Source: https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/reform/ch2_i.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:54:34+00:00

Document:
Until recently, State laws and judicial norms were established with the understanding that the preservation of the privacy of juveniles adjudicated in the juvenile court is a critical component of the youth's rehabilitation. Today, however, in the face of increasing public concerns over juvenile crime and violence, government agencies, school officials, the public, and victims are seeking more information about juvenile offenders. An increasing number of States are responding to this need by allowing public access to and victim participation in juvenile proceedings, broadening access to juvenile records, fingerprinting and photographing delinquent youth, and altering expungement laws for juvenile records.
The establishment of protective measures for guarding the privacy of youth offenders can be traced back to the separation of juvenile courts from criminal court systems. When the first juvenile court was created in Chicago, IL, in 1899, it was designed to "spare juveniles from harsh proceedings of adult court, punitive and unseemly conditions of adult jails and penitentiaries, and the stigma of being branded 'criminal,'" according to an article by Tamryn J. Etten and Robert F. Petrone in the Juvenile and Family Court Journal.180 This new system of juvenile justice administration was designed to be less punitive and more therapeutic than the adult system and included the idea of keeping juvenile proceedings and records private.
Although States have enacted laws to allow media access to juvenile proceedings, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the courts should retain discretion in this determination, based upon characteristics of an individual case. The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear an appeal in United States v. Three Juveniles,196 in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a U.S. district court judge's restriction of media access to proceedings in which three juveniles were being tried for committing a hate crime. The refusal to hear the case let the First Circuit's decision stand, allowing judges to retain jurisdiction to determine if and when protecting the privacy of a minor during delinquency proceedings will serve the broader public interest of furthering the juvenile's rehabilitation.
United States v. Three Juveniles arose when the government charged three youth with civil rights violations after they allegedly conspired to impinge upon the civil rights of Jews and African-Americans living in the Brockton and Randolph, MA, areas. The three, initially prosecuted in 1994 under a Federal hate crime statute, purportedly had been members of a white supremacy skinhead group called the New Dawn Hammerskins.
Before the juveniles were arraigned, The Boston Globe intervened in an attempt to gain access to the proceedings and court documents filed in the case. Although the district court allowed the newspaper limited access to some documents, the court denied its request for admittance to the proceedings. The court reasoned that the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Code197 required the closure of a Federal juvenile delinquency proceeding if a juvenile is amenable to rehabilitation and has no prior criminal or juvenile delinquency record and if the case has not been transferred to adult criminal court.
The Globe appealed the decision, arguing that the public right of access to the proceedings was guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Globe also contended that the court's reason for closing the proceedings was not sufficiently articulated.
The First Circuit determined there was not a need to address The Globe's first amendment argument because the case could be resolved by considering the law's statutory intent and provisions. Although the court noted that an essential element of the Federal code is the "[p]rotection of the juvenile from the stigma of a criminal record by preserving the confidentiality of proceedings,"198 it concluded that several provisions of the law, when read as a whole, show that Congress did not intend to require that all proceedings be fully closed. While various provisions of the law do not require closure, they do authorize courts to protect a juvenile's confidentiality either by closing proceedings or through some other means, according to the court.
The court rejected The Globe's argument that the logic behind the trial court's decision to close the court proceedings was not sufficiently articulated. The appellate court noted that the district court had stated that the "overarching objective" of the juvenile court was to protect juveniles from a negative social stigma in order to facilitate rehabilitation and that the youth in this case would likely be responsive to that rehabilitative effort.
Recent State action has recognized that many agencies that serve children may be better equipped to do so if provided with comprehensive access to a youth's records. According to a recent article from the Juvenile and Family Court Journal, agencies charged with the implementation of juvenile justice and children and family services often have common objectives, and these objectives yield a need for common information.200 Policy initiatives that support this idea include expanding access to juvenile records to youth corrections personnel, to courts, and to other State agencies and school officials in some cases.
Some States, in response to a growing number of crimes committed by repeat youth offenders, have created a collaborative, systematic approach to information sharing. One example is the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP). Originally developed by OJJDP, SHOCAP facilitates agency collaboration and information sharing to provide the most relevant sanction, treatment, or intervention for serious habitual offenders. Since the first SHOCAP programs were established in the late 1980's, several States, including California, Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Virginia, have enacted SHOCAP legislation to expand access to relevant data and information collected on juvenile offenders by State and local agencies.
Traditionally, agencies charged with the administration of juvenile justice have been reluctant to share information on individual cases with other agencies, which reflects the juvenile justice system's focus on rehabilitation in contrast with the adult system's punishment and incapacitation model. Although many States have eased the legal barriers to exchanging information on juveniles, many internal and informal barriers exist, as agencies often refuse to trust other agencies.
Another byproduct of local SHOCAP agreements is the establishment of more organized and useful records. By having standards for recording information, those shared documents are more likely to be readily useful to a variety of agencies and less likely to contain gaps in information.
States have also facilitated access to juvenile records by changing the administrative processes governing juvenile records -- loosening rules on their collection, centralizing their maintenance, and limiting their disposal. Policy initiatives of this sort include holding juvenile records in a central repository, fingerprinting and photographing juveniles, making changes to expungement and sealing laws, and expanding access to juvenile records.
180. Tamryn J. Etten & Robert F. Petrone, Sharing Data and Information in Juvenile Justice: Legal, Ethical, and Practical Considerations, Juv. & Fam. Ct. 65­89 (1994).
182. Torbet et al., supra note 154, at 53.
183. Memorandum from Jim Turpin, American Correctional Association, to Interested Parties (Nov. 13, 1996) (on file with author).
184. Torbet et al., supra note 154, at 72­75.
185. Etten & Petrone, supra note 180, at 48.
187. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 26­7A­36, ­36.1 (Michie Supp. 1996).
188. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 62.193 (Supp. 1996).
189. Ind. Code Ann. § 31­6­7­10 (West Supp. 1996).
190. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8­290.01 (West Supp. 1996).
191. Torbet Et Al., supra note 154, at 55.
192. Ga. Code Ann. § 15­11­28 (Supp. 1996).
193. American Prosecutors Research Institute, Prosecutors' Policy Recommendations on Serious, Violent, and Habitual Youthful Offenders 22 (1996) [hereinafter APRI].
194. Richard D. Hendrickson, Media Access to Juvenile Court: An Update, Juv. & Fam. Ct. J. 27, 34 (1993) (citations omitted).
196. United States v. Three Juveniles, 61 F.3d 86 (1st Cir. 1995).
197. Codified at 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq.
198. Three Juveniles, 61 F.3d at 90.
199. APRI, supra note 193, at 23.
200. Etten & Petrone, supra note 180, at 67.
201. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Fact Sheet No. 35 Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program (August 1996) [hereinafter Fact Sheet No. 35].
203. APRI, supra note 193, at 23.
204. Fact Sheet No. 35, supra note 201.
205. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 827, 828.1 (West Supp. 1996).
206. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 118.127(3) (West Supp. 1996).
207. 705 Comp. Stat. Ann. § 405/1­7 (West Supp. 1996).
208. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54­76l (West Supp. 1996).
209. Lyons, supra note 111, at 12.
210. Torbet et al., supra note 154, at 60.
212. Neal Miller, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Dep't of Justice, State Laws on Prosecutors' and Judges' Use of Juvenile Records 2 (Nov. 1995) [hereinafter Miller, State Laws].
213. Torbet et al., supra note 154, at 61. According to a recent report by NCSL, Hawaii enacted juvenile fingerprinting legislation in 1995. This change brings the total number of States with juvenile fingerprinting provisions to 48, up from the 47 States listed in the NCJJ report.
214. Miller, State Laws, supra note 212, at 3.
215. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6341 (West 1995).
216. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2151.313 (Banks-Baldwin Supp. 1995).
217. N.D. Cent. Code § 27­20­56 (Supp. 1995).
218. Miller, State Laws, supra note 212.
220. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A­676 (1995).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 62
 § 31
 § 8
 § 15
 v. 
 § 5031
 § 118
 § 405
 § 54
 § 6341
 § 2151
 § 27
 § 7