The Overincarceration Rate of Minority Youth: a Judicial Response
| Publication year | 1990 |
| Pages | 1819 |
1990, September, Pg. 1819. The Overincarceration Rate of Minority Youth: A Judicial Response
In 1989, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges ("Council") and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ("Juvenile Justice Office") sponsored a conference concerning the disproportionate incarceration rate of minority youth. The basis for the Council's concern was founded on recent public institutional head counts taken by the Juvenile Justice Office in 1987. The resulting numbers indicate that blacks and hispanics---the minorities for purposes of this study---comprised 54 percent of the inmate population. The general population, at the time of the study, reflects that whites comprised 72 percent of the juvenile population; blacks, 15 percent; and hispanics, 10 percent.
This article reviews the juvenile justice system in Colorado, discusses the statistics concerning juvenile incarceration and looks at steps attorneys and the system can take to alleviate the problem of overincarceration of minority youth.
As the 100th anniversary of the U.S. juvenile court system approaches, it is appropriate to review its origins. A quick look at the system's history clearly suggests that the first juvenile court legislation in Illinois was adopted to take care of and protect children in a fashion similar to that provided by parents.(fn1) An ongoing concern with juvenile legislation was the removal of children from adult prisons and the treatment of juvenile delinquents.(fn2)
Arguably, decriminalization of juvenile offenses was a goal of the 1899 Juvenile Court Act of Illinois.(fn3) That theory rests, in part, on the notion that probation was an essential component of juvenile justice reform. The purpose of the 1899 act was the reform of the juvenile justice system. The movement toward reform had its roots in the child saving philosophy of the late nineteenth century.(fn4) The hope of the drafters of the legislation was to extend the court's intervention beyond the courthouse doors so as to monitor and supervise the juvenile. It was either that or incarceration. If the court could use community resources, programs could be developed to devise terms and conditions suitable for the wide variety of juveniles and their problems. Then, incarceration would not be necessary.
In Colorado, the sentencing options available to the juvenile court are found at CRS § 19-2-703, which outlines legal alternatives the court may impose. A juvenile's sentence is therefore limited to the mandates of the statute and the court's understanding and creativity in analyzing this provision.
As a practical matter, most sentences are based on recommendations from the probation officer, using the provisions found at CRS § 19-2-703 as a guideline. In this author's experience, most attorneys follow the recommendations. If they object, they limit the objection to the amount of restitution ordered or the length of commitment or detention. Likewise, the prosecuting attorney's role is limited to asking for more detention time and more restitution. The overall effect is that juvenile sentencing is a microversion of the adult criminal court. Statutorily, the legislature has given juveniles the same rights as adults, even though the sentencing consequences are less drastic.
An unfortunate aspect of practice in most juvenile courts, including Denver's, is the lack of time on a day-to-day basis to investigate fully and research each case. Daily, the courts are advised by attorneys that they do not have the time nor the opportunity to speak with their clients. If little time exists for minimum attorney/client contact, creative placement and treatment options are almost nonexistent in most dispositional plans. Yet, given the yearly increase of
...
To continue reading
Request your trial