Youth Courts & Community Justice

The power of the peer community

Youth-led courtrooms

    Teen/peer/student courts: kids (age 12-17) in court!

Juvenile justice system (42%), law enforcement agencies, private non-profit organizations (22%), schools (36%) Models: adult judge (53%), peer jury (31%), youth judge (18%), youth tribunal (10%) Common characteristics:     Respondents volunteer & admit guilt Only non-serious offenses considered Adult moderator assists as needed Oath of confidentiality

“Non-serious offenses”

Type of Offense

Theft Vandalism Alcohol Disorderly Conduct Assault Possession of Marijuana Tobacco Curfew Violations School Disciplinary Traffic Violation Truancy Trespassing Criminal Mischief Possession of Drug Paraphernalia Other drug offenses Harassment Fraud

Percentage of Youth Courts that Accept this Type of Offense

91% 76% 73% 73% 67% 60% 59% 50% 45% 39% 39% 38% 30% 24% 20% 21% 8%

“Fair and restorative dispositions”

Sentencing Option

Community Service Oral/written apologies Essays Educational Workshops Jury Duty Restitution Alcohol/Drug Assessment Curfew Tutoring Counseling Drug Testing Victim Awareness Classes Victim/Offender Mediation Peer Mediation Jail Tour Observe Teen Court Mentoring Suspend Driver's License

Percentage of Youth Courts that Use this Sentencing Option

99% 94% 92% 73% 73% 61% 57% 46% 37% 37% 31% 29% 28% 23% 22% 14% 13% 9%

“Second chance”

 Criminal offenses      7% of programs allow “not guilty” plea; conduct hearing to determine guilt or innocence Diversion from juvenile court First-time misdemeanors: theft, vandalism, disorderly conduct, assault, etc.

Restitution, counseling, drug & alcohol assessment, classes Charges dismissed; record cleared  School misconduct      Increasing as educators look to improve citizenship skills and try LRE Alternative to detention or suspension Truancy, minor fights, insubordination, cheating, smoking, vandalism Community service, apology letter, mentoring, tutoring, extra-curricular activities Charges dismissed; record cleared

Everyone wins!

    6-9% recidivism over 6 months Youth volunteers receive 10 hours of training and invaluable experience; LRE Collaboration between schools, juvenile justice system and community Diverting respondents out of juvenile justice court system saves $$$

Toward a new model

 Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ)      “Crime is a violation of people and relationships” (Godwin) Victim and community are also important stakeholders Accountability: opportunity to repair harm & respond to victim rather than unilateral punishment Competency: respondents are capable to build on strengths and contribute to community Community safety: victims can be entire communities; they should be protected and involved Accountability Community safety Competency development

Toward a new model (cont’d)

   1980s to mid 1990s: “punishment” and “faith in the system” Late 1990s – present: principles of repair, involvement and justice system facilitation Dialogue: victim & respondent, respondent & court, court & community  individualized, relevant dispositions, increased community involvement and problem-solving skills, strengthened relationships all around

The power of community

 

Williamson & Knepper (1995): need to focus on factors and influences of violence; “reverse peer pressure” could be effective Time Dollar youth court (Washington D.C.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqp8M zJzm4M

The power of community (cont’d)

  Connell et al.

(pg 290): “In order to develop a sense of connectedness and productivity, and to begin making decisions from a perspective that is less egocentric, young people also need to participate in groups of interconnected members […] They also need to experience themselves as individuals who have something of value to contribute to their different communities. When healthy opportunities to belong are not found in their environments, young people will create less healthy versions, such as cliques and gangs.” Schutz (pg 697): “The truth is that dominant conceptions of a durable ‘culture of violence’ among the poor are contested […] History certainly matters, but a key determinant of criminal activity is whether one has experienced mistreatment by the justice system.” AND “One of the central challenges limiting effective action against oppression in the central city is the diffusion of middle-class values of individualism and their contribution to declines in community sentiment” (699).

Discussion

1.) Considering our discussion about Jane Addams and violence, as well as recent developments in CPS, do you think the youth court system has what it takes to aid troubled communities? Would you help Time Dollar find funding?

2.) How/where do youth courts fit into the youth development movement as we’ve studied it so far?

3.) Do you see any applicability between this system and the adult justice system (esp. considering BARJ)?