A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 1995 Violent Youth and Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform Barry C. Feld University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Barry C. Feld, Violent Youth and Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform, 79 MINN. L. REV. 965 (1995), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/294. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Violent Youth and Public Policy: A Case Study of Juvenile Justice Law Reform Barry C. Feld* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................. 966 I. Juvenile Courts, Juvenile Crime, and the Political Reactions to Youth Violence ...................... 969 A. The Juvenile Courts .......................... 969 B. Juvenile Crime ............................... 973 1. National Trends ........................... 975 2. Minnesota ................................. 978 C. Media Coverage of Youth Crime, Public Opinion, and Political Perceptions ............. 982 II. The Minnesota Juvenile Justice Task Force ....... 986 A. Previous Minnesota Juvenile Justice Task Forces ........................................ 987 B. The 1993 Juvenile Justice Task Force Membership and Operation ................... 997 HI. The Task Force Proposes and the Legislature Disposes .......................................... 1005 A. Certifying Juveniles for Adult Criminal Prosecution ................................... 1006 1. Certification in Minnesota ................. 1013 2. The Task Force Recommendations and Legislative Changes: Presumptive Certification and Serious Youthful Offenders ................................. 1024 * Centennial Professor of Law, University of Minnesota. I benefitted greatly from the critical comments and insights of a number of colleagues who generously reviewed an earlier draft of this Article, including: Philip Bush, Gary Crippen, Debra Dailey, Richard Frase, Marcia Greenfield, Jim Hayes, Leslie Metzen, Jane Ranum, Emily Shapiro, and John Stuart. Several dis- agreed strongly with some of my characterizations of juvenile courts, judicial discretion, and the Task Force and legislative processes. Of course, they bear no responsibility for my obdurate failure to heed their wise counsel. I received outstanding research assistance from Ms. Sheila T. Starkey, University of Minnesota Class of 1995, who creatively and energetically re- sponded to my outrageous research demands. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 79:965 B. Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile Prosecutions .................................. 1038 C. The Legislature Excludes First Degree Murder From Juvenile Court Jurisdiction ............. 1051 D. The Use of Juvenile Convictions to Enhance Adult Criminal Sentences ..................... 1057 E. Sentencing Juvenile Offenders: "Delinquency Disposition Principles" in Juvenile Court ...... 1067 1. The Purpose of Juvenile Court Sanctions ................................. 1070 2. Conditions of Confinement and Evaluations of Treatment Effectiveness ............ 1073 3. The Juvenile Court Sentencing Framework ................................ 1083 a. Restorative Justice .................... 1094 b. Pretrial Diversion ..................... 1095 F. Procedural Justice in Juvenile Court .......... 1097 1. The Right to a Jury Trial ................. 1099 2. The Right to Counsel ...................... 1108 Conclusion ............................................... 1121 INTRODUCTION Citizens and politicians perceive a significant and frighten- ing increase in youth crime and violence. Concerns about the inability of juvenile courts to rehabilitate chronic and violent young offenders, while simultaneously protecting public safety, accompany the growing fear of youth crime. A desire to "get tough," fueled in part by frustration with the intractability of crime, provides political impetus to transfer some young offend- ers to criminal courts for prosecution as adults and to strengthen the sanctioning powers of juvenile courts. Within the past two decades, judicial, legislative, and ad- ministrative reforms have fostered a substantive and procedural convergence between juvenile and criminal courts.' This con- vergence has transformed juvenile courts from nominally reha- bilitative welfare agencies into scaled-down, second-class criminal courts for young people. As juvenile courts approach their centenary, more general concerns about juvenile justice administration and the future of a separate court for young of- 1. See generally Barry C. Feld, Criminalizing the American Juvenile Court, in 17 CRIME AND JUSTICE: AN ANNUAL REviEW OF RESEARCH 197 (Michael Tonry ed., 1993) (analyzing substantive and procedural transforma- tion of juvenile court). 1995] JUVENILE JUSTICE fenders emerge. Either juvenile courts will remain "different" than criminal courts, administering a form of penal social con- trol to which no adult would consent, or they will further con- verge and call into question the need for a separate judicial process. I have participated in these policy debates as a scholar and researcher, as a member of law reform advisory groups, as a speaker at judicial conferences and professional associations, and as a witness before state and federal legislative committees. I recently served as a member and committee chair of the 1992- 1994 Minnesota Juvenile Justice Task Force ("Task Force"), which recommended major revisions in Minnesota's juvenile code.2 The 1994 Minnesota Legislature enacted virtually all of the Task Force's recommendations and significantly changed many aspects of juvenile justice administration. 3 Importantly, as other states contract the scope of juvenile court jurisdiction, the Minnesota Legislature expanded it. Rather than weakening the role of the juvenile court, the new Minnesota laws strengthen it. The legislature blended elements of juvenile and criminal courts, enhanced juvenile courts' sentencing authority, and acknowledged the juvenile courts' responsibility to promote public safety as well as the welfare of young offenders. This Article provides an "outsider's" inside view of the pro- cess of law reform and analyzes of the ensuing legislation, although I am hardly an impartial commentator. The Article places specific legislative initiatives in a broader legal and policy context. It provides a detailed case study of juvenile and crimi-. nal courts' converging responses to serious young offenders. Hopefully this study will provide insight into the processes of legislative change, a contextual understanding of the legal changes, and an example of legislative policies and rationality for other states struggling to develop legal responses to serious youth crime. Part I of this Article provides a general background for the 1994 juvenile justice law reforms by analyzing changes in youth demographics and crime, and assaying the public and political concerns that these disturbing trends instill. Part II analyzes the process of law reform. Although several previous task forces 2. See ADVISORY TASK FORCE ON THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYS., MINN. SUPREmE COURT, FINAL REPORT 5-11 (1994) [hereinafter TASK FORCE, FINAL REPORT]. 3. 1994 Minn. Laws 576 (codified in various parts of MINN. STAT. § 260 (1994)). 968 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 79:965 and commissions examined similar issues of penal policy, only the Juvenile Justice Task Force saw its recommendations en- acted. Part III of this Article analyzes in detail the specific 1994 legislative changes: certifying some juveniles for adult criminal prosecution, excluding first degree murder from juvenile court, expanding the sanctioning powers of juvenile courts, using juve- nile convictions to enhance adult sentences, requiring juvenile courts to promulgate "delinquency disposition principles," and increasing the procedural safeguards afforded juveniles. The Conclusion considers the implications of these far-reaching changes for juveniles and justice. In essence, the 1994 Juvenile Crime Act used the "modified just deserts" presumptive framework of the Minnesota Sentenc- ing Guidelines to structure the most important juvenile court sentencing decisions. If a prosecutor charges an older youth with a crime for which the Sentencing Guidelines presume com- mitment to prison, the new statute creates a presumption of cer- tification. It shifts judicial focus from clinical subjectivity and an offender's "amenability to treatment" to more objective "pub- lic safety" offense criteria that mirror the Sentencing Guidelines' emphases on the seriousness of the present offense and prior record. The 1944 Act parallels the mandatory provisions for sentencing adult defendants convicted of first degree murder by excluding youths sixteen years or older and charged with first degree murder from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and placing them automatically in adult criminal court. The new law creates an intermediate category of serious of- fenders called Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile ("EJJ") prosecu- tions. EJJ youths are tried and sentenced initially as juveniles, but receive all adult criminal procedural safeguards, including the right to a jury trial. The