Ensuring Authentic Youth Participation in Delinquency Cases: Creating a Paradigm for Specialized Juvenile Defense Practice

Abstract

In delinquency courts, juvenile defense attorneys are essential for guaranteeing children's due process rights and encouraging their meaningful participation in the proceedings. Yet, indigent defense delivery systems are largely failing youth accused of committing crimes. This article highlights the importance of developing systems that support the highly specialized practice area of juvenile defense. To protect their clients’ rights and meet their ethical obligations, juvenile defense attorneys must zealously advocate for their clients’ expressed interests and must strategically address the biases and misunderstandings prevalent in delinquency courts. Specifically, defense attorneys must vigorously challenge systemic race, class, and gender injustices; incorporate expert knowledge of youth development into their advocacy; and protect clients’ mental health and educational interests. Such holistic representation promotes rehabilitation and reduces recidivism. Because of numerous obstacles that currently impede defense attorneys from engaging in such exemplary practice, systemic reforms are necessary to support high‐quality defense representation and, ultimately, ensure that youths’ rights are protected.

Definitions and Operationalization of Mental Health Problems, Wellbeing and Participation Constructs in Children with NDD: Distinctions and Clarifications

“…A focus on collaboration in decision making is also apparent in some education literature that describes participation as children being listened to by adults and having their views considered in decision making [ 49 ]. Puritz and Majd [ 50 ] describe involvement as having a meaningful opportunity to be heard.…”

The impact of waiver to adult court on youths’ perceptions of procedural justice.

“…These cultural influences have in some cases led to differences in role expectations between the two courts that may affect how youth perceive their treatment by legal authorities. For example, research has found general hostility in some juvenile courts toward the adversarial process and pressures for judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to work in a cooperative fashion, which differs greatly from role expectations in the adult criminal court (Puritz & Majd, 2007). A de-emphasis on the adversarial process may result in defense attorneys creating a less rigorous defense for youth, and the feeling among youth that their attorney is working for the court rather than working for them .…”

“…These judicial upward departures could make youth feel that they are being treated unfairly by the adult system. Further, studies looking at defense attorneys have indicated that juvenile courts often receive fewer resources than criminal courts (Humes, 1997), and are viewed as less desirable and prestigious work environments than criminal courts (Puritz & Majd, 2007; Sanborn, 2001). In fact, juvenile courts are seen as training grounds because they are “low stakes” (Humes, 1997).…”

Young people's perception of lawyers in Hong Kong: A comparison between offenders, youth-at-risk and students

“…Past empirical studies have pointed out that a positive perception of fairness and due process can have therapeutic consequences and lessen recidivism for offenders. On the other hand, negative perceptions could lead defendants to use non-legal methods to solve disputes in the future (Black, 1983;Puritz and Majd, 2007). Lastly, we explored the sources of information regarding youths' knowledge of lawyers.…”