NCJ Number
189138
Journal
Law and Policy Volume: 23 Issue: 2 Dated: April 2001 Pages: 197-215
Editor(s)
Jeffrey A. Butts
Date Published
April 2001
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This article examined several important questions associated with the what, who, and how of youth courts in New York State. It described the diverse and overlapping objectives, target populations, and operating procedures of the youth tribunals. It discussed the interrelated nature of youth court goals, subjects, and procedures, and offered general prescription for the more effective design and operation of youth courts.
Abstract
The 1990’s were a time of unprecedented change in the world of juvenile justice. Lawmakers and policymakers continued their struggle to find effective responses to youth crime and delinquency. Youth courts or peer courts were created and aimed at primarily first offenders involved in relatively minor transgressions. In these forums, adolescents sat in judgment of their peers. Young people assumed the roles of prosecutor, defense counsel, court clerks, bailiffs, and usually judge and/or jury to decide cases involving youthful defendants accused of minor violations of the law or breaching school rules. This article first described the different objectives or goals that youth courts were designed to serve. It discussed the types of offenders and offenses typically processed in youth courts and examined procedures employed in the disposition of cases. These issues were addressed in a survey administered in 1999 to supervisors of the 42 youth courts operating in the State of New York. Echoed throughout the survey was that one of the greatest strengths of youth courts was the ability of individual communities to design and structure these innovative forums to best serve their specific needs and circumstances. The first step was to specify the particular youth court’s precise goals, focusing on the target populations and the community’s most pressing priorities and needs. Communities experiencing significant juvenile crime may desire alternatives for handling relatively minor offenders, freeing up the juvenile court to dispose more serious cases. In addition, procedural questions need to be answered within the framework of the youth court’s expressed operating objectives. Continued systematic program evaluation is considered essential. Potential outcome objectives must be carefully studied so the youth court’s effectiveness can be evaluated and operations modified accordingly. The job of designing better youth courts is partly conceptual, partly empirical, and partly procedural. Dedicated attention must be given to the what, who, and how issues that define youth courts as unique forums in substance and procedure. The objectives of youth courts can be realized through a continued process of critical inquiry, assessment, modification, and reassessment. References