Return to Justice & Authority Index Page

Juvenile Justice and You 

Shellmarie Harris 

Academic Setting 

This curriculum will be used at the Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center, which is located in the north valley in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  The student population is very transient and diverse in its ethnic makeup.  The population on average is 63% Hispanic, 30% Anglo, 3% American Indian, 3% African American and 1% “other” ethnic groups such as Chinese, Japanese and Thai.  The Juvenile Detention Center is a unique school because of the students that attend.  These students are all currently involved in the Juvenile Justice System. 

     The staff at the Juvenile Detention Center School consists of twelve teachers, four educational assistants, one speech and language pathologist, one vice principal and one principal.  All of our teachers are licensed for the area that they teach.  The staff is highly trained.  Seven of our teachers hold masters or PhD’s.  Another three of our teachers are currently pursuing masters degrees.  Most of the staff are female and are Anglo.      

     The population at the Juvenile Detention Center is a very transient.  In the average academic year, 1200 students pass through the school for various amounts of time.  The average stay at the Juvenile Detention Center is 40 days.  The grade range is fourth through twelfth with all grades mixed in the classes, measured by the Woodcock Johnson Battery of tests.  The majority of the students, 65%, are in 9th and 10th grade.  Another aspect of the school is percentage of students that have not been attending school regularly.  The school is classified as a neglected and delinquent school under Title I.  Many of our students suffer from emotional trauma and are detoxing from substance abuse.  During their stay at the Juvenile Detention Center all students are under the care of the County.         

     This curriculum unit is designed for a special education 9th grade classroom in which the students read on average at a 3rd grade level.  This unit will be taught during the Life Skills class, which is approximately 40 minutes per day.  This is a relevant unit in Life Skills because of the situation these students are in, all are involved in the Juvenile Justice System.   Since the majority of the students have language deficits most of the lessons will include oral discussions and stories read by the teacher.    

     This Juvenile Justice unit is an aimed at bring relevant information to the students at the Juvenile Detention Center.  The unit is designed to last approximately 25, 40-minute sessions.  Various methods will be used including role-playing, debates, educational documentaries and a virtual field trip.  Unfortunately, all of my students feel like they do not know enough about the system that they are involved in.  An informal survey of the students told me that they feel that they are at a disadvantage because they feel uninformed about their rights and juvenile justice issues.  The goal of this unit is to relate the juvenile justice system to students that are caught up in it so that they will be more prepared to see the consequences of their actions. 

Context and Background 

The century old idea in the United States that children and adolescents are less legally responsible and more able to be rehabilitated than adults who commit crimes has been giving way to a harsher view in recent years. Here’s an overview of the changes of society’s attitudes on dealing with juveniles who commit serious crimes.

           In 18th century America little distinction was made in the criminal culpability of children versus adults. Juveniles as young as age seven could be tried and sentenced in criminal courts. As psychologists and sociologists began to recognize the emerging notion of adolescence as a developmentally distinct period of life, reformers argued that children should be removed from adult prisons (OJJDP, 1999). 

            The age at which children should be held responsible for their actions is an issue that has been debated throughout U.S. history. In the United States during the late 1700s and 1800s, laws stated that children under age 7 were considered incapable of criminal intent. Therefore, if a child under age 7 committed a criminal act, he or she was automatically exempt from prosecution and punishment. However, according to those laws, children over the age of 7 were treated the same as adults. Children were sentenced to prison or even put to death if found guilty of serious crimes. The result of such laws was that early juries often refused to convict juveniles because of the harsh adult penalties that would follow. Consequently, many violent juveniles were left at large to terrorize the public (OJJDP, 1999). 

In 1825, the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency founded the New York House of Refuge, the first institution designed to accommodate juvenile delinquents. Many cities and states soon followed this example and set up similar institutions. Progressive era reformers wanted to attack what they believed were the roots of juvenile delinquency--a lack of moral education and standards--and advocated that juvenile institutions include a significant educational and rehabilitative component. For their efforts, the earliest juvenile justice reformers were known as “child savers.” (Cravens). 

The child savers’ advocacy resulted in the establishment of the first juvenile court in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899. The court was established under the British legal doctrine of Parens patriae -- “the State as parent” -- which was interpreted to mean that it was the state’s duty not only to protect the public interest in juvenile offender cases, but also to intervene and serve as the guardian of the interests of the children involved. As opposed to the adversarial adult criminal system, where the state’s role was to prosecute the offender, the juvenile court had a more compassionate mission: it was designed to be flexible, informal and to tailor to a juvenile’s individual needs, with the ultimate goal of rehabilitation. The process was subject to strict confidentiality in order to avoid any unnecessary stigmatization of minors. Because its goal of rehabilitation was not considered to be punitive, the court had no due process protections, and had jurisdiction over both criminal and status offenders, a category which applies only to minors and includes offenses such as vagrancy and truancy (McGarrell). Judges played a paternal role, and were afforded tremendous discretion in order to achieve the goal of individualized rehabilitative justice. By 1925, all but two states had established juvenile justice systems. Rather than merely punishing offenders as in the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile system sought to turn troubled kids into productive citizens through rehabilitation and treatment. 

During the 1960s, civil libertarians began to raise concerns about the progressive era model of juvenile justice. They argued that juveniles within the system were not actually being rehabilitated, but rather warehoused in institutions not much different from an adult prisons. If juveniles were going to be treated as adults in the sentencing phase, the advocates argued, they should also be accorded the due process protections given to adults in court. They also challenged the broad discretion given to juvenile court judges. In a series of rulings during the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed; “There is evidence, in fact, that there may be grounds for concern that the child receives the worst of both worlds: that he gets neither the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children,” wrote Abe Fortas in Kent v. United States. In decisions such as Kent, In re Gault and In re Winship, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles must be given due process protections including: formal hearings when facing waiver to criminal court; protection against self-incrimination; the rights to notice of charges, counsel, and cross-examination of witnesses; and adherence to the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” judicial standard (Bernard).Go to top of page.  To this day juveniles do not have as many rights as adult offenders do. 

In the early 1970s, several class-action lawsuits attacked the conditions and policies of the juvenile institutions, alleging cruel and unusual punishment. Social critics advocated deinstitutionalization and argued for more preventative and community-based programs to assail the roots of juvenile delinquency, particularly in urban areas. In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which still governs the juvenile justice system today (Goldstein). The act required the separation of juvenile offenders from adult offenders, and the deinstitutionalization of status offenders. A 1980 amendment mandated that juveniles could not be placed in adult jails, with a few exceptions. The 1974 act also created the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and offered grants to encourage states to develop community-based programs as alternatives to institutionalization. Law enforcement experimented with the introduction of community-based correctional facilities, such as group homes and halfway houses.  However, this preventative approach to the delinquency problem was short lived (Bernard). In the mid-1970s, as the media began to highlight rising violent crime rates, the American public demanded the conservative “get tough” approach to crime still widely endorsed today. State legislatures reacted to the public’s demands for accountability by passing more punitive juvenile justice laws. The conservative trend continued in the 1990s: almost every state passed laws making it easier to try juveniles in adult criminal courts; 31 states passed laws expanding sentencing options; 47 states modified confidentiality provisions for juvenile courts; and 22 states passed laws increasing the victim’s role in juvenile court processing.  More than any time in recent history, the system is turning back toward treating juvenile offenders like adults. 

During the 1980s and 1990s many people feared that the incidence of violent crime among juveniles was rapidly increasing and that the juvenile justice system was too lenient on young offenders. Some states began passing laws giving prosecutors the ability to try certain juvenile cases in adult criminal courts. 

Recent Changes in Juvenile Justice 

Between 1992 and 1997, 45 states passed laws making it easier to transfer juvenile offenders from the juvenile justice system to the adult criminal justice system. Those laws passed despite the fact that serious violence by juveniles actually dropped by 33 percent between 1993 and 1997 (OJJDP, 1999 99). 

When George W. Bush ran for the governor of Texas in 1994, he promised to overhaul the state’s juvenile justice system. After winning the election, Bush fulfilled his promise, passing stricter laws to deal with young lawbreakers. Bush said, “I want our kids to understand that if they choose a life of crime, we hold them accountable for their behavior.”  

Texas state representative Sylvester Turner disagreed with Bush. Turner said, “They’ve transformed a system which was founded on the notion of rehabilitation and turned it into a criminal-based, revenge kind of system. During the 1990s, between 5,000 and 6,000 children were sent to adult prisons each year. Below are profiles of a few children who committed crimes in the United States” (OJJDP, 1999 177-179). 

Nathaniel Abraham
State: Michigan
Age Crime Committed: 11
Age Convicted: 13
Crime: Fatally shooting a stranger outside a convenience store 
Sentence: Not yet determined 

Daphne Abdela
State: New York
Age Crime Committed: 15
Age Convicted: 16 
Crime: Involved in killing a 44-year-old man
Sentence: 39 months to 10 years in prison

Kip Kinkel
State: Oregon
Age Crime Committed: 15
Age Convicted: 17
Crime: Fatally shooting his parents at home and killing two students at a Springfield, Oreg. High         School. 
Sentence: Life in prisonGo to top of page.

Donna Ratliff
State: Indiana
Age Crime Committed: 14
Age Convicted: 15
Crime: Killing her mother and sister after setting their house on fire.
Sentence: 25 years in prison. She moved to a treatment center for juveniles in 1999. 

The United States is home to approximately 57 million children under age 15 and nearly 20 million between 4 and 8 years old. Experts believe that the teenage population may reach almost 30 million by 2006. This population growth may partially explain why the United States has witnessed a nationwide epidemic of juvenile violence in the past 15 years. More violent and troubled youth are entering the juvenile justice system than ever before. 

           Indeed, although crime rates have decreased across the United States, violent crimes (e.g., murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) among juveniles increased by 14.9 percent from 1989 to 1998. In 1998, law enforcement officers arrested more than 1.8 million teenagers under age 18, representing 18 percent of all persons arrested. Twenty-nine percent of these youths were arrested for Crime Index offenses (Puritz). 

Several factors--such as child abuse, a difficult home life, and exposure to crime--can predict certain types of future behavior. Although these factors may adversely affect juvenile behavior, serious and violent juvenile offenders tend to develop behavior problems--such as aggression, dishonesty, property offenses, and conflict with authority figures--from childhood to adolescence (Fox).  Parents, law enforcement officers, schools, and community organizations must recognize the behavior patterns of delinquents to implement appropriate crime prevention strategies. 

Contributing Factors 

Numerous variables affect children during specific stages of their lives. During infancy, such factors as sex, intellect, activity level, temperament, and attention span may affect behavior. During the toddler, or preschool, stage, children may demonstrate risk-taking and sensation-seeking behavior and fail to show a sense of guilt or empathy. In early adolescence, poor parental supervision, depression, excessive sibling rivalry, peer rejection, or exposure to violence may cause children to react negatively, leading to violent behavior.  

Many juvenile delinquents lack proper guidance and direction in their lives. Because they are subjected to multiple risk factors, these children may become more violent. For example, in 1994, over 4 million American children lived in severely distressed homes or neighborhoods that contributed to violent tendencies among troubled juveniles.  Additionally, the divorce rate has increased over the past 20 to 30 years, and many experts support the “broken homes theory,” which implies that homes with one parent absent--usually the father-- may contribute to future delinquent behavior of children. Often, in situations without a positive male role model, mothers may have less control and authority over their children, particularly boys. This theory also maintains that a family with only one parent present may have to reduce its standard of living and ultimately live in impoverished conditions that present an environment for delinquent behavior (OJJDC, 1999).  

But in the early 1990’s, legislators in nearly every state responded to concerns about a epidemic in juvenile violent crime rates, related closely to the urban crack/guns phenomenon (Stone, 2002), and began tinkering with the juvenile justice system, making it easier to put more and younger adolescents on trial as adults and to send them to adult jails and prisons--sometimes for life, occasionally for death. State and federal lawmakers made a number of changes in the juvenile justice system. They expanded judicial waivers, allowing judges to transfer younger and less serious offenders to adult court, and they increased the number of cases in which judges are presumed or mandated to issue waivers. They gave prosecutors new or expanded authority to file charges against minors in criminal court, passed legislation excluding certain offenses from juvenile courts and in some states even lowered the age at which all juveniles must be sent to adult court (OJJDP, 1999). They also introduced blended sentences, allowing juvenile offenders to finish the last years or decades of their term in adult prisons. And they demanded mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of juvenile offenses. 

Meanwhile, we saw all of the furor over the Texas inmate Napoleon Beazley. America remains one of a handful of countries that execute juvenile offenders. At 17, Beazley murdered John Luttig, and at 25 he was scheduled to become the 19th person executed in the United States since 1976 for a crime committed as a minor. Sentencing juvenile offenders to death is in clear violation of a number of U.N. conventions and treaties and has been condemned by the American Bar Association, most major religious denominations and just about every human rights group with a web site. Even China gave up the practice in 1997. Still, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of executing people over 16, and 23 states currently allow capital punishment for juveniles. So approximately 80 U.S. prisoners sit on death row waiting to be executed for crimes they committed at 16 or 17, and in the last decade over half of the world’s executions of juvenile offenders have been in the United States (Puritz).  More than half of those were carried out in Texas.

From all the media attention given to cases like those of Beazley, Tate, Brazill and Williams, it would be easy to conclude that the vast majority of juveniles being tried as adults are violent offenders, probably murderers. In both 1995 and 1996 fewer than half the cases nationwide waived to criminal court involved violence against people. And a study released in October 2000, Youth Crime/Adult Time, found that current laws cast too wide a net, sending many juveniles into adult courts and jails for nonviolent offenses. According to the study, nearly 40 percent of the juveniles tried as adults were charged with nonviolent crimes, and many were not convicted or were sent back to juvenile court, which suggests that their cases were neither strong nor serious. “The findings suggest that the adult criminal court is taking on numerous cases that should be prosecuted in theGo to top of page. juvenile justice system.” 

           Ironically enough, legislators and prosecutors are charging and punishing more and more juveniles as adults at the very moment researchers are confirming just how different adolescents are from grown-ups. According to a report this year by a National Research Council panel, titled Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice, children and adolescents think, feel and judge differently than adults--often overestimating their grasp of a situation and underestimating the negative consequences of their actions. 

Recent brain studies indicate that children and adolescents process emotionally charged information in that part of the brain responsible for instinct and gut reaction, while adults do this work in the more “rational” frontal section (Laub & Sampson, 1999). Other research shows that while strong emotions can cloud or distort judgments for both adults and adolescents, teens experience wider and more frequent mood swings. All of this suggests that juveniles lack the cognitive and emotional maturity of adults, are less able to think rationally or clearly when faced with emotionally charged decisions and should be held less culpable for their choices. 

Each state has its own distinct juvenile justice system with its own practices. This chart outlines some of the broad underlying beliefs that distinguish the juvenile justice system from the criminal justice system. 

Juvenile Justice System            Criminal Justice System
The underlying rationales of the juvenile court system are that youth are developmentally different from adults and that their behavior is malleable.  Rehabilitation and treatment, in addition to community protection are considered to be primary and viable goals. Rehabilitation is not considered a primary goal in the criminal justice system, which operates under the assumption that criminal sanctions should be proportional to the offenses.  Deterrence is seen as a successful outcome of punishment.
Limitations are placed on public access to juvenile records because of the belief that juvenile offenders can be successfully rehabilitated, and to avoid their unnecessary stigmatization.  Court proceedings may be confidential to protect privacy. Open to public access to criminal records is required, and all court proceedings are open to the public.
The juvenile justice system follows a psychological casework approach, taking into account a detailed assessment of the youth’s history in order to meet his or her specific needs.  Juvenile offenders face a hearing, rather than a trial, which incorporates his social history as well as legal factors. Defendants in the criminal justice system are put on trial, which is based largely on legal facts.
Law enforcement has the option of preventative detention, detaining a youth for his own protection or the community’s protection. Defendants have the right to apply for bond or bail.
Not all states afford juveniles the right to a jury trial.   All defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial.
A juvenile offender is judged delinquent rather than guilty.  The juvenile Justice system is of an individualized nature thus sentencing varies and may cover a wide range of community-based and residential options A defendant is found “innocent or “guilty.”   The offender is sentenced to a specified period of time which is determined by the severity of the offense.
The disposition is based on the individual’s offense history and the severity of the offense, and includes a significant rehabilitation component.  The disposition can be for an unspecified period of time: the court can send a youth to a facility or program until it is determined he is rehabilitated, or until he reaches the age of the majority.  The disposition may also include a restitution component and can be directed at people other than the offender, for example his parents.  
Parole combines surveillance with activities to reintegrate the juvenile into the community. Parole is primarily based on surveillance and monitoring of illicit behavior.

Adapted from Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. “Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change.” Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice, 1999. 

Implementation

This unit is designed to last approximately three weeks.  Lessons can be modified to meet the needs of any student.  The New Mexico State Standards that are addressed are included in the lessons.  For a complete listing of the New Mexico standards go to the State Department of Education web site at (http://sde.state.nm.us).    

Lesson:   What do you think the juvenile justice system is? 

Standards: Language Arts:

Strand: Reading and Listening Comprehension

Standard: I - Students will apply strategies and skills to comprehend           Go to top of page.       information that is heard and viewed.

Benchmark: I-A, I-B, and I-C

Career Readiness:

Standard 4:   Students will develop and demonstrate responsible and ethical workplace behaviors.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate ability to work cooperatively to accomplish objectives; demonstrate appropriate and legal behaviors necessary to obtain and maintain employment.

Standard 5:   Students will develop effective leadership; interpersonal and team skills.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate leadership within a group through effective communication, ability to motivate team members, and effective delegation of responsibility; demonstrate ability to work with others from a diverse background.

Social Studies:

Strand: Civics and Government

Standard III:   Students understand the ideals, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship and understand the content and history founding documents of the United States and New Mexico constitutions and how governments function at local, state, tribal, and national levels.

9-12 Benchmark III-A:  Compare and analyze the structure, power, and purpose of government at the local, state, tribal, and national levels as set forth in their respective constitutions or governance documents.

Standards: 1,4,5, and 6.

9-12 Benchmark III-B:  Understand how to exercise rights and responsibilities as citizens by participating in civic life and using skills that include interacting, monitoring, and influencing.

Standards: 2, 4, and 5.  

Students will fill out an opinion poll on juvenile justice.  Next, discussion of each item on the poll will take place with students recording opinions on the board.  The teacher will prompt discussion toward the controversies and issues in the juvenile justice system.   At the conclusion, students will tally the results.  Assessment will be based on individual completion of opinion poll and participation in discussion.   

Lesson:   Why the juvenile justice system came to be. 

Standards: Language Arts: 9-12

Strand: Reading and Listening Comprehension

Standard I: Students will apply strategies and skills to comprehend                  information that is heard and viewed.

Benchmark: I-A, I-B, and I-C

Strand: Writing and Speaking for Expression

Standard II: Students will communicate effectively through speaking and writing

Career Readiness:

Standard 4:   Students will develop and demonstrate responsible and ethical workplace behaviors.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate ability to work cooperatively to accomplish objectives; demonstrate appropriate and legal behaviors necessary to obtain and maintain employment.

Standard 5:   Students will develop effective leadership; interpersonal and team skills.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate leadership within a group through effective communication, ability to motivate team members, and effective delegation of responsibility; demonstrate ability to work with others from a diverse background.

Social Studies:

Strand: Civics and Government

Standard III:   Students understand the ideals, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship and understand the content and history founding documents of the United States and New Mexico constitutions and how governments function at local, state, tribal, and national levels.

9-12 Benchmark III-A:  Compare and analyze the structure, power, and purpose of government at the local, state, tribal, and national levels as set forth in their respective constitutions or governance documents.Go to top of page.

Standards: 1,4,5, and 6.

9-12 Benchmark III-B:  Understand how to exercise rights and responsibilities as citizens by participating in civic life and using skills that include interacting, monitoring, and influencing.

Standards: 2, 4, and 5.            

Have each student create a KWL chart.  Brainstorm for ideas about how the juvenile justice system was created.  The teacher will add ideas to student input, and they will discuss the reasons behind the juvenile justice system.  Students will put information on one large KWL chart to save for future completion. Assessment will be based on the completion of KWL chart.   

Lesson:   When the juvenile justice system came to be. 

Standards: Language Arts: 9-12

Strand: Reading and Listening Comprehension

Standard I: Students will apply strategies and skills to comprehend                  information that is heard and viewed.

Benchmark: I-A, I-B, and I-C

Strand: Writing and Speaking for Expression

Standard II: Students will communicate effectively through speaking and writing

Career Readiness:

Standard 4:   Students will develop and demonstrate responsible and ethical workplace behaviors.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate ability to work cooperatively to accomplish objectives; demonstrate appropriate and legal behaviors necessary to obtain and maintain employment.

Standard 5:   Students will develop effective leadership; interpersonal and team skills.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate leadership within a group through effective communication, ability to motivate team members, and effective delegation of responsibility; demonstrate ability to work with others from a diverse background.

Social Studies:

Strand: Civics and Government

Standard III:   Students understand the ideals, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship and understand the content and history founding documents of the United States and New Mexico constitutions and how governments function at local, state, tribal, and national levels.

9-12 Benchmark III-A:  Compare and analyze the structure, power, and purpose of government at the local, state, tribal, and national levels as set forth in their respective constitutions or governance documents.

Standards: 1,4,5, and 6.

9-12 Benchmark III-B:  Understand how to exercise rights and responsibilities as citizens by participating in civic life and using skills that include interacting, monitoring, and influencing.Go to top of page.

Standards: 2, 4, and 5.  

Provide students with appropriate web sites to obtain information on the history of the juvenile justice system.  Have the students either write the information down or print information out.  Have students compile the information that they found into a time line on juvenile justice. Discuss the different findings of the students.  Combine all students’ time lines into one.  Assessment will be based on the individual completion of their individual time line. 

Lesson:   How serious is it? 

Standards: Language Arts: 9-12

Strand: Reading and Listening Comprehension

Standard I: Students will apply strategies and skills to comprehend                  information that is heard and viewed.

Benchmark: I-A, I-B, and I-C

Strand: Writing and Speaking for Expression

Standard II: Students will communicate effectively through speaking and writing

Career Readiness:

Standard 4:   Students will develop and demonstrate responsible and ethical workplace behaviors.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate ability to work cooperatively to accomplish objectives; demonstrate appropriate and legal behaviors necessary to obtain and maintain employment.

Standard 5:   Students will develop effective leadership; interpersonal and team skills.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate leadership within a group through effective communication, ability to motivate team members, and effective delegation of responsibility; demonstrate ability to work with others from a diverse background.

Social Studies:

Strand: Civics and Government

Standard III:   Students understand the ideals, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship and understand the content and history founding documents of the United States and New Mexico constitutions and how governments function at local, state, tribal, and national levels.

9-12 Benchmark III-A:  Compare and analyze the structure, power, and purpose of government at the local, state, tribal, and national levels as set forth in their respective constitutions or governance documents.

Standards: 1,4,5, and 6.

9-12 Benchmark III-B:  Understand how to exercise rights and responsibilities as citizens by participating in civic life and using skills that include interacting, monitoring, and influencing.

Standards: 2, 4, and 5.  

Arrange for the Juvenile Detention Center Director to speak to the class on what crimes are the most common, what is the typical age, sex, race, social class of a resident at the Bernalillo County Juvenile Detention Center and other concerns the class may have. After discussion give each student a list of delinquent acts and a continuum line to fill out.  Discuss each delinquent act and decide where to place it on the line.  Ask students to explain the reasons for their choices and to defend their choice to the class.  Assessment will be based on participation in discussion and defending their delinquent act.  

Lesson:   How serious is it? Continued 

Discuss the differences between status offenders and delinquents.  Ask if they think courts should interfere in disputes between parents and children?  Why or why not.   What about mandatory school attendance?   What should be done about students who are chronically absent from school?  Assessment will be based on participation in discussion. 

Lesson:   Due Process for Juveniles 

Standards: Language Arts:

Strand: Reading and Listening Comprehension

Standard: I - Students will apply strategies and skills to comprehend                  information that is heard and viewed.Go to top of page.

Benchmark: I-A, I-B, and I-C

Career Readiness:

Standard 4:   Students will develop and demonstrate responsible and ethical workplace behaviors.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate ability to work cooperatively to accomplish objectives; demonstrate appropriate and legal behaviors necessary to obtain and maintain employment.

Standard 5:   Students will develop effective leadership; interpersonal and team skills.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate leadership within a group through effective communication, ability to motivate team members, and effective delegation of responsibility; demonstrate ability to work with others from a diverse background.

Social Studies:

Strand: Civics and Government

Standard III:   Students understand the ideals, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship and understand the content and history founding documents of the United States and New Mexico constitutions and how governments function at local, state, tribal, and national levels.

9-12 Benchmark III-A:  Compare and analyze the structure, power, and purpose of government at the local, state, tribal, and national levels as set forth in their respective constitutions or governance documents.

Standards: 1,4,5, and 6.

9-12 Benchmark III-B:  Understand how to exercise rights and responsibilities as citizens by participating in civic life and using skills that include interacting, monitoring, and influencing.

Standards: 2, 4, and 5.

Read the case of Gerald Gault to the students.  Ask students to identify the facts in the case.  Have students draw (stick figures are ok) on 10 3x5 cards the sequence of events of the Gault case.  Discuss the results of the Supreme Court rulings for juveniles.  Prompt for discussion on what it would be like to not have any due process for juveniles.   Assessment will be based on the drawings and sequencing and participation in discussion. 

Lesson:   Should juveniles receive the death penalty? 

Standards: Language Arts:

Strand: Reading and Listening Comprehension

Standard: I - Students will apply strategies and skills to comprehend                  information that is heard and viewed.

Benchmark: I-A, I-B, and I-CGo to top of page.

Career Readiness:

Standard 4:   Students will develop and demonstrate responsible and ethical workplace behaviors.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate ability to work cooperatively to accomplish objectives; demonstrate appropriate and legal behaviors necessary to obtain and maintain employment.

Standard 5:   Students will develop effective leadership; interpersonal and team skills.

9-12:  Students will demonstrate leadership within a group through effective communication, ability to motivate team members, and effective delegation of responsibility; demonstrate ability to work with others from a diverse background.

Social Studies:

Strand: Civics and Government

Standard III:   Students understand the ideals, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship and understand the content and history founding documents of the United States and New Mexico constitutions and how governments function at local, state, tribal, and national levels.

9-12 Benchmark III-A:  Compare and analyze the structure, power, and purpose of government at the local, state, tribal, and national levels as set forth in their respective constitutions or governance documents.

Standards: 1,4,5, and 6.

9-12 Benchmark III-B:  Understand how to exercise rights and responsibilities as citizens by participating in civic life and using skills that include interacting, monitoring, and influencing.

Standards: 2, 4, and 5.  

Have students watch Juveniles and the Death Penalty or similar documentary.  Have students journal their feelings on what they watched. 

Have students read Thompson v. Oklahoma, Stanford v. Kentucky, and Wilkins v. Missouri.   Have students identify the important facts in the cases and put the information on the board.  Have students develop arguments for each of the parties in the cases.   Ask students to make a decision in each of the cases.  Hand out the actual decision of the cases and discuss the differences of their decision and the state’s decision.  Assessment will be based on the arguments and discussion. 

New Mexico Standards and Benchmarks 

Documentation

Bibliography 

Austin, James, Kelly Dedel Johnson, Maria Gregoriou.  Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails:  A National Assessment.  Washington, DC:   Office of Justice Programs, 2000. 

Bernard, Thomas J.  The Cycle of Juvenile Justice.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 1992. 

Bilchick, Shay.   Justice for Youth: Making a Difference.   Chicago, Illinois:  American Bar Association, 1999. 

Cravens, Hamilton,  Child Saving in Modern America 1870s-1990s.  Albany, New York:   State University of New York Press, 1993. 

Fox, Kenneth, Ph.D.,  Everything You Need To Know About:  Your Legal Rights.   New York:  The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 1992. 

Giger, Michelle.  Practical Law in New Mexico.  Albuquerque, New Mexico:  New Mexico Bar Foundation Law-Related Education, 1992. 

Goldstein, Arnold P., Barry Glick, Mary Jane Irwin, Claudia Pask-McCartney, and Ibrahim Rubama, Reducing Delinquency:  Intervention in the Community.  New York:   Pergamon Press, 1989.

Guarino-Ghezzi, Susan and Loughran, Edward J. Balancing Juvenile Justice. New Brunswick, NJ:Go to top of page. Transaction, 1996.

Juvenile Offenders in Residential Facilities, 1997; OJJDP Fact Sheet #96, March 1999; http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles1/fs9996.txt

Laub, J.H. and Sampson, R.J. (1999). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. In In S.H. Traub & C.B. Little (Eds.), Theories of Deviance (2d Edition). Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock. (Original work published 1993).  

McGarrell, Edmund F. Juvenile Correctional Reform:  Two Decades of Policy and Procedural Change.  Albany, New York:  State University of New York Press, 1988. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. “Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change.” Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice, 1999.

OJJDP, Juvenile Offenders and Victims, 1999 National Report p. 192-7.

Puritz, Patricia, Mary Ann Scali,  Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of Confinement for Youth in Custody.  Washington, DC:  American Bar Association, Juvenile Juctice Center, 1998. 

Teacher Resources

Addams, Jane. The Spirit of Youth and the City Streets. New York: Macmillan.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (1999). Juvenile Jailhouse Rocked. Baltimore: Author, 1999.

Burrell, S., DeMuro, P., Dunlap, E., Sanniti, C., & Warboys, L. Crowding in Juvenile Detention Centers: A Problem-Solving Manual. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 1998.

Children’s Court Centennial Communications Project.  Second Chances 100 Years of the Children’s Court: Giving Kids A Chance to Make a Better Choice. CA: First California Press, 1999.

Handerson, C. J., Alcatraz. Scholastic, 1999

Hubner, J., & Wolfson, J. Somebody Else’s Children: the Courts, the Kids and the Struggle to Save America’s Troubled Families. New York: Crown Publishers, 1996.

Lerner, Steve. The Good News About Juvenile Justice: The Movement Away from Large Institutions and Toward Community-based Services. CA: Commonweal, 1990.

Mauer, Marc. Race to Incarcerate. New York: The New Press, 1999

May, Dr. John. Youth Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. A Centennial Celebration of the Juvenile Court 1899-1999 Juvenile and Family Court Journal Nevada: Author, 1998.

Singer, Simon. Recriminalizing Delinquency: Violent Juvenile Crimes and Juvenile Justice Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Snyder, H. & Sickmund, M. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, 1999.

White, Susan O. Handbook of Youth and Justice.  New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001.

Internet Sites

www.Lawforkids.org

http://www.azbf.org

http://www.ncjrs.org/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/juvenile.html

http://www.juvenilelaw.org/

http://crime.about.com/

http://www.centerforhumanrights.org/

http://www.youthlawcenter.com

http://www.scaec.org/international.htm

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

http://www.kidslaw.com/kidslaw/programs.html

http://www.lib.msu.edu/harris23/crimjust/juvenile.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/juve-n11.shtml Nathan Abraham’s case

http://library.ucsc.edu/ref/instruction/refguides/crimjust/   List of films on Juvenile Justice IssuesGo to top of page.