National Juvenile Justice Network is Hosting Several Events throughout October

In a Proclamation from the White House, President Biden officially claimed October 2021 as National Youth Justice Action Month. He called on Americans to “observe this month by taking action to support our youth and by participating in appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs in their communities.” [1] Heeding that call, I have provided events and actions that we can take throughout the month (and beyond) to support this year’s mission, “Acting to End Racism: Pursuing Equity through Policy.”[2]

  • The National Juvenile Justice Network is hosting several events throughout the month:
  • Tuesday, Oct. 12th 3:00-4:30 PM ET “Treat Kids as Kids: Stop the Adult Criminalization of Youth.” This workshop will focus on policy changes that ensure youth are not treated like adults, including ending youth interrogations, direct file reform, and repealing Juvenile Life Without Parole laws.
  • Monday, Oct. 18th 3:00-4:30 PM ET “Care Not Cages: Invest in Families and Community.” This workshop will focus on how states have begun closing youth prisons, ending contracts with for-profit residential treatment centers, and committed to reducing use of congregate care.
  • Monday, Oct. 18th through Friday, October 22nd “Virtual Hill Visits.” Participants are encouraged to schedule meetings with their federal delegations to discuss important youth justice issues. NJJN will provide information/training on pending federal legislation and materials.

To register for workshops, please visit https://www.tfaforms.com/4926781.

  • The Texas Network of Youth Services is hosting a Town Hall on Tuesday, Oct. 19th from 3:00-4:00 PM CDT where they will “explore how youth-serving providers can prevent justice involvement and best support young people involved in the juvenile justice system.” For information and to RSVP, please visit http://tnoys.org/events/.
  • Support legislation aimed at reinvesting in America’s Youth. As part of his Fiscal Year 2022 budget, President Biden proposed $800 million for juvenile justice and youth reentry programs. If passed, this would be the highest allocation in the history of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Protection Act.[3] Contact your Members of Congress and demand they pass a budget that adequately addresses the needs of our children.

Now more than ever, we must make our voices heard to protect and advocate for our children. Please join us during this #YJAM to do just that.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/09/30/a-proclamation-on-national-youth-justice-action-month-2021/

[2] https://www.tfaforms.com/4926781

[3] https://www.juvjustice.org/blog/1339

October is for Youth Justice Awareness Month

October is Youth Justice Awareness Month. With that in mind, the entries for this month will focus primarily on issues related to the juvenile justice system. The following post offers a brief discussion on the right to counsel in juvenile delinquency proceedings.

In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized juveniles’ right to Due Process under the 14th Amendment in the landmark case In re Gault. This decision granted juvenile defendants many of the same due process rights afforded to adults, including the right to formal notification of the charges against them, the right against self-incrimination, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to counsel. While this was a huge victory for children and child’s rights advocates, the reality of the situation is decidedly less triumphant.

In most cases, the right to counsel “kicks in” just prior to the child’s initial detention hearing; at this point, the child and their parents are notified of their right to counsel and the child is appointed an attorney if the child is determined indigent. However, this is not the child’s first point of contact with the juvenile justice system—that would be when the child is first taken into custody. This is a critical point for the child, as things can potentially go very wrong if they do not have access to counsel at this early stage. Research has shown that children are far more susceptible to coercion than adults, so it is likely that a child may offer incriminating evidence upon being questioned, irrespective of their guilt or innocence. Furthermore, children typically lack a thorough (or in many cases, even cursory) understanding of how the justice system works, so it is imperative they have an advisor at every stage of the process to ensure their rights are protected.

To illustrate this point, one need only look to Fare v. Michael C. (1979), where the Supreme Court established that a juvenile’s right to counsel must be explicitly invoked. In this case, the child’s request to see their probation officer (a trusted adult) was deemed insufficient to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and therefore the child’s statements made during police interrogation were all admissible in court. But how can we expect children to know precisely whom to ask for help, and when? How are children supposed to know the right things to say, or not to say, when most adults in similar positions are equally unaware? The justice system is complex and the children who find themselves within it are often under a great deal of stress—not only from the experience itself, but also from outside influences such as their parents, police, prosecutors, and even judges. 

Furthermore, the notion that a child can waive their constitutional rights—in particular the right to counsel—is ludicrous, and such waivers should be per se unallowable. The decision giving juveniles the right to counsel in Gault was predicated on due process considerations, rather than the right to counsel guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. While an adult’s right to waive counsel in criminal proceedings arises out of the 6th Amendment, due process under the 14th Amendment does not necessitate the same result for juveniles. In fact, given the developmental differences between children and adults, it would be clearly out of line with due process considerations to allow juveniles to waive their right to counsel. The chances of obtaining a “voluntary,” “knowing” and “intelligent” waiver (as is required by law) from a child are severely diminished in consideration of the various stressors the child faces while in contact with the system. This, combined with the fact of the still-developing adolescent brain and compounded by the vital role of counsel in juvenile proceedings, make waiver of the right to representation totally inappropriate in these cases.

 If a child under these circumstances can waive their right to counsel, how can any of their other constitutional rights be guaranteed? Without an inalienable right to representation in delinquency proceedings, the due process considerations extended to juveniles in Gault are effectively meaningless. Therefore, the right to counsel should activate automatically and inviolably at the earliest stage possible to ensure that a child’s rights are protected throughout the entire juvenile justice process.

For a more thorough discussion on this topic, see:

Gary G. Strieker, Waiver of Constitutional Rights by Minors: A Question of Law or Fact, 19 Hastings L.J. 223 (1967). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol19/iss1/9

Ellen Marrus, Gault, 40 Years Later: Are We There Yet?, 44 Criminal Law Bulletin 413 (2008), U of Houston Law Center No. 2014-A-51. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2450171

Juvenile Justice Systems around the Globe: Alternative Ways to Address Youth (“AWAY”) Project

The “AWAY” Project analyzed changes implemented in the various juvenile justice systems of several European countries over the course of two years- from 2017 to 2018. [1] The countries included in the analysis were Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania and Belgium. The project’s main research questions were: (1) What are the existing measures and processes for diversion that exist in the countries, and in what percentage of cases of children in conflict with the law are they used?; (2) What factors (existing needs, gaps and pitfalls) hinder better and more frequent use of diversion and child-friendly justice practices?; and (3) what needs to be improved in the juvenile justice system to promote diversion and restorative justice using a child friendly approach? [2] Over the course of several blogs, I will discuss the findings of the “AWAY” project as it relates to the specific countries, and what the United States can take away and implement in our own system.

Juvenile Justice System: Belgium

Throughout Europe, national and European legislation (along with the ratification of the CRC) establishes that individuals under the age of 18 are considered children with limited legal capacity. [3] In Belgium, the juvenile justice system is called “protective justice” and the term “act deemed to constitute an offence (ADCO)” is used in place of “crime” or “offence” to enforce the view that children are not fully capable of understanding the nature of their criminal actions. [4] If a child is suspected of an “ADCO,” they will first meet with the police and be informed of their rights. [5]A prosecutor then has the choice to refer the case to the juvenile court or use a diversion method. These methods include taking no action, issuing a warning, or suggesting mediation with the victim. If a case is referred to a juvenile court, the judge has the option to issue several measures aimed at allowing the child to remain with their family or legal guardian. These options include issuing a warning, an order to take on a written project, outpatient therapy, community or educational services, restorative options, or for the child to go under supervision. In rare circumstances, the judge may place the child with a temporary guardian, or in an institution for psychiatric, therapeutic, or education services. [6]

Belgium’s system focuses on restorative justice and aims to repair the damage done by an ADCO and restore the bond between the perpetrator and the victim. If a victim has been identified the prosecutor must consider mediation, and if they choose against it, they must issue a written document stating that they have considered it but concluded that other measures are needed. All parties must agree on the mediation. The goal of the system is to keep the child with their families or legal guardian and always consider a restorative measure first. [7]

In comparison to the U.S. juvenile justice system, the “protective justice” system of Belgium gives police, prosecutors, judges, victims, children, and their parents/guardians far more options. Institutionalization is viewed as a last resort and there are multiple safeguards put in place to ensure it stays that way. Additionally, I think the language that the Belgium system uses is something the U.S. system could borrow from. It enforces the fact that that children’s brains are still developing, and as a result they are not able to fully comprehend the criminality of their actions in the way most fully developed adult brains could.

[1] Éva Kerpel et al., Alternative Ways to Address Youth (AWAY) Project Research Synthesis Report 5 (Viktória Sebhelyi et al. eds., 2018).

[2] Id. at 6.

[3] Id.

[4] Id. at 22.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 23.