Contradictions with Youth
Although cases such as Gault, Goss
and Tinker allowed for youth to have some rights established and applicable,
McKeiver highlighted that there was no clear distinction as to when certain
Amendments and/or rights were applicable. This created a time in which youth
were still seen as needing help but also needing punishment. Many laws where
contradicting such as those of corporal punishment as described by Arum. The
question here was whether or not this was protected by the 8th
Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. However in 1977 a
court case decided the 8th Amendment did not apply to schools. With
the rise of pro- student decisions by courts, there existed a fear of legal
action creating a difficult enforcing of corporal punishment, and in effect a
safety concern for schools.
Miller v Alabama also questioned
the application of the 8th Amendment to youths’ rights. Here the
prevalent issue was whether youths “diminished capacity” meant that life
without parole, as a sentence for murder was cruel and unusual punishment. The decision stating that this was cruel and
unusual punishment, created a contradicting understanding of what was truly
meant by “cruel and unusual punishment.” This term was being seen in two
different frameworks but the results were very much different, highlighting the
difficulty the courts had with understanding juvenile delinquency and dealing
with punishment.
Because the courts believed that
youth needed punishment and help, along with the rise of youth in numbers and
in poverty, there began to grow a fear of youth and their capabilities as
criminals. People el rex Gallo v. Acuna describes this fear. It allowed for
gang injunctions for the safety of the general public. This proves once again
that youth were seen as dependent but also criminal and needing help. Creating
this limitation for them, although it was challenged by the 1st
Amendments mention of free association and failed, shows that youth were a very
difficult category to deal with.
This category of dangerous youth,
emerging from immigrant families, was a reaction to the greatly differentiated
inequality that was seen across various races. (Suburban Ghetto, The American
Prospect) This was later evoked through the media, and youth were described as “superpredators”
that had no regard for lives, other than their own. However the contradictory
ideas of youth needing help and guidance, with the idea of youth being
relentless and dangerous created a paradox that once again created blurred
lines. Dealing with youth would lead to the idea that youth should be tried as
adults, but as described with Miller, their punishment was not allowed to be
that of adults.
The contraction of how youth should be dealt with was a very difficult obstacle that still exists today. Although they are not adults, many times in history they have been tried as so. The idea of granting rights for these youth has been an impediment of the legal system to create a standard of punishment that is not contradictory.
The contraction of how youth should be dealt with was a very difficult obstacle that still exists today. Although they are not adults, many times in history they have been tried as so. The idea of granting rights for these youth has been an impediment of the legal system to create a standard of punishment that is not contradictory.
http://prospect.org/article/suburban-ghetto-1
I like how you went through each of the cases discussed in lecture and in our readings. There are several interesting things I want to point out in the list of cases you presented to us.
ReplyDeleteI always thought that the cases from Crouse to Miller were interesting because the decisions themselves shed light to how indecisive the adults felts about juvenile justice. I guess it kind of showed me that the Court is directly reflective of the human judges making the decisions; they try to honor the sanctity of the law by maintaining a form of consistency, but the cases (especially starting with McKeiver) showed me that these decisions were still up in the air. Another thing I found interesting was how in Miller, youth had all the rights adult criminals had, but were not subject to the same level of punishment as the adults. I'm not sure if this is completely fair, but then again, dealing with juveniles require much more effort than some justice made of steel. Based on what we learned in class (different level of brain development, less experience, lack of control of their environment), young people are different from adults, and should be served a different color of justice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you point out that not only are youth liminal in age, but also in punishment. They're at a stage that no one quite knows what to do with. Because of this, there has been a toss up between whether youth should be "saved" or punished. Many legal scholars have wished to save youth, due to their diminished cognitive capacities, believing youth know not what they do. On the other hand, it is imperative for punishment to be in place in order to deter future crime. Because of this, the courts are see-sawing between whether or not rights should be attributed to youth. I think your mention of McKeiver is a great example of this. While I don't believe that youth are deserving of the most severe of punishments most of the time, I do believe that there must be effective punishment in place. If they believe they can get away with heinous crimes, some will take advantage of it. There must be a fair balance between rehabilitation and deterrence in punishment. Unfortunately, this balance has been difficult to establish. The idea of “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 8th amendment seems to take on a different meaning, when applied to youth making it ever so difficult to successfully punish them. As we move away from correctional schools, I believe the courts are heading in the right direction, in terms of finding a balance. However, it will be difficult to finally lay claim to the perfect solution.
ReplyDeleteI think it is really important that you bring up media's role in shaping contradictions. For profit or for political interests, the media has an incentive to twist the truth about youth activities either through exaggeration of facts or through outright lies. For example, we read this week about how magazines or newspaper reports sought "expert" statistics about youth's driving accidents, which actually proved to be false numbers. Another political and profitable tactic the media has used throughout history is to describe distinctive characteristics of violent and dangerous youth, much like the "superpredators" were stereotyped to be Hispanic immigrants. As a result the media not only defines youth but it also defines the ways in which adults at large see youth and perhaps even the ways in which youth see themselves. I think you are right to suggest that media's representations of youth have caused a contradiction between what the juvenile justice system is designed to do and what it actually does. Although the goal may be to guide youth in the right direction, public consciousness of their danger to society leads to harsh punishments.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNancy, I really appreciated how you formatted your essay and overviewed all of the cases, along with the significance of each. In addition to what others have commented, I thought that you bringing up Gallo v Acuna was a good reminder to us that while youth are being seen as these "kids" that deserve some rights, they are still also being seen as this "other" group that is dangerous to individuals and society. It is a very contradictory idea that kids are innocent in need of protection, as well as these violent "super predators" who are in gangs and committing violence simply for the fun of it. I thought you made a good point in the end when you were discussing the more modern ideas of youth and I believe it poses a question worth considering- what is the most fair and effective form of justice for youth? For instance, how could a jury trial work? A jury is supposed to be made of a "jury of your peers" to endure fairness, but can you have a jury of youth? Would it be justified to pull of youth from school to serve on a jury and if they were to serve on the jury, would there be an age requirement then? It is more than simply logistics that would pose difficult, it would be hard enough to find a group of youth of good cognitive ability who could analyze the facts and make a decent conclusion from the evidence. Youth are a different kind of group to deal with in law and unfortunately there does not seem to be any easy, solve-all solution to how to deal with them.
ReplyDeleteNancy makes a valid point in identifying gang injunctions as a way to establish "youth-as-a-dangerous-class". While gang injunctions were meant to serve as a method to protect certain communities from public nuisances, they primarily served to criminalize youth, especially nonwhite youth. As seen in People ex rel Gallo v. Acuna, the vivid descriptions of youth engaging in criminal activities such as drive-bys and snorting cocaine on the hood of cars bring to mind the uncontrollable superpredators that the media warned against. Instead of focusing on the actual people who commit these crimes, the gang injunctions target anyone that may look like a gang member, specifically young Latino males. The problem of deciding what qualifies as being a gang member raises questions on how it is that youth should dress and behave in order to not be labeled as dangerous. There is a conflict between youth being allowed to dress how they feel and spend their time with their peers in public places without having to be targeted as criminals.
ReplyDeleteI liked that the author pointed out the contradiction between the media’s portrayal of youth and the aims of the juvenile system. The media tends to portray juveniles as reckless and dangerous; some juveniles more than others depending on race and class. On the other hand one of the goals of the juvenile system is to acknowledge that juveniles have diminished capacity and low levels of maturity. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that the juvenile court was created with the intention that it would not administer punishments that could have destructive consequences. On the contrary its job is to administer punishments that would allow a juvenile to live a burden free adulthood. However, when juveniles are tried as adults in criminal court these notions of diminished capacity are forgotten. This is a problem with transfers. It is forgotten that the person committing the crime may not fully understand what he/she has done, or be able to take responsibility for their actions. There is also a problem with the fact that certain states automatically transfer a juvenile if the crime committed involves a murder. Murder cases vary greatly and they should not all be treated the same especially when dealing with juveniles. Lastly, the author was successfully gives an overview of important cases and states why they are significant to juvenile legal proceedings.
ReplyDeleteI like how this essay focused on various cases and their roles in changing the perception of youth. As we have discussed, this perception has evolved from seeing youth as ‘dependents’ in the 1830s hence the Crouse case, to ‘not-quite-adults’ evidenced by Miller. Throughout history different cases have shaped the law and social constructions pertaining to youth, and unsurprisingly adults have not been consistent in the process. We see often that youth are labeled as incompetent and immature, but punishment is imposed in order to prevent future crimes. Then in the Miller case, the verdict states that the 8th Amendment does apply to youths. Why is there no defined, strict set of policies and laws governing youths in courts? Why are youths so difficult to classify? As general and trite these questions may seem society’s perspectives continuously change. We’ve come to a period in which youths have become ‘nearly’ adults in terms of rights, but feared (Gallo v. Acuna) and subject to rehabilitation. A consensus regarding where youths stand in terms of rights will be difficult but personally I think they should be kept separate from the adults when under the law.
ReplyDeleteNancy described the history of how the society perceived youth through legal means, and later on, media, in this essay. The history of perception of youth resembles Hegelian dialectic. As we have discussed through Crouse case and the House of Refuge, the youths were perceived as dependent and in need of help or deliverance. However, cases like Gault, Tinker, and Goss contradicted this thesis that viewed youth as such object of study or saving. Then, the McKeiver case mediated between the two very opposing forces (youth as dependent vs. youth as rights holders) by declaring youths to be somehow different from the adults, acting as the synthesis between these two views. The history of youth continues this way throughout the 20th century. As Nancy points out, through Miller v. Alabama, the court declares that life without parole is a cruel and unusual punishment for youth, violating the 8th amendment. And yet, People el rex Gallo v. Acuna serves as an antithesis, viewing the youth as dangerous criminals, contradicting Miller's perspective on youth as dependents. The perception of youth is constantly changing in the society, replacing the previous view and replacing with a new concept of what youth is consisted of and how the society should deal with them. But throughout these court cases, the youths' voice is yet to be heard in law. Law is still a battlefield of the adult world, and no room for the youth to voice their opinion.
ReplyDeleteI was interested in how this post addressed the relationship between “cruel and unusual punishment” and youth justice. The post examines both adult sentencing for youth, and corporal punishment. The analysis then highlights the contradiction that arises from the belief in the image of youth as a “super predator” and youth as a population in need of saving, leaving behind the issue of cruel and unusual punishment.
ReplyDeleteReading this post, I began to question the definition of cruel and unusual punishment as it relates to youth. How can a punishment be cruel and unusual for youth, but not for adults, and vice versa? What makes this distinction? Legal logic argues punishment must correspond to blame. The question then becomes blame, and how much blame a young criminal is due.
The contrasting perspectives that see youth as either predators or dependents then enter the debate. It is easy to write off corporal punishment and adult sentencing as a way to squelch a super predator. But it is equally as valid to assume that harsh punishment is meant to save a “lost child.” These questions cloud the distinctions that outline the “correct” punishment for youth.
ReplyDeleteNancy does a great job of developing historical back ground that leads to the issues on hand. Youth goes from being "objects-of-saving-and-study" to "rights-holders" in a very short period of time , and as a result it is unclear what rights they can have and/or need.
The development of the idea of "diminished capacity" is key to youth being protected from certain harms that can arise from being punished as adults do. This ideal also in a sense reinforces the notion that juvenile courts focus on rehabilitation rather then punishment. Before the emergence of diminished capacity, the rights of due process given to youth were given for the reason that they are also subjected to punishment in juvenile court. Where the courts disagree is on discussion on whether a punishment is "cruel and unusual" ( which is also influenced by diminished capacity) such as the death penalty.
Media can shape how youth is viewed in society. People el rex Gallo v. Acuna exemplifies how youth is portrayed as a dangerous class by being associated with gangs and being subjected to the gang injunctions fought for in People el rex Gallo v. Acuna.
I liked how you give some background on the case of in re Gault to preface your actual response. The way in which youth were thought about during these cases drastically vary from how youth are looked at now. Whether youth should be saved by the state or punished was the big question that seemed to have been asked in every single court case involving juveniles. Due to the fact that the juvenile court was initially formed to reform vicious and bad behaving juveniles, punishment of these young individuals was an entirely new possibility for juvenile courts to address. The big picture that you addressed well is if juveniles are to be punished, then should not they be granted the same rights adults have during all court proceedings. The 14th Amendment and its Due Process Clause was the main aspect that juveniles claimed was their right as much as adults. I do agree with juveniles not being fully developed mentally and physically, so they should not have as harsh of punishment to a certain extent as an adult would for committing the same crime. Overall I think you did a good job of addressing how the court acted in the past and how different cases brought about different solutions for juveniles.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe pattern that I've noticed from reading about two of the cases (Miller v. Alabama and Gallo v. Acuna) is that while they present contradictions in terms of youth, they also force the courts to redefine some legal terms in order to address the issue of juvenile delinquency.
ReplyDeleteIn Miller, the court redefined "cruel and unusual punishment." Initially, the 8th Amendment was designed to prevent punishments that did not fit the crime. When applied to youth, however, normal punishments that would not be considered "cruel and unusual" for adults are seen as excessive for juveniles. By bringing in the concept of "diminished capacity," the court expands and redefines a previously established law.
Similarly, in Gallo v. Acuna, the court redefined "public nuisance" to include simple congregation. As stated by the dissenting opinion, youths would be breaking the law simply by gathering with their friends and "hanging out." This is an expansion of the traditional definition of public disturbance.
While Nancy brings up an interesting point in how these cases present many contradictions, the first thing I noticed was a redefinition of laws to adapt to the concept of youth.
- Yu Yat Yang (Vincent)
Nancy did a great job of linking cases where youth gained rights and explored the difficulties of deciding on punishments for youth offenders. Nancy also made a good connection between two different appeals that both attempted to argue that a youth’s 8th Amendment rights had been violated. I would be interested in her expanding upon how she felt the courts created a contradicting understanding of “cruel and unusual punishment”. I believe that the different rulings do not stem from a contradicting understanding of the 8th amendment, but arise from a differing social view of youth at the time of each case. The 1977 court ruling stating that the 8th amendment did not apply to schools was reflective of the ambivalent view of youth during that time as youth began to be seen as rights holders during the 1960s, but then more commonly as a dangerous class during the 1980s. As we have explored during lectures, social views of youth influenced court rulings, from attempts to ‘save’ youth by sending them to a House of Refuge to attempts to protect society from the ‘dangerous class’ of youth through gang injunctions. Therefore I propose that the 2012 Miller v. Alabama ruling reaffirming youths’ 8th Amendment rights is reflective of a changed societal attitude toward youth being different from adults, but still rights holders.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a very good job in outlining each case and the significance they had in the debate that still exists today on how the courts should try and convict juveniles. On the one hand in Miller the punishment is extremely harsh and I think violates the 8th Amendment. I do agree that the youths as fourteen year olds have the capacity for change. However that question about where we draw the line still lingers. For youths I think it is a tricky sentencing. On the one hand I think many youths have the capacity to commit serious crimes and know that what they are doing is wrong. But some youths may not. They may use the crime as a way to act out against authority or to get attention. The possibilities are endless. It is hard to correctly evaluate the motives and then understand to what degree the youth knows the action is wrong. I think that is why it is taking so long for the legal system to find an appropriate sentence for youths because with the right education and understanding they can change.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to point out the fact that youth are a liminal category, which by its very nature is on the fence between the dichotomy of child and adult. So naturally, there will be some confusion as to what to do with such a category. There are many problems with the juvenile justice system, but the most salient is the fact that there aren't many alternatives to incarceration when dealing with youth who commit crimes. Historically, the United States has swept its "problems" under the rug of lock up, so as not to confront the root causes of criminality, i.e. poverty, lack of education, and drug use and abuse. If youth who commit crimes were given more individualized pathways to rehabilitate, instead of using the same institutions to "treat" everyone, I believe procedural rights like due process would be more effective. Imagine if a young person who committed a crime was treated like a new college student. They would meet with an actual counselor and depending on the young person's history, education and interests would be given an individualized plan for rehabilitation. It's amazing how far we've come in 200 years, but the juvenile justice system is still far from being just.
ReplyDeleteNancy,
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you brought in each case and explained them and how they either complemented each other or how they contradicted each other. I especially liked how you talked about People el rex Gallo v. Acuna and how it showed that there was a crossroads where they wanted to treat youth as growing and try to help them, but at the same time they were scared that the same youth would turn into criminals. This struggle has been going on since the case with Crouse where the court wanted to help youth not punish them. Then they backtracked with the belief that juvenile centers were not meant for punishment with In Re Gault. Now more than 150 years from the Crouse case the law still struggle with how to deal with youth. I would have like to see your argument shine more, because there were times when I struggled to see what exactly you were trying to argue.
I find it interesting how you described the contradictions that deal with the youth. On one hand they are seen as objects of saving and on the other, they are seen as a dangerous class. There is a shift from wanting to reform youth and wanting to punish the youth. I agree that “cruel and unusual punishment” can be quite contradicting. It brings in the question of what is really considered “cruel”, what is really considered “unusual”, and what is punishment altogether. These three words can be interpreted in different ways depending on the person. More importantly, the vagueness of the word “punishment” can complicate things. One person may view something as punishment while the other may view it as reform. It is also very contradicting because at what age do we switch from reforming to punishment? Youth are in a liminal stage that makes it unclear on whether they should be reformed or punished.
ReplyDeleteI like how the author of this article points out to us that even though the outcome of cases such as Gault, Goss, and Tinker established some rights nonetheless there were still many contradiction laws. I also think that the relying on the importance of applying the 8th Amendment in the protection against cruel and unusual punishment in the juvenile system a good point brought up and referencing it to be contradicting to the legal cases that did not abide by it because it did not apply to schools. Also, the relativism of defining cruel and unusual punishment against juveniles, since in many cases the court thought that youth needed both punishment and rehabilitation, which seems to me that the author portrayed this to be more harsher through the course of time, since youth became seen as an emerged category of dangerous delinquent youth and adults needed some sort of precaution or control against the youth. I also think the author did good at exposing the relativism of for how the court should grant rights to youth and marking a boundary between youth and adults. Without exposing loopholes in the judicial system for cruel or unusual punishment that may have a less sentence if someone would be tried as an adult, like we've seen in previous verdicts.
ReplyDeleteThis essay does a good job of illustrating the inherent difficulty of adjudicating young people. The paradox of diminished responsibility, as well as the conflict between a desire to help juveniles and a need to punish them, has been and continues to be a problem in the juvenile justice system, and the author offers ample evidence to that effect. The issue presents particular complexity when it comes to granting rights to adolescents, as can be seen in each of the cases mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI would have liked to see a bit more time spent fleshing out exactly why it has been determined by legal authorities that young people should be punished less severely than adults, and the way that that relates to their supposed propensity for reckless and sometimes criminal behavior. Is the representation of young people as dangerous completely inaccurate, or is there something to be said for immaturity contributing to or even causing dangerous behavior in juveniles? There is clearly unequal representation across racial identities and an over-prediction of the dangerousness of urban youth, but does the fault lie in its racism or in the general conclusion that immaturity increases the likelihood of dangerous behavior?
I like how you mentioned the various cases to indicate contradictory ideas of youth; moreover, you also pointed out that the media had greatly influenced on how youth were negatively portrayed in which youth sometimes were tried as an adult in different cases. It is important to note that there was no serious opposition of corporal punishment in the South, so depending on the demographics corporal punishment might or might not be enforced by the states. It was interesting that students perceived the strict schools to be fairer, so those cases shaped the rights to youth today.
ReplyDelete