Child development experts argue that the youth of today are maturing faster than their historical counterparts. While children’s behavioral and psychological patterns continue to evolve, the language we use to classify juveniles has remained more or less stagnant. Although people are rarely cognizant of it, the terminology used to categorize juveniles in the justice system greatly impacts public perception of those individuals. Thus, we must be mindful of the various reductive terms used to generalize at-risk youth, and a make a concerted effort to rise above the cultural baggage that often comes attached to such terms.
The seminal U.S. Supreme Court case of In Re Gault is heralded as forever changing the juvenile court system by holding that juveniles must be granted many of the same procedural due process rights as adults (eg. the right to counsel, the right to timely notification of the charges, etc). However, in trumpeting the successes of this landmark ruling, people have virtually ignored the more nuanced messages that arise from the case. In one particularly poignant part of the opinion, Justice Fortas reveals how uniquely aware he is of the powers of rhetoric. Fortas recognizes that one of “the important benefits of the special juvenile court procedures” is that those procedures “avoid classifying the juvenile as a ‘criminal.’”[1] He goes on to note, however, that this benefit is no longer being accrued because juvenile court procedures classify juvenile offenders as “delinquents” and “this term has come to involve only slightly less stigma than the term ‘criminal’ applied to adults.”[2] Accordingly, Fortas refers to the defendant (as well as other youths in his position) as “boy” throughout his opinion: “a boy is charged with misconduct,” “the boy is committed to an institution where he may be restrained of liberty for years,” “judgment as to the possibility that the boy could be disciplined,” etc.[3] As I parsed through the opinion, I realized that the use of the word “boy” over any other option (eg. young man, juvenile, etc.) made me more sympathetic to the defendant as a very young and vulnerable individual, but this begs the question: Is this result Justice Fortas’s intention, or did he not really consider the emotional effects of his diction?
Subsequent cases addressing juveniles’ due process rights have also used specific diction when classifying juveniles in the system. For example, in People v. Westmorland, a case that dealt with coerced confession of a minor, there is a brief reference to the youth’s gender and age in the opinion (labeling him an “immature boy”[4]), but the majority of the opinion uses the gender-neutral classification of “defendant.” Juxtaposing this case alongside In Re Gault leads one to question why certain judges and justices opt for gender- and age-neutral classifications for the subjects of their opinions, while others select more emotive language. Although we often expect the media to make specific choices about the language they use when framing a news story in order to sway public opinion, is it possible that judges and justices ever do the same?
Our juvenile court system entrusts judges with an inordinate amount of power. Unlike adults in the criminal system, juveniles are not granted the right to a jury trial. Instead, a single judge often renders a verdict that can forever alter the course of a youth’s life. Reading over the opinions of judges in various cases regarding ‘juvenile delinquents,’ do you see hints of bias seeping through the (often) stoic verbiage? Does a judge who describes a youth as an “immature boy” seem to have more compassion than one who selects the generic classification of “defendant”? Take a moment to reflect on the various ways we all categorize youth, and the various sentiments we associate with those differing terms – from ‘youth’ to ‘juvenile’ to ‘child’ to ‘young girl’ to ‘delinquent,’ they all could be describing the same person, but to a vastly different end.
And while you’re still feeling riled up about the topic of at-risk youth, also take a moment to find out how you can help these youths who need it most: 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).
[1] Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 23 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967).
[2] Id.
[3] Id. at 28.
[4] People v. Westmorland, 372 Ill. App. 3d 868, 869, 866 N.E.2d 608, 613 (2007).
