Jennifer Park · April 2008
76 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 786 (2008)
Nathaniel and Andy’s cases are useful for understanding the delicate balance each state must strike in its juvenile justice system between rehabilitation and punishment. Nathaniel’s case illustrates the rehabilitative side, revealing the benefit of individualizing these decisions and providing juvenile dispositions where possible. At the same time, his eventual juvenile sentence calls into question the decision to waive him into adult court in the first place. Andy’s case, by contrast, is an example of the punitive side of current juvenile justice policies; it shows that for many juveniles—even first-time offenders who show great potential for change—no rehabilitation options are available.
After a perceived wave of violent juvenile crime in the 1980s and 1990s, however, state legislators actively increased penalties for juvenile crime and shifted the purpose of the juvenile court from rehabilitation to punishment. States most actively increased penalties for juveniles by implementing policies to waive jurisdiction over juveniles to the adult court. All states now have some method of waiving juveniles to the adult court, and twenty-nine states require a juvenile’s case to automatically begin in the adult court if the juvenile was a certain age when he or she allegedly committed a certain offense. In addition to a shift from rehabilitation to punishment, these automatic waiver policies also shifted the juvenile justice system to focus more on the offense than the unique qualities of the juvenile offender.
These state practices of waiving juveniles to adult court without a full judicial investigation do not meet the original, rehabilitative goals of the juvenile court. Current public opinion also does not support the states’ adoption of these more punitive policies, as an overwhelming majority of likely voters favor rehabilitation for juvenile offenders. More importantly, these practices contradict the Supreme Court’s holdings in Kent v. United States and Roper v. Simmons.
This Note proposes a two-part solution to alleviate the constitutional and procedural concerns associated with current waiver policies in the states and to create a better balance in the juvenile justice system between rehabilitation and punishment. First, states should eliminate all waiver of jurisdiction over juveniles to adult court and instead try all juveniles in the juvenile court. This will eliminate the constitutional and procedural problems associated with waiver. Second, states should extend the scope of juvenile court jurisdiction so that juvenile judges have the authority to sentence a juvenile as either an adult or as a juvenile, or alternatively to impose a sentence that blends a juvenile treatment program with the possibility for an adult sentence at a future date.
Part I of this Note describes the historical background of the juvenile court. Part II outlines the major Supreme Court cases, such as Kent and Roper, that influence the rights of juveniles facing waiver to adult court. This Part also describes the recent shift in focus of the juvenile justice system from rehabilitation to punishment. Part III summarizes current state waiver policies and analyzes the gaps between those policies and the requirements under Kent and Roper. Part IV explains the need for a solution to improve the procedural quality and constitutionality of the juvenile justice system. It then outlines a proposed model state statute that will accomplish that goal. This statute—which is politically viable—would improve the sentencing process in the juvenile justice system, and it would create a mechanism for judges to determine sentences for juvenile delinquents that strikes the proper balance between rehabilitation and punishment for each juvenile offender.
