Basic HTML Version
may be the best thíng that ever hap–
pened to the kíd's "bonds."
Dlverslon
One reason we can permit ourselves
a measure of guarded optímísm
over the juveníle justice sítuatíon is
the introduction of the "díversion
project." Díversíon projects take
many forms, but the basic idea of
them all is to divert kids away from
the formaljuveníle court procedures
- to try to help them in the commu–
nity. Usually, there is sorne sort of
counseling involved, often including
parents.
Diverting more kids away from
juvenile court will also spare the
courts the problem of trying to per–
form two often contradictory roles.
On the one hand, the juvenile bench
is expected to be a just, firm
court of
law
that protects both society and
the rights of the accused. On the
other hand, society also expects ju–
venile court to be a
surrogate parent
for wayward kids, guiding treatment
and rehabílitation wíth flexible wis–
dom and tender loving care.
These often confticting roles have
led to many injustices and inconsís–
tencies. It would be ·best to divert
the petty criminal and status of–
fender away from juvenile court as
much as possible. Then the cour.t
would have to perform only one
role: that of a just, hopefully some–
what firmer-than-at-present protec–
tor of society. The court would
handle, for the most part, only those
juveniles who a re dangerous to so–
ciety or habítually criminal.
GeHing lnto the Home
There is general agreement within
the juvenile justice system that "di–
version" ís a step in the right dírec–
tion. The consensos
is
that socíety
waits too long to offer help.
Frank Jameson, who ís youth ser–
vices coordínator for the Pasadena
Políce .Department and a coordina–
tor for severa! diversion projects, re–
lates a story that is far more typícal
than most people imagine. Jameson
was asked to investigate the back–
grounds of five high school students
who had committed unprovoked
and seemingly unreasonable acts of
violence on a high school campus.
The problem was originally
presented to Jameson somewhat as
30
follows: Why do five kids "all of a
sudden" and "out of the blue" de–
cide to wreak havoc on theír school
grounds?
What Jameson found was that
there was nothíng "out of the blue"
about the affair. Beginning with
theír early primary years, all five
students, he learned, had repeatedly
been identified by school officials as
children with severe problems. The
five showed up in police records as
well. One, in fact, was pictured in
police files at the age of eight
months, lhe victim of an unfit home.
Jameson concluded that "il cer–
tainly seems ludicrous ... to wait
until a child is forced into a bla–
tantly delinquen! pattern of behav–
ior befare the system can mobilize
itselfto pay attention to hirn."
But even if potentially troubled
kids can be identífied at a very early
age, what can society do about it?
Philosophically. how far and under
what conditions ís society entítled
to
formally íntrude into the workings
of the individual family?
Larry Rubín, who coordinates
several diversion projects in Orange
County. California, says, " 1 think
the key ís to get the family involved.
And that's the most dífficult
thing.... 1 think there's a need for
professionals to give guidance to a
family that's trying to regroup and
improve itself."
Howard Nariman directs a home
for delinquent boys that ís spon–
sored by the Optimíst Club. Nari–
man feels "that sometimes parents
a re seeking and asking, genuinely
asking, for support and help, be–
cause they may not have the re–
sources to deal with the problem
that they' re facing."
Informalization and diversion
withín the juvenile justice system
are encouragíng signs. We can rea–
sonably hope that the practice of
offering no-strings-attached help to
families that request it will gradu–
a lly emerge.
Famlly Unlty the Key lssue
In the long run, significant improve–
ment in the juvenile justice system
will depend more on improvement
in the family unit than on any other
factor.
It's ímpossible to say with cer–
tainty if the famíly_unit is ímproving
or disintegraling. Sorne point with
concern to the disruptive pressures
piled on the family in our changing
society. But there is a bright side to
the family situa tion as well: Quickly
dying out among young potenlial
parents is the notion that a couple
must
or
should
have children. Hav–
ing a child is more and more coming
to be a well-thought-out, well-pre–
pared-for decision
10
which the
couple is highly committed. To such
potential parents, a chíld is not a
trinkel whose presence defies all ex–
planation except that "doesn't
everybody have them?" Rather. a
child is something they
real/y
want.
Trends, Not Reform
There are no simple answers lo lhe
problems of juvenile juslice. The
"syslem" will always be burdened to
sorne degree by lhe often-contradictory
roles ofprotecting society and being a
surrogate parent.
It
will always be
trying to help, treat, or rehabilitate
kids who were short-changed some–
where, usually at home.
Any progress will be in the form
of positive trends rather than over–
night changes initiated by well–
meaning reformers. But we can rea–
sonably expect the following trends:
We can expect to see juvenile
courts. now incredibly overcrowded,
handling few cases other lhan the
dangerous, hard-core juven ile of–
fender.
We can expect such offenders to
receive treatment that more fully
impresses them with the seriousness
of their deeds.
On the other hand, the petty
criminal and status otfender will al–
most a lways be diverted away from
the court and, whenever possible,
into the informal " helping hands"
ofthe community.
We can expect similar, informal
help lo be available not only to th e
kíd in trouble, but also to the family
in trouble, with no legal strings at–
tached.
And finally. we can expect - al–
though we may be confusing our
expectations with our bopes - to
find fewer familíes in trouble, and
more and more homes solving the
juvenile justice problem before it
even begins. Let 's work toward that
end in our own families and com–
munities.
o
The
PLAIN TRUTH
January
1977