Delinquent teens need a faster justice system
The Trial Court told the editorial board, in response to a public records request, that in fiscal 2024, just 40 percent of juvenile delinquency cases were cleared on time (similar to 42.4 percent in fiscal 2023 and 37.5 percent in fiscal 2022).
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'Since coming out of COVID, there have been delays,' Duci Goncalves, deputy chief counsel for the Youth Advocacy Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, told the editorial board. Goncalves said delays are particularly problematic in smaller courts that may have only one or two judges to hear both delinquency cases and care and protection cases, which involve custody of children who were abused or neglected. (While delinquency cases can be postponed due to emergency custody hearings, custody hearings are also often delayed,
Advertisement
When a case drags on, a teenager may be held in a detention facility away from their school and family. They may be subjected to pretrial conditions like GPS monitoring or home confinement, which can severely limit their activities, including healthy behaviors like exercising or seeing friends.
Advertisement
There are legitimate reasons cases can be delayed to ensure due process. Evidence might need scientific testing. Witnesses, victims, or interpreters may be unavailable. Attorneys might be seeking therapeutic services for clients. Motion hearings take time. Because the state's 2018 criminal justice reform law limited prosecution for less serious cases, more Juvenile Court cases now involve felonies.
But one way to reduce unnecessary administrative delays is to hire more judges. According to
While working to reduce delays, attorneys and judges should also seek ways to make the pretrial period less onerous. This could mean sending more teens to rehabilitation-focused diversion programs that keep them out of court.
Once a teen enters the system, Melissa Threadgill, senior director of policy and implementation for the Office of the Child Advocate, which chairs the JJPAD board, said conditions should be individualized and relate to the alleged offense. For example, drug testing may only make sense for drug-related offenses.
The
Advertisement
Additionally, JJPAD's annual report
Limiting detention to cases when there is a public safety or flight risk would let more teens stay in school and maintain community ties while awaiting trial. Notably, in fiscal 2024, 87 percent of youth detained pretrial weren't committed to the juvenile justice system after their case was resolved — suggesting they could safely live in the community.
Policy makers often consider issues by thinking about adults' needs — the time it takes to file a motion or balance a judge's schedule. But in kid time, the difference between having a case pending for six months or nine months can be the difference between missing part of one school year or part of two. As Threadgill says, 'We really have to think about what impact does this have on kids.'
Advertisement
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Do Americans think same-sex marriage will be overturned? What a new poll found
Most Americans think that the constitutional right to same-sex marriage is in jeopardy — despite the fact that it remains popular, according to new polling. In a June 11 YouGov survey, respondents were asked about Obergefell v. Hodges — the landmark Supreme Court decision that established the nationwide right to same-sex marriage — which will mark its 10-year anniversary on June 26. In the poll, 54% of respondents said that there is at least an even chance that the high court will rule that 'a state is no longer required to perform and recognize the marriages of same‑sex couples.' Specifically, 30% said there is a fifty-fifty chance this will happen, while 17% said it is likely and 7% said it definitely will happen. Just 26% expressed doubts about this prospect, with 20% calling it unlikely and 6% saying it definitely will not occur. An additional 20% said they were not sure. When the results were broken down by partisanship, some differences emerged. Among Democrats, 66% said there is at least a fifty-fifty chance that the court will revoke the right to same-sex marriage, while less than half of Republicans, 47%, and 50% of independents said the same. Despite the widespread feeling that same-sex marriage could be on the court's chopping block, most respondents, 53%, said they don't want to see the right taken away. Less than half that share, 25%, said they want Obergefell v. Hodges to be overturned, and 22% said they were not sure. Here, again, there were significant partisan differences. Just 13% of Democrats and 19% of independents said they want to see it overturned, while nearly half of Republicans, 45%, said the same. The poll sampled 4,417 U.S. adults. A YouGov representative did not respond to McClatchy News' request for the survey's margin of error. What happens if same-sex marriage is overturned? If the constitutional right to same-sex marriage is revoked, then the the authority to permit or ban same-sex marriage would return to individual states, Nan Hunter, an emeritus professor at Georgetown Law, told McClatchy News. Fourteen states — including Texas, Georgia, Ohio and Michigan — have laws on the books banning same-sex marriage, so these would come back into effect, according to Newsweek. By comparison, 36 states passed laws legalizing same-sex marriage before 2015, so it would remain legal in these, according to PBS. Additionally, Douglas NeJaime, a professor at Yale Law School, told McClatchy News 'some state courts had found bans on marriage unconstitutional under state constitutional law, and these decisions are not undone even if the Court overrules Obergefell.' Connecticut and New Mexico are among these states. What happens to existing marriages? Should the right to same-sex marriage be struck down, one issue that would come up is the status of existing same-sex marriages. 'In a decision reversing Obergefell, the Court would have to address the continuing validity of marriages performed prior to the ruling,' Hunter said. 'It is likely that already-existing marriages would not be affected, at least for most purposes…But there is no guarantee as to what the Court would do.' NeJaime echoed this sentiment, saying the prospect of the court undoing existing marriages is 'highly unlikely.' He added that there is some precedent for this. Several months after California's Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage statewide in 2008, voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage. 'The California Supreme Court ruled that the existing marriages (about 18,000 such marriages) remained valid,' NeJaime said. 'That makes sense given that the couples had legal authority to marry at the time and they accrued important interests based on the marriage (e.g., property interests, parental rights, social security benefits, etc.).' Is same-sex marriage actually at risk? Hunter — who has studied sexuality as it relates to the law — expressed skepticism that the Supreme Court will move to reverse Obergefell v. Hodges. She noted that just two justices on the bench, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have signaled their support for this idea. In his concurring opinion in the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court 'should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.' 'In my judgment, we are in a paradoxical position at the moment: If Obergefell went to the Supreme Court today, I think we would lose,' Hunter said. 'But if an attempt to reverse it went to the Supreme Court today, I think we would win.' The main reason for this, she said, is that the high court is wary of making a ruling that is at odds with public opinion. 'Courts generally are hesitant to upset settled expectations, especially on deeply personal issues where there is no plausible claim of harm to other persons,' Hunter said.
Fox News
3 hours ago
- Fox News
Woman flies 6,000 miles for a second date and now they're in love in Italy
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Karen Read jury begins first full day of deliberations to decide her fate
Associated Press
3 hours ago
- Associated Press
Judge dismisses juror over protests by lawyers for Sean 'Diddy' Combs
NEW YORK (AP) — A judge dismissed a juror in the sex trafficking trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs on Monday after concluding that his conflicting answers about where he lives might indicate he had an agenda or wanted to stay on the jury for a purpose. Judge Arun Subramanian made the ruling after rejecting arguments by Combs' attorneys that it would disrupt the diversity of the jury to replace the Black man with a white juror. Subramanian had first announced late Friday that he was dismissing the juror after questions arose over whether he resided in New York or New Jersey most of the time, but multiple defense lawyers protested and the judge waited until Monday to announce his final decision. The judge said a review of the juror's answers to questions about his residency during jury selection, along with his subsequent responses to similar questions in the robing room, revealed 'clear inconsistencies.' 'Taking these all together, the record raised serious concerns as to the juror's candor and whether he shaded answers to get on and stay on the jury,' he said. Subramanian said to leave the juror on the panel could threaten the integrity of the judicial process. 'The court should not, indeed cannot, let race factor into the decision of what happens. Here, the answer is clear. Juror No. 6 is excused,' Subramanian said before the jury, minus Juror No. 6, was brought into the courtroom for the resumption of testimony. The judge expressed disappointment that the defense again raised the racial issue in a letter to the judge over the weekend and tried to accuse prosecutors of misconduct. 'There has been no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct brought to the court's attention. Zero,' he said, rejecting a defense request for a mistrial. Prosecutors have said they expect to rest sometime this week. The trial is in its sixth week. Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges. He has been active throughout the trial with his lawyers and nodded his head Friday as his lawyers argued outside the presence of the jury against dismissing the juror. Earlier in the trial, he was warned by the judge that he could be excluded from the courtroom if Subramanian believed he was trying to influence jurors after the judge said he saw him twice nodding his head toward jurors as his lawyer carried out an aggressive cross-examination of a witness. Last week, prosecutors complained he was continuing to nod and shake his head at times with the jury in the room, although he was no longer looking toward jurors as he did it. Combs was arrested last September at a New York hotel. He was denied bail multiple times and has remained incarcerated at a federal lockup in Brooklyn ever since.
