Spotlight on: Guiding Principles for Prosecution of Juvenile Crime

by Caren Harp1 and John Delaney2

Introduction

When prosecutors talk about their approaches to prosecution of juvenile delinquency, most usually include a discussion of the ethical obligations to seek justice, the duty to secure restitution for victims, the desire to be fair, the duty to protect the community and the desire to rehabilitate the offender. Most prosecutors also indicate that their systems are reactive, i.e., the system develops a new strategy or set of goals for each new crime trend or behavior problem that presents itself. Few articulate a comprehensive approach to juvenile justice.

In the early 1990s, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored development of a new, three part mission for the juvenile justice system. The goals would be community protection, offender accountability to the victim and community, and offender competency development. This triumvirate came to be known as “Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ).” Based in part, on the work of Dennis Maloney in Deschutes County, OR and Dr. Gordon Bazemore at Florida Atlantic University, and on OJJDP’s program and research experience, BARJ refined what prosecutors were already doing into three core principles to guide juvenile justice efforts: community safety, offender accountability, and competency development.

This new approach harkened back to the ancient notion that an offender, in committing his offense, has robbed the community of its peace and dignity. A series of new questions emerged. How can the offender repair the harm he inflicted? How can he/she restore that peace and dignity? How can he/she restore the victim? How can the community benefit from, and participate in, this restoration? BARJ also offered some unique answers to these questions including victim offender reconciliation programs, victim impact panels, and juvenile reparation programs.

Principles Not Programs

As this restorative approach to juvenile justice gained momentum, many, including prosecutors, focused on specific “restorative” programs such as victim-offender mediation, and other innovative, community-oriented diversion programs. The attention paid to the programs soon overshadowed the core principles that guided them, and BARJ became identified as a program or series of programs, especially diversion programs. Many juvenile justice system actors believed that if they had diversion programs in place, they were practicing restorative justice. This erroneous identification as a diversion program also led to the mistaken belief that restorative justice was only appropriate for low-level offenders.

Other jurisdictions, through legislative enactment3 and or policy decisions4, attempted to weave the three principles into the very fabric of their juvenile justice systems. They began to see the juvenile justice system through a restorative “lens,” as opposed to creating a “restorative justice unit.”5

The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), OJJDP and the BARJ project at Florida Atlantic University are working together to focus prosecutors’ attention on the core principles of restorative justice: community safety, accountability, and competency development. The community safety principle is clear. The juvenile justice system has a responsibility to protect the public, particularly from juveniles subject to its jurisdiction.6 The prosecution strategies, as well as the court-ordered services or restrictions necessary to accomplish that goal, depend on the conduct of the juvenile and the facts of the case. The accountability concept is also straightforward. When an individual commits an offense, the offender incurs an obligation to individual victims and the community to repair the harm caused by the crime.7 The offender must repay these obligations. The more grievous the harm, the more extensive is the repair or repayment. The competency development principle states that offenders who enter the juvenile justice system should thereafter live constructive, crime-free lives.8 This third prong is perhaps the most revolutionary, asking the juvenile system to move beyond the traditional expectation of preventing recidivism, seeking to help the youth obey the law and be responsible and productive. Together, the three principles challenge prosecutors and other justice system professionals to promote safety, repair harm, and build community.

There is nothing in these core values suggesting that all juveniles are appropriate for diversion programs, or that juveniles should not be prosecuted or incarcerated. To the contrary, on a case-by-case basis, balanced consideration of the core restorative principles can guide decisions made for every offender, from low-level, nonviolent offenders all the way up to the most violent juvenile criminals.

Adopting a juvenile justice philosophy can have a number of advantages. Clearly defined values and principles can:

• guide decision making by prosecutors and other system participants;
• enhance consistency and fairness in the system;
• be readily measured;
• inform communities about system successes, and
• help prosecutors explain how they exercise their considerable discretionary powers.

Next Steps

The advisory group of prosecutors from around the country that guides the activities of the National Juvenile Justice Prosecution Center (NJJPC) at APRI, met recently in Alexandria, VA and expressly reaffirmed the core principles of community safety, offender accountability and competency development as guiding principles for NJJPC training curricula and technical assistance. The group also agreed to work with Dennis Maloney, former Director of Deschutes County (OR) Community Justice and one of the original authors of the balanced approach, in measuring the performance of the juvenile justice system using the three core principles as the standards. Maloney, the BARJ project and the NJJPC advisory group will discuss with judges, probation officials and others how to evaluate whether, and to what extent, the three clients are being served. Possible benchmarks include amount of restitution ordered versus collected, victim satisfaction, law-abiding behavior, school participation, and juvenile crime trends. It is hoped that consensus can be reached on what to measure, how to measure, and how to pilot the compilation of a “juvenile justice system report card” in different types of jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The staff of the NJJPC is interested in obtaining prosecutors’ views regarding the ways in which they have adopted the three principles, and the extent to which their practices and the practices of their court systems and communities have changed. Staff is also available to consult with prosecutors who are interested in moving toward a more restorative system. Please contact the NJJPC with your comments by phone at (703) 518-4380 or by email at juvenilejustice@ndaa-apri.org.

1 Senior Attorney, Director, National Juvenile Justice Prosecution Center at APRI
2 John Delaney, Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia, PA
3 See, for example, the purposes clause of Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §6301(b): “. . . Consistent with the protection of the public interest, to provide for children committing delinquent acts programs of supervision, care and rehabilitation which provide balanced attention to the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community.”
4 Minnesota, for example, has implemented many restorative justice practices.
5 Zehr, Howard, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottsdale, AZ: Herald Press, 1990.
6 The BARJ Project, Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model, OJJDP Report, December 1998
7 Id.
8 Id.