|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this article by Feld was to examine the work of Minnesota's Juvenile Justice Task Force of 1994 in light of policy, case law, and prior task force recommendations. The author, a member and co-chair of the Task Force, analyzed revisions in the Minnesota juvenile justice adjudicatory system as it converged juvenile and criminal court adjudication procedures and philosophy. Ultimately, the recommendations of the Task Force were presented and accepted by the Minnesota legislature, and subsequently included Minnesota's 1994 Juvenile Crime Bill.
METHODOLOGY:
The author employed a non-experimental review of literature in the area of juvenile justice. Using previous research and detailed reviews of case law, the author explored juvenile justice reform.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The author began by describing trends in adolescent criminal behavior. Using previous research, the author stated that youth offenses account for a disproportionate amount of reported crime; that in the 1980's youth crime mirrored national trends, declining in the mid-80's and then rising in the late 80's. Also, the author reported that juvenile property crime was increasing marginally in the 1980's, while arrests for homicide and other violent offenses rose dramatically. These trends, according to the author, similarly exist for Minnesota. According to the author, changing racial composition, increasing concentrations of poor and urban youth, and the disproportionate numbers of serious youth crime, influence public perceptions of a growing "underclass." This perception, along with media coverage of increasing youth violence, provided a context for legislative reform.
Issues for consideration in the 1994 Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform in Minnesota were the following: 1) a review of the certification process, 2) recommendations for retention of juvenile prior records and use for future criminal adjudication, 3) evaluation of other juvenile justice systems, 4) the feasibility of statewide juvenile guidelines, and 5) the possibility of a nonwaivable right to counsel and a jury trial. Reviewing prior legislation, the author reported that juveniles often did not receive procedural justice, and that full sentencing discretion often resulted in large sentencing disparities and little evidence of effective treatment.
Examining the substantive criteria and processes used to certify youths to criminal court, the author contended that the waiver decision is the most important decision a juvenile judge has to make. This decision is discretionary, and judges in most states must consider a youth's "amenability to treatment" or "dangerousness." These considerations are determined by age, treatment potential as determined by evaluation, and seriousness of current offense and prior record. The author argued these criterion for waiver allow judges too much discretion; that empirical evidence supports the claim that policies allowing a great deal of judicial discretion leave judges waiving capriciously, and arbitrarily. Additionally, the author noted that discrepancies between juvenile and adult court sentencing policies warrant further examination of the waiver process. New legislation states that in some cases, where the juvenile is aged 14-17 and charged with a felony, the prosecutor must provide by clear and convincing evidence that public protection demands transfer to adult criminal court. The author noted that the emphasis in the new legislation on public safety underscores the argument that waiver is not so much about treatment as it is about inhibiting public fear. The factors considered in determining public safety are the seriousness of the alleged offense, culpability of the alleged offender, prior record, the juvenile's programming history (amenability to probation), adequacy of punishment, and dispositional options.
The author reported that the Task Force recognized the binary aspect of waiver legislation; a defendant is either a juvenile or an adult. This dichotomy fails to recognize adolescence as a continuum demanding a variety of controls. Therefore, the Task Force recommended a new Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ) category that recognizes a transitional component, from juvenile to adult offender. Offenders in this category are sentenced as juveniles but offered the same procedural safeguards as adults. The alleged offender in this category is allowed greater procedural protections, such as right to a jury trial and counsel. The maximum age of youth allowed into this category is twenty-one.
The Task Force rejected proposals to exclude certain categories of offenses from juvenile court; that is, automatic waiver was proposed for some offenses, such as first-degree murder for juveniles sixteen years of age and older. The Minnesota legislature, however, voted immediate waiver for these youth. The author also discussed the legislature's proposal to retain juvenile adjudicatory records for use in adult sentencing proceedings. Despite objections from the Task Force, the 1994 Juvenile Crime Act expands the use of juvenile convictions in adult proceedings. The author went on to argue that it is unfair to use minimal standards to convict juveniles in the name of treatment, and then use the conviction to enhance later sentencing. The author also reported that it was requested of the Task Force to examine and report on juvenile sentencing policies and philosophy with the goal of developing a statewide juvenile justice sentencing policy. The author believed the Task Force ultimately failed to fully explore and resolve sentencing issues and problems; the adopted sentencing policy reflects this failure, according to the author. The author also reported that regardless of Minnesota's stated support for rehabilitative ideal, social control guides sentencing policy.
The Task Force conducted evaluations attempting to discover what works in the treatment of juvenile offenders. The author also found it difficult to come up with any consistent findings on the efficacy of treatment. The author stated that findings from evaluations of treatment effectiveness could reflect poor methodology, poorly run treatment facilities, or the absence of efficient treatment methods. Because the Task Force found some support for the ability of smaller, community-based supervision programs to rehabilitate, they recommended, and the legislature agreed, to create and develop some community-based supervision facilities. The author also stated that research on sentencing has consistently shown that black youth are more likely to be detained than are white youth. The Task Force conducted its own research on sentencing determinants and reported that race, prior record, the seriousness of the current offense, and pre-trial detention status influenced juvenile court sentences. The Task Force also recommended that diversion be implemented in every Minnesota county in the hopes of reducing juvenile court costs, and minimizing offender recidivism. The author argued, however, that in the absence of strong evidence that youths sentenced for crimes are rehabilitated, youth should have the same procedural protections as those required in adult criminal proceedings. The Task Force also recommended, and the legislature adopted, a policy that grants juveniles a right to counsel in all felony or gross-misdemeanor cases, or possible out-of-home placement. Ultimately, the 1994 Juvenile Justice Reform Act strengthened the role of the juvenile court.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Minnesota
1990s
Juvenile Offender
Juvenile Violence
Public Policy
Violence Policy
Juvenile Court
Juvenile Justice System
Public Perceptions
Correctional Decision Making
Justice System Intervention
Crime Intervention
Violence Intervention
Juvenile Crime
03-05 |