NCJ Number
97841
Date Published
1984
Length
59 pages
Annotation
This transcript is of a hearing held to consider the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schall v. Martin concerning the preventive detention of juveniles pursuant to a New York State statute.
Abstract
Martin Guggenheim, a law professor at New York University Law School, argues that the only justification for incarcerating a juvenile before trial is a compelling state interest. Guggenheim maintains there is no such interest in depriving a juvenile of his liberty under the punitive purpose of protecting the community from predators. Lenore Gittis, attorney-in-charge of the Juvenile Rights Division, New York Legal Aid Society, discusses evidence that detention has a role in breeding crime and contends that the Martin decision turns the clock back almost 20 years, when judges had unfettered discretion over the lives of juveniles in juvenile courts. She presents the Legal Aid Society's belief that the Martin decision is constitutionally flawed and is unwise social policy. Richard Lewis, district attorney in Dauphin County, Pa., endorses the Court's reasoning about the need for preventive detention for juveniles, but he expresses concerns about the procedural safeguards afforded under the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act. Margaret Driscoll, Superior Court Judge in Bridgeport, Conn., emphasizes the need for criteria for preventive detention. Eric Warner, Chief of the Juvenile Offense Bureau in the Bronx, N.Y., supports the Schall v. Martin decision and suggests that detention provides benefits to both society and the juvenile.