|
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Right in Action Spring
1995 (11:2) What Should We do About Crime? This question has troubled most societies, and it certainly resonates today. This issue of Bill of Rights in Action focuses on responses to crime. World History: Transportation of Criminals to Australia U.S. Government: What Should We Do About Crime? U.S. History: Development of the Juvenile Justice System. "Beyond
the Seas": The Transportation Thieves, robbers and villains, they’ll send ‘em away,To become
a new people at Botany Bay. From 1750 to 1850, Britain rose as the first industrial society. With the invention of steam-driven machines, factories sprouted in Britain’s cities. People in the countryside flocked to work in the factories, which mass-produced goods. This rapid transformation from a farming society to an industrial one is known as the Industrial Revolution. It brought great wealth to Britain. It also brought the problems of industrial society. Workers labored long hours for wages that barely kept them and their families alive. Their children typically went to work in factories and mines shortly after reaching age 6. Many children were orphaned or abandoned and lived in the streets. To survive, many people in London’s crowded slums stole and robbed. The Industrial Revolution, which brought tremendous wealth to Britain, had spawned a major crime wave. Beggars, pickpockets, and thieves swarmed London’s streets. Honest citizens feared this "criminal class" from the slums. They demanded action to stop the crime wave. British authorities already punished criminals severely—often by hanging. There were over 200 death penalty offenses, most of them for stealing and other property crimes. Since no prisons existed as we know them today, hanging criminals was one of the few options available. Another option was to banish, or deport, criminals to some faraway place. Called "transportation," this penalty had been used by the British since the time of Queen Elizabeth I (1533–1603). In fact, about 40,000 convicts were transported to the British colonies in America where they worked off their sentences. But the transportation of lawbreakers to America ended abruptly in 1776 when the Revolutionary War began. To Botany Bay With crime rising and the American colonies rebelling, Britain had to find another place to send its convicted felons. As a temporary solution, prisoners were crammed aboard old rotting warships, called "hulks." The hulks stayed anchored on the Thames River, which links London to the sea. By day, the convicts labored on London’s docks and other public works. The government considered several places to dump its glut of convicts. Finally, in 1786, Prime Minister William Pitt (the Younger) decided to establish a convict colony at Botany Bay, halfway around the world in Australia. Australia, which the British called New South Wales, had been explored by the Dutch in the early 1600s. But in 1770, Captain James Cook had landed at Botany Bay, establishing British claims to the huge, uncharted continent. Prime Minister Pitt believed that a convict colony along with a military presence at Botany Bay would assure British naval and commercial supremacy in the South Pacific. Sending prisoners to far-off Australia would also make transportation a much harsher punishment. Most slum dwellers in their life never traveled more than 30 miles from where they were born. Sending them to what was then considered the remotest place on Earth, with little likelihood of return, would be a horrific punishment. The government hoped this punishment would strike terror in the hearts of would-be criminals. Pitt’s government decided to transport the prisoners aboard the hulks to Botany Bay without any on-site preparation and only Captain Cook’s nearly 20-year-old reports as a guide. Thus the British launched a bold experiment in penology (the treatment of criminals). If successful, the experiment would empty the hulks along the Thames, solve the riddle of what to do with criminals, and even deter people from committing crimes. The first British fleet to transport convicts to Australia consisted of 11 ships, including two navy warships. The commander of the fleet was Captain Arthur Phillip. Captain Phillip had been appointed governor of Australia by King George III. In May of 1787, using Captain Cook’s 20-year-old reports as their only guide, about 200 sailors and 700 convicts sailed into the unknown. The youngest criminal was a 9-year-old boy who had stolen some clothes and a pistol. The oldest was an 82-year-old woman convicted of perjury, or lying under oath. After a 252-day voyage across 15,000 miles, the ships reached Botany Bay. But Captain Phillip soon determined that Botany Bay was a poor harbor and the surrounding land was not suited for growing crops. He ordered the fleet northward to another location, which Captain Phillip named Sydney (after Lord Sydney, William Pitt’s minister of colonial affairs). The First Years Governor Phillip had been given near absolute power to rule his convict colony. This included the authority to establish courts, proclaim martial law, and award grants of land in the new colony. He also had the authority to emancipate (set free) deserving convicts. Upon landing at Sydney, Governor Phillip announced to the convicts that—if they wanted to eat—they would have to work. More than two years passed before any relief ships arrived from Britain. During this time, the colonists nearly starved. But somehow over the next few years, Governor Phillip used convict labor to plant crops, establish herds of livestock (mainly sheep), and construct buildings and roads necessary for the colony. In the meantime, the British government continued to empty out the Thames River hulks by transporting more than a thousand convicts to Sydney each year. By 1792, when Governor Phillip returned to Britain, New South Wales had survived five harsh years to become largely self-sufficient. Who were these convicts transported to Australia? About three-quarters were young, single men and women. Most were common thieves (called "sneaksmen") from London and other British cities. Fewer than 5 percent were transported for violent crimes. Some were political offenders, mainly from rebellious Ireland and Scotland. Male convicts outnumbered females 6 to 1. Although none of the women were transported for prostitution, many were forced to become prostitutes after landing in Australia. Frequently, female convicts ended up as "prisoners of the prisoners" and were sold like slaves. The "Assignment System" "The sentence of the court upon you is, that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life." More commonly, criminals were sentenced to Australia for a specific term like 7 or 14 years. After 1800, about 10 percent of the convicts arriving in Australia worked on government farms and public-works projects, such as roads and harbors. The other 90 percent were assigned to work for settlers who had received grants of land. The assigned convicts were dispersed throughout the colony to provide free labor until they had served their sentences. How they were treated depended on who they worked for. In general, however, they lived in brutal conditions on meager rations. Even so, the convicts were not considered slaves or "property." They possessed rights under British law. For example, neither the government nor private masters could physically punish a convict without first getting the approval of a judge at a hearing. But approval was routine. The most common court-authorized punishment was flogging by the "cat-o’-nine-tails," a whip with nine leather cords. Convicts found guilty of minor offenses typically got 25 lashes on the back. More serious offenders drew up to 300 lashes, which would leave them gravely wounded. While flogging kept convicts in line, a reward system also existed. "Gentlemen convicts" and those who exhibited good behavior were sometimes granted a "ticket-of-leave." This allowed the convict to work for wages and live virtually free. The only restriction was that such a person could not leave Australia until his or her sentence had expired. Deserving convicts also hoped to be emancipated by the governor. To hold on to such a vast territory as Australia, the British government needed colonists to settle the land. Although it encouraged immigrants from Britain, few came. So the government called upon released convicts, who had served their sentences, to settle the land. It offered former convicts free land, tools, seed, livestock, and even food for one year. In addition, the government assigned newly arrived convicts to them to help work the land. As it turned out, most ex-convicts never returned to Britain but stayed in Australia to become landowners or wage workers. More Penal Experiments The number of convicts transported to Australia increased dramatically when more ships became available following the Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815). The peak year was 1833 when 36 ships transported nearly 7,000 convicts. By this time, areas outside Sydney had been opened up for settlement under the convict assignment system. One of these was the large island south of the mainland, now called Tasmania. Beginning in 1834, Tasmania became the site of perhaps the world’s first juvenile prison. Convicted boys aged 9–18 were isolated from adult convicts at Point Puer (Latin for "boy"). Considered too young or ignorant for assignment, they were given a basic education, taught a trade, instructed in religion, and punished for misbehavior. Although they were subjected to flogging and solitary confinement, the training they received probably provided them with more opportunities than they would have had growing up in London’s slums. By contrast, the place of ultimate terror was Norfolk Island, 1,000 miles east of Sydney. Set aside for the worst adult criminals, this island prison kept convicts working in chains. Guards unmercifully flogged prisoners for the slightest rule violation. Desperate to get off the island, convicts sometimes would draw lots to kill each other so that the murderer would be taken to Sydney for trial. But even Norfolk Island had its moment of enlightenment. Scotsman Alexander Maconochie came to Australia as a government official in favor of reforming convicts rather than brutalizing them. He proposed a system of rewarding convicts with "marks" for hard work and good behavior. After earning a certain number of these marks, the convict would be set free. Thus the actual length of time a convict served depended on how fast or slowly he earned his marks. In 1840, Maconochie got a chance to try out his mark system when he was made commandant of Norfolk Island. He immediately ended flogging and gave each convict a plot of land to grow vegetables and tobacco. Much to the surprise of everyone but Maconochie, his system worked. During his five years as commandant, he discharged almost a thousand convicts. Only 2 percent of them were ever convicted again of a serious crime. But Maconochie had many enemies who wanted to keep the old system. They didn’t care whether Maconochie’s system worked on Norfolk. They wanted Norfolk to stand as a place of terror where any unruly convict could be sent. They finally convinced the government back in London to recall him in 1845. By the mid-1800s, the transportation of criminals to Australia had slowed down. Reformers like Maconochie published reports critical of how the transported convicts were treated. New British prisons, patterned after American penitentiaries, made the costly transportation of convicts halfway around the world less attractive to the government. Finally, a gold rush brought thousands of new immigrants into Australia. In 1868, the last transport reached Western Australia, the only remaining convict outpost. Between 1788 and 1868, 160,000 convicts were transported to Australia. But this did little to deter crime in Britain. The government was unable to convince the "criminal class" that transportation was a terrible punishment when most convicts chose to remain in Australia after serving their sentences. What transportation did accomplish, however, was the creation of a new people and eventually a new nation known, ironically, for its law-abiding people and low crime rate. When transportation ended, about 40 percent of Australia’s English-speaking population had come to the "land down under" as convicted criminals. Transportation to Australia worked but not as its originators intended. For Discussion and Writing
A C T I V I T Y Banishment In 1994, two 17-year-old Tlingit Indians pleaded guilty to robbing an Everett, Washington, pizza delivery man and severely beating him with a baseball bat. The victim suffered a partial hearing loss. At the sentencing hearing, a state court judge was presented with two radically different options: OPTION A: The state prosecutors argued for prison terms of from three to five years. They pointed out that this was a violent crime, which caused serious injury to the victim, and they argued that the perpetrators deserved punishment, not special treatment. A three-to-five year term, they said, is the typical punishment for this crime. OPTION B: Tlingit tribal leaders proposed that the Native American youths be banished for a year to two small uninhabited islands in the Gulf of Alaska. The young men would be supplied with some food and tools and would be monitored by the tribe. The tribe also promised to build the victim a new house and pay his medical bills. The tribal leaders said that this kind of penalty was more in line with their cultural traditions. In this activity, four role groups will argue for and against the two punishment options. 1. Two groups will argue for Option A:
2. Two other groups will argue for Option B:
3. Each group, in turn, will present its arguments to a class member playing the role of the Washington state judge who will make the final choice. What Should We Do About Crime? "Boy killed in drive-by shooting" Do these headlines surprise you? Probably not. The media report story after story of violent crime. Is crime getting worse? Statistics show that violent crime has actually declined slightly in recent years. But many criminologists (experts on crime) predict violent crime will soon get worse. The reason: The current rate of violent crime for teen-agers 14–17 years old is twice that of adults. During the next 10 years, there will be more U.S. teen-agers than ever before. Unless the trend in teen-age violent crime is reversed, the United States will experience a major crime wave very soon. What should we do about crime? Since the 1980s, the answer has been to get tough on criminals. States and the federal government have adopted policies designed to put more criminals behind bars. Mandatory sentences for certain crimes, trying serious juvenile offenders as adults, and longer, fixed sentences have resulted in a massive increase in prisoners. In 1980, the number of people in U.S. prisons and jails was about 500,000. By 1989, the number had doubled to more than a million. By 2001, the jail and prison population will have oubled again—to 2 million persons. Today, the United States has the second highest rate of incarceration in the world. This rapidly expanding prison system comes with a cost. New prisons need to be built. Prisoners exceed current capacity by 25 percent. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the average annual cost to keep a prisoner behind bars is about $20,000. With 2 million persons behind bars, it costs approximately $40 billion annually to house the nation’s prisoners. With our prisons bulging and experts predicting a new wave of violent crime, it’s important to look at new strategies for controlling crime. In August 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which authorized spending about $30 billion over a six-year period for various crime-control strategies. Four of these strategies are discussed below along with arguments for and against them. "Three Strikes and You’re Out" This crime-control strategy targets career criminals. It mandates a lengthy or life-prison term for a third felony conviction. The "three strikes" provision in the newly enacted federal law requires that the three convictions must be for violent felonies. About 15 states have adopted "three strikes" laws. L.A. County District Attorney Gil Garcetti has stated that he believes California’s law, which counts any felony as a "third strike," was passed because the citizens of the state were "tired of a system that had a prison revolving-door policy that did not punish or deter. . . ." California’s "three strikes" law requires three-time losers to face a prison term of 25 years to life. Those favoring "three strikes" argue that by getting the most dangerous repeat offenders off the streets, serious crime will drop dramatically, perhaps by a third. It may drop even more, they say, because the long sentences may deter criminals from committing crimes. They point out that crime has dropped 7.4 percent in California since it adopted "three strikes." Supporters also say that locking up society’s predators for a long time will produce economic benefits like lower security costs and insurance rates. Opponents of "three strikes" argue that it does not just target dangerous offenders. They point to cases like that of the California ex-con who faces a possible life term for shoplifting. Since "three strikes" applies to so many felons, opponents argue, it will overload the criminal justice system. They predict that many additional prisons will have to be built, housing non-dangerous and aging criminals, and ultimately prisoners will have to be released because taxpayers will rebel against the extravagant costs of "three strikes." Boot Camp for Young Offenders About 30 states have established "boot camps" designed chiefly for non-violent young offenders. Also known as "shock incarceration," boot camps provide short-term lockup (usually up to six months) with a daily routine emphasizing military-style discipline, drills, and respect for authority. The young inmates also put in a long day of hard work. Those who fail the program are sent on to a regular adult prison. Advocates say that boot camps give young offenders a chance to change their ways. They also say that boot camps keep youthful first-timers apart from hardened offenders, who might influence the young offenders. Moreover, advocates say that boot camps, which are cheaper to run than main-line prisons, free up prison space for hardened career criminals. Critics reply that there is no proof that strict military-type discipline will straighten out young criminals. They cite studies that show the rate of repeat offenders does not differ much between boot camp graduates and those put on probation or in a regular jail. Critics argue that the "yes sir" attitude instilled in boot camp soon disappears once the offender returns to the old neighborhood. Gun Control Each year about 640,000 violent crimes, including 16,000 murders are committed with guns, mostly handguns. Americans possess more than 200 million firearms. Can gun control laws stop this violence? Americans have highly conflicting views on gun control. Americans overwhelmingly favor the idea of gun control laws, but the majority also oppose an outright ban on handguns. In 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required a five-day waiting period for all handgun purchases and background checks on purchasers of handguns. However, in the 1997 case of Prinz v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that the background checks were unconstitutional on the grounds that "the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." As a result of this decision, the Senate approved a 1998 amendment to the Brady Act requiring gun dealers to conduct computerized background checks, thereby circumventing the constitutional issue raised by involving the local police. In addition to the Brady Act, several other important pieces of legislation regarding gun control have been enacted in the past few years. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act bans for 10 years the manufacture and possession of 19 military assault weapons. In 1998 and 1999, Senate passed legislation requiring a trigger lock mechanism to be included with every new handgun and providing federal grants for gun safety education programs. Other proposed laws would sharply increase taxes on the sale of guns and bullets, require gun purchasers to possess a state firearms license, and force gun owners to register their firearms with local police. Supporters of gun control point to other Western democracies, which have strict gun control laws and far lower rates of violent crime. They argue that strict gun control laws will reduce violent crime. Opponents of gun control say that such laws have no effect on criminals. They point to Washington, D.C.: It has in effect banned handguns and still has one of the worst murder rates in the country. Gun control laws, they say, only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy firearms, which they believe is a citizen’s right under the Constitution. Opponents favor tougher laws against criminals who use firearms. Crime Prevention The 1994 federal crime control law provides nearly $7 billion for crime prevention efforts. These efforts include such things as job training, counseling, and constructive recreational and physical activities. For example, a program in Fort Meyers, Florida, reportedly has reduced juvenile crime by providing tutoring, sports, and dance lessons for at-risk youth. Perhaps the most controversial crime prevention program for young men is "midnight basketball." Operating now in about 50 cities, midnight basketball draws young adults off the streets in crime-prone neighborhoods at night. Those who want to play must also agree to participate in classes on such topics as drug education, AIDS prevention, and job preparation. Supporters of prevention programs think it’s smarter to guide young people away from trouble in the first place rather than reacting once they get in trouble. Supporters also point out that it’s far cheaper: The most expensive prevention program, family counseling, costs about $1,200 per juvenile a year versus about $15,000 for a year in prison. Those who criticize crime prevention programs often dismiss them as little more than useless social welfare that wastes the taxpayers’ money. These critics would much rather spend the money for more police on the streets and prisons to lock up career criminals. For Discussion and Writing 1. Which crime strategies seem the most effective? The least effective? Why? 2. In 1994, Congress authorized about $30 billion to fight crime over a six-year period. How would you divide that money among the following crime control strategies?
Justify your division of the $30 billion. 3. What are the most serious crime problems in your community? What do you think are the best ways to combat these crime problems? For Further Reading Organized Crime: A Crime Statistics Site: This web site is a one-stop crime statistics tutorial, search engine and link guide. U.S. Prison Population Rising: An associated press article discussing recent trends in the U.S. incarceration rate and its relationship to the crime rate. A C T I V I T Y What Should Be Done About Crime? In this activity, the class will divide into four study groups. Each group will investigate and report to the class its recommendation on one of the following crime control questions: 1. Is "three strikes" a good idea? 2. Should more "boot camps" be built for young offenders? 3. Should more gun control laws be passed? 4. Should more money be spent for youth crime prevention programs? Group Investigation 1. All group members should read the section of the article relating to their crime-control question. 2. The group should assign different members to:
3. All group members should share the results of their investigation with each other. Group Recommendation
Juvenile
Justice: What Should We When adults commit a crime, they are tried and, if convicted, punished according to law. But what if a lawbreaker is 15-years-old? 11-years-old? 6-years-old? What should we do with children who break the law? Should they be treated the same as adults? These questions have always troubled society. Throughout most of history, the delinquent child was left to the family to handle. Under English common law, children under 7 were thought to be incapable of knowingly committing criminal acts. Juries in England and colonial America often acquitted youths up to age 14 rather than subject them to adult punishments. But sometimes youths didn’t get off. This meant that they suffered the same punishments as adults—whippings, imprisonment with adult criminals, and occasionally execution. In the 1820s, juvenile crime grew rapidly in the United States. Immigrants were flocking to the cities. Living in crowded tenements, immigrant children often took to the streets. Gangs of young thieves and vandals roamed the streets of New York, Boston, and other cities. Reform-minded individuals concluded that many poor city-dwelling immigrant families could neither care for nor control their children. This sentiment set into motion a "child saving" reform movement that lasted throughout the rest of the century. The Institutional Solution Beginning in 1825, charitable groups, like the Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents, founded "houses of refuge" in most of the nation’s large cities. These institutions took in poor and orphaned children as well as young felons convicted in the criminal courts. In most cases, these early juvenile facilities operated on a daily schedule of schooling, work, prayers, and lockup at night. By 1850, however, houses of refuge had become little more than children’s jails where beatings, escape attempts, and riots were common. In the decade before the Civil War, some states opened tax-supported reform schools. Like houses of refuge, these schools mixed delinquent youths with neglected and impoverished children. Although the reformatories placed more emphasis on education than the old houses of refuge, work continued to be part of the daily routine. Following the Civil War, most states set up reformatories to house dependent and delinquent juveniles. But by the 1890s, reformatories came under increasing public criticism. They were seen as depressing and sometimes brutal places that exploited children for their labor. The Juvenile Court Movement The turn of the century was a time of great political and social reform known as the Progressive Era. Among their many ideas, the Progressives believed that families, even poor immigrant ones, could help their delinquent children better than the large, impersonal reformatories. Progressives pushed for separate juvenile courts, which could give individual treatment to youngsters in trouble. The first juvenile courts were established in Chicago and Denver in 1899. These courts brought together two experiments in juvenile justice. In New York, a few judges had been holding separate hearings for juvenile offenders, while in Massachusetts delinquent juveniles had been placed in a probation program. The new juvenile courts adopted both practices. These courts also assumed the responsibility of protecting neglected and abandoned children. As special civil courts, juvenile courts did not decide guilt or innocence and determine punishment. Unlike criminal courts, juvenile courts were set up to discover the needs of the child and the underlying causes of his or her misbehavior. Juvenile delinquents were to be treated and rehabilitated, not punished. So a judge could get to know the young person, the juvenile court system eliminated lawyers, strict rules of evidence, juries, and public hearings. Instead, a juvenile court judge would simply talk with the child, his or her parents, and a probation officer. Typical cases of delinquency involved stealing, assault and battery, sexual promiscuity (almost always just girls), truancy, cursing, cigarette smoking, or having "bad associations." Although Progressive juvenile court judges still sent some delinquents to the state reformatory, they preferred to place most young offenders on probation with their family or a foster family. Thus, after nearly 100 years of institutionalization, delinquent children once again became largely a family responsibility. The first juvenile probation workers were volunteers from charities and "child saving" societies. But by 1910, most states with juvenile courts had begun to hire full-time probation officers. These new professionals investigated the social and family background of troubled youths, resolved family problems, prepared reports for juvenile court judges, and supervised children (and sometimes their parents) on probation. For the most part, probation succeeded and led to a decline in commitments to the state reformatories. The Progressive’s idea of a separate juvenile court system spread rapidly. By 1925, all but two states had created juvenile courts. The special juvenile courts, which gave judges great powers to decide the treatment for juveniles, proved popular. But the new juvenile court system had its critics. With no lawyers or due-process rights to protect juveniles, critics felt judges had too much power. In juvenile court, young people were at the mercy of the judge. Many judges acted wisely. But others acted on whim and prejudice. Critics decried the lack of legal protection for juveniles. But young people remained without basic rights in many juvenile courts until 1967. In that year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided In Re Gault (387 U.S. 1). An Arizona juvenile court judge had placed Gerry Gault, 15, in a reform school for allegedly making an obscene telephone call. Gault was to be held until he reached age 21. In other words, he received a six-year sentence. The maximum adult sentence for this crime was a $50 fine and two months in jail. Because Gault had been denied a lawyer, had not been allowed to cross-examine his accuser, and had not been informed of his right to remain silent, the Supreme Court reversed the decision to confine him. The court recognized the right of juveniles to have a lawyer and certain other due-process rights during juvenile court hearings. Since the Gault decision, however, the Supreme Court has not extended all due-process rights to juvenile proceedings. The court has ruled, for example, that juveniles are not entitled to public trials or trial by jury. Today, juvenile courts are changing once again. With juvenile violent crime rising, many states are trying violent offenders as adults. Some states have changed the purpose of juvenile court to include punishment as well as rehabilitation. Some critics demand harsher sentences for juvenile offenders. As juvenile courts grow more punitive, other critics are demanding that juvenile courts grant juveniles the same due-process rights as adult courts. At the same time, juvenile courts are trying out new ideas like "teen court" to reach youngsters just starting to get into trouble. Originated in Odessa, Texas, in 1983, teen courts allow first-time juvenile offenders in minor cases to be sentenced by peer juries. Juvenile offenders who have admitted breaking the law are screened by the probation department and referred to teen court. The teen court holds a short hearing with students acting in the roles of lawyers, jurors, and other court officers. The presiding judge is a juvenile court judge or other adult, such as a school board member. The teen jurors only decide on what the penalty (called the disposition) should be. Although teen court procedures differ from place to place, most follow a similar pattern. The student prosecutor questions the juvenile offender about what happened and argues for a maximum penalty. The student defense attorney uses questions to bring out mitigating facts like the offender’s good school record and then argues for a minimum sentence. The juvenile offender himself is then given a chance to speak to the jury. The peer jurors decide on a suitable penalty, or disposition. Offenders who satisfactorily complete their teen court sentence have their record expunged. Those who fail to comply are referred to the regular juvenile court. So far, the results of teen courts indicate that peer jurors are frequently tougher than juvenile court judges. Moreover, repeat offenders have been relatively few. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information The Juvenile System: This web page from the official New York City web site gives a detailed history of juvenile detention in New York City. The Juvenile Court at 100 Years: A Look Back: This web page presents an extensive history of the development of the juvenile court system in the U.S. A C T I V I TY Teen Court This role play is designed to help you evaluate teen court and decide if one should be set up in your community. TEEN COURT ROLE PLAYERS
CASES Students role-playing offenders may make up case information as long as it conforms to the delinquent act he or she admits to doing. Offender #1: Pat Snyder. Admits spray painting over a billboard advertisement. Pat says this was part of an initiation into a club. Offender #2: Alex Soto. Admits to stealing $100 from employer. Alex says a cousin needed the money to buy medicine. Offender #3: Sandy Craft. Admits to shoplifting an item valued at $100. Sandy needed a winter coat and Sandy’s family could not afford one. Offender #4: Terry Thomas. Admits to starting a fight with another teen, Dale. Dale lost a tooth in the fight. Terry contends that Dale was part of a group who had attacked Terry’s little brother. Offender #5: Stacy Young. Admits to being drunk in a park after curfew. Stacy says the alcohol came from a fruit punch that someone spiked. Stacy claims never to have drunk alcohol before. DISPOSITIONS (one or more may be appropriate): community service hours, restitution to victim, letter of apology, curfew, member of a teen court jury, referral to a special class or program, other. Officers: Knox Cologne, President; Alan Friedman, Immediate Past President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Paul Cane, Gerald Chaleff, Peggy Saferstein, Marvin Sears, Eugene Shutler, Lloyd M. Smith, Marjorie Steinberg, Lois Thompson, Susan Troy. Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Lisa Friedman, Associate Director of Program and Materials Development; Carlton Martz, Writer; Bill Hayes, Editor; Cristy Lytal, Web Editor; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Marvin Sears, CRF Board Reviewer. © 1995, Constitutional Rights Foundation,
601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590
|