NCJ Number
62937
Date Published
1979
Length
108 pages
Annotation
THE REPORT EXAMINES THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT DOCTRINE AND ADVOCATES ITS ABANDONMENT IN FAVOR OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION/INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION (ABA/IJA) JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS.
Abstract
A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE RIGHT TO TREATMENT WAS FIRST PROCLAIMED IN 1960 FOR THE INVOLUNTARILY CONFINED MENTALLY ILL. SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL DECISION TRANSFORMED THE DOCTRINE INTO A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND EXTENDED IT TO INVOLUNTARILY CONFINED JUVENILES. THE STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS OF THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT ARE DISCUSSED, PARTICULARLY THE FOURTEENTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENTS. LEGALITY OF COMMITMENTS HAS BEEN ATTACKED ON DUE PROCESS GROUNDS, BUT THE JUDICIARY HAVE FACED DIFFICULTIES IN EVALUATING THE ADEQUACY OF TREATMENT AND RELIED HEAVILY ON EXPERT WITNESSES AND AMICI CURIAE. MONITORING THE RIGHT HAS BEEN VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYERS FUNDED BY JUVENILE LAW PROJECTS HAVE CONDUCTED MOST RIGHT TO TREATMENT LITIGATION. THE CLASS ACTION HAS BEEN THE MOST EFFECTIVE LITIGATION BECAUSE OF ITS FLEXIBILITY AND SCOPE. THE EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, MANDAMUS, THE INHERENT POWERS DOCTRINE, AND CONTEMPT HAVE ALSO BEEN USED. ALL MAJOR RIGHT TO TREATMENT CASES HAVE BEEN LITIGATED IN FEDERAL COURTS. THESE DECISIONS, HOWEVER, MAY HAVE HELPED TO LEGITIMIZE INSTITUTIONALIZATION FOR MANY JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND CONFLICT WITH THE TREND TOWARD DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION. SUPREME COURT OPINIONS DISAFFIRMING THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT ARE DESCRIBED IN TWO CASES FROM THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, DONALDSON V. O'CONNOR AND MORALES V. TURMAN. THE DECLINE OF THE JUVENILE COURT SYSTEM IS CLOSELY RELATED TO DISENCHANTMENT WITH THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT DOCTRINE. JUVENILE COURTS WERE FOUNDED ON PROTECTIVE AND REHABILITATIVE IDEALS THAT HAVE PROVEN UNREALISTIC OR INEFFECTIVE. JUDICIAL DISCRETION IS BEING NARROWED BY PROCEDURAL AND SENTENCING REFORMS. DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION IS INCREASINGLY POPULAR, BUT CANNOT BE WHOLLY SUCCESSFUL WHEN COURTS FAVOR INSTITUTIONS BY UPHOLDING THE RIGHT TO TREATMENT. THE REJECTION OF THE REHABILITATIVE MODEL HAS BEEN ACCOMPANIED BY AN EMPHASIS ON PUNISHMENT WHICH, UNLIKE REHABILITATION, HAS LIMITS. COURTS WILL CONTINUE TO EXAMINE DUE PROCESS AND INVOLUNTARY CONFINEMENT FOR JUVENILES, BUT THE EMPHASIS IS ON THE ELEMENT OF LIBERTY AS ADVOCATED BY THE SUPREME COURT'S LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE THEORY. RIGHT TO TREATMENT LITIGATION SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED, AND JUVENILE COURT REFORMS GUIDED BY THE ABA/IJA JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (MJM)