Introduction
Specialty juvenile courts – specializing in dealing with certain cases involving crimes committed by minors – have increased recently, as judicial systems have sought alternative ways to deal with some juvenile offenders, rather than transfer them to adult courts. This research paper discusses these specialty courts and examines their significance in the judicial system and their effectiveness from the viewpoints of those involved and society as a whole.
The Research
Specialty Courts: Judicial Practice and Legal Principle. That is the title of a journal article by Hewson (2011) published in the Queensland Law Student Review. Hewson described how specialty courts have emerged as part of the natural process of law reform, altering the “traditional adversarial system in favour of a more therapeutic and collaborative approach” which he claimed represented a significant change in the way defendants are viewed by the judicial system. He noted that the principles involved can be seen as being in conflict with the orthodox view of justice that the rights and interests of a defendant are seen as best protected by a defending lawyer who is not only zealous and partisan, but is someone who is bound by the dual “principles of confidentiality and disinterestedness.” Those principles are in contrast with the specialty courts where the defendant and his/her counsel are expected to work with the court in finding a suitable solution – usually rejecting the option of incarceration. Hewson reported that the effectiveness of specialty courts had been questioned, especially in terms of whether they achieve the objectives of reduced recidivism and criminal behavior. In attempting to define specialty courts, Hewson explained that their aim is to address the causes of criminal behavior rather than merely determining and implementing punishment. They try to deal with the problems of individual offenders in the context of community social problems. He referred to five distinguishing features of specialty courts:
- They emphasise “tangible outcomes” for all: offender, victim and the community;
- Those courts look at the social contexts of the offence committed;
- They are involved in monitoring defendants’ compliance with court orders;
- They collaborate with agencies handling treatment and community matters;
- That collaborative approach replaces the traditional adversarial court dynamic.
Assessing the effectiveness of this approach, Hewson reported that studies had shown that in terms of social outcomes, findings were that general health, social functionality, higher employment and literacy all resulted from both adult and juvenile specialty courts systems. Further, studies had found that using the specialty courts was an equally cost effective solution, and that both defendants and victims found them to offer a more satisfactory outcome. In New South Wales, other savings reported were in law enforcement and court appearance costs, more efficient use of the probationary services and of prison space.
Juvenile Drug Courts. In Washoe County, Nevada, the Second Judicial District Court published “Juvenile Drug Court Overview” (Dec 2008), which described the functioning of one such specialty court system. Created in 1994 and modeled on the first adult drug court established in Florida in 1989, this court is based on a dual philosophy of “rehabilitation and strict accountability” and is described in the article as “a post-adjudication, post-sentencing court” in which defendants are enrolled in a nine months minimum program (but typically 12 months) as a condition of probation. There are specific aftercare plans that are customized for each individual and those diagnosed with mental illness are especially monitored in a system in which a court specialist liaises closely with community providers of residential and outpatient mental healthcare facilities.
Trying children as adults. This article by Deanie C Allen (2002) was primarily focused on what he saw as the increasing trend in recent times to transfer juvenile perpetrators of serious crimes into the adult courts system. However, in the concluding section of his paper he referred to existing treatment and rehabilitation programs (such as are offered through the specialty courts) which have been proven to work and can convert offenders into model citizens, through first looking at the causes of the original crimes committed by those juveniles. Allen commented that though such programs are expensive, they actually are less costly, both in monetary terms and in terms of lives wasted when juveniles are sent into the adult prison system. In addition, he claimed, juveniles who serve time in adult prisons are highly likely to become lifelong criminals.
References
Allen, D., C. “Trying children as adults.” Jones Law Review 6.1 (2002), 27. Retrieved from (?)
Hewson, B. “Specialty Courts: Judicial Practice and Legal Principle.” (Feb 2011). Queensland Law Student Review, Vol. 4 No.1. Retrieved from
“Juvenile Drug Court Overview.” (Dec 2008). Second Judicial District Court Sate of Nevada, County of Washoe. Retrieved from
