COURT PROCESSES, CHARGES AND LEGISLATIONkasac.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Court... · Etiology...

COURT PROCESSES,CHARGES ANDLEGISLATIONJudge Michele Stengel

Overview of JJ (in Brief)

Overview of JJ (in Brief)

Overview of JJ (in Brief)

Etiology of the problem

The Juvenile Justice system has struggled sinceits inception with the best approach to handlingjuvenile offenders.

Courts must balance public safety with bestpractices while attempting to reduce recidivism.

Many juvenile justice decisions hinge uponavailable resources, and the requirementsattached to such support.

The person most directly responsible for thefunction of the juvenile courts and theadministration of juvenile justice is the juvenilecourt judge.

Etiology of the problem

However, Juvenile Probation is often called thecornerstone of the Juvenile Justice system:Making detention decisions (for probated or

committed youth).Preparing pre-sentence investigation reports

for juvenile court judges to use in dispositiondecisions.

Delivering aftercare services to juvenilesreleased from secure institutions.

Etiology of the problem

Court Diversion also plays a significant role: Meeting juveniles and their families frequently as a

representative of the court. Allowing youth up to 6 months to perform in order to

avoid prosecution. Securing agreements and services to put in place in

order to increase the likelihood youth successfullydivert from court.

Etiology of the problem

The system, especially juvenile probation, isoften accused of providing only a "slap on thewrist" to offenders rather than trulyadministering justice.

The juvenile courts are portrayed by critics asa revolving door, with youth often rearrestedfor new crimes while still under court-orderedsupervision or in treatment programs.

trends

“Costs to society” and “Sentencing Alternatives toDetention” have become increasingly influentialfactors in policymaking.

Increased budget constraints are affecting juvenilejustice policy in various ways: Focus upon the most serious offenses, at the almost

exclusion of early offense. Decreased breadth and prevalence of sanction

options. Decreased ability to fund direct services aimed at

reducing recidivism.

trends

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Arre

st R

atio

Arrests of Juveniles for All Offenses

Peak Period fortreating youthful

offenders as Adults.

trends

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Arre

st R

atio

Male vs. Female Arrest Rates

Female Arrest Rates Male Arrest Rates

Male arrest ratescontinue to decline

beginning with tailoredservice delivery.

Female arrest rates alsodeclined at the same time,and now are on the rise.

trends

System of Care development is seen as amethod to augment a community’s ability tomeet the needs of juvenile justice populations,while not adding to increased budgetconcerns.

Restorative Justice has been seen as one wayof diverting young offenders away from formaljustice processes that are stigmatizing; butoften is a hybrid system hard to sustain inactual practice.

trends

Public policies in the areas of education,medical care, alcoholic beverage control, andjuvenile crime reflect beliefs that adolescentshave not acquired the abilities or capacitiesnecessary for adult status.

Improved communication across agency lineshas become more critical than ever, in order tobuild systems of care and address low-costsolutions to reducing recidivism in juvenilejustice populations.

System of care

Specialty Courts have begun appearing in manystates and are based upon an integrated agencyapproach to reaching accountability and reducingrecidivism.

Systems of Care that support such efforts beginwith multi-agency agreements around: Roles and responsibilities Data sharing for analysis and feedback of efficacy Communication within HIPAA, FERPA and Federal

Regulation Protocols to support court process, due diligence, and

the rights of juveniles while preserving child advocacyefforts

System of care

A case scenario: Juvenile Enhanced Treatment Supervision (JETS) Agency involvement by local community mental health, Juvenile

Justice, Child Protective Services (CPS), the local PublicSchool system, the Public Defender’s office, the countyAttorney’s Office, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC),etc.

Administered by the Court, and conducted weekly courtproceedings.

Phase approach with graduated sanctions.Weekly court monitoring of treatment progress.Weekly court monitoring of assigned tasks/sanctions. Court proceedings involve a pre-court staffing with the judge by

each of the agencies involved for each youth. Court is held with all youth and families present.

Mental health crosswalk

Forensic evaluations of youth by mental healthprofessionals are frequently needed in order toidentify youth’s capacities in ways that arerelevant to the legal question(s).

Forensic evaluations differ from traditionalmental health evaluations in that they arefocused upon the determination of causation ofthe current (history of) offense, and thelikelihood of intervention success.

Mental health crosswalk

Mental health professionals who evaluate youthappearing in juvenile court should beknowledgeable about: child development; the manifestation of emotional, behavioral, and

cognitive impairments in childhood and adolescence; the legal process and commonly-encountered legal

issues for which there is a psychological component; the juvenile justice system and services available in

the community; and cultural competence across race, ethnicity, socio-

economic class, sexual orientation, and gender.

Mental health crosswalk

Juvenile justice professionals can assist inimproving the quality of mental healthevaluations by: Identifying psychological and legal issues that are

to be addressed by the examiner; providing relevant collateral information about the

youth to the mental health professional; and ensuring that the mental health professional

conducting the evaluation has the requiredknowledge, training, and experience.

Mental health crosswalk

Youth often reveal personal and highlysensitive information about themselves whenthey are screened, assessed, and evaluated.Juvenile justice professionals must be awareof the information sharing implications andpossibility for self-incrimination that arise inthese contexts.

A youth’s education-related disabilities mightbe the very reason s/he enters the juvenilejustice system. Research demonstrates thatyouth with disabilities are overrepresented inthe juvenile justice system.

Mental health crosswalk

A variety of interviews take place within thejuvenile court context. Whether it is a defenseattorney discussing the case with a youth client, acourt officer performing an initial intake interview, aprosecutor interviewing a potential witness, or ajudge conducting a colloquy.

Each case is staffed by the county attorney anddefense attorney or appointed public defenderprior to court appearance and an agreed uponplan is often submitted to the judge prior to theyouth appearing before the judge.

Mental health crosswalk

A mental health provider can ‘inform’ the courtand the court process by being a part of thiscase conference, either in person or with areport.

Information sharing policies must be amendedin order to accomplish this task.

Alternatives to traditional sanctioning shouldbe included, with expected dates of review andtimelines that are realistic for interventions tohave time to make a positive impact.

Questions?

Great Resources: http://gainscenter.samhsa.govwww.rwjf.orgwww.macfound.orgwww.ojjdp.gov

References Bilchik, Shay, (1999). Focus on Accountability: Best Practices for Juvenile Court and

Probation. JAIBG Bulletin, August. Arya, Neelum (2011). State Trends: Legislative Changes from 2005 to 2010

Removing Youth from the Adult Criminal Justice System, Washington, DC: Campaignfor Youth Justice.

Ludwig, Jens, & Brinkman, Laura, (2009). Conducting benefit-cost analyses ofjuvenile court jurisdiction and other juvenile justice policies.

Scott, Elizabeth S. and Steinberg, Laurence, Rethinking Juvenile Justice (December11, 2008). Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 09-194; Columbia Public LawResearch Paper No. 09-194.

Snyder, H. and Mulako-Wangota, J., Arrest Data Analysis Tool (22-Oct-11) at www.bjs.gov. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.

National Juvenile Defender Center and Juvenile Law Center, (2009). TowardDevelopmentally Appropriate Practice: A Juvenile Court Training Curriculum

Urban, Lynn S., (2008). Court-Ordered Curfew: The Application of GraduatedSanctions for Juvenile Offenders. Justice Policy Journal, 5(1).

Wiig, Janet K, & Tuell, John A., Child Welfare League of America, and Lourdes M.Rosado, Riya S. Shah, Juvenile Law Center; Models for Change, (2008).