Criminal Justice Magazine
Spring 2000
Vol. 15, Issue 1
WHAT OF THE FUTURE? ENVISIONING AN EFFECTIVE JUVENILE
COURT
By Hon. Arthur L. Burnett, Sr.
It is not uncommon to hear that "our children are our future"
and "it takes a whole village to raise a child," but society
has a long way to go to substantively implement these concepts. As we
enter the 21st century there must be a commitment to a stronger, reinvigorated,
and more innovative juvenile court system. In the past decade, the emphasis
has turned from rehabilitation and treatment to punishment, as state
legislators pass statutes that remove juveniles from the jurisdiction
of the juvenile court in order to treat many more of them as adults.
In fact, the public perception of extremely violent youth is the based
on the acts of a small number of juveniles with ready access to guns.(See
Thomas F. Geraghty, Symposium on the Future of the Juvenile Court: Justice
for Children: How Do we Get There? 88 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY
190 n.2 (citing Donna Lyons, Juvenile Crime and Justice: State Enactments,
1995, 20 St. Legis. Rep. 17 (1995) (50-state survey), 191, 199 (discussing
the Illinois statutory change) (1997).) The age of transfer has been
lowered in many jurisdictions, and a broader range of felonies can lead
to adjudication as an adult. Fully 90 percent of all states have toughened
their juvenile justice laws in recent years, and some states have no
minimum age of transfer. (Thomas Grisso, Juvenile Competency to Stand
Trial, 12 CRIM. JUST. 4, 5-6 (1997). But the conduct of the violent
few should not govern the policies as to the role of juvenile courts
in the 21st century. What legislators and executive officials should
do is provide the juvenile courts with greater resources to deal effectively
with children, revitalizing the courts in the context of contemporary
society and giving them the capacity to achieve the purpose for which
they were originally created. With such resources, juvenile judges and
administrators must be more creative and effective in utilizing them
to achieve the maximum results desired. Policymakers, such as legislators
and executive branch officials, can no longer afford to treat the juvenile
court as the stepchild in the overall court system. Some would argue
that given the importance of reaching troubled youth in the most formative
time in their lives, juvenile courts should be placed at the head of
the line for sufficient financial funding and proper staffing with committed
judges, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other personnel
necessary to meet the demand. For many courts, the problem is finding
appropriate programs in which to place troubled children. This is especially
true for indigent youth. (For more on this topic, see the article Crisis
in Indigent Juvenile Defense in this issue. Also see Thomas F. Geraghty,
supra, 203-04.)
Choosing the court's mission
As we begin the 21st century, what should be the mission of the juvenile
court? Should its role be limited only to cases involving the first-time,
non-violent offender, who offers the optimum opportunity for success,
where it can devote more of its resources and energies to prevent recidivism?
Is this approach too limited? Or should the juvenile court have an expansive
jurisdiction that includes repeaters and those charged with violent
offenses, giving discretion to judges to determine, based on an adequate
factual record after a due process hearing, when a juvenile warrants
waiver to adult criminal court because he or she can no longer be handled
in the juvenile court system? Instead, for the child in the margins,
where the judgment call may be difficult, why not try the "blended
sentencing" approach enacted into laws in New Mexico and Minnesota.
Blended sentencing, which permits juvenile court judges to impose juvenile
and adult sentences at the same time, is designed to reduce reliance
upon automatic and discretionary transfer, allowing the "transfer"
decision to be made after a child's experience with juvenile court interventions
can be evaluated. The effect of a latent adult sentence provides a powerful
incentive for the juvenile to respond to services provided by the juvenile
court and protects society if the child does not respond in a positive
manner. Blended sentencing schemes impose substantial punishment, provide
incentives for rehabilitation, and where rehabilitation works, eliminate
the economic and social costs of long-term incarceration in adult prisons.
(Geraghty, supra, at 191.) In this connection, note that in 1996 only
9 percent of the juveniles charged were for the violent offenses of
criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Half
of those charged were for property offenses. Some 10 percent of the
juvenile arrests were for drug law violations, and 19 percent were for
public order offenses.(OJJDP, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National
Report, at 144.) Juvenile justice policy affecting 100 percent of the
American youth should not be predicated upon the alleged violence of
9 percent or less of those arrested. Policy must be guided by consideration
for the greatest good for the greatest number of youth while remembering
that each child is important as an individual. It is essential that
the first time a youngster is brought before the juvenile court, the
maximum resources necessary be made available to change his or her attitudes
and values so that child does not become a repeater in the juvenile
justice system and, ultimately, an adult criminal offender. From this
perspective, it is more important that legislators and the executive
branch spend more resources on the juvenile court to ensure its maximum
efficiency and provision of services than on the adult criminal court.
If the juvenile justice system is to be saved from becoming the "farm
system" for adult criminal offenders, we must focus more of our
resources and attention on early and effective intervention during a
child's first contact with the juvenile courts. If successful, this
could significantly reduce the number of adult criminal cases in the
future. We must start with the quality of the judges and judicial officers
serving in our juvenile courts. They must have not only a knowledge
of the law applicable to juvenile delinquency cases, but they must recognize
one of the fundamental truths upon which the juvenile court is based:
Children, by virtue of their age and inexperience, require special protections
under the law. They must fully understand and appreciate the stages
of child development, the educational needs of children at various stages
in their development, and child behavioral issues. (See Elizabeth S.
Scott and Thomas Grisso, Symposium on The Future of the Juvenile Court:
the Evolution of Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile
Justice Reform, 88 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 137 (1997).) To that
purpose, the juvenile court judge and judicial officer must be sufficiently
immersed and gain a depth of understanding that equals the substantive
knowledge expected of social workers and psychologists who deal with
children and their behaviors. They should receive specialized training,
which is comprehensive and multidisciplinary. They must also become
culturally sensitive so as to appropriately evaluate each child who
comes before the juvenile court on the basis of his or her own character
and individual value system, without being influenced by stereotypes
and assumptions based on race, national origin, and poverty circumstances.
This also applies to social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, probation
officers, and others in order to make accurate risk assessments in evaluating
each individual child. This is necessary so that the recommendations
they make to the judge or judicial officer will reflect the true inner
core of that child. Such recommendations then provide the basis for
an intelligent decision as to what services will assist that child to
become a positive functional youngster who will not offend again. Judges
and their staff, with community support, should design and implement
effective alternatives to detention that will achieve this objective
while keeping the youngster in the community. When a youngster fails
to conform to conditions of probation or release in the community, there
should be meaningful, graduated sanctions appropriate to the conduct.
Detention should be the ultimate sanction when necessary to protect
the safety of others and the community. Judges and judicial officers
should have a sufficient commitment and dedication to serve in the juvenile
court for at least two years to acquire the needed knowledge and expertise.
In this manner, the juvenile court can become a highly functioning special
court for children-the Children's Court-which can accomplish its mission,
provided legislators give it the highest priority along with adequate
financial and human resources.
Intake screening process
A progressive juvenile court must have an effective intake screening
process to evaluate the risk and behavior factors of each child brought
before the court. For instance, when the youngster is a first offender
for a property offense, a minor assault, or a minor drug offense, an
adult from a faith-based organization might come forward to serve as
a mentor to that child and as a helper to the parent. The trial on the
juvenile petition or complaint could be stayed or deferred for a period
of four to six months to determine if the child will improve under the
watchful eye of a concerned mentor operating much like a favorite uncle
or aunt. If at the end of the deferred prosecution period the child
is well adjusted in school and has made positive adjustments in the
community, the prosecutor could then drop the charge without jeopardizing
the safety of the community or worrying about whether the child felt
he or she had merely received a "slap on the wrist" with no
appreciable consequences. Indeed, during this period, 25 or more hours
of community service could be required of the youngster-a giving back
to the community. In this manner, these mentors could become like Thomas
Calhoun Walker of Virginia who served as the "children's lawyer"
for African American youth in Virginia in the first half of the last
century. According to juvenile justice scholar Professor Robert E. Shepherd
of the University of Richmond's T.C. Williams School of Law, Walker
persuaded local judges to bond boys who had been jailed into his custody.
He would then place them among families of his acquaintance or take
them home to his wife. Many of these youths were adopted by these families
and went on to college or into a trade without further difficulties.
(Juvenile Justice 14(2) CRIM. JUST., (Summer 1999) at 45.) The utilization
of church-based or faith-based mentors who are truly committed and dedicated
could greatly increase the number of juveniles who correct their ways
and become responsible and productive adult citizens in our communities.
The only requirement, in order to maintain the church/state separation,
is that the court make clear that religious instruction or church attendance
must not be required of the child in order to participate in such a
program.
Teen courts
Another alternative available to the juvenile court is the use of "teen
courts," also known as "youth courts." In the past decade
they have become a popular intervention for young and first-time offenders.
The number of teen courts nationwide grew from an estimated 50 programs
in 1991 to 400-500 programs in 1998. (OJJDP Fact Sheet, Oct. 1999, No.
118.) According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
survey findings indicated that teen courts nationwide handled approximately
65,000 cases in 1998. Most teen courts do not determine the guilt or
innocence of juveniles, rather they serve as diversion alternatives.
Although individuals must admit to the charges against them in order
to qualify for teen court, no formal adjudication is made nor judgment
entered. The types of offenses include theft, misdemeanor assault, disorderly
conduct, and possession of alcohol. The most popular teen court model
involves the use of an adult judge with juvenile "lawyers."
These courts utilize youths in various roles, including prosecutors,
defense counsel, and as members of juries that determine factual guilt
or as advisory juries to fashion appropriate dispositions. Community
service is the most common disposition used in teen court cases. Other
dispositions include victim apology letters, apology essays, teen court
jury duty, drug/alcohol classes, and monetary restitution. The proponents
of such teen or youth courts hope to achieve reduced recidivism, increased
pro-social attitudes, and improved perceptions of justice. (See the
article "The Time Dollar Youth Court" on page 40.)
In November 1999, the District of Columbia Coalition Against Drugs
and Violence voted to support the expansion of the youth court program
and to use its influence and outreach efforts to involve more community
collaborators in providing the services these youngsters need to ensure
that they make a positive social adjustment and do not commit further
juvenile offenses. In this way we can expand the availability of services
to each individual youngster in a manner expressly designed to treat
the problems and behaviors of that individual.
Many youngsters referred to the juvenile justice system are alcohol
or drug dependent, or on their way to becoming such. More services need
to be provided to the juvenile justice system for addressing these problems
in an effective and meaningful fashion. In the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia in 1999 a juvenile drug court was established as
a 12-month substance abuse treatment program aimed at promoting abstinence
and healthy living choices for juveniles and their families. This program
is comprehensive in scope and is directed at the nonviolent substance
abusing juvenile population. Treatment is designed using a strengths-based
model that focuses on the individual's and the family's most positive
characteristics. The program is intensive and includes structured supervision,
regular court appearances, mandatory drug/alcohol testing, ongoing assessment,
group and individual counseling, drug education, family counseling,
education and support, recreational therapy, and a myriad of wraparound
services designed to support healthy and responsible living. In developing
these strengths, the juvenile and his or her family will be empowered
to develop a drug-free lifestyle and accomplish goals for responsible
living. Upon successful completion of the program, the judge has the
authority and power to dismiss the charges that brought the juvenile
before the court.
When cases go to trial
When pretrial diversion programs or other approaches do not result
in the dismissal of the juvenile delinquency charges, the case must
be tried. At this stage it is essential that the juvenile be represented
by defense counsel as knowledgeable and competent as any lawyer who
would represent a criminal accused in adult criminal court. Young lawyers
right out of law school should not merely view juvenile court as a training
ground to prepare them to represent adults in criminal court. Rather,
they should view the role of defense counsel in juvenile court as being
even more demanding than adult court because there are serious questions
as to a child's ability and capacity to understand the proceedings and
to assist counsel. (See Thomas Grisso, Juvenile Competency to Stand
Trial, Questions in an Era of Punitive Reform, 12(3) CRIM. JUST., (Fall
1997) at 4-11.)
Counsel must also fully appreciate the implications of In re Gault,
387 U.S. 1 (1967) and its progeny and be fully competent to protect
the constitutional due process rights of the juvenile in the trial process.
(See Robert E. Shepard, Jr., The Juvenile Court at 100: Birthday Cake
or Funeral Pyre, 14(2) CRIM. JUST., (Winter 1999) at 50; In re Winship,
397 U.S. 385 (1970).) Further, counsel in juvenile delinquency cases
may make a far greater contribution by assisting in designing a disposition
plan that may change a child's life, rerouting a juvenile's path from
repeat offender to a productive and useful citizen, making significant
contributions to the community in which he or she will live as an adult.
Effective, committed, and knowledgeable lawyers for juveniles should
come forward to advocate for each child at every stage of the proceeding.
It is also important that a substantial number of minority lawyers
come forward to handle juvenile delinquency cases. (In August, the author
urged by letter that the president of the National Bar Association,
Harold D. Pope, use the prestige of that office to encourage young African
American lawyers to participate in training programs to be offered by
the American Bar Association's Juvenile Defender Center. The lawyers
would spend two to three years representing clients in the juvenile
court system.) With the disproportionate minority confinement statistics
that now exist in this country, minority lawyers must accept the challenge
of educating judges, psychologists, social workers, and others in the
juvenile justice system on how better to assess and evaluate all minority
youths-their inner values, mores, cultural and family traditions-so
as to design effective rehabilitation programs in connection with proposed
dispositions, which lead to probation and a change of attitudes and
values that result in a child becoming a responsible, productive, and
law abiding individual.
Effective representation requires counsel to meet the juvenile client
immediately in order to understand what brings the child to court. Counsel
should then gather critical information from the family, schools, and
social service agencies and conduct at least a preliminary inquiry into
the nature of the charges. This will enable the lawyer to present the
client in the best light. If pretrial release is not obtained on the
initial presentment, counsel should endeavor to obtain a review proceeding
as to release, gather additional information, and make the best case
possible for the release of the client to the community. Obtaining a
strong potential mentor, setting up a program of regular school attendance
that will be monitored, and an after-school program to ensure that the
child is engaged in positive activities should be ingredients of any
release plan. If there is indication of drug use, drug testing and counseling
should enable counsel to obtain the release of the juvenile, unless
the offense is an exceptionally violent one or the youth has a serious
history of prior offenses. In this way, counsel can assist in reducing
the disproportionate confinement of minority youth held in pretrial
detention. Such an approach by defense counsel at the very beginning
of the case is absolutely necessary to ensure that juveniles are not
held in secure detention when they pose no significant danger to themselves
or others. Once the juvenile has been released from pretrial detention,
or if the child continues to be held, counsel should be just as diligent
in the investigation of the case and preparation for trial as if it
were an adult criminal trial.
Effective probation
If the charges against the juvenile are sustained, the juvenile will
need continued representation to ensure that the disposition-sentencing-order
is fair and appropriate. Putting a youngster on probation must be more
than imposing conditions that tell the youngster "to go and sin
no more." There must be more than the hortatory "thou shall
not" with reference to engaging in future delinquent or criminal
conduct. Effective probation programs for a youth must provide for giving
the offender the required literacy skills and education necessary to
function in society in the 21st century. Probation conditions should
be established to achieve giving the probationer the basic life skills
and the job training to be employable and self-sustaining once the probation
period is successfully completed. Juvenile court judges should seek
to tap all available community resources as options for meaningful probation
conditions that will change values and really rehabilitate. Indeed,
the juvenile court may seek to establish a collaborative working relationship
with community groups that work with youths to give them positive direction
and to provide the youth probationer with the wherewithal to change
his or her life. Such an example is Project Soar, which ran from fall
1995 to summer 1997. Offenders in that program ran a pizza delivery
restaurant, participated in after-school tutoring, and learned computer-base
skills. This program was designed to create a special place for young
offenders who were committed to leaving criminal behavior behind and
working hard to improve their academic skills, gain employment experience,
and enhance their own ability to make good decisions. In the spring
of 1997 this program was expanded into a model comprehensive youth development
program and renamed "See Forever," an innovative program integrating
academics, the world of work, and life skills. "See Forever"
opened its doors in September 1997 as a tuition-free, alternative school
and real-world employment training program. In May 1998 the founders
created an affiliate, a second student-based business, the "See
Forever Student Tech Shop," at which students use their technical
skills to produce technology/graphics design products and to teach parents
and siblings computer skills. In the summer of 1998 the founders of
these entities separately incorporated the school to establish it as
a public charter school and named it "The Maya Angelou Public Charter
School" as a sole member nonprofit subsidiary of "See Forever."
The school held its first graduation in July 1999 and all three of its
graduates entered college this past fall. During the past summer two
of its graduates taught a six-week computer course to seven students
participating in the Superior Court Juvenile Drug Court/Probation program
in Washington, D.C. In September 1999, the school started with 52 students
and opened its fourth "See Forever" residence. Thirteen students
now live in small "homes" around the school, each staffed
by a "See Forever" adult; it is also planning to open another
girls' residence in the near future. Such a resource for referral of
offenders placed on probation by juvenile court judges of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia could serve as a model for changing
lives and achieving the optimum success with juvenile probationers.
Another example of an exciting resource for offenders in the Washington,
D.C., court system is the ARCH program-Action to Rehabilitate Community
Housing. Its YouthBuild Program was recently funded by a $650,000 grant
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This program
will provide vocational training and education to 40 District of Columbia
youths, aged 16 to 24, who are under the control of the superior court.
This pilot program will combine academic instruction, vocational training
in construction, leadership development, community service, life and
employability skills training, social services and job placement, and
follow-up. This will be the first YouthBuild program in the country
that will serve only adjudicated youth. It is contemplated that the
average stay in the program will be nine to 14 months and that every
effort will be made to place a youth who completes the program with
an employer. This is a program with a real pragmatic promise of changing
lives.
Another program with much realistic promise is the Urban Services Program,
also operated by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. This
is a year-long intensive probation supervision program for nonviolent
youthful offenders between the ages of 14 and 26. It is a special emphasis
program, the purpose of which is to interrupt and reduce criminal activities
by providing a highly structured, community-based, intensely supervised
program conducted in three phases. The first stage is a residential
boot camp to build structure and discipline in a probationer's life.
During the first 30 days, emphasis is placed on physical conditioning,
ropes course, drills, bonding, survival skills, nutrition, and therapeutic
groups, focused on anger management, conflict resolution, value clarification,
and goal setting. The second stage lasts six months during which time
the emphasis is on life preparation. Probation officers are charged
with developing an individualized treatment plan that addresses the
needs of the offender based on an educational assessment, drug abuse
assessment, and goals set by the offender during the first stage. Included
in this intensive community supervision are electronic monitoring, home
visits, twice weekly urine tests, referrals for employment readiness,
job placements, GED preparation or school advocacy, therapeutic recreation,
and other specific referrals deemed appropriate to assist the offender
with becoming a productive law-abiding citizen. During the final phase,
which runs five months, based on positive progress, office visits are
reduced and probation officers continue to monitor the individual's
compliance with the individualized treatment plans and probation conditions.
When, after adjudication, it becomes necessary for a juvenile court
judge to decide on a disposition of probation or detention for a child,
the judge should by statute be given the authority to fashion a probation
program that is holistic in nature and that includes the entire family.
Many youths before a juvenile court come from dysfunctional families
where a multitude of legal, social, and economic issues are intertwined.
Much delinquent behavior can be traced to the family dynamics. Judges
should be authorized to order family members into counseling and treatment
along with the juvenile. When the parent or guardian refuses to comply,
the court by statute should have the authority to impose sanctions,
including contempt. (See, e.g., D.C. Code § 16-2320(c)(3) (1997).)
There must be effective monitoring of compliance with even regular
conditions of probation by the youth by the assigned probation officer
or social worker. One such creative example is the school-based probation
officer program in Pennsylvania. Truancy is frequently at the foundation
of a child becoming a juvenile delinquent; by putting probation officers
physically in the school they can monitor their probationers' school
attendance and they can also meet with them, provide them counseling,
and even tutor them in meeting their educational requirements. Pennsylvania
has placed more than 150 probation officers in schools full-time. The
probation officer's primary role is to provide the probationers who
attend the school with daily intensive supervision. Further, this school-based
model allows the probation officers to maintain close contact with the
juveniles under their supervision, verify their attendance, and monitor
their academic progress and general behavior.
When detention is needed
Not all youngsters who are adjudicated juvenile offenders are suitable
candidates, however, for probation. We recognize that there must be
due consideration given to factors of accountability and protection
of individuals in the community. Indeed, in some circumstances involving
youngsters who are incorrigible or so committed to engaging in antisocial
and juvenile offenses, it may become necessary to detain them even in
pretrial custody. Thus, juvenile court judges and judicial officers
must develop the keen insight and judgment to identify those individual
juveniles where detention is necessary for the protection of individuals
in our communities and to achieve their rehabilitation to the extent
possible. In such situations, concerns for accountability and punishment
must also play a role in the disposition. Such detention must not be
in adult facilities, to ensure that these children are not abused and
harmed nor educated in the ways of becoming hardened criminals, but
should rather be in separate juvenile detention facilities where their
behaviors can be addressed and hopefully corrected. Of the highest priority
is the development and utilization of risk assessment tools to determine
who should be detained. These tools must be carefully designed and applied
as not to sweep too broadly to include in the net for detention those
youngsters who can be released into the community with suitable monitoring
and supervision so as not to be a threat to the safety of any individual
in the community.
Further, a prudent legislative policy should leave in the hands of
experienced juvenile court judges the decision as to which juveniles
should be prosecuted as adults. In some exceptional cases involving
violent, habitual, and older offenders, public safety considerations
may mandate handling that child in the adult criminal justice system.
Such an approach continues our cherished tradition of permitting individualized
justice based on the conduct involved in the incident and the personal
history of the individual youngster. A juvenile should be dealt with
through individualized justice considerations based on his or her own
conduct and particular needs, rather than a process solely dictated
by the offense. These considerations are ill-served when the prosecutor
is given the authority to file charges directly against a juvenile at
a specific age and the offense involves multiple offenders, some of
whom are adults and others juveniles, but who may be prosecuted as adults
solely because the prosecution wishes to try the case only one time
and not to expose the government's witnesses to multiple cases in different
courts. It is also frequently the case that it is not clear at the beginning
whether a juvenile was merely present, and thus perhaps only a material
witness, or whether the juvenile was an aider and abettor in the particular
incident that is the subject of the criminal charges. Further, it appears
that far more juveniles are prosecuted as adults in criminal court when
a prosecutor is given the authority to file directly against a youth,
and thus the net pulls far more youths into adult criminal court then
may be in the interest of a sound criminal justice system or a sound
juvenile justice system. With the benefit of specific knowledge and
information about the offender and the offense, experienced juvenile
court judges are best able to select the most serious, violent, and
chronic juvenile offenders to be transferred after due process hearings
in open court to an adult court for criminal prosecution. In all cases,
it's important to remember that a 14-year-old sentenced to 10 years
in adult prison for unarmed robbery in a purse snatching will return
as a 24-year-old who has spent the formative years without affection
or guidance and often the subject of prison abuse.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that judges serving on juvenile
courts should not be isolated from the community in which they serve,
merely sitting on the bench and going to and from home and otherwise
leading a very private existence. Rather, they have a duty to reach
out to the community and tap community resources on behalf of children.
Further, they can urge the creation of community resources and programs
for children. They can also talk to civic clubs and community organizations
to obtain better services for children and youth. They can encourage
broader opportunities and exposures for our youths through internships,
work-study experiences, and community involvement. Such activities could
help mold their values and attitudes in a way to decrease the likelihood
that they will engage in conduct detrimental to their own advancement
and achievement. Simultaneously, this improved behavior would promote
the safety and protection of all citizens in the community. Such activities
would advance the administration of justice, especially in our juvenile
courts, and could well reduce the number of juvenile delinquency cases
and criminal cases in adult court that would thereafter come into the
court system.
In conclusion, a revitalized and reinvigorated juvenile court in this
century, adequately financed by the legislature, and staffed with dedicated
and committed judges and support staff, can significantly reverse the
crime trends in America. However, no court system by itself can solve
the delinquency or crime problem. The circumstances of poverty and other
socioeconomic factors in our society, along with cultural and diversity
issues and personality of individuals, will continue to have a significant
role on delinquency and crime in the United States. But to the extent
that sufficient funding and adequate human resources are made available
to the juvenile courts, they can function effectively to achieve the
mission of rehabilitating many juvenile offenders, reducing recidivism
in those who come before the court, and, to a significant degree, reduce
the number of individuals who go on to become adult criminal offenders.
In this way, the juvenile courts of the future can make a significant
contribution to improving the quality of lives of the individuals who
come before them and to a significant degree improve the quality of
life in the communities they serve, including some incremental increase
in the protection and safety of the citizens living in those communities.
n
Arthur L. Burnett, Sr., has served more than 12 years on the bench
of the superior Court of the District of Columbia and is currently a
senior judge. He was a U.S. magistrate judge with the U.S. district
court for the District of Columbia for more than 14 years. He now serves
as the Superior court's community relations liaison judge, generating
community support for the creation of mentoring and other programs to
reduce juvenile delinquency and prevent recidivism. He also works with
many groups in the District of Columbia to improve the foster care system,
the operation of the adoption programs, and the handling of neglect
and abuse cases. He also serves as the "judge-in-residence"
with the Black Community Crusade for Children at the Children's Defense
Fund, promoting such programs and activities nationally in dealing with
children in the juvenile delinquency, foster care, and adoption systems.
In addition, he is senior cochair of the Criminal Justice magazine editorial
board.