STANDARDS' RECOMMENDATIONS ON DISPOSITIONS - A PANEL DISCUSSION

• NCJ Number: 44238
• Journal: Boston University Law Review Volume: 57 Issue: 4 Dated: (JULY 1977) Pages: 754-776
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1977
• Length: 23 pages
• Corporate Author: Boston University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: THIS DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE AT BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW ON MAY 6, 1977, WITH STANLEY Z FISHER AS MODERATOR AND HOWARD A LEVINE AND FRED COHEN AS PANEL MEMBERS.

Annotation

THE COMMENTS OF A FAMILY COURT JUDGE AND A LAW PROFESSOR CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION PROCESS DELINEATED IN THE STANDARDS PROPOSED BY THE JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS PROJECT ARE RECORDED.

Abstract

THE DISCUSSANTS, A NEW YORK JUDGE AND A PARTICIPANT IN THE STANDARDS DRAFTING PROCESS, OFFER THEIR VIEWS ON THE MAJOR CHANGES EMBODIED IN THE PROPOSED PROCESS. THE JUDGE IDENTIFIES A NUMBER OF BASIC ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE PROPOSED PROCESS, INCLUDING A BASIC DISTRUST OF CORRECTIONAL AGENCIES AND ALL FORMS OF NONPARENTAL CUSTODY; THE VIEW THAT THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS ESSENTIALLY AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE OVERALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM; DISENCHANTMENT WITH THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AND THEIR ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE WITHIN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM; AND A DISTRUST OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY FOR JUDGES, CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, AND PROBATION OFFICERS. THE TENDENCY OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS TO VIEW CHILDREN AS 'INCOMPLETE ADULTS' IS NOTED. THE STANDARDS' RIGID ADHERENCE TO THE CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONALITY, PREJUDICE AGAINST CUSTODIAL SANCTIONS, AND LACK OF DIFFERENTIATION AMONG CUSTODIAL CHARGES ARE QUESTIONED. IN DEFENSE OF THE STANDARDS, THE LAW PROFESSOR POINTS OUT THE LIMITATIONS AND GOALS THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE STANDARDMAKERS, NOTING THAT THE AIM OF THE STANDARDS IS A SENSE OF JUSTICE AND BALANCE IN WHICH PROPORTIONALITY ACTS AS A PRINCIPLE OF LIMITATION. THE STANDARDS' VIEW OF DISPOSITION IN THE CONTEXT OF A DIMINISHED OR PARTIAL RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE JUVENILE, RATHER THAN A PRESUMPTION CONCERNING THE JUVENILE'S NEED FOR TREATMENT, IS NOTED. THE PANELISTS DISCUSS THE LIKELY IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS ON A NUMBER OF ASPECTS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM, FREQUENTLY WITH REFERENCE TO JUVENILE DISPOSITION PRACTICES IN NEW YORK STATE.