Chapter 2

• Jurisdiction: United States

Chapter 2 Juvenile Justice

Parens Patriae

With the conspiracy case concluded and the Special Trial Section, which had been formed to prosecute public corruption cases, disbanded, Chris Bayley assigned Deputy Prosecutor Marco Magnano, who had been a member of the team prosecuting the mega conspiracy case, to take a month to examine the Juvenile Section of the Criminal Division of the prosecutor's office. Marco reported back to the prosecutor that the juvenile court system needed an overhaul. I was assigned to the task. Not sure why I was chosen, but I suspect that Bayley thought that I had developed a reformer's mindset, which I had, and could get the job done. In any event, one road had led to another, and I was off on a new mission.

Since the juvenile court code's enactment in 1913, it had seen no major substantive change. The law was clearly outmoded. The 1913 code categorized dependent children in archaic categories, such as those who are "in danger of being brought up to lead an idle, dissolute or immoral life." Those juveniles who were labeled as "incorrigibles" could be incarcerated. Like juvenile justice systems across the country, Washington's juvenile justice system was crying out for reform.

Under the outdated code, the goal of the juvenile justice system was to determine what was in the "best interest of the juvenile offender." The judge assumed the role of parens patriae (Latin translation—parent of the fatherland), meaning that the judge would step in and serve as the protector of the child who could not protect himself or herself.

A probation officer, also referred to as a "social worker," would evaluate the juvenile offender and recommend a disposition to a King County Superior Court judge. Even the courtroom layout reflected the predominant role of the probation officer. While the deputy prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the youth sat at opposite sides of the table facing each other, the judge sat at the head of the table. When addressing the court with the recommended disposition of the case, the probation officer would sit at the other end of the table, facing the judge.

Because no sentencing standards existed for juvenile offenders, dispositions of juvenile court cases were often disproportionate and disparate. For example, a juvenile robber with a history of criminal offenses could receive little or no penalty of consequence because, according to the probation officer, that was in the best interest of the child. On the other hand, a teenage prostitute could end up with a significant amount of incarceration time because it was in her best interest.

Michelle Pailthorp of the American Civil Liberties Union described the situation as follows: "Once a kid was declared a delinquent the judge had a vast, unbridled discretion and full secrecy in which to act. In many cases it became like a Star Chamber proceeding."

Because my first assignment with the King County Prosecutor's Office had been to the Juvenile Section of the Criminal Division, I knew firsthand about disparate and disproportionate sentencing of juveniles. I had spent roughly six months there and had neither left a footprint of reform nor betterment of the way cases were handled. When I returned as the head the Juvenile Section, we began the battle to change the law. Simultaneously, the King County Prosecutor's Office was advocating for the reformation of the sentencing law for adults.

Prosecutor's View

The January 1977 issue of the Washington State Bar News, which had a picture of the play area of the King County Juvenile Court's Youth Service Center on the cover, had an article by me entitled "A Prosecutor's View: Justice for Juvenile Offenders." The article describes the situation as I saw it at the time—a system desperately in need of change. Here is what I wrote:

Traditionally, the formal juvenile court process has focused upon "helping" juvenile offenders and almost exclusively utilized the treatment rehabilitation model. The participants in the formal court process and (judges, probation officers, defense attorneys and prosecutors) have seldom acknowledged other purposes in sentencing juvenile offenders. This approach has proved itself to be incomplete and inadequate. The credibility of the juvenile court has suffered. Dispositions entered by the court have been in many instances disproportionate and disparate. The general deterrent value of the criminal law has been seriously undermined. Furthermore, this method of dealing with juvenile offenders has failed to provide an effective means of controlling juvenile crime.
The Goal
The theory that the objective of the juvenile justice system is to "help children" who commit crimes had its genesis in the 19th century. The reformers of that period placed great trust in social workers and their ability to alter or modify behavior and conditions which caused it, and, thereby, to protect society from lawbreakers. Concepts attendant to the criminal justice system, such as guilt or innocence, crime and punishment, rules of evidence, and the like, were to be abandoned in favor of a purely clinical model designed to help inherently good but sick children.
The inadequacy of this clinical approach is reflected in its results. No matter what method of evaluation is used, it is apparent that juveniles are responsible for a major portion of today's crime problem. It is estimated that persons under the age of 18 are responsible for 45% of all serious crime. Recent research established that approximately 70% of all burglaries in Seattle are attributable to juveniles. Between 1960 and 1970, total juvenile arrests increased about seven times faster than adult arrests. Equally alarming are the types of crimes committed by today's youthful offenders. The juvenile court currently is sentencing armed robbers, rapists, murderers, professional burglars and forgers.
Over the past decade, many persons concerned with the juvenile justice system have addressed the question of community protection and have reevaluated the effectiveness of the system in dealing with that problem. The President's Task Force in 1967 declared that "... The guiding consideration for a court of law that deals with

...