Translator: Meral Öztürk Reviewer: Ellen Maloney
More than a million times a year,
children in America are charged with crimes in juvenile court.
The overwhelming majority of these charges
are for nonviolent offences;
cases like trespass, property destruction,
smoking marijuana, underage drinking,
fighting in school, or maybe talking back in school.
The kind of behaviour that is pretty normal
for middle and high school-aged students,
but is disproportionately policed,
and prosecuted against children of colour
and children in low-income communities.
America's juvenile courts were built with good intentions,
but in our system of justice,
America's children need good lawyers.
It's common sense, but it's not common practice.
We're here today to discuss innovations.
The juvenile court system was itself created as an innovation.
Back in the early 1900s, the big idea was to treat children like children;
to guide and rehabilitate them,
and remove them from the harmful environment of adult criminal courts,
jails and prisons.
But by the 1960s, it was clear
the reality of a juvenile court experience was not living up to this ideal.
Children, in fact, were experiencing the worst of both worlds.
They were being punished harshly like adults,
but without the constitutional protections of adults.
And by 1967, the United States Supreme Court heard the case called In re Gault.
Jerry Gault was a 15-year-old boy in Arizona.
He was charged with making a prank phone call to a neighbour.
For this alleged delinquency,
Jerry was sentenced to years in a juvenile prison,
without notice of the charges against him,
without an opportunity to cross examine witnesses,
and without the representation of a defence attorney at trial.
Considering this case, the Supreme Court said,
"Good intentions are not an adequate substitute for a fair hearing.
And under our constitution", the court said,
"the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court".
And in a landmark decision In re Gault, the Supreme Court held
that children are entitled to due process of law,
and that includes the right to a defence attorney.
Common sense, but not common practice.
Children in America need good lawyers, effective juvenile defenders
to both protect their rights and help them become successful adults.
We live in a country that incarcerates more children
than any other nation in the world;
that subjects children to solitary confinement, strip searches, shackling.
We station police officers and make arrests,
sometimes violent arrests, in our schools.
And against this backdrop, children need zealous advocacy in two critical ways:
to present the child's voice in court.
Juvenile defenders build attorney-client relationships;
they understand the circumstances of their client's life.
They help guide their client through the process,
help them make important decisions,
and understand the consequences of those decisions.
Juvenile defenders also ensure that the proceedings are fair;
they investigate the case;
they negotiate with the prosecutor;
they'll take the case to trial
or do everything they can to ensure that the outcome is appropriate
for that child, in that case.
And in this sense, juvenile defenders provide critical checks-and-balances
both for the individual child-client
and for the juvenile justice system as a whole.
Common sense, but not common practice.
I work for the National Juvenile Defender Centre
and we conduct state-wide assessments to assess and examine
children's access to counsel, and quality of representation.
And in my home state of Colorado,
an assessment realed a massive gap in juvenile defence services.
We learned that in 45% - almost half -
of all juvenile delinquency cases,
children went through the entire proceeding
without ever having a defence attorney.
To understand how this was happening, we took to court-watching.
We went into the juvenile courts,
we sat in the rows alongside children and families, and we watched.
There was no defense attorney in the room,
there was no judge in the room at first,
but there was a prosecutor.
And the prosecutor called each child's name,
and handed nearly every family a 7-page packet of legal paperwork,
offering to resolve the case right there and then,
if the child simply waived his or her rights and pled guilty.
The prosecutor advised: if the child wanted a lawyer,
they would have to come back on another court date,
and in the meantime, go to the Public Defender's Office
and fill out an application.
To a parent, hearing your child is going home on probation
can sound like a pretty good deal,
when you are looking at missing three days' work
just to get your child a lawyer.
We sat as the judge came out and watched an assembly line of case processing
one-by-one, children and families stood before the judge,
waived their rights, signed all that legal paperwork,
entered pleas of "guilty", with no one investigating their case,
no one talking to them about their life,
no one negotiating whether mentoring or diversion might be appropriate,
and no one advising the family
about the long-term consequences of a juvenile adjudication:
how that trespass case might affect their college application,
or how that marijuana plea might get
the whole family kicked out of their apartment.
Or how pleading guilty to that fight in school might get them expelled,
or kicked off the sports team.
That's not rehabilitation.
That's not justice.
But it's a scene that plays out state after state across our country.
We know access to justice is about access to an attorney themselves,
but it's also about the quality of that attorney's representation.
And in this country, we deny children quality of representation
when the legal profession treats juvenile court like a training ground;
a place for new lawyers to learn how to become a defence attorney
before they take on the responsibility of representing adults.
And so, in some places, where children do get lawyers,
their lawyer may have very little interest in juvenile defence,
or not enough time in a juvenile court rotation
to master the ins and outs
of the specialized nature of juvenile court practice.
Compare this to the medical profession.
We don't let doctors practice on children
before they are qualified to treat adult patients.
To the contrary, we take our children to specialists, called pediatricians.
And just like the specialized care of a pediatrician,
children who are prosecuted in America
need the specialized care of a juvenile defender;
someone who understands the characteristics of youth development,
someone who knows the ins and outs of the system.
It is common sense.
So, what's next?
Next year, we will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the In re Gault decision.
And this is an opportunity for all of us to stand together for children's rights;
community, courts, policy makers.
When we work together, we can, and in many places. are making progress
to ensure children's right to counsel.
And when we make common practice
early access to a lawyer for all children,
and specialization in juvenile defense,
we will be innovative.
America's children are overdue for due process.
Let's not wait another 50 years
before we ensure children's constitutional rights.
I invite you to join our Gault At 50 Campaign,
and be a champion for children's right to counsel
because children in America need good lawyers.
Thank you.
(Applause)