Fall 1990 Home   Newsletters

Winter 1991

Spring 1991

President's Message (Sandra Duckworth)
Board Highlights
Hospitality Needed
Call to Convention
Non-Partisan Facts Explored
League Leaders Listed
Juvenile Justice Position Reviewed (Catherine Tignac)
Reapportionment: The Drama Begins (Anna Lee)
League Unveils Juvenile Justice Position
Action Ahead on Public Education (Marion Saunders)
Legislative Access Reported (Debbie Kimball)
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (Debbie Kimball)
League Appreciates these Companies

League Unveils JJ Position

Leo Hana, March 1981

Position in Brief

The League of Women Voters believes that the juvenile justice system should provide for the protection of society along with the rehabilitation of juvenile law violators. We also recognize the need for a greater acceptance by the schools of responsibility in the area of crime prevention. We support the concept of the family court as the proper place to deal with troubled youth. We desire consistency in the juvenile justice system while retaining the ability of the family court to take into consideration the age, level of maturity, and needs of each child before the court. We support a waiver to adult court in certain circumstances. Waiver procedures should be based on written guidelines and be applicable only to sixteen and seventeen year olds. We are especially concerned that the community provide an adequate variety and number of services for children needing such services, and that any secure youth facility meet at least minimum standards for such facilities.

Expanded Position

The purposes of the police, courts, and corrections components of the juvenile justice system are to protect society, and to rehabilitate the juvenile law violator. Rehabilitation will sometimes include punishment. Punishment applied to juveniles should be humane, seek to avoid criminalization, promote the juvenile's potential for responsible behavior in relation to family and community, and be applied equally regardless of race, religion, sex, economic or social status. Successful rehabilitation of an individual is a form of prevention, since the rehabilitated individual will not commit crimes in the future. There should be periodic review of dispositions to be sure that treatment is being provided, that it is still necessary, and that there is continuity between agencies.

Ancillary components of the juvenile justice system--schools, social service agencies--must bear the responsibility of being effective in alleviating these youths' problems so that crime is likely to be prevented.

The LWV emphasizes the great responsibility of the school system to meet the learning needs of all children. From our Family Court observation program, the most significant problems for most of the children appearing before the court were school related, such as high absenteeism, low level of skills, and deep-seeded frustration and hostility toward school. Children are required to attend school until the age of eighteen and the schools must accommodate themselves to the wide variety of children they serve. They must act to solve problems that they see quite early in their students and must assure that basic skills are taught. To these ends, the LWV supports alternate teaching methods and programs, effective monitoring of attendance, implementation of the DOE developed guidance program which suggests techniques for teachers and principals to use in dealing effectively with youngsters at different age levels. We also support provisions for adequate counseling services in the schools.

The League supports the concept of the Family Court and its premise that society should take the opportunity to guide youth while they are still malleable and not stigmatize youth with criminal labels. Thus, we would separate the very young from the adult system and, at the same time, take pains to treat the problems of these youths. The LWV supports harsher sanctions for older youth who continue to break the law, especially in ways physically harmful to other people.

The LWV supports consistency in the full juvenile justice system, while still retaining the ability of the Family Court to consider the age, level of maturity, and individual problems of each child. Both society and the law violator should know what to expect from the juvenile justice system.

Police, probation officers, corrections officers, and judges should operate under general guidelines designed to give equitable treatment to all youth and to give consistent treatment to the single youth who encounters different people in the juvenile justice system. The principal of consistency requires good record-keeping, communication, and follow-up between all agencies dealing with a youth--including schools and social service agencies as well as police, courts, and corrections. Whatever consequences a youth must face, the consequences must be administered swiftly and surely. It is unreasonable to claim to be teaching responsibility to a young person while reacting to his offense in a ponderous or inconsistent manner.

Sentencing should be generally proportionate to the crime. There should be distinctions between those who commit violent crimes, repeat offenders, and other children who appear before the court.

The LWV supports a waiver procedure, based on written guidelines, and only for sixteen and seventeen year olds. This means we oppose automatic waiver and support the Kent guidelines, which require the judge to consider the following factors:

  • The seriousness of the alleged offense.

  • Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner..

  • Whether the alleged offense was against persons or property and what personal injury resulted.

  • Whether the minor's accomplices were adults and, if so, whether it would be desirable to try them together in one court.

  • The youth's history with the juvenile justice system.

  • Prospects for adequate public protection and likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation through the means available to the Family Court.

The LWV supports the provision of an adequate variety and number of services in the community to rehabilitate offenders and assist children whose behavior suggest problems that might lead to crimes.

We expect increasingly serious consequences for the youth that does not respond to treatment. Hand in hand with that expectation must be a wide range of appropriate services to treat the youth, since, of course, he cannot respond to treatment that does not exist. Hawaii currently has an insufficient supply of services; the League's first priorities include support of the simultaneous development of such services and the immediate conversion of the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility (Ku'olau) from a holding place into a treatment program.

Ko'olau does not meet minimum standards for a secure facility. We are particularly concerned about the inadequacy of educational and social services.

The secure facilities for those juveniles requiring incarceration should meet these minimum standards:

A. Assure the Rights of Youth, including:

  • Due process

  • Personal possessions

  • Privacy

  • Freedom of and from religion

  • Right to personal communications

  • Limitations and procedural requirements for discipline

  • Grievance and appeal mechanisms

  • Periodical review of placement

  • Bodily safety

B. Assure the Quality of Programs, including:

  • Initial physical, mental, psychological evaluation

  • Recreation and exercise

  • Medical and dental care

  • Education for individual

  • Vocational training

  • Psychiatric and psychological services

  • Work-release and school-release programs

  • Follow-up after release

  • Additional help for youths at the

    crucial point when they leave institutional life and re-enter society.

C. Assure the Effectiveness of Facilities' Staff, including:

  • Ratio of staff to youth

  • Qualifications

  • Supervision

  • Accountability

D. Assure that Hardcore Juvenile Offenders are Not Locked Up With Other Youths

In addition to the statewide League consensus, the Kauai League has arrived at a position that would support the use of a Kauai juvenile counselor for status offenders. The Hawaii County League has arrived at a position to support a secure facility on the island of Hawaii; this would eliminate the practice of sending youths from Hawaii to Ko'olau (Oahu) for lock up.

Fall 1990 Home   Newsletters Spring 1991