Teen Court Program in Teenage Rehabilitation - Research Paper Example

Teen Court Throughout history, the teenage years have been a time of rebellion and trouble as teens explored their world and tested their limits. This would often result in the teenager going too far and violating the community standards and possibly the law. The teenager's propensity to experiment can lead to alcohol or drug use that can place them under arrest and held in a juvenile facility. Traditional courts often have little patience with offenders and do not take the effort to consider the offender's age or social background. A policy of 'you do the crime, and you do the time' can introduce a teen to the criminal justice system with little hope of ever getting back out of it. However, teen courts have attempted to resolve this problem in recent years. Originally established as a means for teens to try teens, it has evolved into a compassionate system that believes teens should be given a second chance. Based on a philosophy of restorative justice and rehabilitation, it offers the teen an opportunity to reflect on their attitude and alter their behavior. Teen courts that are run by teens hand down sentences that are adjudicated by teens. The open format of the court, and the presence of the teenage peers helps the first time offender accept personal responsibility for their behavior and make an honest effort to correct the wrongs that they have inflicted on the victim and the community. The origins of the teen court concept have their roots in the constitutional principle that states all defendants are entitled to a jury of their peers. Credit for the implementation of this ideal is given to Mansfield Ohio, when in 1947 a group of kids began to hold trials for neighborhood bicycle thieves (Caplan, 2005). The idea has grown and undergone substantial refinement in recent years. The current format that is used in teen court originated in Texas in 1983 and today there are over 1000 teen courts operating in several states (Williamson and Chalk, 1993). In 2005, it was reported that the teen courts would handle over 100,000 cases in a year (Caplan, 2005). This results in a significant savings in both money and scarce court time. The teen court program is predicated on the belief that many teen offenders, and especially first time offenders, have the potential to be rehabilitated. The courts are structured with a teen jury that questions the defendant and recommends a sentence. In many cases the teen volunteers also serve as the prosecuting and defense attorneys. In some cases, there may be a teen judge or the format may be a three-member tribunal in place of a judge. In all cases, the court is supervised and administered by the juvenile court system, public agency, or non-profit group. Though the court is composed of almost entirely teenage peers, the rulings and determinations are binding. This setting has provided a format for youthful offenders that are still impressionable and may benefit from a second chance. One of the issues that have separated the prosecution of adolescents from adults is that the criminal justice system is the recognition that there is a difference in brain development between a teenager and an adult. The system further recognizes brain development and the mental state to be an important factor when prosecuting a criminal or pronouncing a sentence. Defendants may be ruled mentally incapable of standing trial because they are unable to understand the charges brought against them. An insanity plea accommodates those that cannot recognize right from wrong. The juvenile court system, and the teen court, was established to take into account the reduced mental capacity of children. Typically, the brain does not reach an adult capacity to understand until the child reaches 21 years of age (Beckman, 2004). This understanding of the juvenile brain has prompted special treatment for children under the law, and the teen court is an extension of this factor. The teenage brain also has a propensity to develop attitudes and ideas that are heavily contextual and reactive to the setting and the people involved. Teenagers may be rebellious against authority without regards to the message that the authority is giving them. The implementation of a teen jury places the defendant on a more level field and they feel less motivation to reject their message out of hand. The offender will be more open to suggestions and be more open to an honest self-evaluation of their behavior. In addition, a judgment by their peers will be taken more seriously and more personally. While they may reject the mandate to quit drinking when given by an adult, peer pressure can open the child's attitude to accepting the program. In addition, the offender will be more open and honest with their peers when self-reporting behavior and activities. The setting of the teen court makes the offender feel like they are a part of the system, and not just another defendant. They can relate to the jury, to the attorneys, and to the sentence. The goals of all teen courts are similar to the goals of the Colonie Youth Court in New York. The teen court aims to "intervene in early anti-social, delinquent and criminal behaviors, and to reduce the incidence and prevent the escalation of such behaviors" (Peterson and Elmendorf, 2001, p.55). The informal setting that relies on peer pressure can help push the young offenders towards a more productive attitude and social behavior. Parental involvement is a critical component to childhood behavior and needs to be addressed as part of the teen court overall picture. An important aspect of teen court is that it necessarily involves the parents in the process and adjudication. The typical juvenile court system may have the offender residing at a juvenile center with little effort made by the courts or the system to involve the parents in punishment or rehabilitation of the child (Varma, 2007). A recent survey indicated that parents had a high degree of satisfaction with the teen court program, though held some reservations about its overall usefulness (Weisz, Lott, and Thai, 2002). Parents have significant influence over the child during the age that would be appropriate for teen court. In addition, the types of crimes and sentences make the setting an ideal format for parental involvement. In some cases, the child's offense may be a sign of mental health issues within the family and bringing the parents into the court offers the system an opportunity to address any social issues that they may have. The issues that a parent or family may have outside the courtroom are often evident by the actions that they take in regards to the court. Parents may be overly defensive about their child's behavior that reveals a stage of denial on the part of the parent. The peer jury questions the parents about the behavior of their child and asks questions such as; "1) "What was your reaction to your child doing this?" 2) "Do you approve of your child's friends (who were implicated in the offense)?" 3) "How did you punish your child?" "(Beck, 1997). The answers to these questions can be very revealing to the court and the jury. The answers to these basic inquiries can give the jury a sense of the parent's level of care. In addition, the jury can observe the parents and gain a better sense of communication through their use of body language. Parents may rationalize their child's behavior or be disconnected from it. All of these actions reflect the degree of moral understanding that the parents have for their child's actions. These interactions weigh into the jury's decision in regards to an appropriate sentence. The jury also presents the defendant with a series of open-ended questions that cover their attitude, lifestyle, and school participation. While these questions are designed to steer the jury to an appropriate sentence, they also serve to motivate the defendant to think. Teen court is far more open than traditional courts and answers to questions are far less limited and can be more forthcoming. Reflection on these questions not only informs the jury as to the degree of moral involvement that the defendant has with the crime, it forces the teen to learn about their behavior and begin to think differently about it. To some degree, the sessions act as cognitive behavioral therapy where the offender reflects on their actions, while the peer setting can be a "highly productive context for bringing to the surface a variety of issues pertinent to the rehabilitation of the offender" (Beck, 1997). When the offender returns to the court as a jury member as part of their sentence, they are given the opportunity to view themselves through the eyes of another offender. This can be a powerful force to motivate change in a teenager. The teen court is an evolution of the juvenile court system that has recognized the need for special treatment for children under the law. Juvenile systems have further mediated the consideration of age by implementing diversion programs that believe that youthful offenders may benefit from not being subjected to the formal juvenile system (Dick, Geersten, and Jones, 2003). Teen courts were an evolution of the philosophy that teens may be better served by offering remediation and rehabilitation rather than punishment. Teen courts maintain the principles that, "rehabilitation, the notion of acting in the “best interests” of juveniles, including protecting and where necessary raising them, and the idea that young people not only could be changed but also deserved a “second chance” in life" (Mears, Hay, Gertz, and Mancini, 2007, p. 226). A traditional sentence of fines and probation may not have the impact required to discourage the teen from committing further crimes. The teen can leave a traditional courtroom and be confronted with the same peer pressures or family problems that brought them there in the first place. Teen court can offer the offender some tools to deal with the temptation of violating the law, and a motivation to adhere to socially acceptable behavior. While punishment is still an ingredient in teen court, the main goal is to rehabilitate the behavior of the child and produce a productive adult citizen. The concept of the teen court has grown in popularity and is being more widely accepted across the country. In many ways, the teen court system was established in response to the tough love politics and the tough on crime policies of the 1970s and 1980s (Mears et al., 2007). During this era, there was some public outcry to abolish the juvenile court system and treat all offenders as adults. There was a well-grounded fear that rehabilitative children would get caught in a legal system that would further their inappropriate behavior rather than correct it. The teen court was designed around the philosophy of restorative justice. Adult courts are an adversarial and retributive system where the goal of the court is to hand out punishment as a means of deterrence. The retributive system views the crime as being committed against the government, while the restorative system sees the crime being committed against the victims. According to Ball (2003), "Punishment is replaced by reparative action. The one who did the harm gains stronger skills and community connections, the opportunity to develop empathy, and the knowledge that they have corrected their mistake" (p.51). This gives the first time offenders an opportunity to become aware of their responsibility for their behavior and the personal impact that it has on the community and its residents. Both the retributive and the restorative system of justice believe that the offender must assume responsibility for the crime, and that punishment and retribution are appropriate. The difference is in the role of punishment for the offender. Both systems believe that the system and the victim need to be vindicated. Mosak (2006) states that, "Both argue the need for a proportional relationship between the act and the response. The difference in the understanding of vindication is that restorative justice finds pain/punishment often counterproductive for both victim and offender" (p.3). Retributive advocates see punishment as a major deterrent to crime, while restorative advocates seek rehabilitation. For a first time teen offender, it is doubtful that they ever consider the punishment when committing the crime. In all likelihood they have not even considered the possibility of being arrested. Punishment as a deterrent for them is an action that comes after the fact. Rehabilitation is the only reasonable alternative for the teen that has incurred a minor infraction. Punishment would only serve the self-satisfaction of the victim or the system that was seeking revenge. The teen court concept has accommodated this approach by utilizing a more restorative approach. The teen court format recognizes that a crime has been committed and does not diminish the severity of the offense. It does, however, offer an alternative for the child to pay back the victim and the community with the hope that they will mature into responsible adult citizens. The role of the teen court is to assure that "young offenders accept responsibility for their misdemeanor actions, undergo scrutiny by their peers, and make restitution to the victims and community through such actions as writing letters of apology and performing community service" (Fitzpatrick, 2004, p.3). Again, these activities personalize the punishment and helps the defendant understand the inappropriateness of their actions. The structure of teen court is often determined at the local level based on community standards and attitudes. Typically the court unitizes children in some capacity such as judge, prosecutor, defense lawyer, or jury, and tribunal models will have multiple child judges (Dick, Geersten, and Jones, 2003). Having teens serve in official capacities reduces some of the stress for the child and gives them a more personal connection to the workings of the court as well as personalizing responsibility for their actions. As part of an identifiable group the child is more able to understand their role and responsibility in the sentencing. Peer pressure can be a significant force that acts upon the child to consider their behavior and make the appropriate adjustments (Williamson and Chalk, 1993). In addition, after the successful completion of their sentence, offenders are required to serve on a teen court jury. It is believed that this further reinforces the rehabilitative effect and further reintegrates the child into the social community (Weisz, Lott, and Thai, 2002). Sentencing is designed to hold the child responsible for their actions, as well as to benefit the victim and the community. This gives the child a perspective on the consequences of their behavior and helps them understand the impact that it has on the community. Community service and restitution are often typical outcomes. Teen court deals with behavior as the central issue and its actions are, to large degree, aimed at modifying the child's behavior. The child may come from a home where a behavior role model was not available, or from a dysfunctional family that enabled bad behavior. This has called into question the role of the criminal justice system in teen court. In most cases, the court is run by the justice system and utilizes the same prosecutors and probation departments that the juvenile system uses. Critics have pointed out that a significant portion of teen crime is associated with drug or alcohol abuse. Shoplifting and violence may be the result of drug use. While it is appropriate to prosecute the child for the crimes committed, it offers an opportunity for a drug intervention agency to reach the child. Behavioral professionals suggest that the teen court be operated by a behavioral health agency that could intervene in substance abuse issues, and remove the fear of self-reporting that is present in a criminal setting (Fitzpatrick, 2004). Treating behavioral problems as a mental health issue could be a natural evolution for the teen court program. Sentencing in teen court is structured to reduce the rate of re-offending and make restitution to the victim and the community. The Urban Institute has stated that the program is highly effective at reducing the rates of recidivism with first time offenders when compared to other methods of punishment that is used by the cities (Caplan, 1999). Rather than being a punitive system, it relies on restorative justice, which calls for "accountability, restoration, and offender re-engagement in the community" (Forgays, 2008, p.480). This makes the victim whole through restitution and the community gains the service of the offender for a pre-determined period. However, it should also be noted that the sentences handed down in teen court are typically harsher than the fine and probation that would be received from a juvenile court (Fitzpatrick, 2004). The severity of the punishment is mediated in the child's mind due to the setting and the type of sentence that is arranged. It allows the teen to correct their behavior without generating the significant rebellion and alienation that can result from a harsh sentence that may not be fully understood by the child. The format of the teen court offers a wide latitude in regards to the type and method of punishment. A jury of teen peers can make a recommendation for sentencing, but it must be ordered and approved by a judge. The sentence can include, "performing community service; making restitution; participating in future peer courts; interviewing victims and writing an essay; obeying curfews; attending drug and alcohol programs; attending school regularly; seeking or maintaining employment; not associating in negative peer relationships; and participating in specialized programs exposing teens to the realities of the criminal justice system, e.g., visiting the county jail" (Beck, 1997). In line with the cognitive behavioral model, these actions are designed to get the offender to begin to think differently about criminal behavior and see it in the context of the wider community. The cognitive behavioral model is only effective if the teen begins to behave in a manner that is consistent with the cognition of the crime. Once again, the teen court has a number of programs that can be utilized to help the child offender begin to alter their behavior. According to Kowalski (1999), "As part of their sentences, many defendants attend programs emphasizing communication, decision making, anger management, or shoplifting prevention. They use these skills to avoid bad choices in the future". These programs can be prescribed based on the reflective and open-ended questions that are administered by the teen jury. One of the ultimate goals of teen court has been to reduce the rate of re-offending by the juveniles. Re-offending rates, and measurement methodologies, vary considerably, though the general reaction has been positive (Coles, 1999). Research in a medium sized Midwestern setting has shown a significant reduction in recidivism rates that have fallen from 24 percent to 13 percent of the teens that re-offended within one year (Weisz, Lott, and Thai, 2002). Orange County California has reported that 95 percent of the first time offenders do not re-offend through their 18th birthday (Beck, 1997). The lowered rates of re-offending may be attributable to the peer group setting and influenced by the fact that a successful outcome will result in the juvenile record being expunged (Irons and Jones, 2001). In many cases, the violator has been referred to teen court by the juvenile system and has admitted their guilt as a precondition to attending teen court. In addition, their familiarity with the court and the act of contributing to the community through community service also helps to change the child's attitude toward criminal behavior. Eligibility for teen court will depend upon the age of the defendant, the type of offense committed, and the previous record of the juvenile. In most cases the crimes are misdemeanors. These can include property crimes such as vandalism, illegal possession of controlled substances such as drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, shoplifting, theft, trespassing, and disturbing the peace (Forgays, 2008). Defendants must be under 18 years of age and generally not younger than 12 (Irons and Jones, 2001). The offense committed is usually a misdemeanor or a less serious crime, and the defendant must agree to plead guilty. The student defense attorney will not argue the case for guilt or innocence, but will "focus on their clients' character, grades, school behavior, attitude, and any mitigating circumstances that jurors should consider when they debate possible sentences" (Zehner, 1997). In addition, the defendant must be in school and continue with their education while in the program. Ellen, a 14-year-old girl that was arrested for theft is a typical example of how the teen court effectively deals with a child's behavior problem. Ellen broke into a vehicle and stole a small amount of money and a few personal items. Though Ellen did not use drugs, her dysfunctional family did and offered her very little support. The defense recognized that one of Ellen's qualities was honesty and ethics. Based on this, the sentence was arranged for Ellen to make restitution, perform community service, and give the victims a personal apology. During the meeting with the victims, Ellen learned of the personal hardships that her crime had caused and gained the knowledge that the victims were stressed economically by her actions (Ball, 2003). This meeting allowed Ellen to connect her behavior to an individual and connect her crime to a face. It was no longer the impersonal face of Ellen vs. the State; her actions were a direct assault on another human being. This connection can be a powerful force for a child and can have a significant impact on the child's decision of whether or not to re-offend. In addition to serving the needs of the child and the community, the teen court program is also a cost effective alternative to a more formalized setting. In addition to taking some of the load off of the busy juvenile court system, teen court is able to take advantage of several other resources. Most of the people associated with the teen court are volunteers. The jury, lawyers, and in some cases the judge are all teenage volunteers or people who have previously been through the teen court system. In 2005, the national average cost to try a case in teen court was $480, as compared to $1,635 to sentence a teen to probation in a juvenile court (Caplan, 2005). In Durham County North Carolina, the volunteers are drawn from the law school at nearby Duke University (Coles, 1999). This not only saves the county a considerable amount of money, it gives the law students some early exposure to the legal system that would be difficult to acquire elsewhere. There are several positive implications that would indicate the success of teen courts, yet the research has been inconclusive. An extensive study by Weisz, Lott, and Thai (2002) failed to find the benefits that would be expected from the program. Their research measured the court's effect on alienation, empathy, attitude towards authority, and the concept of a 'just world'. The 'just world' concept is a belief that people in the world get what they deserve, and people create their own outcomes by their actions. The study found that teen court had no significant effect on the attitudes of the defendants or the volunteers. The program did not increase empathy and did not increase the level of respect for authority. The research concluded that the "study did not support the teen court experience as having a generally beneficial impact on defendants or volunteers that would be expected from a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective" (Weisz, Lott, and Thai, 2002, p.381). The program has highlighted these qualities as being central to the goal of reducing recidivism and lowering the rate of re-offending. Along with the inconclusive evidence on the program's ability to fundamentally change the thinking of the teen offender, there are additional concerns with the system. Critics may see the system as being too soft on crime. They contend that teens, having no fear of teen court, will use the format as a free pass to violate the law with the knowledge that it will not involve fines or jail time. Additionally, the system can be viewed as too informal for a forum that decides issues of considerable gravity. Critics would prefer a more structured and formal setting as the backdrop to administer justice and promote our social ideals. The use of teens as the prosecutor dilutes the impression of authority and diminishes the respect that we should afford our courts and legal system. While these criticisms have some validity in fact, they fail to account for the success of the program. The goal of treating teen offenders is to generate a positive and successful outcome. That means that the victim is made whole and the offender is punished in a way that facilitates rehabilitation. The purpose of the teen court is not to generate respect for the system. Respect for the dignity of our laws is acquired in other ways and in other formats. While the research has been inconclusive as to the statistical success of the program to change attitudes and thinking, there are still considerable benefits to the program. For the criminal justice system there are the economic savings that have come as a result of the program. In addition, it has given some relief to the crowded court schedule that is experienced in most cities. For the community, there is an added sense of safety as youth offenders are dealt with in an expedient and efficient manner. In many cases the victims are entitled to restitution that may not have been available under other court systems. Still, the greatest benefit is for the children that violate the law and finds themselves in teen court. One of the overriding principles that govern the teen court system is that "Offenders who enter the juvenile justice system should be more capable when they leave than when they entered" (Mosak, 2006, p.4). This should be a primary standard for success. Teen offenders in teen court are given the opportunity to alter their behavior and begin to show a greater respect for the law as well as the values of the community in which they live. This is accomplished without generating a permanent record that could limit their achievements in later life. In conclusion, the concept of the teen court that began in a small Ohio town 60 years ago has seen significant success as it becomes more widely accepted. One of the most important features, a jury of their peers, adheres to our constitutional principles and facilitates the rehabilitation of the teen offender. It has been implemented in contrast to the punitive system of justice that calls for a get-tough policy on crime. The concept of volunteer teens serving in most of the court capacities saves money and gives the teen offender a format that they can relate to and feel comfortable communicating with. It is through this communication that the teen is able to reflect on their criminal behavior and begin to honestly assess it in relationship to their peers. The open format of the court helps the jury to gain an insight into the teen as well as the attitudes of the parents. This enables them to give out a sentence that is sensible and fitting for the individual case involved. It may be restitution, personal apologies, or the participation in a program that addresses a specific problem. While research on the ability of the program to have an effect on the offender's attitudes has been inconclusive, advocates point out that the program is a success. Recidivism rates are down and participation rates continue to go up. Teen courts are a form of diversion that have been instrumental in increasing our awareness about teen crime, its motivations, and the path to reduction and prevention. References Ball, R. (2003). Restorative Justice as Strength-Based Accountability [Electronic version]. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 12(1), 49-52. Beck, R. J. (1997). Communications in a teen court: Implications for probation [Electronic version]. Federal Probation, 61(4). from Academic Search Premier. Beckman, M. (2004). Crime, culpability, and the adolescent brain [Electronic version]. Science, 305(5684). from Academic Search Premier. Caplan, J. (2005, July 18). A jury of their peers. Time, 166. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from Academic Search Premier. Coles, A. D. (1999). Court Programs Granting Teenagers Jury of Their Peers [Electronic version]. Education Week, 19(16). from Academic Search Premier. Dick, A. J., Geersten, R., & Jones, R. M. (2003). Self-reported delinquency among teen court participants [Electronic version]. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 18(1), 33-49. Fitzpatrick, C. (2004). Youth courts run by behavioral court programs more effective in addressing underlying issues. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, 16(41), 3-5. Forgays, D. K. (2008). Three years of teen court offender outcomes. Adolescence, 43(171), 473-484. Irons, E. J., & Jones, R. (2001). Teen court: An effective intervention for youth at risk of interpersonal violence and substance abuse [Electronic version]. Journal of Correctional Education, 52(4), 149-151. Kowalski, K. M. (1999). Courtroom justice for teens--by teens. Current Health 2, 25(8). Mears, D. P., Hay, C., Gertz, M., & Mancini, C. (2007). Public opinion and the foundation of the juvenile court. Criminology, 45(1), 223-256. Mosak, E. (2006). Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 28. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association. Peterson, S. B., & Elmendorf, M. J. (2001). Youth counts: A national youth justice movement [Electronic version]. Corrections Today. from Academic Search Premier. Varma, K. N. (2007). Parental involvement in youth court [Electronic version]. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(2), 231-260. Weisz, V., Lott, R. C., & Thai, N. D. (2002). A teen court evaluation with a therapeutic jurisprudence perspective [Electronic version]. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20(4), 381-392. Williamson, D., & Chalk, M. (1993). Teen court: juvenile justice for the 21st century? [Electronic version]. Federal Probation, 57(2). from Academic Search Premier. Zehner, S. J. (1997). Teen court [Electronic version]. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 66(3). from Academic Search Premier. Read More