X
June 2017 Special Feature – Peers Implementing Restorative Justice for Youth Offenders

by James Arias

The implementation of restorative justice within the juvenile justice system represents a major shift in emphasis from punitive measures to rehabilitation. It goes beyond punishing offenders for breaking the law by directly including victims and the community in the resolution process. Instead of procedural punishments based on the crime committed, justice is done through tailored sanctions and programs determined by dialogue between all stakeholders.1

Restorative justice is defined by three key principles:

  1. Crime results in harm to the victim, community, and offender. Restorative justice requires that all harm must be repaired.2
  2. All stakeholders should be included in the response following the offense, and should be afforded opportunities to give input and affect the judicial process.3
  3. The relationship between government and the community must change to increase the community’s capacity to deal with crime. Instead of deciding consequences for each case, the court must be willing to be a facilitator for problem solving.4

 

Youth courts represent an example of the implementation of restorative justice within the juvenile justice system. Youth courts date back to the early 1980s in Odessa, Texas. By 1994, there were 78 youth courts operating across the nation. As of February 2016, that number had climbed to approximately 1,400 independently run programs in 49 states and the District of Columbia. In California alone, there are 62 active youth court programs in 20 counties.5

These programs each have unique characteristics. Some are community forums composed of volunteers, while others are student-run trials held in real courtrooms. Some youth courts are organized by non-profits, and others are administered by local law enforcement. Each program offers juvenile offenders an alternative to the traditional system. The intent of juvenile diversion naturally fits with the goals of restorative justice. Both seek to serve victims, offenders, and their community by getting to the root of the problem that led to criminal behavior.

Orange County has its own youth court program. The Constitutional Rights Foundation, Orange County (CRF-OC), a non-profit and non-partisan organization, started the Peer Court program in 1994. Peer Court is a collaborative effort between CRF-OC, the Orange County Superior Court, Orange County Probation Department, Orange County Department of Education, Community Service Programs Inc. (CSP), local schools, and the local legal community. An average of 30 sessions are hosted each year with 40 to 150 students in attendance at any single session.

Peer Court begins with the referral of a juvenile case from a local police department working with CSP or from the Probation Department. These referral sources perform careful screening that determines a juvenile’s appropriateness for diversion. To be eligible for Peer Court, the case must not be a felony or involve the use of a weapon, and the minor must be a first-time offender. In order to participate, the minor must admit to the offense. Taking responsibility is the first step to repairing the damage done by the offense, and admitting guilt earns credibility with the other participants.

The minor is then assigned to a Peer Court session at a school outside his or her own district to preserve confidentiality. By hosting Peer Court onsite at various high schools, sessions are easily accessible to students and encourage community involvement. This increases attendance, and gives more students immediate access to the judicial process.

In Peer Court, a volunteer judicial officer presides over each session. The judge selects a jury of students from the audience to question the minor and his or her guardian about the offense and later recommend a series of sanctions for the judge to consider. With students from different backgrounds in the audience, the jury can be comprised of members with unique perspectives and experiences. These varying points of view open up dialogue during questioning and can be vital to understanding the minor and his or her actions. The students not selected as jurors remain a part of the audience and observe the rest of the hearing.

Before the selected jury asks their questions, the judge invites the minor and their parent or guardian to each make a statement. Unlike the testimony in response to the jury’s questions, the minor’s statement gives an uncensored opportunity to explain his or her thoughts about the incident, remorse to the victim, or readiness to work toward repairing the harm he or she caused. The minor’s parent or guardian may use the statement to provide a fuller picture of the minor including his or her behavior, school performance, and interests at home. Both statements humanize the offender and give the jury an idea of which sentencing options would be constructive or appropriate.

After the jury asks their questions, they move to the jury deliberation room where a volunteer attorney advisor engages with the students to discuss the case and rehabilitation. The attorney advisor guides the students to select an appropriate and tailored list of sanctions and programs to fit the needs of the minor. A few examples of sanctions that appear on a sheet provided to jurors include completing community service, attending counseling, and writing apology letters. Other options include attending a legal awareness workshop or an alcohol and drug-abuse education workshop. After the jury returns to the session, the judge reviews their recommendations and then instructs the juvenile and parent or guardian on the sanctions and programs to be completed. If the minor successfully completes the judge’s orders in four months, his or her case is dismissed.

There are many benefits to Peer Court and other youth courts in the United States. One universal benefit is the monetary savings associated with a youth court. Over 60 cases came through Peer Court in Orange County from September 2015 to August 2016. Because the majority of the participants are volunteers, there is little cost associated with a Peer Court session. Even accounting for what costs do exist, Peer Court is more cost-efficient than sending each case through the formal court process. Additional savings come from a reduced recidivism rate compared to that of a traditional juvenile justice case. Of those who complete the program, fewer than 20% re-offend. Fewer repeat offenders also relieves the burden on the court.

Minors benefit greatly from Peer Court. The Honorable Richard Y. Lee, an Orange County Superior Court Judge and frequent judicial volunteer, notes, “All minors at some point exercise bad judgement and make mistakes. With its rehabilitative focus, Peer Court offers minors an opportunity to acknowledge their poor choices, take responsibility for their actions, and avoid the consequences that they would otherwise face in the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency systems.” Peer Court also exposes minors to a community-based understanding of the legal system, rather than a purely authoritative one.

Finally, there is an educational component to Peer Court. Although Peer Court’s central purpose is to be a juvenile diversion program for first-time offenders, it also educates the student participants about the juvenile justice system and the importance of making responsible decisions. From September 2015 to August 2016, 2,046 students attended a Peer Court session. Of those students, 95% agreed that the program is a good way to learn about the legal system; 89% agreed that Peer Court is a good way to reduce youth crimes; and 84% agreed that it is a good way to keep youth from committing future crimes.

In a post-session survey, a ninth-grade student wrote, “Consequences from peers or people of similar age can influence a person’s actions both in and outside of school.” An eleventh-grade student commented that Peer Court makes you “think about how the relationship with [your] parents will be affected.” Students attending a Peer Court session learn about the real consequences of crime, which can act as a deterrent in the future. Another student wrote, “Watching how these students felt about getting caught opened my eyes to how serious the system is, and I think it does help others realize the weight of their actions.”

Summer Peer Court sessions will be held on June 21st, July 12th, and August 9th at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana. For students or volunteers interested in attending a Peer Court session, please visit CRF-OC’s website at www.crfor.org/programs/peer-court. CRF-OC continually seeks volunteers from the legal community to serve as attorney advisors. If you are interested in volunteering for Peer Court, please contact James Arias at 949-679-0730 x100.

ENDNOTES

  1. Tracy Godwin, The Role of Restorative Justice in Teen Courts: A Preliminary Look, Nat’l Ass’n of Youth Cts. (2001), http://www.youthcourt.net/role-of-rj.pdf.
  2. Mara Schiff et al., Neighborhood Accountability Boards: The Strength of Weak Practices and Prospects for a “Community Building” Restorative Model, 36 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol’y 17 (2011), http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol36/iss1/3.
  3. Id.
  4. Id.
  5. Judicial Council of Cal., Youth Courts Fact Sheet (2016), http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Youth_Courts.pdf.

 

James Arias is the Assistant Program Manager at the Constitutional Rights Foundation of Orange County. He can be reached at jarias@crfoc.org.

Return