Adults
view juveniles as unruly beings that lack discipline and that are in great need of saving. As outlined in In Re Gault, children were in need of salvation from a "downward career." The current “adult” legal system was much too aversive and did
not contribute to the rehabilitation of such troubled individuals. Thus, a separate “juvenile” system was created in which the state wished to enact parens patriae. Unfortunately, this system was constructed from an “adult-centered"
perspective and has failed youth in its misguided attempt to save them.
According
to In Re Gault, the system was to
“treat” and “rehabilitate” children through procedures that “were to be
‘clinical’ rather than ‘punitive.’” The court, however, failed to take on Gault’s
perspective or place his actions into context. Rather, it viewed him as a boy that
must be saved from the prospects of a criminal career. In
the name of Gault’s salvation, he was deprived of basic rights and subjected to
an obscene punishment. The court’s attempt to come off as a compassionate
pseudo-parent failed in light of its harshly punitive practicality. In turn, it
risked the attempt of rebellion or resistance on the part of youth, which could
result in the feared "downward career." The Supreme Court finally understood that
youth needed to be shielded from an overwrought system and granted them some due process rights.This allowed
for a glimmer of hope for the juvenile justice system. This hope was later
dashed by McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, which
receded some of the rights attributed by due process. The hope of a better
system was further trampled underfoot, during the Clinton Administration’s crack
down on juvenile crime. There was a call for punitive measures, which included
longer terms of incarceration. This is due to the misguided prediction
of a rampant, uncivilized generation being born to crack-addicted mothers (Krisberg 2005). It was feared that this generation would tear the seam of our fragile society. Despite the fact that the “super
predators” never emerged, stringent policies prevailed, dashing the hope of a
“juvenile-justice ideal.”
The
sociologists of Clinton’s era proved that the system was broken, due to a lack
of understanding of its target audience. It required more punitive measures
because it saw youth as uncontrollable heathens that were brewing with bad
decisions. Morril et al’s study disproves this notion by displaying youth not
as unruly beings but as highly capable, decision-making individuals that are
aware of risks and principles. The youth examined used violence to “uphold
social identities, perform role expectations, and maintain relational
competencies” not to merely disrupt social order. Krisberg notes several
reforms of the system, in his article, that begin to understand youth in
context. He also notes that there is “overwhelming evidence that reform works,”
thus displaying that there is hope in a juvenile justice system that is more
“youth-centered.”
Works Cited:
Krisberg, Barry.
"Reforming Juvenile Justice." The American Prospect. 14 Aug. 2005 <http://prospect.org/article/reforming-juvenile-justice>.
Jennifer Soliman did an excellent job in establishing the idea that the adult-centered perspective has in the pasts failed the youth by creating an erroneous understanding of youth. She used readings and lectures to provide examples and proof of how this perspective progressed in history. The adult-centered perspective meant to aid the youth by rehabilitating them and saving them before they resorted to crime, yet instead of saving them the system took away their rights and freedoms. They were not deemed competent enough to understand and change their life. This paper’s nuanced understanding of the subject is evident in its mentioning of the McKeiver case, which demonstrates that the shift from an adult-centered perspective to a youth-centered perspective did not occur in a linear and progressive way, but had its hiccups. I found the last paragraph to be most meaningful as it connected the Morril’s study to the other readings and ideas. The paper’s structure provided a problem and a solution, the adult-centered perspective as the problem and the youth-centered perspective as the solution.
ReplyDeleteJennifer’s essay does a good job analyzing what we have learned so far in lecture as well as through the readings. Her inclusion of the work done by the Clinton Administration shows how even today, authoritative figures are still struggling with how to handle youth. The two cases involving Gault and McKeiver were crucial to improving juvenile justice by granting them some legal rights, but still fall short of keeping youth culture in mind. Morril et al’s study has definitely come closest to analyzing how youth see and deal with conflict within themselves and with others who surround them. The additional article provides insight about how the media’s highlighting of ethnicity and social class among juvenile delinquents is making it even harder for them to progress through society with such a stigma placed upon them.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this essay as Jennifer well addressed the issues and topics surrounding In Re Gault by mentioning the court’s failure to understand or to actually protect the youth. Jennifer distinguishes the contrasting view of the “adult-centered perspective” in the first paragraph and subsequently notes its failure to have empathized from the youth’s perspective. The superficially rehabilitative measures ended up recognizing punishment instead of salvation, thus sending Gault to the detention center. The essay also utilizes examples from the McKeiver case and also the Clinton crack down; I find the latter usage interesting as we discussed in section regarding how insensible the anti-drug campaigns were. One of the recurring issues was that courts and government frequently labeled the youth as incompetent and uncontrollable; this led to the increased dependency on superficial rehabilitation and detention centers, yet as outlined in the last paragraph reforms have proven to be effective. I particularly liked the way in which the current processes in juvenile reform was used to conclude the essay.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Soliman’s essay demonstrates the ways that the juvenile system has contradicted itself over time. Before the In Re Gault case, the juvenile system had historically framed itself as a way of rehabilitating youth to prevent them from falling further into crime. However, because of the belief that the juvenile system acted as a school instead of a place for punishment, youth had been constantly sentenced to harsh punishments without due process.
ReplyDeleteThe Gault decision demonstrates the importance of historical context on the juvenile system. The Supreme Court finally acknowledged the punitive aspect of the Juvenile system, giving more rights to the youth who are brought into it. As learned in class, recent events prior to the case, such as the Civil Rights Act and the Berkeley Free Speech movement helped bring light to the rights of youth. A few years later, however, the McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, retracted the rights that Gault had gained. This constant struggle between different ideas on how to treat youth, also found in Jennifer’s example of the Clinton administration, demonstrates that the Juvenile system has still not been able to figure out the correct way to approach youth crime.
Although I completely agree with the central thesis of the essay, I would have nuanced your interpretation of the findings of Morill et al’s study. The latter is not, in my opinion, blindly praising the youth as “highly capable decision-making individuals” but rather filling a void in the existing literature on youth culture to incorporate a more balanced vision that encapsulates two aspects of the character of juveniles. Cases like Ropper v. Simmons and Miller v. Alabama have put forward the idea that juveniles cannot be treated completely like adults precisely because they still have these rush impulses and these lapses of judgment that prevent them from fully considering the consequences of their actions. It would be hypocritical and overly simplistic of the courts to define youth in ever-changing terms, sometimes as unconscious children who should be protected from the justice of adults and sometimes as adults who should have an increased say in the determination of their own sentencing. The juvenile justice system should establish firm precedents that would generate, through stare decisis, a long-needed foundation for the recognition of youth as precisely what they are: at the frontier between childhood and adulthood, still impetuous and fearless but progressively mature enough to be responsible of their own actions and to be heard as lucid individuals in courts.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument made in “Juvenile Justice is not so Juvenile” that In re. Gault represented a tendency towards a more just system for youth, while McKeiver seemingly squashed that effort. However, this argument is missing a firm definition of what is “juvenile” about juvenile justice, and how historically “adult” rights of due process support or bolster the goals of the juvenile justice system. The post refers to a “youth centered” approach, emphasizing reform, as the “juvenile” aspect of youth justice. Although that makes sense, I am inclined to question whether or not “reform” is achievable without adherence to Gault-style juvenile justice. I propose that reform is possible without recreating adult rights in the juvenile world. This in mind, perhaps this post concerns a juvenile justice system that is “not so just”, but maintains the quality of being “juvenile”.
ReplyDeleteAs one final point, I would like to problematize reform as a solution to juvenile conflict. Considering the issues that led up to Goss v. Lopez, I feel as though intent to reform is not always the best measure of benefit to the youth population as reformist sentiment can be motivated or muddied by social and racial issues.
I appreciate Jennifer's arguments and descriptions of the changes and back and forth of the juvenile justice system over time. From a more adult centered perspectives, "guilty until proven innocent" stance that influenced punitive measures and rehabilitation for youth during the Clinton era, to Morril et al's proposal that youth are indeed "highly capable, decision making individuals" which could point us towards a more youth centered model. I find the conversation about "reform" an important one and one I would like to see elaboration on it, when she mentions Krisberg's note on understanding youth in context. The issues of oppression, specifically racism, sexism, and classism backgrounds play a central part in many youth's lives and certainly have an influence of many of the choices they might make regarding committing "crimes". What preventative measures can we take and how might they change the rates of youth offense?
ReplyDeleteLastly, if indeed youth are "highly capable decision making individuals" would it make sense to more directly include them in the conversation for different options and decisions on modes of "reform"? I went to a high school that made us come up with options for ways to repare and make amends when we had broken a rule or committed an infraction. Is there a way to include our youth in the conversation for different methods of "reform"? To have them take on a more active role as "right holders". I'm not sure that this would work but I think it's a valuable question.
I like how you mentioned that even though Gault's case was influential in sparking change for the juvenile justice system you stated McKeiver v Pennsylvania. This was a blow to the progressive Supreme Court decisions regarding Gault's case. The way in which you talked about the adult centered perspective was a great idea and really added to the strength of your essay. The incorporation of the readings and lectures definitely were evident when reading what you had to say about In Re Gault. It was impressive that you were about to use an article from our generation (The American Prospect) and successfully used said article to back up your argument and wrap up all the points you had made in your essay. It also read very smoothly, which is largely the reason I commented on you blog post. I enjoyed reading your response.
ReplyDelete