In Loco Juvenile Justice: Minors in Munis, Cash from Kids, and Adolescent Pro Se Advocacy—Ferguson and Beyond

Mae C. Quinn
{"title":"In Loco Juvenile Justice: Minors in Munis, Cash from Kids, and Adolescent Pro Se Advocacy—Ferguson and Beyond","authors":"Mae C. Quinn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2614552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years many have challenged the imposition of lengthy adult prison terms for kids convicted of serious crimes. Given their special vulnerabilities, advocates argue young felony offenders should have their cases handled in our country’s specialized juvenile courts where they might receive age-appropriate interventions intended to support redirection and development. However, these conversations have largely overlooked another set of legal venues and their juvenile justice implications - those adjudicating low-level offenses such as local traffic and ordinance violations. Thus, there has been little scholarly, judicial, or advocacy address of the phenomenon of prosecuting minors in municipal courts. This essay calls for greater attention to the issue. It does so in the wake of recent events in Ferguson, Missouri which have generated wide-spread agreement that local courts need to change the ways they process, prosecute, and punish low-level ordinance violations. Indeed, as the nation has now learned, aggressive pursuit of fines and court fees through traffic cases and related quality-of-life actions are one of the most troubling aspects of life for many poor residents in St. Louis and beyond. Yet, juveniles – youth under the age of eighteen – are a population whose experiences have received almost no attention in the course of these critiques and recent calls for reform. This article fills that gap by opposing prosecution of minors in municipal courts – venues largely focused on financial enrichment of the localities they serve. It explains that municipal courts frequently deploy localized punitive practices against children that work to displace state and federal standards intended to protect them from harm, including taking cash from kids. Thus it urges rejection of in loco juvenile justice practices and instead argues youth – as a matter of common sense and constitutional doctrine – should have a right to juvenile court as venue of first resort.","PeriodicalId":142428,"journal":{"name":"BYU Law Review","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BYU Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2614552","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years many have challenged the imposition of lengthy adult prison terms for kids convicted of serious crimes. Given their special vulnerabilities, advocates argue young felony offenders should have their cases handled in our country’s specialized juvenile courts where they might receive age-appropriate interventions intended to support redirection and development. However, these conversations have largely overlooked another set of legal venues and their juvenile justice implications - those adjudicating low-level offenses such as local traffic and ordinance violations. Thus, there has been little scholarly, judicial, or advocacy address of the phenomenon of prosecuting minors in municipal courts. This essay calls for greater attention to the issue. It does so in the wake of recent events in Ferguson, Missouri which have generated wide-spread agreement that local courts need to change the ways they process, prosecute, and punish low-level ordinance violations. Indeed, as the nation has now learned, aggressive pursuit of fines and court fees through traffic cases and related quality-of-life actions are one of the most troubling aspects of life for many poor residents in St. Louis and beyond. Yet, juveniles – youth under the age of eighteen – are a population whose experiences have received almost no attention in the course of these critiques and recent calls for reform. This article fills that gap by opposing prosecution of minors in municipal courts – venues largely focused on financial enrichment of the localities they serve. It explains that municipal courts frequently deploy localized punitive practices against children that work to displace state and federal standards intended to protect them from harm, including taking cash from kids. Thus it urges rejection of in loco juvenile justice practices and instead argues youth – as a matter of common sense and constitutional doctrine – should have a right to juvenile court as venue of first resort.
少年司法:城市里的未成年人,孩子们的钱,青少年的自我辩护——弗格森及其他
近年来,许多人质疑对犯有严重罪行的儿童判处长期成人监禁的做法。考虑到他们的特殊脆弱性,支持者认为年轻的重罪罪犯应该在我国专门的少年法庭处理他们的案件,在那里他们可能会接受适合他们年龄的干预,以支持重定向和发展。然而,这些讨论在很大程度上忽略了另一组法律场所及其少年司法含义——那些判决低级犯罪的地方交通和条例违规的地方。因此,很少有学术、司法或倡导在地方法院起诉未成年人的现象。这篇文章呼吁更多地关注这个问题。最近发生在密苏里州弗格森的事件引发了广泛的共识,即地方法院需要改变处理、起诉和惩罚低级违反法令行为的方式。事实上,正如这个国家现在已经认识到的那样,通过交通案件和相关的生活质量行动,大肆追求罚款和法庭费用,是圣路易斯及其他地区许多贫困居民生活中最令人不安的方面之一。然而,在这些批评和最近呼吁改革的过程中,青少年——18岁以下的青少年——的经历几乎没有受到任何关注。本文通过反对在市政法院起诉未成年人填补了这一空白——这些地方主要关注的是它们所服务的地方的财政充实。它解释说,市政法院经常对工作的儿童采取地方性的惩罚措施,以取代旨在保护他们免受伤害的州和联邦标准,包括从孩子那里收取现金。因此,它敦促拒绝替代的少年司法做法,并主张青少年- -根据常识和宪法原则- -应有权将少年法庭作为第一申诉地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信