When Children Act Out in Violence,
They are Still Children
An Evaluation and Proposed Reform of
Florida’s “Adult Crime, Adult Time” Brand of Justice
Honors
Scholar Seminar
Fall
2001
I. Introduction
“I’m ashamed to admit this,
but I’m afraid of [the day I walk out of this prison]. I grew up in here, and I don’t know anything
about living.”[1]
These words were spoken by
Tiffany Lindoo shortly before she turned 21 at the Hernando Correctional
Institution in Brookline, Florida.[2] When she spoke these words, Tiffany had
spent seven years in adult prisons in Florida and had seven more years still to
serve before returning to life outside the prison walls. In 1994, Tiffany was convicted of felony
murder and sentenced, in Palm Beach County, Florida, to fourteen years
imprisonment under the state’s “waiver” policy that allowed juveniles to be
tried and sentenced as adults.[3] Tiffany watched her older boyfriend and his
friend as they fatally beat businessman Ed Strother with a baseball bat and the
butt of a gun.[4] Tiffany is just one of thousands of young
people in Florida and across the country who is incarcerated in an adult prison
for a criminal act carried out while still a juvenile.
In the 1980s and early 1990s
rates of juvenile violence increased across the country.[5] The daily news told stories of children
killing and assaulting other children and adults. Many of the acts were cold-blooded, calculated, and heartless. The public was scared. They wanted to end this violence, hold
children more accountable for their actions, and secure their safety and that
of their families. Prosecutors and
legislators across the country responded with a new expression of
justice—“adult crime, adult time.” In
other words, if children can commit crimes like adults, they can serve time
like adults. This new brand of justice
found its voice in state waiver policies, allowing juvenile offenders to be
tried and sentenced as adults.
These waiver policies have
resulted in the incarceration of thousands of juveniles with adult criminals
across the country, most notably in Florida.
While giving politicians a campaign platform, these policies have not
been successful, either for the children sentenced under them or the society
that demanded them. Instead of
adequately serving any of the traditional goals of punishment—deterrence,
incapacitation, retribution, or rehabilitation—this cry for “adult time, adult
crime” has subjected young offenders to unnecessary violence, condemned them to
more violent lives, and neglected their needs.
This new application of “justice” is turning youthful offenders into
hardened criminals and banishing any hope that they might be rehabilitated and
returned to society as respectful, law-abiding citizens.
Certainly these offenders should not be allowed to cheat responsibility for their actions, but there are other options besides this failing “adult crime, adult time” theory of justice. This paper examines some of those options. After a brief look at how “adult crime, adult time” policies have taken over where juvenile justice used to champion, this paper evaluates this new justice, highlighting the problems it causes and its inability to satisfy deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, or rehabilitation goals. Then, the paper explains the urgency for reform of “adult time, adult crime” policies, in the absence of a call to reform all prisons. Next, this paper turns to recent attempts to reform and offer alternatives to the “adult crime, adult time” brand of justice in Florida, evaluating their effectiveness. Upon concluding that these alternatives are also inadequate to meet the goals of punishment of juvenile offenders, the paper proposes its own alternative, modeled in part after Minnesota’s extended juvenile jurisdiction legislation. This option promises to give children the opportunity to grow up with appropriate attention to their special needs and to create possibilities for rehabilitation, restitution, deterrence, incapacitation, and even retribution.
For more than one century,
most children accused of crimes have received special treatment under the law.[6] Rather than being tried and convicted in the
criminal courts used for adults, children have typically been diverted to the
juvenile justice system. This system
has been described as a wall “to protect children from the retributive polices
of the adult system” while at the same time serving as a means “to hold
children in conflict with the law accountable” through rehabilitation that will
help them become productive members of adult society.[7] It “was invented to combat juvenile crime in
a way that was more flexible and pro-active than the simple just-deserts
approach of the adult court.”[8]
[It] is rooted in social welfare philosophy rather
than in the corpus juris.[9]
Its proceedings are designated as civil rather than
criminal. The Juvenile
Court is theoretically engaged in determining the
needs of the child and of
society rather than adjudicating criminal
conduct. The objectives are to
provide measures of guidance and rehabilitation for
the child and protection
for society, not to fix criminal responsibility,
guilt and punishment. The State
is parens patriae[10]
rather than prosecuting attorney and judge.[11]
While holding children accountable for their
actions, the system aims to protect them from the “consequences of adult
conviction.”[12]
In
the last few decades, confidence in this system has begun to wane, in large
part because of dramatic increases in rates of juvenile delinquency,
particularly serious violent juvenile crime.
A report by the Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections and the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency announced that between 1984 and 1994,
there was a 78 percent increase in arrests of juveniles for violent offenses.[13] While juvenile arrest rates have decreased
since 1994, they still remain high. The
1998 rate of juvenile arrests, for instance, was 19 percent less than in 1994,
but still 15 percent more than in 1989.[14] These staggering statistics have instilled
fear and concern in the public. In
responding to what has been called “the greatest single crime problem that this
nation faces,”[15] citizens
have demanded more accountability and less special treatment for violent
juvenile offenders. Prosecutors across
the nation have responded with a new brand of justice—“adult time, adult crime”—by
acting on statutes, old and new,[16]
which allow them to transfer juveniles to criminal court for prosecution and
sentencing.
Florida is the leader in
trying and sentencing juveniles as adults.
The state’s crusade against juvenile offenders is led by Palm Beach
County Prosecutor Barry Krischer, whose reputation is built on his tough stance
against juvenile crime.[17] Krischer prides himself on running the
Florida office that tries more adults as children than any other in the state
and on the fact that Florida leads the nation in trying children as adults.[18] Krischer has personally prosecuted many of
Florida’s high profile juvenile offenders, including Natahniel Brazill, the
14-year old who was sentenced, this past summer, to 28 years imprisonment for
shooting his middle school teacher[19]
and Tronneal Mangum, the 14-year old who was sentenced, in 1998, to life
imprisonment for shooting a schoolmate over a watch.”[20]
On “adult time, adult crime” justice, Krischer says, “When . . . violent
juveniles are convicted of first-degree murder . . . , then they are going to
get life without parole because it’s the law.
My job is to prosecute them.
Beyond that, I cannot be concerned with what happens to them.”[21]
Florida law provides five
methods by which juveniles can be tried in adult court, including voluntary
transfer,[22] mandatory
transfer,[23] involuntary
waiver in the form of discretionary or mandatory waiver,[24]
and direct file in criminal court.[25] Krischer and other Florida prosecutors have
been very successful applying these methods in their pursuits of juvenile
offenders. In 1977, Florida transferred
1,200 juveniles to criminal courts for prosecution.[26] These rates have more than doubled in
slightly less than twenty years. In
1995, Florida transferred more than 10 percent of its juvenile offenders to
criminal court, nearly 5,000 juveniles in more than 7,000 cases.[27] This number almost totaled the number of
cases waived to criminal court by judges across the nation, 9,700.[28]
Juveniles transferred to
criminal court are subject to the same sanctions as adult offenders. According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, slightly more than half of all juveniles convicted of felonies in
criminal courts are imprisoned nationwide, many in the same prisons as adult
criminals.[29] Here again, Florida leads the nation. A system-level survey of state prison
systems, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and 19 jail systems conducted by
researchers at the Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections and the National
Council on Crime and Delinquency revealed that, in 1998, nearly 12 percent of
all juveniles housed in adult prisons throughout the nation were in Florida,[30]
despite the fact that Florida has the greatest capacity and most resources of
all the states for keeping incarcerated juveniles separate from adults.[31]
Florida law does provide
certain guidelines for the sentencing of juveniles tried as adults. By statute, all children convicted of crimes
punishable by death or life imprisonment must be sentenced as adults;[32]
others may be sentenced as adults, juveniles, or youthful offenders.[33] In sentencing judges are instructed by
statute to strive to achieve a sentence that is appropriate with regard to the
seriousness of the offense and the child’s need for rehabilitative services.[34]
III. Effects of “Adult Crime, Adult Time”
Imprisonment of children, while quieting some of the public outcry in response to juvenile violence, has not resolved the problem. Instead, it has created other significant problems, including child abuse, molestation, and neglect in adult prisons. Further, imprisonment of children has failed to achieve most of the goals traditionally offered as bases for punishment.
Juveniles incarcerated in
adult prisons live in a world that would inspire sympathy, concern, and even
legal action for child abuse, child molestation, and child neglect in the
outside world. This occurs despite the
fact that incarcerated children have no fewer rights to protection by the
Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause than do incarcerated adults. They, for instance, have a right to “be free
from unreasonable threats to their physical safety” and to be protected “from
the sexual aggressiveness” of other inmates.[35] Further, all inmates are entitled to
adequate medical and mental health care and regular exercise and fresh air.[36] Incarcerated juveniles are also entitled to
the benefit of special education laws and must be allowed to observe religious
holidays and traditions.[37] Prisons must provide a sanitary and humane
environment and a balanced diet.[38] Incarcerated juveniles enjoy the same rights
as incarcerated adults to be protected from random, suspicionless, body
searches, and to be free from violence.[39] Unfortunately, just because these rights
exist, they are not necessarily enforced.
In fact, incarcerated children are often subjected to unacceptable
conditions, including rape and violence.[40]
In his dissenting opinion in
United States v. Bailey, Justice Blackmun recognized the deplorable
conditions that young prisoners are subject to:
The atrocities and inhuman conditions of prison life
in America are
almost unbelievable; surely they are nothing less
than shocking. . . . A
youthful inmate can expect to be subjected to
homosexual gang rape his
first night in jail, or, it has been said, even in
the van on the way to jail.
Weaker inmates become the property of stronger
prisoners or gangs,
who sell the sexual services of the victim. Prison officials either are
disinterested in stopping abuse of prisoners by
other prisoners or are
incapable of doing so, given the limited resources
society allocates to
the prison system.
Prison officials often are merely indifferent to serious
health and safety needs of prisoners as well. . . .
Even more appalling is
the fact that guards frequently participate in the
brutalization of inmates.
The classic example is the beating or other
punishment in retaliation for
prisoner complaints or court
actions.[41]
The most apparent abuses that incarcerated children
are subjected to include rape and other forms of violence. They are also at increased risks for
suicide. These abuses are intensified
in many instances because of the youth and inexperience of juvenile
inmates. According to Patricia Dewberry,
an officer at a correctional institute in Michigan that houses adult and
juvenile female offenders, young prisoners are seen by adult prisoners as
“fresh food for the sharks.”[42]
1. Rape in Adult Prisons
Rape is an “entrenched
tradition” in most prisons.[43] Many prisoners view rape as a way to ‘“prove
their manhood,’” to gain power, and to fulfill sexual drive.[44] It is estimated that more sexual assaults
occur behind prison walls each year than non-prison rapes of women across the
nation, with an estimated 290,000 males sexually assaulted in prisons each year
and an estimated 135,000 rapes of women annually.[45] Prison rapists typically choose “the
youngest, the smallest, the nonviolent, the first-timers and those charged with
less serious crimes” as their victims.[46] According to Vincent Schiraldi, director of
the Justice Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., children incarcerated with
adults are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted than their
counterparts in juvenile facilities.[47] The typical prison rape is a gang-rape.[48] “Once victimized, a prisoner is marked as a
continual target for sexual attack and is repeatedly subjected to gang rapes,
or must trade submission to one or more men in exchange for protection from the
rest.”[49] Few rapes are reported to prison authorities
because of a fear of retaliation.[50]
The effects of prison rape
are far reaching. Psychologists believe
that pent-up fear and frustration about constant victimization may cause
victims of prison rape and sexual assault to act out violently once they return
to their communities.[51] Not only does rape sometimes cause its
victims to act out violently once in the outside world, sometimes they do this
inside prison walls by killing their attackers or by taking their own lives.[52] Prison rape can also result in the
transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS).[53] As well, it often causes psychoses and
post-traumatic stress syndrome or rape trauma syndrome in its victims.[54]
Clearly, incarceration in
adult prisons does not secure the safety of juvenile offenders. If this “adult crime, adult time” justice,
however, serves some larger social purpose, such as deterrence, incapacitation,
retribution, or rehabilitation, its shortcomings might be outweighed by its
benefits. These social
purposes—deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation—have
traditionally been offered as the goals of punishment.[63] Further, these aims are often expressed as
the motives behind incarceration of juveniles.
If, in fact, these aims are accomplished by “adult crime, adult time”
justice, there may be reason to continue to exercise this new justice.
1. Deterrence
General and specific
deterrence are both goals of punishment.
“Adult crime, adult time” justice fails in both respects. First, “adult crime, adult time” justice is
not a general deterrent. There is no
indication that juvenile transfer or incarceration reduces delinquency
rates. Florida, the leader in
sentencing juveniles as adults, for example, has a violent juvenile crime rate
almost 1 ½ times the national average,[64]
and the effect is not confined to Florida.
Other states granting prosecutorial discretion in waiver to criminal
court, including Arkansas, Nebraska, Arizona, Virginia, and New Hampshire, have
also reported increased rates of violent juvenile crime at times when other
states reported decreases.[65]
Second, on the issue of specific deterrence, or deterrence of the individual, the evidence is clear that recidivism rates are increased by incarceration of juveniles in adult prisons. [66] Not only are juveniles incarcerated in adult prisons more likely to recidivate, they are more likely to commit serious subsequent offenses in less time than juveniles processed through the juvenile court system.[67] This is explained, at least in part, by the sociological theory known as differential association, which tells that deviance is behavior learned “through association with others, especially in primary groups.”[68] Prisons are full of opportunities for such association. Incarcerated youths grow up in an environment where they are surrounded by social deviants. One ex-prisoner appropriately described prison as “a breeding place for evil, an incubator for crime,” with especially detrimental effects on young people.[69]
2. Incapacitation
Incapacitation
is another important goal of punishment.
With “adult crime, adult time” justice, the intent is to punish children
more severely and keep them off the streets for longer periods of time than can
be done through the juvenile justice system.
This, however, is not what happens.
Many juveniles tried as adults are not incapacitated at all, and most
who are, are only incapacitated for short periods of time. One commentator described:
As with capital punishment, criminal court transfer
offers a drastic
and permanent solution for an offender thought to be
beyond redemption.
It is the court’s way of saying, ‘there are no more
second chances for you.’
Permanent and drastic punishments are very appealing
to a public
confronted with high rates of violent crime. Unlike the death penalty,
however, criminal court transfer is not
permanent. It is merely a change
of venue that exposes a young offender to [the
possibility of] more severe
court outcomes but does not guarantee any particular
outcome.[70]
In fact, a report released by the Urban Institute
exposed that transfer increases certainty and severity of sentence in only 30
percent of cases.[71] Further, about 50 percent of juveniles
transferred to criminal court receive sentences comparable to what they would
have received in juvenile court while nearly 20 percent are sentenced more
leniently than their counterparts in juvenile court.[72] Most juveniles incarcerated in adult prisons
are released within three years.[73] Thus, the goal of long-term (or even
short-term, in many cases) incapacitation is not served by juvenile
incarceration.
3. Retribution
Under a theory of retribution,
punishment is the means of inflicting on the offender what he or she deserves
for violating the law.[74] The punishment should be “proportionate to
the offense.”[75] As discussed previously, prison often
subjects juveniles to abuse, neglect, and rape. While these might be proper punishments in some cases if the “an
eye for an eye” concept of retribution were interpreted literally (which it is
not in modern sentencing), they are unnecessary and inappropriate. One Florida prosecutor explained, “People do
not realize that what a life sentence in an adult prison does to a child in no
way balances the scales of justice. A
crime and a sentence have little to do with the day-to-day reality of what life
is like for a child in prison.”[76] Further, the leniency in length of sentence
often exercised in sentencing juveniles as adults[77]
exemplifies just how incarceration may, in fact, accomplish less by way of
inflicting what is deserved than juvenile sentencing does.
4. Rehabilitation
The fourth and final
traditional goal of punishment is rehabilitation. Unlike the previous three goals, this goal is wholly neglected in
juvenile incarceration, and is rarely, if ever, offered as a goal of juvenile
or adult incarceration. Regardless, it
should be an important goal, particularly in the sentencing of juveniles tried
as adults because most will return to society at the close of their
sentences. Even a sentence of sixty
years without the possibility of parole leaves a great chance that the child
will return to life outside of prison, and there is little evidence that adult
prisons make any attempt to prepare for this either by providing medical care
peculiar to the needs of youthful offenders, offering adequate middle or high
school or vocational education, or customizing counseling programs to the
specialized needs of youthful offenders.[78] In Florida, it has been said of adult
prisons where juveniles are incarcerated:
Lack of adequate educational, recreational, and
health programs
make jail confinement inappropriate for
children. While not all
inmates confined to jail are hardened criminals, the
presence of some
experienced criminals is guaranteed; children in
contact with these
individuals are provided a free course in criminal
techniques, making
increased criminal activity more likely. The jails’ destructive potential
is evidenced by reports of physical and sexual abuse
of children by larger
and stronger inmates, and the frequency with which
juveniles find the
only solution to their problems to be the taking of
their own lives.[79]
Clearly these conditions cannot adequately protect
society by rehabilitating the juvenile offenders who will most likely be
released from prison when they have many years of life yet to live.
These
failings of the “adult crime, adult time” policy are significant. A number of states, including Florida,
recognize at least some of these failings and have taken steps to lessen the
consequences. Before examining recent
changes in Florida law aimed at alleviating some of these problems, there
remains an important question that must be answered: Why bother trying to alleviate these problems for juvenile
offenders when many of the same problems exist and go uncorrected with regard
to adult inmates? The answer lies in
the special nature of childhood, and can best be explained by examining the
physical, intellectual, and emotional underdevelopment of children and the ways
that the law has dealt with this underdevelopment.
Children are not adults,
neither physiologically nor psychologically.
The American Board of Pediatrics explains, “Children differ from adults
anatomically, physiologically, immunologically, psychologically,
developmentally, and metabolically.”[80] These developmental differences present
unique opportunities and pose difficult challenges for coping with juvenile
delinquency and violence. For instance,
they make children susceptible and malleable to outside influences, both
positive and negative.[81] Thus, there arises both an opportunity and a
challenge. The opportunity is one of
reform and rehabilitation conditioned on the fact that children are “more
amenable to intervention and treatment” than adults.[82] The challenge is the problem of specific
deterrence (recidivism) discussed above.[83]
There is evidence that
children’s lack of cognitive, emotional, and social maturity creates challenges
in legal procedures, i.e., in the preparation of the best possible defense to
charges of criminal or delinquent behavior.
Studies show that juveniles have less understanding of the legal system
and are less prepared to assist in their defenses than adults.[84] A study in which 400 delinquent youths and
200 criminal adults were given special tests designed to determine their level
of understanding of Miranda Warnings, for example, revealed that juveniles
between the ages of 14 and 16 were half as likely as adults to understand their
Miranda rights.[85] The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on
Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, a group of social scientists
collected to undertake “a critical reexamination of the juvenile justice
system” based on sound science and legal scholarship,[86]
has completed its juvenile competence study analyzing the competence of juveniles
as criminal defendants in light of their developmental immaturity.[87] The Foundation is expected to release its
results this spring.[88] Other research has already shown and the
MacArthur Foundation study is expected to support the finding that a child’s
lack of development may hinder his participation in his own defense.[89]
General developmental
concerns are not all that drive the need for reform of “adult time, adult
crime” justice. Social scientists have
linked delinquency to a number of factors, including poverty, familial setting,
the environment, media influence, and declining social morality.[90] Some specific risk factors for juvenile
delinquency include family dysfunction, negative peer influences, parental
neglect, low academic achievement, early onset of antisocial behavior,
substance abuse, and exposure to violence.[91] Children, unlike adults, have little, if
any, power to control these factors in their environments.
A
study conducted in 1969 by two University of Chicago sociologists, Clifford
Shaw and Henry McKay, links several of these factors. The study involved an examination of delinquency rates in Chicago
by geographical zones over a period of thirty years; the data was gathered
through juvenile court petitions, incarceration records, and police records.[92] It revealed that delinquency is more a
product of economics and locality-based traditions than of race and ethnicity.[93] It also showed a correlation between rates
of delinquency and other community problems, such as school truancy, young
adult criminality, infant mortality, tuberculosis, and mental disorders.[94] Delinquency also proved to be directly
correlated to the percentage of families receiving financial relief and rates
of financial dependency.[95] Based on their research, Shaw and McKay
concluded that these conditions of economic instability and social pathology
led to “conflicting moral value systems for young children”[96]
and delinquent behavior.
There are often questions
about whether child abuse and neglect lead to delinquency. Certainly there are studies that indicate
that delinquency may be the result of child maltreatment.[97] More reliable studies, however, decline to
speculate on whether child abuse actually causes delinquency, claiming instead
that the two are related in an indiscernible way. Phyllis T. Howing, John S. Wodarski, P. David Kurtz, James M.
Gaudin, Jr., and Emily Neligan Herbst evaluated existing literature examining
the link between child abuse and delinquency.
They found that the literature established a link between the two, but
was unable to establish causality.
Thus, they concluded that the relationship between delinquency and child
abuse is bi-directional. [98] In other words, neither causes the
other. Instead both are “products of
the reciprocal interactions among the child’s emerging personality, parental
inadequacies, and a broad range of setting events.”[99]
What these and other studies
reveal is that juvenile delinquents typically come from less than ideal home
and social circumstances, where they are often victims of or witnesses to
violent acts. According to some
research, 75 percent of juvenile offenders have been seriously abused by a
family member, 80 percent have witnessed some form of physical violence, and
more than 25 percent come from families where one or more parents abuse drugs
or alcohol.[100] Further, delinquency studies have
consistently revealed a direct correlation between rates of delinquency and
residence in the inner city.[101] Several sociological studies in the last
twenty years have concluded that it is the youth’s “inability to escape” these
less than ideal home and social circumstances that “leads to anger and
frustration, which [can] then lead to delinquency.”[102] In one of these studies, Robert Agnew tested
his general strain theory, positing that delinquency is caused by any one of
three strains—the discrepancy between societal means and goals, the loss of
something positive in one’s life or the presence of negative events. The study involved self-reports distributed
to a longitudinal sample of adolescent males and females in New Jersey and
revealed that Agnew’s three strains, particularly the loss of positive factors
and the presence of negative stimuli, can trigger delinquency.[103]
Inadvertently furthering
their unsettled home lives, many juvenile offenders drop out of school and/or
are several grades behind other children their age.[104] Also, many juvenile offenders suffer from
developmental and learning disabilities.[105] This often makes their progression to
adulthood, adult understanding, even longer and presents more difficulties for
them in presenting defenses and in surviving victimization in adult
prisons. One study, for example, showed
that juvenile offenders between the ages of 15 and 17, who showed low IQ
scores, possessed less understanding than average 12-year-olds on issues
integral to their defenses.[106]
B. Special Treatment Under the Law
In large part because of
these social and developmental differences between children and adults, the law
has treated children differently than adults in many aspects, most notably
through the juvenile justice system, which was built with the belief “that
delinquency was closely related to poor parenting, neglect, poverty, and lack
of moral values.”[107] In the latter half of the nineteenth
century, a group of Chicago women guided by Jane Addams and Lucy Flower, led
the call for reform of the criminal justice system that allowed eight year old
children to serve prison sentences alongside adult inmates.[108] As a result, the Illinois legislature passed
“an act to regulate the treatment and control of dependent, neglected and
delinquent children,”[109]
and, in 1899, Cook County, Illinois became the home of the first juvenile court
in this country.[110] This separate system of justice for juvenile
offenders resulted from the commonly held belief that children should be held
less responsible for their actions than adults because they lack the full
ability to reason and contemplate the consequences of their behavior.[111] There was also a sense that all of society
is responsible for its children.[112] The Cook County court relied on the
common-law doctrine of parens patriae to provide extra protection to
youths.[113] It had jurisdiction over “dependent,
neglected, and delinquent youth.”[114]
The creation of a separate juvenile justice system also resulted in the development of separate, specialized centers and facilities designed to “provide a structured, rehabilitative environment in which the educational psychological, and vocational needs of youthful offenders could be addressed.”[115] Within twenty-five years, all but two states had followed the Cook County model, creating their own juvenile courts and detention facilities.[116] These systems of juvenile justice persist today. Modern juvenile courts have jurisdiction over a wide range of issues, including: child custody and visitation; child and spousal support; establishment of paternity; divorce; child abuse and neglect (both civil and criminal cases); foster care; termination of parental rights and adoption; truancy; runaway youth; children in need of services; youth with mental illness and other disabilities; crimes committed by family members and partners against one another; civil orders of protection for family members and youth; and crimes committed by and against youth.[117] In some states, domestic relations courts or family courts or a combination of juvenile courts and domestic relations or family courts have jurisdiction over some of these areas.[118] These courts recognize a lower threshold of responsibility for criminal acts and a higher possibility for rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. States offer varying sanctions for delinquent behavior, including residential treatment, community service, detention, restorative justice committees, mandatory reparations, and boot camps.
The law treats children
different than adults in many other ways as well. They are treated incompetent in many ways, including lack of
capacity to enter into contracts and to serve as principals. Also, children are not allowed to vote,
drink alcohol, drive, or purchase tobacco products. Children are subject in some jurisdictions to mandatory curfews,[119]
and in all jurisdictions, children can be held responsible for committing
status offenses, such as truancy, which would not be considered criminal for
adults. These legal differences in the
treatment of children and adults relate in large part to the developmental
differences discussed above.
Because incarceration of
juveniles with adults fails to serve the goals of punishment and unnecessarily
subjects youth to abuse and neglect, it is time for a change in the way the law
sentences children who are tried as adults.
Even the Florida legislature has recognized, by statute, that the
state’s adult prisons are “inadequate” to meet the rehabilitative needs of
juvenile offenders[120]
and that rates of recidivism among juveniles sentenced to imprisonment occurs
at a rate exceeding that “tolerated by the Legislature and by the citizens [of
Florida].”[121] Thus, Florida legislators have made attempts
to provide alternatives to incarceration of youths in adult prisons. Their first attempt was providing for the
sentencing of juveniles tried as adults as youthful offenders, rather than as
adults. Their most recent attempt is a
newly enacted law requiring the separation of adult and juvenile offenders in
adult prisons. While both are steps in
the right direct, neither adequately addresses the problems caused by
imprisoning delinquent youths.
Florida’s Youthful Offenders
Act provides that youths who are tried as adults can be sentenced differently
from adults; they can be sentenced as
youthful offenders.[122] The purpose of the Youthful Offenders Act
“is to improve the chances of correction and successful return to the community
of youthful offenders sentenced to imprisonment by providing them with enhanced
vocational, educational, counseling, or public service opportunities and by
preventing their association with older and more experienced criminals during
the terms of their confinement.”[123] The Act provides that juveniles tried as
adults may be sentenced as youthful offenders if they are convicted of a felony
(except that juveniles who commit capital or life felonies are not eligible to
be classified as youthful offenders) and if they have not been previously
classified as a youthful offender.[124] Youthful offenders can be sentenced to a
split sentence, by which they serve a portion of their sentence, at least one
year, but not more than four years, in a state prison, and complete their
sentence with a period of probation or community control.[125] In the alternative, youthful offenders can
be sentenced to up to six years in custody, during which time they can
participate in the youthful offender basic training program.[126] Successful completion of the program may
allow the offender to gain a reduced probationary sentence or release from
incarceration to probation or community control.[127] The youthful offender basic training program
is designed to overcome some of the shortcomings of incarceration in adult
prisons. The program consists of
regular exercise, leadership training, education courses, and drug counseling
and other rehabilitation programs.[128] In some counties, youthful offenders may
also be sentenced to a boot camp for youthful offenders.[129]
While the youthful offenders
program provides more structure and fulfills more of the special needs of
juveniles, it ignores a crucial goal of punishment of juvenile offenders. One of the primary reasons for punishment of
juvenile offenders is to make the public feel safer by putting away violent
offenders for extensive periods of time and ensuring that they are not released
to perform more violent acts—incapacitation.
Juvenile sanctions are not adequate to allay these fears. In Florida, the maximum sentence that can be
imposed by a juvenile court is 18 months to 3 years in a maximum-risk juvenile
correctional facility.[130] The average length of stay in any of these
facilities is two years,[131]
an insufficient amount of time to let the public feel protected. On the other hand, youths tried and
sentenced as adults are frequently subject to mandatory sentences, which are
often excessive and do nothing more than subject the juvenile to more abuse and
neglect and turn him into a more deviant individual who will eventually
complete his sentence and return to society.
A 16 or 17 year old who uses a gun during the commission of a felony,
for instance, is subject to a mandatory 10-20-Life sentence,[132]
but because of his youth, is still likely to complete his sentence and return
to society. Thus, this method releases
the un-rehabilitated juvenile and provides little protection to the
public. The Youthful Offenders Act
provides no resolution to this problem.
The Act, while providing for the possibility of early release or parole,
limits the maximum term of any sentence imposed to six years,[133]
an amount surely not enough to satisfy the public’s need to feel safe from
repeat violence or to adequately protect the public from some offenders, who
are dangerous and beyond the reach of rehabilitation, but who, nonetheless,
deserve protection from the abuse and neglect of adult prisons.
Florida
has made an even more recent attempt to resolve the problems associated with
sentencing juveniles as adults. On June
13, 2001, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, recognizing that Florida’s prisons are not
safe for its youth, signed into law a bill providing for the separation of
youths and adults sentenced to incarceration.
The bill amends a previous section of Florida law dealing with inmate
classification, providing that offenders under the age of 18 who were not
assigned to a youthful offenders facility must be assigned to specific
correctional facilities, housed in dormitories, provided with food service,
education, and recreation separate from inmates 18 or older.[134] The new law also provides that inmates less
than 18 years of age, who were 15 or younger at the time the offense was
committed must serve their sentences in youthful offenders’ facilities until
the age of 18 or 21.[135] The law provides an alternative by which
offenders, whose behavior threatens other inmates or staff can be returned to
the general adult inmate population.[136]
While
this law may present some initial appeal, it is not as well suited to solve the
problems created by incarcerating juveniles in adult jails as it at first
looks. One important factor the law
does not take into account is the infeasibility and excessive economic costs of
separation requirements. Mark Ezell,
former Associate Director of the Florida Center for Children and Youth
described the problem presented by current laws and attempts to reorganize
through separation: “Current laws which
allow juveniles to be placed in jail only maintain the flow of children into
inadequate, overcrowded, adult facilities.
The millions of dollars which would be necessary to separate juveniles
from adult inmates would be a poor investment of county, city and state
resources.”[137]
Further,
this law may appeal to those who have become aware of the abuse young people
are subjected to in adult prisons, and may be a brilliant move for political
leaders in Florida who are seeking support from these persons. What they’ve failed to recognize, however,
is the existence of a similar law in Florida’s past. That law provided for separation of juveniles from adults in
adult prisons and required constant supervision.[138] The law was quite unsuccessful in protecting
juveniles from abuse and mistreatment in adult prisons.[139] The law’s shortcomings resulted primarily
from the failure to properly inform and train jailers of the law’s requirements
and the failure to provide adequate space in facilities for the separation to
be feasible.[140] A study of
state’s having laws requiring the separation of adult and youthful inmates,
conducted by the Children’s Defense Fund and reported by the National Coalition
for Jail Reform in 1980, found that barely one third of the surveyed jails
provided for substantial separation as required by the state statutes (similar
to the Florida statute) and that more than one fifth of the jails provided no
separation at all.[141] Thus, the effect of this new law is likely
to be unnoticeable.
Juvenile incarceration is not the answer to the problem of juvenile violence. While attempting to answer the need to secure public security, it goes to the extreme of jeopardizing the health and safety of the children it victimizes. Certainly, these children are not innocents. Many have committed violent offenses in cold blood. They are not, however, deserving of the type of deadly punishment that results from incarceration with adult inmates. There is another, more efficient, more effective method of holding juveniles accountable for their delinquency, while at the same time providing them with the opportunity to make reparations and the opportunity to rehabilitate. One state is already moving in this direction.
A. Minnesota’s Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction Legislation
In Minnesota, serious juvenile offenders are tried in criminal courts.[142] For sentencing, however, the state applies a combination of juvenile and adult sentencing. This is known as extended juvenile jurisdiction.[143] This allows the court to impose a juvenile sanction[144] or to “impose an adult criminal sentence, the execution of which shall be stayed on the condition that the offender not violate the provisions of the disposition order and not commit a new offense.”[145] If the second of these options is selected, an adult sentence is imposed and then suspended.[146] During suspension of the adult sentence, the juvenile is turned over to the Minnesota juvenile corrections program.[147] The juvenile participates in programs available in the juvenile corrections program.[148] Successful completion of the juvenile corrections program allows the child to avoid imposition of the adult sentence. If a juvenile “violate[s] the conditions of the stayed sentence, or is alleged to have committed a new offense, the court may, . . . revoke the stay and probation and direct that the offender be taken into immediate custody” of the department of corrections.[149] If nothing else juveniles sentenced under this extended juvenile jurisdiction are protected from the horrors of adult incarceration until they are at a level of development that will allow them to compete on equal footing with other adult criminals.
This program of extended juvenile jurisdiction comes closer to meeting the goals of punishment than any alternative offered so far. First, it offers the promise of specific deterrence by preventing most juvenile offenders from being incarcerated with hardened criminals from whom they might learn further delinquent behavior. Second, the program offers at least the potential for long-term incapacitation, although it is weakest in this goal because long-term incapacitation is contingent upon a second wrongdoing. Third, it promises retribution, in that juveniles who show through their post-conviction behavior, that they do, in fact, deserve long-term incarceration, will receive such a sentence. Fourth, it provides opportunity for rehabilitation through the juvenile justice system, where personnel are trained to tend to the special educational, medical, and psychological needs of children. A similar program could be established in Florida, counteracting even for the weakness in accomplishing the goal of incapacitation.
Florida
is relatively well-suited to pursue a program similar to Minnesota’s extended
juvenile jurisdiction. Juvenile courts
in the state are divided into 20 judicial circuits, as are criminal courts.[150] In 1994, Florida Governor Lawton Chiles
signed legislation that created a Department of Juvenile Justice.[151] The mission of this department is “to
protect the public by reducing juvenile crime and delinquency in Florida” by
providing “strong prevention and early intervention services for at-risk youth
and minor offenders” and by using a balanced approach that supplies
“opportunities for rehabilitation for the more serious juvenile offender.”[152] Since 1994, the department’s annual budget
has increased from $272 million to $720 million.[153] Since the department’s inception, juvenile
crime in Florida has decreased despite an increase in the state’s juvenile
population.[154] Under the Department’s leadership, Florida
has increased the number of beds available in long-term juvenile detention
facilities from 4,500 in 1994 to 8,868 in 1998,[155]
and the 2000-2001 budget provides $82.4 million for construction of new
facilities.[156] The success of Florida’s Department of
Juvenile Justice and its anticipated expansions set the stage for a program
similar to Minnesota’s.
Because Florida law already allows juveniles tried as adults to be sentenced as juveniles or adults, the state need implement only one change allowing for blended sentencing, whereby an adult sentence is imposed but suspended while the child completes juvenile sanctions. In order to ensure public security, the program should require detention in juvenile facilities for juveniles whose adult sentences were suspended. Even in these facilities, juveniles would get the benefits of the juvenile justice system that are unavailable with adult incarceration. Juveniles would receive the individual attention they need. They would be permitted to participate in juvenile justice programs aimed at the special needs of juveniles and their potential for rehabilitation, despite being convicted as adults. The program would allow juvenile offenders greater opportunities to participate in educational and vocational programs. They might also be given opportunities to participate in restorative justice programs. Perhaps most importantly, juveniles would be separated from adult criminals. They would no longer be immersed in a deviant culture that has proven to produce more recidivism. Instead, juveniles would be treated by juvenile corrections professionals trained to react to the special psychological and emotional needs of juveniles, many of whom have been neglected or abused for most of the their lives. Similar to Minnesota’s extended juvenile jurisdiction, the program should also be designed so that those who endanger the success of juvenile programs through violence against others in the programs can be removed to the adult prison to serve their sentence.
An extended juvenile jurisdiction program in Florida should differ slightly from the Minnesota program to counteract the weakness in achieving incapacitation. Rather than making the imposition of the adult sentence contingent upon a successive wrongdoing, the program should make avoidance or early release from the adult sentence contingent upon progress in the juvenile program. The nature of the crimes that lend themselves to waiver are such that the public demands incapacitation, and it should be granted, except where exception is shown. Juveniles should be protected from the dangers of adult prisons until they are of sufficient maturity (i.e., legal adulthood) to avoid increased risks in prison because of their physical and emotional vulnerability. However, juveniles who commit violent crime should not be excused with just a slap on the hand, three years in juvenile detention, and a second chance—not unless they earn it. This program would give them the opportunity to make amends for their wrongs and the opportunity to earn back their lives.
This type of program could be funded in part by the Department of Juvenile Justice and in part by the Department of Corrections. A portion of the money saved by the Department of Corrections could be applied to caring for these offenders whose adult sentences were suspended temporarily. The Department of Juvenile Justice could provide the additional funding from its budget, as the purposes of the program clearly coincide with its goals of preventing juvenile violence and rehabilitating youthful offenders. With more beds for long term detention of juvenile offenders than any other state, and a budget designed to provide more, Florida is in no worse position to institute this program than the newly enacted separation law, and may even be in a better position to initiate this program.
VII. Conclusion
The Honorable Cindy S. Lederman, presiding judge of the Miami-Dade Juvenile Court, Florida, once wrote, “Adjudication culminating in individualized dispositions and based on the need for accountability and the best interest of youth and society should be the cornerstone of the juvenile court’s work.”[157] Although she was referring specifically to the role of the juvenile court, Judge Lederman’s words are applicable even to the criminal justice system that allows juveniles to be tried and sentenced as adults. In this system of “adult crime, adult time,” the need for accountability and the best interest of youth and society should be the primary goals of disposition of cases and sentencing of offenders.
The “adult crime, adult time” policy neglects these goals. It does not hold juveniles accountable for their criminal acts. Instead, it victimizes them without teaching them the wrong of their ways. It subjects them to a world where all that they learn is more deviance. It preys on their developmental weaknesses in an effort to make the public feel safer, but fails even in this respect. “Adult crime, adult time” creates more “adult crime” by ensuring that when juveniles complete their sentences they are returned to society without having learned any valuable skills, other than advanced criminal behavior and violence.
Certainly juveniles should not be allowed to get away with criminal behavior, but they must not be institutionalized, raped, and transformed into violent creatures with no respect for the law and its authority. These consequences can be avoided by providing juveniles with the opportunity to redeem themselves through service and participation in the juvenile justice system. These offenders must be given the opportunity to rehabilitate and the tools to pursue a productive lifestyle once they are released into society, either after earning their early release or after completing their adult sentence. Only when these opportunities are provided and children are shown that they have promising futures, despite the negative influences of their past, can the problem of juvenile violence ever be overcome.
[1] Meg Laughlin, ‘After a While, Hope Leaves’ Years in a Prison for Adults Keep a Child Frozen in Time, MIAMI HERALD, Oct. 1, 2000, http://www.Miami.com/herald/special/news/specialreport/docs/015528.htm.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] See infra Part II.
[6] See infra Part IV.B.
[7] Judge Frank Orlando, Center for the Study of Youth Policy, Nova Southern University, Florida, The Crumbling Wall Around Children’s Rights, http://www.defence-for-children.org/ong/DciHome.nsf/e11046861a013ab900256416005da776/5bcd8b8d69bb0862c1256abd003a4834/$FILE/The%20Wall%20Around%20Children's%20Rights.doc.
[8] Jeffrey A. Butts and Adele V. Harrell, Urban Institute, Delinquents or Criminals: Policy Options for Young Offenders, http://www.urban.org/crime/delinq.html (last visited Dec. 19, 2001).
[9] “The law as the sum or collection of laws.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (7th ed. 1999).
[10] “The state regarded as a sovereign; the state in its capacity as provider of protection to those unable to care for themselves.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (7th ed. 1999).
[11] Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 554-55 (1966).
[12] Id. at 557.
[13] James Austin, Kelly Dedel Johnson, and Maria Gregoriou, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails 1, October 2000, http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/182503.pdf. In 1991, juveniles committed 17 percent of all serious violent crimes and were involved in a total of 25 percent of all serious violent crimes. Id. Between 1989 and 1993, juvenile arrest rates for murder increased 45 percent while juvenile arrest rates for aggravated assault increased by 37 percent. Id.
[14] Id.
[15]Dept. of Just., Criminal Resource Manual § 101, Oct. 1997 (taken from, John B. Stevens, Jr., Federal Prosecution of Juveniles), http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00101.htm.
[16] Statutes allowing transfer have been in effect in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Tennessee since the 1920s and in Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Utah since the 1940s. While other states were late in joining the transfer trend, all now have statutes allowing transfer. Butts & Harrell, supra note 8.
[17] Meg Lauglin, Prosecutor Gets Tough with Violent Youths, MIAMI HERALD, Oct. 1, 2000, http://onlinetest.herald.com/content/archive/news/childprisoners/docs/krischer0730.htm.
[18] Id.
[19] Michael Evans, 28-Year Jail Term for Child Killer, Times (London), July 18, 2001.
[20] Meg Laughlin, When a Child Kills: Zero Tolerance Means Tronneal Mangum Will Spend the Rest of His Life in Prison, Miami Herald, July 30, 2000, http://onlinetest.herald.com/content/archive/news/childprisoners/docs/mangum0730.htm [hereinafter Laughlin, Zero Tolerance].
[21] Id.
[22] Fla. Stat. § 985.226(1) (2000).
[23] Fla. Stat. § 985.225(1) (2000).
[24] Fla. Stat. § 985.226(2) (2000).
[25] Fla. Stat. § 985.227(1)(a) (2000).
[26] Mark Ezell, Juvenile Injustice: The Failing of Children in Florida, in Deinstitutionalization: Selected Readings on Children in Adult Jails and Lockups, 41 (US Dep’t Justice ed., 1980).
[27] Donna Bishop, Charles Frazier, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Henry George White, Office Juv. Just. & Delinq. Prevention, A Study of Juvenile Transfers to Criminal Court in Florida, #113 OJJDP Fact Sheet, p. 1, August 1999, http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/fs99113.pdf.
[28] Butts & Harrell, supra note 8.
[29] Kevin J. Strom, Steven K. Smith, and Howard N. Snyder, Bur. Just. Stats., Juvenile Felony Defendants in Criminal Courts, Special Report, Sept. 1998, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/jdcc.pdf.
[30] See Austin, Johnson & Gregoriou, supra note 13, at 38 (In 1998, 572 juveniles were housed in adult prisons in Florida, while 4,775 juveniles were housed in adult prisons across the country).
[31] Id. at 37.
[32] Fla. Stat. § 985.225(3) (2000).
[33] Fla. Stat. § 985.233 (2000); see also infra Part V.A.
[34] Fla. Stat. § 985.01 (2000).
[35] Austin, Johnson & Gregoriou, supra note 13, at 14.
[36] Id.
[37] Id.
[38] Id.
[39] Id..
[40] Ctr. for Study & Prevention of Violence, Judicial Waivers: Youth in Adult Courts, http://www.Colorado.edu/cspv/factsheets/JudicialWaivers.html (last modified Apr. 3, 2000) [hereinafter CSPV, Judicial Waivers]. Some studies, however, indicate the opposite: that violence and rape are more prevalent in juvenile facilities. Regardless, the point is that many juveniles are subjected to violence and rape while in prison. The fact that they may also be subjected to similar acts in juvenile facilities does not alleviate the abuse. Further, juvenile facilities have access to the more personalized treatment and training to better prevent these acts.
[41] United States v. Bailey, 444 US 394, 421-22 (1980), Blackmun, J. dissenting.
[42] Tamara Audi, Prison at 14: Teenage Girls Serve Time with Adult Inmates, DETROIT FREE PRESS, July 10, 2000, http://www.freep.com/news/mich/clore10_20000710.htm.
[43] Stephen Donaldson, The Rape Crisis Behind Bars, NEW YORK TIMES, Dec. 29, 1993, http://www.spr.org/.
[44] Id.
[45] Id.
[46] Id.
[47] Vincent Shiraldi, Just. Pol’y. Inst., The Juvenile Court Centennial: 100 Years of Giving Kids a Chance to Make a Better Choice, http://www.cjcj.org/jpi/csmon080299.html. (visited Dec. 13, 2001).
[48] Tom Cahill, Torture in the American Gulag, ALTERNATIVES FOR CULTURAL CREATIVITY, Issue 10, at 2, Summer 1999, http://www.aternativesmagazine.com/10/cahill1.html; See also, Stephen Donaldson, Rape of Incarcerated Americans: A Preliminary Statistical Look (7th ed. 1995), http://www.spr.org/en/doc_01_stats.html [hereinafter, Donaldson, Rape of Incarcerated Americans]. A 1968 study conducted by Philadelphia Chief Assistant District Attorney Alan J. Davies revealed that 80% of prison rapes involved gang-rape. Id.
[49] Donaldson, The Rape Crisis Behind Bars, supra note 43.
[50] Cahill, supra note 48. See also, Donaldson, Rape of Incarcerated Americans, supra note 48.
[51] Donaldson, The Rape Crisis Behind Bars, supra note 43.
[52] Cahill, supra note 48.
[53] Id.
[54] Id.
[55] Vincent Schiraldi and Jason Ziedenberg, Just. Pol’y. Inst., The Florida Experiment: An Analysis of the impact of Granting Prosecutors Discretion to Try Juveniles as Adults, 2000, http://www.cjcj.org/florida/florida.html.
[56] Ronnie Greene and Geoff Doughtery, Young Inmates Report Highest Rate of Assault, Miami Herald, Mar. 19, 2001, http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/kids_prison_2.html.
[57] Id.
[58] Id.
[59] See Richard E. Redding, Juveniles Transferred to Criminal Court: Legal Reform Proposals Based on Social Science Research, 1997 Utah L. Rev. 709, n. 280 (1997) (citing Marty Beyer et al., Experts for Juveniles at Risk of Adult Sentences, in Ass’n Juv. Just. Ctr., More than Meets the Eye: Rethinking Assessment, Competency and Sentencing for a Harsher Era of Juvenile Justice 1, 18-19 (1997)) (“[J]uveniles in adult correctional facilities are . . . two hundred times more likely to be beaten by staff than are juveniles in juvenile facilities.”)
[60] Audi, supra note 42.
[61] Austin, Johnson & Gregoriou, supra note 13, at 7-8; Shiraldi, supra note 47.
[62] Cahill, supra note 48.
[63]Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, Nancy J. King, Criminal Procedure, 756 (3d ed. 2000).
[64] Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, supra note 55.
[65] Id.
[66] CSPV, Judicial Waivers, supra note 40.
[67] CSPV, Judicial Waivers, supra note 40; Cindy S. Lederman, The Juvenile Court: Putting Research to Work for Prevention, 6 JUVENILE JUSTICE (Dec. 1999), http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/3.html.
[68] John J. Macionis, Society: The Basics 136 (3d Ed. 1996).
[69] Feodor Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead, in Prisons and Prisoners: Historical Documents 183, 191 (Sol Chaneles, PhD, ed., 1985).
[70] Butts & Harrell, supra note 8.
[71] Id.; see also Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, supra note 55.
[72] Butts & Harrell, supra note 8.
[73] Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, supra note 55.
[74] LaFave, Israel & King, supra note 63, at 757.
[75] Id. at 758.
[76] Laughlin, Zero Tolerance, supra note 20.
[77] See supra, Part III.B.2.
[78] Austin, Johnson & Gregoriou, supra note 13, at xi.
[79] Ezell, supra note 26, at 37.
[80] Amer. Bd. Pediatrics, Evaluating Your Clinical Competence in Pediatrics: A Resource to Assist Residents in Understanding the ABP Tracking and Evaluation Program 1, May 2001, available at http://www.abp.org/.
[81] “Every person or institution that touches a child’s life and interacts with his or her family can contribute positively to that child’s development.” Lederman, supra note 67.
[82] An Evolving Juvenile Court: On the Front Lines with Judge J. Dean Lewis, 6 JUVENILE JUSTICE, Dec. 1999, http://www.ncjrs.org/html/ojjdp/jjjournal1299/1.html [hereinafter An Evolving Juvenile Court].
[83] See supra Part III.B.1.
[84] MacArthur Found., MacArthur Juvenile Competence Study 1, (visited Dec. 13, 2001), http://www.mac-adoldev-juvjustice.org/page19.html [hereinafter Juvenile Competence Study].
[85] Thomas Grisso, Juvenile Competency to Stand Trial: Questions in an Era of Punitive Reform, 12 CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAGAZINE (Fall 1997), http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/12-3gris.html.
[86] Macarthur Found., Our Purpose, http://www.mac-adoldev-juvjustice.org/page2.html (visited Dec. 13, 2001).
[87] Juvenile Competence Study, supra note 84.
[88] Id. at 2.
[89] Grisso, supra note 85.
[90] Dr. Tom O’Connor, Justice Studies Department, North Carolina Wesleyan College, Juvenile Offenders & Troubled Teens, http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/juvjusp.htm (last updated Aug. 31, 2001).
[91] Lederman, supra note 67.
[92] Donald J. Shoemaker, Theories of Delinquency: An Examination of Explanations of Delinquent Behavior 78-83 (3d Ed. 1996).
[93] Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, affiliated with University of Chicago and Illinois Institute for Social Research, Id. at 80.
[94] Id. at 82.
[95] Id.
[96] Id.
[97] See, e.g., John Carter, Sup. Ct. Ga. Child Placement Proj., Evidence of a Link Between Maltreatment and Delinquency: A Literature Review, http://www.gahsc.org/jcarter/litreview.htm (visited Dec. 13, 2001).
[98] Phyllis T. Howing, John S. Wodarski, P. David Kurtz, James M. Gaudin, Jr., and Emily Neligan Herbst, Child Abuse and Delinquency: The Empirical and Theoretical Links, Social Work, Vol. 35, No. 3, May 1990.
[99] Id.
[100] Lederman, supra note 67 (citing Trask, G., Diffusing the Teenage Time Bomb, 31 The Prosecutor 29 (1997)).
[101] See Shoemaker, supra note 92, at 80 regarding Shaw study cited above.
[102] Studies conducted by sociologist Robert Agnew and then confirmed by the National youth Survey. Id.
[103]
Id.
[104] Fla. Dep’t. Juv. Just., Juvenile Justice Residential & Correctional Facilities, http://www.djj.state.fl.us/rescorrfacilities/ (visited Dec. 13, 2001).
[105] Grisso, supra note 85.
[106] Id. (regarding Miranda Warnings Study discussed above).
[107] Lederman, supra note 67.
[108] Shiraldi, supra note 47.
[109] An Evolving Juvenile Court, supra note 82.
[110] Orlando, supra note 7.
[111] Shoemaker, supra note 92, at 4.
[112] An Evolving Juvenile Court, supra note 82.
[113] Dep’t. of Just., Criminal Resource Manual, supra note 15, § 104.
[114] An Evolving Juvenile Court, supra note 82.
[115] Austin, Johnson & Gregoriou, supra note 13, at ix.
[116] Dep’t. of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual, supra note 15, § 104.
[117] An Evolving Juvenile Court, supra note 82.
[118] Id.
[119] See O’Connor, supra note 90. Atlanta and New Orleans have ordinances requiring children under the age of 17 to be off the streets by 11 pm. Id.
[120] Fla. Stat. § 985.02(5) (2000).
[121] Fla. Stat. § 985.02(5) (2000).
[122] Fla. Stat. § 958.021-.12 (2000).
[123] Fla. Stat. § 985.021 (2000).
[124] Fla. Stat. § 958.04 (2000).
[125] Fla. Stat. § 958.04(c)(2000).
[126] Fla. Stat. § 958.04(d) (2000).
[127] Fla. Stat. § 958.04(d) (2000).
[128] Fla. Stat. § 958.045(1)(a) (2000).
[129] Fla. Stat. § 958.046 (2000).
[130] Fla. Dep’t. Juv. Just., Juvenile Justice Frequently Asked Questions, (Visited Dec. 13, 2001), http://www.djj.state.fl.us/faqs/ [hereinafter Fla. Dep’t. Juv. Just., FAQ].
[131] Id.
[132] “The 10-year sentence is for possessing a gun in commission of the crime and applies to offenders with serious prior contact with the juvenile justice system. The 20-year sentence is for firing a gun while committing the crime. The 25-years-to-Life sentence is for injuring or killing someone in commission of the crime.” Id.
[133] Fla. Stat. § 958.04 (2001).
[134] 2001 Fla. Adv. Leg. Serv. 210 (2001).
[135] 2001 Fla. Adv. Leg. Serv. 210 (2001).
[136] 2001 Fla. Adv. Leg. Serv. 210 (2001).
[137] Mark Ezell, supra note 26, at 42.
[138] Id.
[139] Id. “Through the telephone interviews, 55 jails were identified as having housed juveniles who were pending trial. Of these, 23 did not provide physical separation between adults and juveniles during frequent activities. Very few facilities could comply with the requirement in Florida law regarding the supervision of juveniles in adult jails. Only two jails—Jacksonville Correctional Institute and Pinellas County Jail—had staff continually present in the juvenile section; and one jail—Dade County Jail Annex—monitored juveniles at least every ten minutes.” Id. at 40.
[140] Id. at 42.
[141] Nat’l. Coalition for Jail Reform, Inappropriate Confinement of Children in Adult Jails, in Forum on Deinstitutionalization: Selected Readings on Children in Adult Jails and Lockups, 31-35, 33 (U.S. Dep’t. of Just. ed., 1980).
[142] Butts & Harrell, supra note 8.
[143] Minn. Stat. § 260B.130 (2000).
[144] Minn. Stat. § 260B.130(4)(1).
[145] Minn. Stat. § 260B.130(4)(2).
[146] Butts & Harrell, supra note 8.
[147] Butts & Harrell, supra note 8.
[148] Including, for example, restorative justice, vocational education, substance abuse treatment.
[149] Minn. Stat. § 260B.130(5).
[150] Office Juv. Just. & Delinq. Prevention, Juvenile Female Offenders: A Status of the States Report, Oct. 1998, http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gender/contents.html.
[151] The Lawton Chiles Found., This Time the People Won: The Chiles/MacKay Years 1991-1998 21, visited Dec. 13, 2001, http://www.lawtonchiles.org/index.html.
[152] Fla. Dep’t. Juv. Just., About the Agency, at http://www.djj.state.fl.us/agency/index.html (visited Nov. 26, 2001).
[153] Fla. Dep’t. Juv. Just., FAQ, supra note 130.
[154] Id. In 1994, the juvenile crime rate was approximately 7.76 percent. In 2000, it was 6.75 percent. During that period of time, the juvenile population in Florida grew 14 percent. Id. See also The Lawton Chiles Found., supra note 151.
[155] The Lawton Chiles Found., supra note 151.
[156] Fla. Dep’t. Juv. Just., FAQ, supra note 130.
[157] Lederman, supra note 67.