Judges jail youths for profit (NYTimes)

A recent federal hearing revealed that Judges Ciavarella and Conahan took more than $2.6m in kickbacks for sending teenagers to youth detention centres run by private parties. That's about 5000 juveniles who may have been sentenced wrongly, including

Hillary Transue was sentenced to three months in juvenile detention for a spoof Web page mocking an assistant principal...[Susan Mishanski's] son, Kevin, now 18, was sentenced to 90 days in a detention facility last year in a simple assault case that everyone had told her would result in probation..

This case hits close to home because I was assigned to represent the government in my moot court oral argument in my first year of law school. My task was to defend the constitutionality of juvenile court orders, so that they could be counted as part of the number of prior convictions required in order to reach an enhanced sentencing for a repeat violent crimes and possession offender who was now of age.

Juvenile courts are an interesting constitutional conundrum. The system keeps these proceedings private to the general public to not only protect the privacy of juveniles, but also to lock the records after they have become adults (I'm not sure if this happens in all states). Hidden from public scrutiny, the welfare of these juveniles is purely in the hands of officers of justice. Juveniles have the right to counsel, the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt (in the eyes of the judge presiding), and other rights which can be waived. In this recent case, all the officrs of justice who might have intervened were too 'intimidated', according to the Marsha Levick of the Juvenile Law Center, to object. 

It extends, I surmise, beyond mere intimidation. There is little incentive not merely on the part of judges, but on the part of these officers (parole officers, public defenders, etc.), to act in such a situation. They are commonly inadequately paid for dealing with heavy workloads and a wide range of bewildered (joke Web sites) to problematic (violent) offenders. It is not merely monetary incentive they are lacking. They are working in a system that lacks the capacity to handle juveniles with the full moral and legal probity that we owe to all minors.

The NYTimes raised the question of requiring counsel (instead of allowing it to be waived) at juvenile proceedings. It may be a step in the right direction, but I fear it would not be enough.

via NYTimes (link)