It is a sad testament to the juvenile detention system in NY when kids headed for detention are not even safe from those charged with caring for them. In a story in the Daily News, a Brooklyn man whose sole job was to see to the safety of teens in the juvenile detention system, was arrested for sexually assaulting 3 teen girls in his care. There article can be found here.
To be sure, the young people who find themselves facing incarceration have contributed to their own fates. They have made poor choices whether by deeds or choice of friends. But there is a reason that NY law requires Family Court's to choose the "least restrictive alternative" when considering what to do with a child who has been found guilty of committing a crime. That reason is rehabilitation. Indeed, the driving purpose of the entire system is supposed to be designed to craft solutions which will best serve these children' s long term best interests.
However, when children are victimized by either staff or fellow "inmates" in these facilities, the desired rehabilitation is near impossible to achieve. Whether better oversight of the facilities or a stricter selection process in the hiring of staff, or both, would have prevented this situation is unknown. But it is the least we can do to help children who find themselves in this manner of crisis.
Showing posts with label sentences for juvenile delinquents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sentences for juvenile delinquents. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Comparative Injustice of the Juvenile Justice System
Over the weekend, the New York Daily News posted an article about a girl who'd been raped who was also facing a minor juvenile delinquency charge herself in Manhattan Family Court. The complete article can be read here. In essence, it involves a young woman, 15 years old, named Ashley, who was in court for filing a false police report. Before she was scheduled to appear in court, she was raped in the courthouse by a counselor who was supposed to escort her. That day she was sentenced to 12 months detention while her assailant, who later pleaded guilty in criminal court, received 12 months probation.
Without going further into the details of this apparent miscarriage of justice, it is enough to say that the discrepancies between the sentences of these two people is not unusual. Criminal Court deals with adult criminals whereas Family Court deals with children who commit crimes and are under the age of 16 when they commit the crimes. When juveniles are found guilty of committing crimes they are deemed to be juvenile delinquents and their cases are scheduled for disposition (sentencing).
However, because of their age, juveniles are supposed to be sentenced in the least restrictive alternative to meet the safety requirements of the community and the needs of the juvenile. In other words, punishment for the sake of punishment is not supposed to be the overriding goal. In theory, the Family Court judges charged with sentencing juveniles are supposed to be sensitive to the fact that depriving a child of his or her liberty is an option of absolute last resort. Unfortunately, that is often not the case.
It is therefore incumbent upon the juvenile, his parents and counsel to offer viable alternatives to detention that meet the needs of the community and the child. And again, like in every other case, this involves preparation and research. Every community has therapeutic centers and mental health professionals that offer counseling and/or therapy. Most communities have youth centers where children can seek educational assistance, play sports, obtain part-time employment and, most importantly, use their time productively and avoid tempting situations that can get them in further trouble. If drug treatment is needed, such facilities can be found almost everywhere. The probation department offers a variety of services for youths facing detention as do a significant number of community organizations. Serious engagement in these types of services can be the difference between a judge placing a child in detention and forcing those services upon a child and permitting the child to remain in the community where they are comfortable and more likely to succeed and be happy.
As a society, we often read articles about serious criminals who get a proverbial slap on the wrist and we scratch our heads and wonder how it happened. Suffice to say, the criminal courts are places that deal with the competing goals of safeguarding the community and preventing the overcrowding of prisons. As a result, many who should be in jail are not. In the Family Court environment, it is my personal view, that children should not be in detention whenever possible. Whether they end up there or not will depend in significant part on you, your child and your attorney's preparation to offer acceptable alternatives.
Without going further into the details of this apparent miscarriage of justice, it is enough to say that the discrepancies between the sentences of these two people is not unusual. Criminal Court deals with adult criminals whereas Family Court deals with children who commit crimes and are under the age of 16 when they commit the crimes. When juveniles are found guilty of committing crimes they are deemed to be juvenile delinquents and their cases are scheduled for disposition (sentencing).
However, because of their age, juveniles are supposed to be sentenced in the least restrictive alternative to meet the safety requirements of the community and the needs of the juvenile. In other words, punishment for the sake of punishment is not supposed to be the overriding goal. In theory, the Family Court judges charged with sentencing juveniles are supposed to be sensitive to the fact that depriving a child of his or her liberty is an option of absolute last resort. Unfortunately, that is often not the case.
It is therefore incumbent upon the juvenile, his parents and counsel to offer viable alternatives to detention that meet the needs of the community and the child. And again, like in every other case, this involves preparation and research. Every community has therapeutic centers and mental health professionals that offer counseling and/or therapy. Most communities have youth centers where children can seek educational assistance, play sports, obtain part-time employment and, most importantly, use their time productively and avoid tempting situations that can get them in further trouble. If drug treatment is needed, such facilities can be found almost everywhere. The probation department offers a variety of services for youths facing detention as do a significant number of community organizations. Serious engagement in these types of services can be the difference between a judge placing a child in detention and forcing those services upon a child and permitting the child to remain in the community where they are comfortable and more likely to succeed and be happy.
As a society, we often read articles about serious criminals who get a proverbial slap on the wrist and we scratch our heads and wonder how it happened. Suffice to say, the criminal courts are places that deal with the competing goals of safeguarding the community and preventing the overcrowding of prisons. As a result, many who should be in jail are not. In the Family Court environment, it is my personal view, that children should not be in detention whenever possible. Whether they end up there or not will depend in significant part on you, your child and your attorney's preparation to offer acceptable alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)