Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Justice System
CONOR WALSH
ABSTRACT
The American juvenile justice system has improved significantly from
the crude practices that lasted well into the twentieth century. A string of
recent Supreme Court decisions have dramatically altered sentencing
guidelines for juvenile offenders, recognizing the distinct cognitive
differences between children and adults. That recognition, however, stops
at the sentencing process. The operation of the juvenile justice system, from
the judiciary to the function of juvenile corrections facilities, fails to
recognize the malleability of the teenage mind. As a result, rehabilitation
goals are often not met and the juvenile system continues to mirror that of
adults, with a focus on punishment.
To combat this problem, this Note argues that the juvenile justice
system must be aggressively reformed to focus its efforts on rehabilitation.
It is nearly a guarantee that juvenile offenders will now rejoin society at
some point, and high recidivism rates suggest that the system is not
preparing them to successfully assimilate. This Note argues that one of the
roots of the recidivism issue is a lack of quality education for incarcerated
youth, and suggests a dramatic shift in the education process to focus on
quality classroom education supplemented with the option for vocational
training.
Candidate for Juris Doctor, New England Law | Boston (2016). B.A., Journalism,
University of Maryland (2012). I would like to thank my better half, Kristen Andrada, for her
unwavering support and patience. I would also like to thank my parents, Tom and Kathy, for
instilling me with a love for the written word and a work ethic from childhood. Finally, I
would like to dedicate this Note to my late grandfather, Edward J. Dullea, Jr., who pushed me
to reach my goals and taught me to believe in the inherent goodness of people.
237
238
v. 50 | 237
INTRODUCTION
1 See Campbell Robertson, South Carolina Judge Vacates Conviction of George Stinney in 1944
Execution, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 17, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/us/judge-vacatesconviction-in-1944-execution.html.
2 David Edwards, New Evidence Could Clear 14-Year-Old Executed by South Carolina,
RAWSTORY (Oct. 3, 2011, 9:00 AM), http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/new-evidencecould-clear-14-year-old-executed-by-south-carolina/.
3
See Roper, 543 U.S. at 56970 (noting the developing nature of the adolescent brain, teens
impulsivity, and the fact that teens actions are unlikely to be evidence of irretrievabl[e]
deprav[ity]).
2016
239
fail incarcerated youth.10 The United States incarcerates three times the
number of juveniles than any other developed country and, with recent
sentencing reform, the overwhelming majority of those will rejoin society
at some point.11 Many incarcerated juveniles have had negative educational
experiences, having either dropped out of school, been held back a year or
more, or struggled with special education needs.12
With this in mind, the system is failing as it currently operates because
it does not prepare incarcerated youth to successfully assimilate back into
society.13 Society should view the system as an intervention opportunity.14
This Note argues that the United States must change its approach to the
system and shift its focus to rehabilitation through education. Through
comprehensive education in both an academic and vocational sense, the
juvenile justice system can serve incarcerated juveniles and society as a
whole by preparing them for a return to society and reducing recidivism
rates.
Part I of this Note examines the history of the American juvenile justice
system, from its crude beginnings to recent Supreme Court reform and
scientific advances. Part II analyzes the present-day function of the juvenile
justice system with a focus on its suspect education practices. Part III
discusses the inconsistencies between the Supreme Courts reforms and the
operation of the juvenile justice system, with a focus on the divide between
the theory behind juvenile justice and its function. Part IV addresses the
need to focus efforts on rehabilitation, as the Supreme Court has
guaranteed that the vast majority of juvenile offenders will one day rejoin
society. Finally, Part V argues that the system should be reformedusing
the Supreme Courts motivations for guidanceto focus on rehabilitation
10
12 See DIGNITY IN SCHOOLS, THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION IN THE JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES 6 (2008), available at https://www.aclu.org/files/images/
asset_upload_file164_38663.pdf (outlining the academic difficulties most incarcerated youth
faced prior to being arrested).
13
See
CHILD
TRENDS
DATA
BANK,
JUVENILE
DETENTION,
available
at
http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/88_Juvenile_Detention.pdf
[hereinafter JUVENILE DETENTION] (noting that the national recidivism rate for juveniles is
roughly 75%, and as high as 80% in some jurisdictions).
14 See Katherine Twomey, Note, The Right to Education in Juvenile Detention Under State
Constitutions, 94 VA. L. REV. 765, 773 74 (2008) (noting how studies indicate that juveniles who
receive sound education while in detention centers are more likely to return to school upon
release and secure employment later in life).
240
v. 50 | 237
Background
A. The Primitive Beginnings of the American Juvenile Justice System
1.
15
NELL BERNSTEIN, BURNING DOWN THE HOUSE: THE END OF JUVENILE PRISON 38 (2014).
Id.; Patrick M. Sullivan, Building the Foundation for Juvenile Justice, THE CORRECTIONAL
CONNECTION (Mar. 19, 2007), http://www.corrections.com/articles/15285-building-thefoundation-for-juvenile-justice. The Society for the Prevention of Pauperism was later
renamed the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. BERNSTEIN, supra note 15, at
38.
16
17
2016
241
22
Id.
CLIFFORD E. SIMONSEN, JUVENILE JUSTICE IN AMERICA 24 (3d ed. 1991).
24 See BERNSTEIN, supra note 15, at 41. The New York House of Refuge began with nine
residents in 1825 and grew to 560 by 1860. Id.
25 Id. at 4546.
26 Claudia Worrell, Note, Pretrial Detention of Juveniles: Denial of Equal Protection Masked by
the Parens Patriae Doctrine, 95 YALE L.J. 174, 175 (1985).
23
27
Id. at 176.
See id. at 17677; BERNSTEIN, supra note 15, at 4546.
29 Worrell, supra note 26, at 177 (citing Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 264 (1984)).
30 BERNSTEIN, supra note 15, at 45.
31 Id. at 47.
32 Id. at 4748.
28
242
v. 50 | 237
33 Id. at 41. Particularly in the early days of the Houses of Refuge, children were separated
into groups of boys of more vicious character and younger and better boys. Id. The more
vicious children would receive the bare minimum time in the classroom, while the children
looked upon more favorably worked only six hours per day and spent an additional hour
studying. Id.
34 See Stuart Banner, When Killing a Juvenile was Routine, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 5, 2005),
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/03/05/weekinreview/20050306_BANNER_CHART
.html.
35
2016
243
recently as the 1940s, a juvenile offender was executed in the United States
nearly once every two months.42
B. Supreme Court Reform
Thompson marked the beginning of sweeping change in how the court
system views juvenile offenders, but change was gradual.43 The Supreme
Court was initially hesitant to expand on Thompsonas demonstrated by
the 1989 decision in Stanford v. Kentuckybut from 2005 to 2012 three
landmark decisions (Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v.
Alabama) marked a dramatic shift in the judiciarys view of juvenile
offenders.44
In Stanford, the Court permitted the execution of defendants who were
sixteen and seventeen years old at the time their crimes were committed.45
Both petitioners had been involved in homicidesa seventeen-year-old
convicted of first-degree murder, and a sixteen-year-old who pled guilty to
first-degree murderand were each sentenced to death.46 The appellants
argued that contemporary society views capital punishment of 16- and 17year-old offenders as inappropriate . . . .47 The Court rejected the
petitioners statutory and policy arguments and affirmed their
convictions.48 Stanford remained good law until 2005, when the Court
began rapidly expanding on its decision in Thompson.49
1.
Roper v. Simmons
44 See Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2476; Graham, 560 U.S. at 67; Roper, 543 U.S. at 568; Stanford v.
Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361, 37880 (1989).
45 Stanford, 492 U.S. at 37880.
46 Id. at 36568.
47 Id. at 373.
48 Id. at 380.
49 See, e.g., Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2476 (banning a mandatory sentence of life in prison without
the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders); Graham, 560 U.S. at 74 (holding cumulative
sentences longer than a juveniles life expectancy was unconstitutional); Roper, 543 U.S. at 568
(barring the execution of juvenile offenders).
50 Roper, 543 U.S. at 55657. Simmons was a junior in high school at the time of the crime
and said to friends that he wanted to murder someone. Id. at 556. He proceeded to plan a
244
v. 50 | 237
penalty, citing, among other factors, the depravity of mind [which] was
outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman.51 The jury
recommended the death penalty after finding that the state provided
sufficient evidence of aggravating factors to warrant a death sentence, and
the case was subsequently appealed.52 Ultimately, the Missouri Supreme
Court overturned the sentence based on Simmonss impulsiveness and lack
of maturity, citing developments since Stanford as evidence of a newfound
national trend against capital punishment of juvenile offenders.53
After granting certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision in
holding that imposing the death penalty on offenders under eighteen years
old constituted an Eighth Amendment violation.54 In its decision, the Court
noted three differences between juvenile offenders and adult offenders: a
lack of maturity, susceptibility to outside influence, and the fact that
personality traits of juveniles were still developing.55 The developing
nature of juveniles limits their culpability, and the differences between
juvenile and adult offenders are too marked and well understood to risk
allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient
culpability.56 These differences make it difficult even for psychologists to
differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects
unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose
crime reflects irreparable corruption.57 For those reasonsplus the fact
that the United States was joined only by Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and China as
countries to have executed a juvenile offender since 1990the Court drew
the line at eighteen years old at the commission of a crime for the death
penalty to be levied.58
burglary, which would end in murder and throwing the victim off a bridge. Id. Simmons and
two friends executed their plan on Shirley Crooka woman Simmons had previously been
involved in a car accident withand Simmons later bragged to friends that he murdered Mrs.
Crook because the bitch seen [his] face. Id. at 55667.
51
Id. at 557.
Id. at 55859.
53 See Roper, 543 U.S. at 55960.
54 See id. at 568.
55 Id. at 56970.
56 See id. at 57273.
57 See id. at 573.
58 See id. at 57475, 577. The Court noted the relative arbitrariness of drawing the line at
eighteen years old, explaining [t]he qualities that distinguish juveniles from adults to not
disappear when an individual turns 18 and how some under 18 have already attained a
level of maturity some adults will never reach. Roper, 543 U.S. at 574. The Court still,
however, recognized a need for a line to be drawn, and opted for eighteen because that is
where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. Id.
52
2016
2.
245
Graham v. Florida
Miller v. Alabama
65
66
246
v. 50 | 237
67
Id. at 2464.
Id. at 2466.
69 Id. at 2467 (citing Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 367 (1993)).
70 Id. at 2469.
71 See Adam Liptak & Ethan Bronner, Justices Bar Mandatory Life Terms for Juveniles, N.Y.
TIMES (June 25, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/justices-bar-mandatory-lifesentences-for-juveniles.html.
72 See Berkheiser, supra note 64, at 48990.
73 See infra Part I.C.
74 See Goins v. Smith, 556 Fed. Appx 434, 439 (6th Cir. 2014); Moore v. Biter, 725 F.3d 1184,
1194 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Walton, 537 Fed. Appx 430, 437 (5th Cir. 2013).
68
2016
247
The Circuit split arose in the Sixth Circuit in 2014, when Goins v. Smith
presented the court with a sentence length that fell between those in Moore
and Walton.83 James Goins was convicted of a slew of felonies in connection
with his participation in two home invasions, including attempted murder,
75 Moore, 725 F.3d at 119394. In this decision, the Ninth Circuit also held that Graham
should be applied retroactively, as the petitioner in Moore was seeking relief from a 1992
sentence. Id.
76
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 74 (2010); Moore, 725 F.3d at 119394.
See Moore, 725 F.3d at 119394.
78 Id. at 1194 (citing Graham, 560 U.S. at 74).
79 Walton, 537 F. Appx at 437.
80 Id. at 43132.
81 Id. at 432.
82 Id. at 437.
83 Compare Goins v. Smith, 556 F. Appx 434, 435 (6th Cir. 2014) (affirming a sentence of
eighty-four years in prison), with Moore v. Biter, 725 F.3d 1184, 119394 (9th Cir. 2013)
(declaring sentence of 254 years unconstitutional), and Walton, 537 F. Appx at 437 (affirming a
sentence of 480 months in prison).
77
248
v. 50 | 237
kidnapping, and felonious assault.84 He was sixteen years old at the time of
the crime.85 The trial court imposed the maximum sentence for each of the
appellants convictions, amounting to an aggregate prison term of over
eighty-four years.86
Goins appealed his conviction, citing Graham and argued that the
length of his sentence constituted an Eighth Amendment violation.87 Citing
another Sixth Circuit case, the Goins court held that Graham established no
clear precedent relating to aggregate sentencing even if it would amount to
the equivalent of a life sentence.88 Relying on that earlier decision and the
possibility that Goins may qualify for parole at some point, the Sixth
Circuit upheld his sentence.89
As demonstrated by these three decisions, the closer a sentence is to an
actual life expectancy, the more ambiguity exists.90 Further, there appears
to be a disparity in focus among the courts.91 In Moore, for instance, the
Ninth Circuit placed a particular emphasis on the systems rehabilitation
goals.92 In contrast, the Sixth Circuit focused far less on rehabilitation.93
This Circuit split not only demonstrates confusion among the courts as to
how to apply the Supreme Court reformations, but also the conflicting
goals of punishment and rehabilitation for juvenile offenders.94
D. Scientific Advancements Regarding the Juvenile Brain
The teenage years are a formative time for all people, a development
that is not limited to physical maturity.95 Recent medical and technological
advancements have allowed researchers to study the brains development,
and changes that occur during ones teenage years have been characterized
84
91
2016
249
as striking.96 Research has indicated that the adult brain does not fully
appear until one is in his or her early twenties.97
Evidence of the developing nature of the teenage brain can be seen in
the contrast between physical and mental maturity between the ages of
fifteen and nineteen.98 While this may be the peak in ones physical
strength and physical health, the brain is far from mature.99 This can lead
to poor decision-making, as evidenced by dramatic spikes in mortality
rates, crime rates, and rates of alcohol abuse.100 This is not to say that the
teenage brain is inferior to that of an adult, as the capacity for learning and
the thirst for independence point to the teenage brains high function.101
While the development of the adolescent brain can lead to problems, it
also allows for enormous learning potential.102 With newly developed
ways of thinking, the teenage years are one of significant development.103
This leads to questioning authority, debating, development of values, and
making mistakes (and, generally, learning from them).104 Due to these
advances in cognitive function, social development, and physical
development, a person has not truly developed its adult mind and
personality until after the teenage years.105
96
Id.
Id.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Id. Between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, mortality rates based on injury are six times
that of children between the ages of ten and fourteen. Id. Risky behaviors are the likely result
of the developing nature of the brains frontal lobes, or the CEO of the brain. See Pat Wolfe,
The Adolescent Brain: A Work in Progress, MIND MATTERS, INC. (2015), available at
http://patwolfe.com/2011/09/the-adolescent-brain-a-work-in-progress/.
101 The Teen Brain: Still Under Construction, supra note 95.
102 Jay N. Giedd, The Teen Brain: Primed to Learn, Primed to Take Risks, THE DANA FOUND.
(Feb. 26, 2009), http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2009/The_Teen_Brain__Primed_to_Learn,_
97
Primed_to_Take_Risks/.
103 CLEA MCNEELLY & JAYNE BLANCHARD, THE TEEN YEARS EXPLAINED: A GUIDE TO
HEALTHY ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT 21 (2009), available at http://www.jhsph.edu/research/
centers-and-institutes/center-for-adolescent-health/_includes/interactive%20guide.pdf.
104 Id.
105 See
Social Development During the Teen Years, CLEV. CLINIC CHILD.,
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/childrens-hospital/health-info/ages-stages/adolescence/hicSocial-Development-During-the-Teen-Years (last visited Mar. 14, 2016).
250
v. 50 | 237
II. Despite the Supreme Courts Reforms, the Operation of the Juvenile
Justice System Still Fails to Recognize the Stark Differences Between
Juvenile and Adult Offenders
A. The Daily Operation of Juvenile Justice Facilities
In todays justice system, any person younger than eighteen years old
is generally considered a juvenile.106 The juvenile justice system is the
collection of institutions that a juvenile offender travels through, ranging
from the charging stage to the completion of the punishment.107 There are
two fundamental theories at contrast in the juvenile justice system: the
treatment model and the justice model.108 The treatment model focuses on
the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, but financial concerns often limit
the length of stays in justice facilities, undercutting therapeutic goals.109
Some point to these financial concerns as the root of the high recidivism
rates of juvenile offenders.110 In contrast, the justice model emphasizes
sentencing, custody, and punishment with the judge serving as a
guardian throughout the process.111 The current model of the American
juvenile justice system incorporates parts of each of these models.112
As of 2013, there were 66,332 children in juvenile facilities, 87% of
which were male.113 Of those, as many as 75% are estimated to be
incarcerated later in life, a number that reaches higher than 80% in certain
states.114 Many point to the function of the juvenile justice facilities
themselves as the root of that recidivism problem.115
106
BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 999 (10th ed. 2014). There is no federal statute defining a
juvenile, so the definition differs among the individual states. See Mike Fritz & April Brown,
Juvenile Education: Inside a Confined World, PBS (Feb. 2, 2012, 11:51 AM),
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/american-graduate-jan-june12-richardross_02-02/.
While eighteen is the standard cutoff, those as old as twenty-four years old can be considered
juveniles in some jurisdictions. Id.
107
111
2016
251
252
v. 50 | 237
125
128
2016
253
134 See Twomey, supra note 131, at 77374. As a result of the high cost of incarceration, each
juvenile that does not end up living a life of crime saves taxpayers as much as $2 million. See
id. (citing COAL. FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE, 2001 ANNUAL REPORT: ABANDONED IN THE BACK ROW:
NEW LESSONS IN EDUCATION AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ix (2001)).
135 See Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Painting a Different Picture of Education in the Juvenile Detention
Center, ED: HOMEROOM, http://www.ed.gov/blog/2014/12/painting-a-different-picture-ofeducation-in-the-juvenile-detention-center/ (last visited Mar. 14, 2016).
136
Id.
See id.
138 Id.
139 Id.
140 ARNE DUNCAN & ERIC H. HOLDER, GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PROVIDING HIGH-QUALITY
EDUCATION IN JUVENILE JUSTICE SECURE CARE SETTINGS iv (2014), available at
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/correctional-education/guiding-principles.pdf
[hereinafter GUIDING PRINCIPLES].
137
141
See id.
254
v. 50 | 237
ANALYSIS
III. Recent Judicial Changes to the Juvenile Justice System Indicate a
Recognition of a Need for Reform
The underlying theme of the Supreme Courts sweeping changes to the
sentencing of juveniles is simple: juveniles are different.143 Because
juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform . . .
they are less deserving of the most severe punishments.144 The Miller
court explained this distinction using a combination of what it termed as
common sense and science to reach its conclusion that the differences
between juvenile and adult offenders lied in three areas: (1) children tend
to lack maturity and a sense of responsibility; (2) children are easily
influenced, therefore limiting their ability to extract themselves from
negative influences and environments; and (3) a childs character is still
developing and his or her actions are less likely to show irreconcilable
character flaws than an adult in a similar position.145 These factors all
contributed to the Courts conclusion that the developing nature of the
adolescent brain renders juveniles far more capable of rehabilitation than
adults.146
The Miller Courts rationale closely follows that of Thompson, Roper,
and Graham, and indicates that, at the very least, the Supreme Court has
finally recognized the marked differences between juvenile and adult
offenders.147 While problems certainly remain in the juvenile justice system
itself,148 the simple application of the Courts landmark decisions further
highlights the fundamental problems in the way that the United States still
views juveniles.149 If the principle behind Roper, Graham, and Miller was
that imposition of a States most severe penalties on juvenile offenders
cannot proceed as though they were not children, one would assume that
142
Id.
See Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2464 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 66
(2011); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 56970 (2005).
144 Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2464 (citing Graham, 560 U.S. at 66).
145 Id. at 2464; see also supra Part I.D.
146 Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2465; Graham, 560 U.S. at 74.
147 See Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2464; see also supra Part I.D.
148 See supra Part II; infra Part III.B.
149 See Berkheiser, supra note 64, at 50713 (detailing how the Miller Court, while allowing
for lesser sentences for juvenile offenders, still allowed for overly subjective decisions).
143
2016
255
150
160
256
v. 50 | 237
for the possibility that Goins could one day be released from prison.161 The
trial court, however, expressly stated its intent: It is the intention of this
Court that you should not be released from the penitentiary and the State
of Ohio during your natural [life].162 For all intents and purposes, this
intent would be satisfied, as Goinss potential release date is February 6,
2085when he would be 100 years old, an age that 0.0173% of Americans
live to see.163 While Goins could apply for parole prior to the end of his
sentence, the trial courts stated intent that he die in prison demonstrates
the trial and Circuit courts problematic reasoning in the sentencing
process.164
Goins represents the disconnect between theory and practice in the
sentencing of juveniles, an issue that also pervades juvenile facilities.165 The
goal of the Goins court, from the trial to appellate levels, is clearly one of
punishment.166 The State of Ohio and the Sixth Circuit focused their efforts
not on complying with the underlying motivation of the Supreme Court in
Graham, Miller, and Roper, but instead sought to find a loophole to rectify
its retributive intent with the letter of the law.167 Goins illustrates two
fundamental problems: a disconnect in the application of Supreme Court
precedent, and the Supreme Courts reluctance to address the problem of
juvenile sentencing in a direct, unexploitable manner.168 Until the U.S. court
system addresses these inconsistencies and commits to a universal
application of the Supreme Courts recognition that juveniles are different
than adults and should be treated accordingly, the system will continue to
fail juvenile offenders.169 If the precept of justice is to truly be that
punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the]
161
Id.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Goins v. Smith, 135 S. Ct. 144 (2014) (No. 13-1517), 2014
WL 2796310, at *8.
162
163 Id.;
How
Many
People
Live
to
100?,
GENEALOGYINTIME
MAG.,
http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/how_many_people_live_to_1
00_page1.html (last visited Mar. 22, 2016) (according to U.S. Census data, there were 53,364
centenarians in 2010, which equals 0.0173% of the population).
164
166 See Goins, 556 F. Appx at 436 (quoting the trial courts intention that Goins spend the
rest of his life incarcerated).
167
See id.
See Berkheiser, supra note 64, at 507 (describing how the Miller Court allowed for
inconsistency on a case-by-case basis).
169 See id. at 517 (describing the Miller Courts failure to categorically address the sentencing
process of juveniles as being fraught with opportunities for prejudice and error).
168
2016
257
170 See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005) (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304,
311 (2002)).
171
258
v. 50 | 237
180
See id.
See id.
182 AM. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ALONE & AFRAID: CHILDREN HELD IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT AND ISOLATION IN JUVENILE DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES 67
(2014), available at https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20COMPLETE
181
%20FINAL.pdf.
183 Id. at 2.
184 See id. at 3; see also supra Part I.D.
185 See Kenneth M. Cole, Constitutional Status of Solitary Confinement, 57 CORNELL L. REV.
476, 476 (1972).
186 See SIMONSEN, supra note 23, at 199200 (describing the treatment and justice theories of
juvenile detention).
187
2016
259
IV. With the Supreme Courts Guarantee that Nearly All Juvenile
Offenders Will Rejoin Society, the Need for Rehabilitation Is
Stronger Than Ever
While there remains a disconnect between the Supreme Courts
recognition of the differences between juvenile and adult offenders and the
function of the juvenile justice system, the consequences of the Courts
reform cannot be ignored.190 It remains possible for a juvenile offender to
be incarcerated for life, but the reality is that the vast majority of juvenile
offenders will rejoin society at some point.191
As a result, the time is now for the juvenile justice system to bridge the
gap between rhetoric and application that has plagued the system since its
inception in the 1800s.192 The Houses of Refuge of New York City, which
marked the beginning of the American juvenile justice system, sought to
protect children from the realities of adult prison and educate, reform, and
train them to reenter society.193 From the Houses of Refuge to the present
systemwhich continues to operate under the guise of rehabilitationthe
system has operated far more as an adult prison for children.194
The Supreme Courts decisions in Roper, Graham, and Miller all follow a
common recognition that children and adults are fundamentally
different.195 It is time for the system to recognize that as well.196 The
similarities between the adult systems model of punishmentsolitary
confinement, for examplemust be reworked with a model that focuses on
rehabilitating juvenile offenders and successfully assimilating them back
into society.197
Financial concerns have limited rehabilitative efforts of the juvenile
justice system, compromising education, therapy, and the length of stays.198
Many have pointed to these budgetary constraints as a root cause of the
high recidivism rates among juveniles, which demonstrates the
shortsightedness plaguing the system.199 Each person that lives a life of
190
192
198
199
Id.
See id.
260
v. 50 | 237
203
See JUVENILE DETENTION, supra note 13; Bostic, supra note 110.
See supra notes 198203 and accompanying text.
205 See BERNSTEIN, supra note 15, at 2223 (detailing how juvenile facilities mirror adult
prisons); SIMONSEN, supra note 23, at 199200 (discussing the financial constraints that limit
rehabilitation efforts).
204
206
2016
261
209
213
Id. (citing COAL. FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE, 2001 ANNUAL REPORT: ABANDONED IN THE BACK
ROW: NEW LESSONS IN EDUCATION AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ix (2001)).
214 See, e.g., Kala Kachmar, Common Cores Biggest Pitfall, MYCENTRALJERSEY.COM (Mar. 22,
2015, 7:12 PM), http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2015/02/
15/common-cores-biggest-pitfall/23455787/.
215 See, e.g., id.
216 See Letter from Arne Duncan and Eric H. Holder, Jr., supra note 124.
217 GUIDING PRINCIPLES, supra note 140, at iv.
218 See Fitzpatrick, supra note 135.
262
v. 50 | 237
education program.219 Students from the Center have told teachers that
they would have attended their former schools more regularly if it had
been more like this.220 Kathleen Fitzpatrick, a teacher at the Center, has
seen the unique program help remove students negative stigmas toward
school.221 Because of the program, students have received high school
diplomas while incarcerated and even college scholarships upon their
release.222 The key difference in the Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention
Center, it appears, is the passion among the educators and the willingness
to break away from the norm.223 In setting high expectations for their
studentsand treating them as students rather than prisonersthe Center
has been able to successfully prepare its students for success upon their
release.224
Following a similar structure to what is employed at the Northern
Virginia Juvenile Detention Center, Holder and Duncan released principles
for providing quality education within juvenile justice facilities.225 Key
among the five suggested principles226 are the recruitment and retaining of
well-qualified education staff, appropriate funding, and an environment
that supports all kinds of students, including non-native English speakers
and those with learning disabilities.227
1.
219 Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center, ALEXANDRIA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
http://www.acps.k12.va.us/profiles/nvjdc.php (last visited Mar. 18, 2016).
220
2016
263
Such standards did not reach juvenile facilities.230 Not only are many
teachers not instructed on how to effectively teach in correctional facilities,
but teachers often do not have advanced degrees and do not need to meet
general qualification requirements.231 A 2007 audit of a Texas juvenile
justice center serves as an example of many of these problems, where
computerized courses served as the basis for classes, teachers were found
to be teaching courses they were not certified to teach, and teachers in the
security unit provided children with no instruction and only
worksheets.232
In order for education to serve as a means to rehabilitate incarcerated
youth, changes must begin by requiring teachers to meet fundamental
certification requirements.233 The need for quality educators is even more
important within juvenile facilities, as incarcerated youth tend to stand
below their peers academically.234 While there is much work that must be
done, the first and most important step is to hold teachers within juvenile
facilities to the same standards as those in public schools.235 The significant
impact that quality teachers can have on incarcerated youth has been seen
in the Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention Center,236 and in order for any
reform to the education program within juvenile facilities to be successful,
the changes must begin with the teachers.237
2.
img/10-07/1006tyccokeaudit.pdf.
233 See supra notes 21013 and accompanying text.
234 GUIDING PRINCIPLES, supra note 140, at 14.
235 Id. at 15.
236 Fitzpatrick, supra note 135.
237 See GUIDING PRINCIPLES, supra note 140, at 15.
238 BRUCE D. BAKER, THE ALBERT SHANKER INST., REVISITING THE AGE-OLD QUESTION: DOES
MONEY
MATTER
IN
EDUCATION?
iv
(2012),
available
at
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/does-money-matter.
264
v. 50 | 237
caring teaching staff.239 Studies have indicated that spending per student
has a positive correlation with improved performance from students, as
increased resources can lead to a reduction in a schools teacher-to-student
ratio and provide higher salaries for teachers.240
The current financial shortfall for education programs in juvenile
justice facilities has created competition for the limited funds, often leaving
certain programs underfunded.241 According to Duncan and Holder, this
competition is often the result of disorganization in the administration of a
juvenile facility, as education funding is combined from federal, state, and
local agencies.242 This makes budget development difficult, which can even
result in funds going unused.243 To help offset these issues and allow for
more successful education programs at juvenile facilities, measures must
be taken to both ensure appropriate funding is available and that all
funding is being utilized appropriately and efficiently.244
3.
239
2016
265
248 See Special Education in Correctional Facilities, supra note 245 (describing how a lack of
standards and regulations leads to inadequate special education in juvenile detention centers).
249
Letter from R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney Gen., to the Honorable Janet
Napolitano, Governor of Ariz. 23 (Jan. 23, 2004), available at http://www.justice.gov/sites/
default/files/crt/legacy/2011/04/13/ariz_findings.pdf.
250 Butrymowicz & Mader, supra note 246.
251 20 U.S.C. 1401(29) (2012).
252 20 U.S.C. 1401(10)(A)(D) (2012).
253 See Twomey, supra note 14, at 77172.
254 See supra notes 22936 and accompanying text.
255 See GUIDING PRINCIPLES, supra note 140, at 8.
256 Allie Bidwell, Vocational High Schools: Career Path or Kiss of Death?, U.S. NEWS & WORLD
REP. (May 2, 2014, 12:01 AM), http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/05/02/the-return-of-
266
v. 50 | 237
vocational-high-schools-more-options-or-the-kiss-of-death.
257
Id.
Id.
259 Id.
260 Id.; see also We Got This: Youth Employment, OPPORTUNITY NATION: THE SHARED PLAN TO
RESTORE OPPORTUNITY, http://opportunitynation.org/call-to-action-youth-employment/ (last
visited Mar. 23, 2016) (detailing a plan to place American youth in positions to succeed in the
work force).
258
261
265
2016
267
266
268
v. 50 | 237
CONCLUSION
Kids are different. This fact is a consensus among scientists and has
been recognized by the juvenile justice system from its inception and, more
recently, by the Supreme Court. While the Courts decisions in Roper,
Graham, and Miller are a positive step in further separating the juvenile and
adult justice systems, the application of those rulings and the function of
the juvenile justice system suggest there is still work to be done. The gap
between rhetoric and practice in the juvenile justice system has existed
since its inception, and the time is now to aggressively reform the system
to focus on rehabilitation. Centered on an overhaul of the educational
programs in juvenile facilities, this reform should capitalize on the
malleability of the teenage brain. With effective traditional education
supplanted with vocational and technical programs, the juvenile justice
system can effectively reduce recidivism rates by preparing incarcerated
youth to rejoin society. Many will argue that some juvenile offenders guarantee that they will one day be released, is it not societys
responsibility to try?