Commentary
Street Roots • June 24-30, 2016
Page 11
A different approach to juvenile justice
District attorneys have the power to make changes now
B Y BOBBIN SINGH
C O N T R IB U T IN G C O L U M N IS T
E
n almost every situation, children enjoy a
special status based on recognition that
they are physically, psychologically, and
developmental^ different from adults. But, in
contrast to the understanding we usually
show to children, our criminal justice system
in Oregon treats children as adults by default
when they are being charged with certain
crimes. The way our justice system treats
these teenagers is out of line with scientific
evidence, best practices, and what will best
Bobbin Singh is the
promote and protect public safety.
executive director of
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized
the Oregon Justice
three areas in which juveniles' incomplete
Resource Center
development reduces their criminal
culpability: immature
Oregon Justice judgment, susceptibility
Resource Center to negative peer
Advócate. Educate. Engage. influences and more
transitional, less fixed
identities. While the Court
considered these differences as a matter of
common knowledge, significant research by
developmental psychologists has given
substance to these beliefs. Research has
shown that juveniles are more influenced by
emotions than adults; perceive risks
differently than adults in numerous ways; are
more susceptible tp negative peer influences;
and their brains do not fully develop until late
adolescence or adulthood.
To understand how we got here, we need
to look back. In 1995, our criminal justice
system underwent a seismic shift. In that
year, Measure 11 went into effect,
establishing mandatory minimum sentences
for a number of crimes. It also required 15- to
17-year-olds charged with Measure 11
offenses to be tried and - if convicted -
punished in the adult court and correctional
systems. This makes a significant difference
to teenagers affected by this rule. Between
1995 and 2012, nearly 4,000 kids have been
ose
waived into the adult system via Measure 11.
Data also show that Measure 11
disproportionately impacts young people of
color.
The juvenile and adult justice systems are
designed to serve different purposes because
they recognize that there are differences
between young people and adults. A major
purpose of the adult system is punishment,
but the juvenile system is intended to be
focused on rehabilitation. In addition, the
juvenile system provides certain protections
to youth offenders, allowing them the chance
of a future without a permanent criminal
record. Young people who are prosecuted as
adults will experience all the negative
consequences of an adult conviction with
potentially lifelong impact on their ability to
successfully make a new start after
incarceration. Therefore, we should take
great care before we expose any young
person to prosecution and punishment in the
adult system.
While it would be easy to become
downhearted about the Oregon justice
system’s failure to recognize the fundamental
differences between adults and young people,
there are hopeful signs of change coming.
Earlier this month, Multnomah County
District Attorney Rod Underhill announced a
new policy allowing teenagers charged with
certain Tier II (less serious) Measure 11 i
crimes" to have thèir casés resolved in juvenile
court. This is a praiseworthy decision by Mr.
Underhill that provides a less punitive option
for youth people. His new policy recognizes
that “juveniles have a greater ability to reform
than adults [do]...and society might benefit
more if teenagers go before juvenile judges
and juvenile probation counselors.” While this
is a great first step, it does not go far enough.
If, as Underhill has accepted, teenagers are
different, then they must be considered so in
every instance, almost no matter what crime
they are accused of committing. (There may
be very rare cases when it is reasonable to
Did you serve in the
Armed Forces
and are experiencing
or at risk of
becoming
homeless?
Transition
Projects
Please call 855.425.5544
or visit 650 NW Irving Street
treat a juvenile as an adult, but it should be
extremely unusual for our justice system to
do this.) At the outset, the default should be
to treat kids as kids. We suggest that Rod
Underhill and all of Oregon’s district
attorneys adopt the following policies:
• To cease filing charges in adult court for
any person under 18 at the time of the
offense. This would still allow the possibility
of later transfer to adult court;
• To oppose the transfer of juveniles under
14 to adult court under any circumstances,
and only seek the transfer of 15- to 17-year-
olds in extraordinary circumstances where
there is clear and convincing evidence that
this transfer is necessary. The burden should
be on prosecútors to prove the transfer is
needed, not on the young person to show why
it should not happen;
• Where a transfer to adult court occurs,
prosecutors will still try to resolve the case in
a way that reflects the “immaturity of youth”
and that offers meaningful opportunities for
rehabilitation and early, supervised release;
• To hold an annual training focusing on
the development of the brain through age 25
and what differences between young and adult
brains mean for charging, plea bargaining,
and sentencing practices.
Mandatory minimum sentencing, by
definition, is a one-size-fits-all approach that
disregards :the 'possibility Of rehabilitation and
reforih? Tt is problematic for all offenders, but
particularly for young people who have so
much natural growth and change ahead of
them. This rigid approach contradicts widely
accepted scientific understanding about
human development. We should recognize
that children and adults have certain
fundamental differences and we should reflect
that in our justice system. It is time for
district attorneys to use their power to do
more to improve the treatment of young
people in the criminal justice system.
Fairness and sound scientific evidence
demand it.
n e & n l e ’s
FARM ERS’ M A R K ET
WEDNESDAYS 2-7PM