Follow the latest news and information relevant to juvenile delinquency issues through JDN's Key Issues page. Learn more about Roper v. Simmons, recent Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) studies, as well as information specific to Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Race and Gender Profiling Study
OJJDP's Access to Counsel
OJJDP’s Juveniles in Corrections
Overuse of Detention
Roper v. Simmons (Juvenile Death Penalty)
Yarborough v. Alvarado (Miranda)
Youth Unlawfully Held Without Bail
In every state in the country, minorities are over-represented at each stage of the juvenile justice system. What should be a vestige of the past is not. In Massachusetts, children of color represent just 28 percent of the youth population. Yet minorities comprise 56 percent of those committed to DYS, 62 percent of those excluded from school, 73 percent of those charged as adults in juvenile court, and an alarming 77 percent of those confined to secure residential facilities.
This disproportionate minority contact endangers the foundation of freedom and equality not only among youth, but among all people. It is a problem that requires immediate attention from all stakeholders in the justice system. Improving the quality of legal advocacy is one proven strategy for reducing minority over-representation. For more information, see JDN’s fact sheet about DMC (link to: Juvenile Defense Network’s Fact Sheet About Disproportionate Minority Contact ).
DMC Statistics by County/Region
Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket CountiesBerkshire County
Bristol County
Essex County
Franklin and Hampshire Counties
Hampden County
Middlesex County
Norfolk County
Plymouth County
Suffolk County
Worcester County
Resources on Reducing DMC
Disparity by Geography: The War on Drugs in America's Cities (The Sentencing Project), May 2008
The failure of the Commonwealth to adequately address DMC was detailed in the ACLU's May 2003 report, Disproportionate Minority Confinement in Massachusetts: Failures in Assessing and Addressing Overrepresentation of Minorities in the Massachusetts Juvenile Justice System.
Executive Office of Public Safety
Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
^back to top
Northeastern University's Institute on Race and Justice, in collaboration with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety, released preliminary tabulations in the statewide Racial and Gender Profiling Study. The Registry of Motor Vehicles is now required to record data on the race, gender, and search status of individuals receiving written warnings or citations as a result of a traffic stop. The preliminary tabulations are based on this data collected between April 1, 2001 and June 30, 2003.
The study appears to be having an impact on police practices. In a July 5, 2005 article, that Boston Globe reported that, "while police were previously required only to record the race and gender of drivers, now officers are being asked to note the duration and reason for the stop, what type of road it happened on, whether the car was searched, and what was found. In addition, instead of recording the data only when they issue warnings or tickets, police are now being asked to provide the information every time they stop a car." ^back to topIn June 2004, OJJDP released Access to Counsel by Judith B. Jones. This bulletin examines access to legal counsel in the juvenile justice system. It describes problems affecting access at each stage of the juvenile justice process, discusses factors that hinder access to and quality of counsel, and identifies elements of effective counsel. The bulletin provides information on how specific states are addressing these issues, describes promising programs, and lists resource organizations and useful tools.
^back to topIn June 2004, OJJDP released Juveniles in Corrections, a bulletin presenting the most recent data from the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. It provides a detailed picture of juveniles in custody, including data on age, race, gender, offenses, and adjudication status. 7 out of 10 juveniles held in custody for a violent offense in 1999 were minority.
^back to topDownload Juvenile Defense Network's Overuse of Detention fact sheet and talking points:
Overuse of Detention Fact SheetOveruse of Detention Talking Points
A Looming Crisis: The Secure Detention of Youth After Arrest and Before Arraignment in Facilities Administered by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, December 2008 (ACLU)
^back to top
Death Penalty Unconstitutional for Juveniles Under 18!
Download JDN's Fact Sheet on Roper v. Simmons and ways to incorporate it into your practice.
Roper v. Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183 (2005) On March 1, 2005, the United States Supreme Court held that the death penalty is unconstitutional, under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, when it is applied to those under the age of 18. The Court concluded that there was objective evidence to support a finding of a national consensus against the juvenile death penalty. The significance of this decision to our practice is the Courts realization that juveniles are developmentally different from adults and cannot be classified among those deserving of capital punishment. "The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character," the Court wrote. The Court cited to neurological and developmental research demonstrating that juveniles (under age 18) are different from adults in 3 significant ways:
- Juveniles possess a lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility;
- Juveniles are more vulnerable and susceptible to negative influences and outside (peer) pressure; and
- Juveniles possess an underdeveloped character without fixed personality traits.
The following articles and amicus briefs were either cited in the opinion or are relevant to the issue.
Brief of the American Medical Association et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent
American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent
^back to top
Miranda Rights: Supreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit's decision in Yarborough v. Alvarado
On June 1, 2004, the Supreme Court held that the state court considered the proper factors and reached a reasonable conclusion that Alvarado was not in custody for Miranda purposes during his police interview. Alvarado, age seventeen, was convicted as a result of statements made during a two hour police interrogation conducted without Miranda warnings. The Ninth Circuit had granted Alvarado's habeas petition, deciding that the state court should have considered Alvarado's status as a juvenile when determining whether he was in police custody and entitled to Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court reversed this judgment, finding that the state court's failure to consider Alvarado's age and inexperience was not a proper basis for concluding that the state court decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established law. The Juvenile Law Center and 25 other advocacy organizations and colleagues filed an amicus brief in support of Alvarado.
Read the full decision.
^back to topIn September of 2006, a report and subsequent editorial in the Boston Globe were released on the topic of the statewide practice of depriving children in Massachusetts of their rights by holding them without bail prior to arraignment. The report, entitled Do You Know Where the Children Are? A Report on Massachusetts Youth Unlawfully Held Without Bail, was authored by Barbara Fedder and Barbara Kaban.
Download the Boston Globe editorial, "Fair Hearings for Children."(2006)
^back to top