The Kansas Supreme Court just released a new opinion defining the rights of juveniles.  The court said that juvenile offenders do not have the same rights as adults to a preliminary hearing.

An adult accused of a felony may have a preliminary hearing.  At this hearing, the court determines if there is probable cause to try the adult for the felony.  Juveniles do not have the same right to a preliminary hearing.  However, the Kansas Supreme Court suggests that probable cause is needed to keep a juvenile in detention.

Today in Wyandotte County, Kansas, a juvenile judge will determine whether a 14 year old girl should be tried as an adult.  She was 13 when she allegedly tried to wrest control of a car from its 16 year old driver.  The driver was killed when his car veered out of control.

Trying children in adult court invites us to revisit why we have juvenile court in the first place.  Why shouldn’t all children be tried as adults?

Traditionally, juvenile courts have been justified by youths’ diminished moral culpability.  Adolescents have less experience than adults.  Recent science shows that their frontal lobes are not yet fully developed.  Frontal lobes are the part of the brain responsible for envisioning the future and making choices.

Most juvenile offenses are “growing up errors.”  Kids learn from their mistakes and move on.

In serious cases, diminished moral culpability seems less compelling.  I suggest that the true reason for juvenile court lies in the custody of the parents.  Children are not independent citizens.  They live in the custody of their parents.  If the act of a teen offender rises to a serious level, then the parents should lose custody.   Their child may then be tried– and punished– as an adult.

The Heartland Association of Legal Assistants invited me to be their featured presenter at their monthly membership meeting.  I had prepared a detailed power point presentation on special education issues:  eligibility, IEP requirements, and school discipline.  I printed the slides and distributed them before I began the address.

We never saw the presentation.   In my introduction, I started talking about juvenile justice for children with special needs.  As expected, this audience consisted of intelligent professionals.  They engaged me in a constructive dialogue about how inadequately our juvenile justice system handles cases for children with developmental disabilities and mental illnesses.  Our dialogue took the entire allotted hour, so we never returned to the original material.

Over time I will blog my thoughts on juvenile justice for children with disabilities.  In the meantime, I received a thank you letter from the Program Chair.  She wrote that she heard great feedback about my presentation.  She said the only negative was that they wished for more time so they could have seen my presentation.

Maybe next time.  I’m open to an invitation to return on another occasion.