Last week, I discussed the seminal importance of In Re Gault and its extension of procedural due process rights to juveniles. Absent from this discussion, however, were the due process rights that juveniles are still denied. For example, the right to a jury trial is still reserved for the adult criminal system. On one level, it can be debated what such a right would look like pragmatically: would it still be a “jury of one’s peers?” Can we actually imagine a jury box chalk full of ten-year-olds, deliberating the fate of another young child? If not, would a jury of adults still fulfill the spirit of the law? On another level, there is the fundamental question of what the purpose of a jury really is. According to Steven Drizin, Clinical Professor of Law at Northwestern, and Greg Luloff, law clerk to the Honorable J. Robin Hunt, one of the primary functions of a jury is public scrutiny.[1] Thus, they argue that if the media were allowed in juvenile courts, they would help compensate for the lack of jury presence: in their view, “media access is arguably even more essential in providing public oversight and scrutiny to juvenile court proceedings.”[2] However, not all legal scholars readily accept the potential benefits of media presence during juvenile court proceedings. Consider the following contrasting opinions.
In Are Juvenile Courts A Breeding Ground for Wrongful Convictions?, Drizin and Luloff embrace the positive potential of media coverage of juvenile cases, with little reflection on the possible backlash. They use “the Ryan Harris murder case in Chicago” as an exemplar of “just how effective the media can be when covering juvenile cases.”[3] As previously hinted at, they conclude that “the media allows for public scrutiny which is vital in a system of self-government, and there is no reason why media access would not bring the same benefits to the juvenile justice system.”[4] Conversely, William Ayers, author of A Kind and Just Parent, argues that “as consumers of mediated images we need to be mindful that there is always something more, something beneath the headline, beyond the spectacle. We should remember that the mediated image is voyeuristic and full of the thrill of danger.”[5] Specifically, Ayers contends that the media is often too quick to use a single case to present an issue to the public. Such an approach diminishes the complexities and nuances of a social issue to a single, reductive archetype that “is either too big or too outlandish or both.”[6]
Juxtaposing these perspectives, we can begin to seek out the best way to frame media coverage of juvenile cases in order to accrue the benefits (eg. public scrutiny of the juvenile court system) without reducing the complexity of issues that surround at-risk youth. Beyond this, we should wonder how the power of media could be mobilized to compel people to effectuate change. In doing so, consider philosopher Judith Butler’s powerful perspective regarding the circulation of images through media: “the movement of the image or the text outside of confinement is a kind of “breaking out,” so that even though neither the image nor poetry can free anyone from prison, or stop a bomb or, indeed, reverse the course of the war, they nevertheless do provide the conditions for breaking out of the quotidian acceptance of war and for a more generalized horror and outrage that will support and impel calls for justice and an end to violence.”[7] Although Butler writes with respect to images of war, a similar argument could be advanced regarding images of at-risk youth. Taking Drizin and Luloff’s argument one-step further, perhaps the purpose of allowing the media inside juvenile courts is more than fostering public scrutiny. When images and writings of how the court system fails our youth become a more prevalent aspect of our public consciousness, we can begin to imagine a society that not only scrutinizes the way the system functions, but also makes palpable “calls for justice.” That is, even if a media presence in the juvenile courtroom is unavoidably voyeuristic and at first only encourages transparency on a case-by-case basis, the impact on a larger scale could one day be a public demand for comprehensive changes in the juvenile justice system itself.
As we begin to meditate on the ‘macro’ changes we hope to see in the system, let us not forget that the ‘micro’ efforts to effect change can begin now: whether it is through volunteering your time (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/volunteer-today) or making a quick donation in any amount (http://www.cityyouthnow.org/get-involved/donate-now).
