AT RISK

During the 2006–2007 American Bar Association (ABA) year, a special ABA Presidential Youth at Risk Initiative has addressed several important topics: addressing the needs of juvenile status offenders and their families; foster children aging out of the foster care system; increases in girls, especially girls of color, in the juvenile justice system; the need to better hear the voices of youth in court proceedings affecting them; and improving how laws can better address youth crossing over between juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Lawyers are encouraged to use their skills to improve the systems addressing at‐risk youth and their families and to help facilitate coordination of youth‐related community efforts. Learning how to effectively communicate with youth is an important skill attorneys must learn. Through the Youth at Risk Initiative, the ABA has held continuing legal education programs, hosted community roundtables among youth‐serving stakeholders, and developed projects on: juvenile status offenders; lawyer assistance to youth transitioning from foster care; educating young girls on violence prevention, conflict resolution, and careers in law and justice; and provision of useful information to youth awaiting juvenile court hearings. New ABA policy has addressed services and programs to at‐risk youth, assuring licensing, regulation, and monitoring of residential facilities serving at‐risk youth, enhanced support for sexual minority foster and homeless youth, juvenile status offenders, and improving laws and policies related to youth exiting the foster care system.     

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.     

Testamentary capacity

Wills are more prone to challenge on the issue of testamentary capacity because, as people live longer, they are more likely to have the kind of conditions that interfere with capacity and because the courts seem to be more apt to hear evidence and allow findings of lack of testamentary capacity than in the past. Therefore, it is incumbent on attorneys to protect the interests of their clients by addressing the issue of testamentary capacity in any case in which a will contest might be anticipated. Ideally, attorneys in such situations should have their clients counsel with a psychiatrist who is knowledgeable and experienced in matters of probate and will contests. Further, the attorney and the client must provide extensive data (of the kind which a jury might ultimately obtain) on which the psychiatrist can base his or her conclusions that the client is of "sound mind."     

Client Games: Defense Attorney Perspectives on Their Relations with Criminal Clients

In this study, relations between criminal defense lawyers and their clients are explored from the attorneys'perspective using interviews with 155 defense counsel from nine felony trial courts. Attorneys claim public clients are more skeptical and less willing to accept their professional authority than private clients and that they need to take extra steps to gain their cooperation. The accountability of attorneys is investigated in relationship to the need to establish "client control. " This problem is resolved through a gamelike situation leading to the apparent paradox that attorneys share decision-making power with public clients contrary to their expectations.     

MENTAL HEALTH AND JUVENILE ARRESTS: CRIMINALITY,CRIMINALIZATION, OR COMPASSION?*

Juveniles in secure confinement allegedly suffer from more mental health problems than their peers. This may reflect background and behavioral characteristics commonly found in clients of both mental health and juvenile justice systems. Another explanation is that mental disorders increase the risk of arrest. These interpretations were tested on a sample of Pittsburgh boys (n = 736). Findings indicate that arrested youth exhibit more attention deficit hyperactivity (ADH) problems, oppositional defiant (OD) problems, and nondelinquent externalizing symptoms prior to their first arrests compared to their never‐arrested peers. However, arrested and nonarrested youth score similarly on prior affective and anxiety problems and internalizing symptoms. Net of delinquency, substance use, and other selection factors, internalizing problems lower the risk of subsequent arrest, whereas OD problems and nondelinquent externalizing symptoms increase it. ADH problems have no effect on arrest net of delinquency and substance use. These findings lend only partial support to the criminalization hypothesis. Whereas some mental health symptoms increase the risk of arrest, others elicit more cautious or compassionate official responses.     

Empathy through Animals: Generating Evidence‐based Outcomes for Empathy Development

Low empathy is a prominent trait associated with juvenile offenders. Many juvenile justice service providers strive to reduce risk factors associated with juvenile delinquency, while producing evidence‐based outcomes for targeted programming. The Youth Services Agency (YSA) Nature Center provides empathy development through animal therapy to adjudicated youth. This project generates evidence‐based outcomes and quantifies the impact of animal therapy on empathy development of adjudicated youth at the YSA Nature Center by utilizing self‐assessment tools. Results indicated trends that animal therapy increases the emotional empathy of YSA clients. Qualitative evidence implied that animal therapy had notable therapeutic value to YSA clients.     

权益侵害激活青少年犯罪的心理透视

权益侵害是青少年犯罪的激活因素,权益侵害对青少年犯罪的激活是借助于心理机制来实现的,离开了认知、欲望、动机、情感和意识,青少年的犯罪行为就不可能被发动。只有充分认识这一心理过程,才能有效预防和控制青少年犯罪。     

MI Implementation in Juvenile Justice: A Case Report

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a communication style focused on enhancing clients’ own motivation towards change. In the justice system MI has evidence to support that it enhances communication and change behaviors in youth. As most MI training is designed for healthcare settings training and implementation of MI must be adapted to fit the juvenile justice model. This includes both rehabilitation and restorative justice. Here we describe the details that allowed one county small county in Pennsylvania to roll out MI training and initial skills review in less than 6 months. The case reviews the details of planning, trainings, and timing of activities. We then discuss what elements of those details fit into a greater implementation plan that may be applied elsewhere. Four key elements were instrumental to implementation: 1) appreciation of JPO time constraints, 2) cost containment 3) using blending to enhance JPO flexibility with MI use, and 4) policies that normalize use of MI. This outline may assist other courts in their own implementation efforts.     

Litigation Public Relations: The Lawyers' Duty to Balance News Coverage of Their Clients

As the 20th century began its final decade, litigation public relations was more rigorously condemned than condoned. By the end of the decade, the proliferation of the practice and the failure of the bar and bench to forbid it had made the criticism virtually moot. This article considers whether there is a basis for making the right to practice litigation public relations an obligation to do so. The article concludes that the right properly belongs to clients and not their attorneys, and finds a basis in contract and malpractice law for requiring attorneys to tend to their clients' interests in the court of public opinion as zealously as they do in courts of law.     

Donald Davidson and section 2.01 of the model penal code

Abstract

In a 1967 article that is considered a classic of criminal justice scholarship, Abraham Blumberg portrayed defense attorneys for accused offenders as more responsive to the demands of the court entourage for smooth and expeditious functioning than to the needs of their clients for a stalwart representation. The article suggests that Blumberg's view, while provocative and with a considerable element of accuracy, may have reflected a somewhat jaundiced and overstated perspective when he was on the verge of leaving law practice for academia. The article also speculates about the current accuracy of Blumberg's observations.     

The Right to Counsel in Juvenile Court: The Conundrum of Attorneys as an Aggravating Factor at Disposition

In re Gault provided procedural safeguards in juvenile courts, including the right to counsel. Decades later, judges continue to resist appointing lawyers. And, when they do appoint counsel, lawyers appear to be an aggravating factor when judges sentence youths. In 1995, Minnesota enacted law reforms, including mandatory appointment of counsel. As a cost‐saving strategy, the law also converted most misdemeanors into status offenses and restricted judges’ sentencing authority in order to deny juveniles a right to counsel. This study compares how juvenile courts processed 30,270 youths in 1994—the year before the changes—with how they processed 39,369 youths in 1999 after the amendments. We assess changes in appointment of counsel and their impact on sentencing practices. We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel and a positive decrease in the number of youths removed from home.     

青少年犯罪心理预测变量分析

青少年身心发展特殊性决定的主观要素变化是青少年犯罪的重要心理条件。本文在借鉴艾里克·埃里克森等人关于青少年期人格发展理论成果的基础上,对青少年期犯罪预测变量的主观要素进行了人格归因,提出自我意识作为人格系统的重要变量,对青少年犯罪心理预测变量具有深层次的影响作用,同时对教育实践中自我意识塑造的目标要素进行了关注。     

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.     

Contextualizing the Impact of Legal Representation on Juvenile Delinquency Outcomes: A Review of Research and Policy

This study examines the empirical research on legal representation in delinquency proceedings and situates it in the broader investigation of how states provide legal assistance to juvenile defendants. Our review of empirical studies found that attorney presence was an aggravating factor in dispositional decisions. After closely examining state statutory provisions on legal representation in juvenile delinquency proceedings, we suggest that the penalty effect of attorney presence is an artifact of the variation in state laws governing access and oversight of juvenile counsel. We conclude with suggestions for future research, policy, and practice.