The Right to Redemption: Juvenile Dispositions and Sentences

• Author: Katherine Hunt Federle
• Position: Joseph S. Platt-Porter Wright Morris and Arthur Professor of Law and Director, Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies at the Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law.
• Pages: 47-73

The Right to Redemption: Juvenile Dispositions and

Sentences

Katherine Hunt Federle

INTRODUCTION

The punishment of juveniles remains a troubling yet under-theorized

aspect of the criminal and juvenile justice systems. These systems

emphasize accountability, victim restoration, and retribution as reasons to

punish underage offenders. In fact, American juvenile systems will

remove the most egregious offenders to criminal courts for trial and

sentencing. The United States Supreme Court in recent years, however,

has issued a number of opinions emphasizing that the Eighth Amendment

requires that the punishment of children must account for their lesser moral

culpability, developmental immaturity, and potential for rehabilitation.1

State courts also have begun to reconsider their own dispositional and

sentencing schemes in light of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.2

The reality of` juveniles’ immaturity militates in favor of a right to

redemption. This Article begins by discussing the available data about the

number and types of dispositions juveniles receive, waivers to criminal

court, and the criminal sentences imposed. The analysis also considers the

collateral consequences for minors who are adjudicated delinquent or who

are criminally convicted. The discussion then turns to the effects of juvenile

and criminal court involvement on children and the subsequent impact on

life outcomes. The analysis considers theoretical, jurisprudential, and

constitutional implications of juvenile sentencing with a special emphasis

on the Supreme Court’s recent decisions. This Article concludes with the

proposal for the contours of a right to redemption and its implications for

reform to the current system and suggests strategies for the individual

defense lawyer.

Copyright 2016, by KATHERINE HUNT FEDERLE.

 Joseph S. Platt-Porter Wright Morris and Arthur Professor of Law and

Director, Center for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies at the Ohio State

University Michael E. Moritz College of Law.

1. See infra notes 141–70 and accompanying text for a discussion of these cases.

2. See, e.g., State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014) (rejecting mandatory

minimum adult sentences imposed on juveniles); Diatchenko v. Commonwealth, 1

N.E.3d 270 (Mass. 2013) (abolishing life without parole for juveniles).

48 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 77

I. THE PUNISHMENT OF JUVENILES

A. Juvenile Court

The empirical evidence suggests that young offenders—particularly

those of color—remain at risk for harsh punishment. Despite significant

declines in the number of cases and offenders handled by juvenile courts,

disproportionality is evident at each decision-making point. Thus some

youth of color are more likely to be court-involved and to receive the

harshest dispositions than white youth. Moreover, more juveniles,

especially minority youth, are being tried in criminal court as adults, thus

bypassing the juvenile justice system entirely. As a consequence, more

youth will experience criminal sanctions.

For example, the number of cases handled in juvenile courts has

declined significantly in the past few decades. In 2013, juvenile courts

handled 1,058,500 cases, 44% fewer than were handled in 1997 and 9%

fewer than in 1985.3 Nevertheless, the percentage of petitioned cases has

increased. In 1985, 46% of delinquency cases were petitioned; by 1998,

57% of all delinquency cases were petitioned, before falling to 55% in

2013.4 Furthermore, the likelihood of formal processing not only increased

between 1985 and 2013 but also across all offense categories. The

likelihood of formal case processing increased from 48% to 58% for public

order cases, 43% to 53% for property offense cases, 43% to 49% for drug

offense cases, and 53% to 57% for person offense cases.5

In 2013, 50% of all petitioned delinquency cases involved children

under the age of 16. Of those children, 58% were white and 76% were

male.6 However, formal case processing was more likely for cases

involving older youth; in 2013 the likelihood of formal case processing for

teens 16 and older increased to 59%, up from 51% in 1985.7 Moreover,

although the likelihood of formal case processing increased across all

racial groups, cases involving black youth were more likely to be formally

processed than those involving white youth.8 In 2013, 61% of all

3. SARAH HOCKENBERRY & CHARLES PUZZANCHERA, NAT’L CTR. FOR JUV.

JUST., JUVENILE COURT STATISTICS 2013, at 6 (2015).

4. Julie Furdella & Charles Puzzanchera, Delinquency Cases in Juvenile

Court, 2013, JUV. OFFENDERS AND VICTIMS NAT’L REP. SERIES FACT SHEET (Off.

of Juv. Just. and Delinq. Prevention, Wash. D.C.) Oct. 2015, at 3.

5. HOCKENBERRY & PUZZANCHERA, supra note 3, at 36.

6. Id.

7. Id. at 37.

8. Id.