Juvenile Justice in Washington: a Punitive System in Need of Rehabilitation

• Publication year: 1992

UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND LAW REVIEWVolume 16, No. 1FALL 1992

Juvenile Justice in Washington: A Punitive System in Need of Rehabilitation

Jeffrey K. Day(fn*)

I. Introduction

Washington's juvenile justice system abandoned the rehabilitation or "best interests" model of juvenile justice in 1977 in favor of an offense-based, "just deserts" model focusing on punishment and accountability. At the heart of this latter model is a determinate sentencing scheme that bases juvenile sentences on the offense committed rather than on the needs of the offender. However, the increase in the seriousness of juvenile crime, the cost of maintaining the current system, and the increasing population in juvenile corrections facilities all demonstrate that the system is failing.

Throughout history, juvenile justice philosophy has been a pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other. Originally, juveniles were treated as adults and incarcerated in adult jails. With the Progressive Movement(fn1) came one swing of the pendulum, and the juvenile justice system fully embraced a rehabilitative ideal.

In Washington, the public ultimately grew disenchanted with trying to rehabilitate young offenders, and the pendulum swung the other way. The punitive model was embraced and rehabilitation was almost totally excluded. Now that Washington's strict punishment model has failed, policy makers and the public seek yet another change.

Thus, history appears to indicate that embracing either the punitive or the rehabilitative model to the exclusion of the other simply invites failure and a return to the other extreme, a return that only perpetuates the ultimate failure of the system as a whole. Some commentators suggest that the juvenile justice system is schizophrenic because it attempts to both punish and rehabilitate.(fn2) Coupled with the failure to provide juveniles with either effective treatment services or all of the procedural safeguards enjoyed in the adult justice system, commentators conclude that juveniles receive the worst of both systems.(fn3) Therefore, they recommend that the juvenile system should be scrapped.(fn4)

This Comment argues that the juvenile justice system should be retained in theory, but that Washington's punitive approach has failed and should be restructured to embrace a system that focuses more on the needs of the offender than on the results of the offense. The punitive system must be replaced by laws that once again make rehabilitation a primary goal, but that also provide juveniles with the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure survival in the system. This Comment proposes a significant restructuring of the current system as a means of achieving that goal.

Section II reviews the general history of the juvenile court in America from its progressive reform to the mandate of procedural due process safeguards in the mid-1960's. Section III summarizes Washington's juvenile court history, identifies the reasons for the radical change from a rehabilitative to a punitive system in 1977, and examines the function of the current system. Examination of the juvenile system's statutory framework, decisions of the Washington Supreme Court characterizing the juvenile system, and empirical evidence of how the system functions, all demonstrate that Washington has embraced a strictly punitive system that has failed to achieve the deterrent goals envisioned by its creators.

Accordingly, Section IV explores options for reform by reviewing recommendations from professionals, underlying rationales for punishment or treatment of juveniles, and experiences of states that embrace a rehabilitation philosophy. After examining those recommendations and experiences in light of data that suggests a strong correlation between juvenile crime and the existence of socioeconomic factors in juveniles' lives, this Comment concludes that adoption of a more therapeutic model of juvenile justice involving smaller facilities, greater judicial discretion, and a more indeterminate sentencing structure will be cost effective while continuing to protect the public. Finally, Section V makes specific recommendations for restructuring Washington's system to incorporate a rehabilitative justice model fairly and effectively.

Adopting a treatment-oriented approach is preferable to eliminating the juvenile justice system as a separate entity. However, in order for the changes recommended in this Comment to succeed, the state must provide sufficient funding for the juvenile system. Alternatively, if the state is unwilling to sufficiently fund adequate and effective treatment and aftercare services, the state should acknowledge that the juvenile system is essentially a mirror image of the punitive adult system, and the state should afford juveniles all procedural due process rights afforded to adults.

II. The History of the Juvenile Justice System

A. The Progressive Juvenile Court

To understand Washington's current juvenile justice system and the changes proposed in this Comment, the history of juvenile justice in the United States must be briefly examined. American society's early treatment of juveniles was marked by punishment and retribution. In the early 1800's, young criminals were treated similarly to adults, and they were subjected to adult punishments including banishment, whippings, and public humiliation.(fn5) Some juveniles were incarcerated in adult jails or penitentiaries.(fn6)

By the end of the nineteenth century, society experienced increased modernization, urbanization, and immigration. America had changed from an agrarian society to an urban, industrial society. With growth came many social problems. In reaction, a "Progressive" reform movement developed to search for solutions.(fn7)

Child-centered themes were at the heart of many Progressive reforms. These reforms included child labor and welfare laws, compulsory school attendance, and the juvenile court.(fn8) Of all the Progressive reforms, creation of a separate juvenile court system remains the most controversial.(fn9)

Changes in basic assumptions about both the causes of crime and the nature of childhood inspired Progressive criminal justice reforms. Children were no longer seen as miniature adults, but as dependent, innocent individuals who needed extended guidance and preparation for later life.(fn10) Positivist criminology regarded crime as determined, rather than chosen, and focused on reforming offenders rather than punishing them for their offenses.(fn11)

The Progressive "child savers" saw juvenile courts as "benign, non-punitive, and therapeutic."(fn12) The juvenile court's jurisdiction allowed judges to reinforce parental authority. Progressives felt that a juvenile court judge should be a "wise and merciful father" and discipline juveniles as he would his own children whose errors had not been discovered by authorities.(fn13) Thus, the concept of parens patriae, the state as parent, became the basis for court intervention. The proper role of the court, according to early juvenile court proponents, was to go beyond simply asking whether a child had committed an offense. Instead, the court should ask what made the child who he or she was physically, mentally, and morally. If the judge learned what led to the criminal offense, the judge should take charge of the juvenile, not to punish, but to reform.(fn14)

The juvenile court under the Progressives was an entirely new way of responding to delinquents.(fn15) The juvenile court's exercise of parens patriae power was designed to avoid "branding" a juvenile with the life-long stigma of criminality.(fn16) The nature of juvenile proceedings was therapeutic and rehabilitation was the ultimate goal.

To achieve its rehabilitative goals, the court's focus was not on the offense, but on the juvenile's character and lifestyle, psychological strengths and weaknesses, and the advantages or disadvantages of home life.(fn17) The court's purpose was to look deep into a delinquent's soul rather than criminally prosecute him or her. Therefore, advocates of the juvenile court felt that non-adversarial proceedings were instrumental to its operation.(fn18) Courts adopted informal procedures and rejected the traditional trappings of adult jurisprudence, such as juries and lawyers.(fn19) Proceedings were considered civil in nature, not criminal.(fn20)

The judicial role was seen uniquely in a juvenile court setting. As Cook County Juvenile Court Judge Julian Mack observed, a judge "must be able to understand the boys' point of view and ideas of justice; he must be willing and patient enough to search out the underlying causes of the trouble and to formulate the plan by which, through the cooperation, oft-times, of many agencies, the cure may be effected."(fn21)

Even the physical characteristics of the juvenile court varied from the adult system. Judges sat next to the juveniles, believing that physical intimacy would promote insightful and sympathetic treatment.(fn22) The child was to be "made to know that he is face-to-face with the power of the State, but he should at the same time . . . be made to feel that he is the object of its care and solicitude."(fn23)

A key component of the rehabilitative model was indeterminate dispositions. In theory, disposition of a juvenile delinquent was to be guided by what was in the juvenile's best interests. Because delinquent...