
New York Law Journal,
December 6, 2001
Juvenile Justice System Faces Conflicts
Over Primary Goals
By John Caher
The juvenile justice system is in dire need of some preventative
medicine.
That was the consensus of both participants and audience members
Wednesday, when the Fund for Modern Courts held a forum on a system
torn between the twin goals of rehabilitation and punishment, and
often failing on both counts.
Schenectady County Judge Michael C. Eidens, one of the panelists,
said that by the time a youth appears in his felony court, it is
already too late in many instances.
"Once a case reaches me at the felony level in county court...
it is often too late, too late for the individual and too late for
the people victimized by that individual," Judge Eidens said.
"The victims of crime are not concerned at all with how old
the offender was. It is important to keep that concept in mind.
If you or somebody you care about is victimized by rape, murder,
burglary, [or] robbery, the harm to the person is not related to
how old the offender is." Judge Eidens said that when a matter
comes to his court, there is relatively little discretion. Under
state law, the criminal court has jurisdiction over 13-year-olds
charged with murder and youths aged 14 and 15 who are accused of
murder or another violent crime. Since offenders 16 and over are
considered adults, their cases are also adjudicated in criminal
court.
"The criminal justice system... isn't suitable or practical
for dealing with today's problems," Judge Eidens said. "The
problems that existed 100 years ago for our young people were vastly
dissimilar from the problems our young people face today. As a county
court judge, I have in a sense a hammer and a chisel, and that is
all I have as tools. Obviously, my range of choices is limited."
Younger Children
Younger children are seen by Family Court judges, and what they
see is eye-opening.
"I've seen little kids come to court when they are charged
with being juvenile delinquents or Persons in Need of Supervision
PINS and they are alone. No parent, no adult has come with them,"
said Rensselaer County Family Court Judge Linda Griffin. "Sometimes
there is an older brother or sister of 16 or 17, and I am grateful
that there is a slightly older sibling who takes an interest."
Judge Griffin, one of the panelists, said the lack of parental
supervision is a perpetual explanation for what she sees in her
court. She suggested that schools are too reluctant to file a PINS
petitions against habitual truants, many of whom on on their way
to trouble.
"I think it is absolutely absurd that we send children to
school at 7 or 7:30 in the morning and we let them loose on the
streets to manage themselves at 2 o'clock in the afternoon,"
Judge Griffin said. "Look at the statistics on youth crime
and you will see that it peaks during those hours when every child...
knows what house it is where nobody is home, the liquor cabinet
is unlocked and whose mother has a few marijuana cigarettes tucked
away in her top lingerie drawer."
Judge Griffin said placing a child in a youth facility, at a public
cost of about $ 90,000 each year, is sometimes the only alternative
if neither the parents nor the juvenile justice system can devise
a better remedy. But she said it is rarely a good alternative.
Alternatives
Root causes notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that young
people get in trouble with the law, and the law is forever seeking
ways to deal with them. A number of alternative programs have arisen
over the years, and Judge Eidens suggested that the functional equivalent
of a drug court for young offenders might be successful.
There is already an alternative in many communities in the form
of youth courts, where peers serve as jury, judge, prosecutor and
defender and handle matters where a first-time, non-violent offender
is willing to have his or her matter disposed of outside the normal
process.
Kristen Hamilton, director of Saratoga Area Youth Courts, said
her program works with young people between the ages of 8 and 19
who were referred by the family or town court. Ms. Hamilton, one
of the panelists, said that 93 percent of the participants this
year successfully completed the process and served sentences that
usually involve community service, and sometimes include the requirement
of a letter of apology. She said all of the "convicts"
are then required to serve as a future juror.
The forum at the Albany Marriott was moderated by Assistant Attorney
General Rachel L. Kretser, chief of the legal education bureau,
and organized by Helga A. Schroeter, Capital District coordinator
for Modern Courts.
|