You are on page 1of 29

Ending the Summary Practice of Juvenile

Shackling in Delinquency Proceedings


By Morris A. Singer, Esq.; Kristyn M. Dusel, Esq.; C. Dick Clark, Esq.; and
Leanne Cronin
15 April 2010

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Agenda
• Context
– Legal history
– The effect on juveniles and families
• Our work
– Ending the summary practice of shackling
– Current court practices

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Context
• Legal history
• The effect on juveniles and families

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Context: Legal History

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Context: The Effect on
Juveniles and Families
• Adolescence
– Growth
– Identity
– Vulnerability
– Right and wrong
– Mental health issues
• Effect
• References

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Adolescence: Growth
• Growth
– Physical, mental and emotional
– Difficulty managing changes

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Adolescence: Identity
• Identity formation
– Everything an adolescent thinks he knows is in
flux; confusing
– Identity formation a major task
– Questioning

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Adolescence: Vulnerability
• Vulnerability
– Reliance on messages from family, friends,
community, and society

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Adolescence: Right and Wrong
• Right and wrong
– New ways of looking at the ideas of “right” and
“wrong”

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Adolescence: Mental Health Issues

• Mental health issues


– High incidence rate of mental health issues among
juveniles involved in the criminal justice system.

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Effect
• Interference with development of identity and morality
• Conflicting messages about the court system
• Trauma

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Effect
• Interference with development of identity and morality
– Struggle to accommodate image of criminality into their preexisting
image of an innocent childhood
– Potential to disrupt the natural process of moral development

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Effect
• Conflicting messages about the court system
– No longer “innocent until proven guilty”
– Message that juvenile is criminal, dangerous, and cannot be trusted
– Cognition of racism

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Effect
• Trauma
– Harmful emotions: shame and embarrassment
– Re-traumatization or further exacerbation of symptoms of trauma in
adolescents
– Particular damage to individuals already battling symptoms related to
mental health issues or past trauma.
– Victims of physical or sexual abuse: experience might re-traumatize
victimized juveniles by reminding them of the violence or abuse

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
References
• American Bar Association, Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability (Jan. 2004),
available at https://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf
• Pamela Blewitt and Patricia C. Broderick, Adolescent Identity: Peers, Parents, Culture and the
Counselor, 31.8 COUNSELING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 1 (1999)
• Anita Nabha, Note, Shuffling to Justice: Why Children Should Not Be Shackled in Court, 73
BROOK. L. REV. 1549 (2008).
• Deborah Burdett Schiavone, The Effects of Exposure to Community Violence on Aspects of
Adolescent Identity Development, 22 JOURNAL OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRIC
NURSING 99-105 (2009)
• K.C. McLean and A.V. Breen, Processes and Content of Narrative Identity Development in
Adolescence: Gender and wellbeing. 45 DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 702 (2009)
• K. STASSEN BERGER, THE DEVELOPING PERSON THROUGH THE LIFE SPAN 407-32 (5th ed.
2001)

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Our Work
• Ending the summary practice of shackling
• Current court practices

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Our Work: Ending the
Summary Practice of Shackling
• Early efforts
• Informal channels

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Early Efforts: Goals
• Make an assessment of current shackling practices.
– Compile a list of courts, contact information, and decide how
we are going to make the assessment for each court.
• Determine current attitudes of court officers, judges, and
attorneys about shackling juveniles.
– Compile a list of juvenile attorneys; combine with list of courts
– Contact parties and interview about shackling attitudes.
• Research into constitutional implications of shackling.
– Look at the case law across jurisdictions to see if the shackling
issue has played out in any cases, and if so, what has been the
result.
• Partner with Bingham McCutchen on litigation

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Informal Channels
• JJC Conference
• Involvement with Blitzman, J.

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Our Work: Current
Court Practices
• Our new goals in light of our success
• Methodology
• Data
• Future

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
New Goals
• Determine how the policy was implemented
in the courts
• How
– Observe courts practices
– Identify what data to collect (checklist)

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Methodology
• Scope
– Two counties (Suffolk and Middlesex); plans to
visit Norfolk County
– Four courts (Boston, Dorchester, Cambridge, and
Lowell); plans to visit Dedham and Quincy

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Methodology
• Questions asked
– Are shackles still used in violation of the new policy? How?
– If a juvenile is taken into custody at the end of the hearing, are
restraints applied in the courtroom?
– Are the judge's filling out a form in cases to determine that a
juvenile should be restrained? Details . . . .
– Is the juvenile's attorney given a chance to respond? Are they?
– What is the layout of the courthouse? Where is lock-up?
Where are the juveniles brought in?
– What has the response been from the court officers about this
new policy?
– Have new or other procedures been developed to deal with the
new policy?

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Data
• Boston
• Dorchester
• Cambridge
• Lowell

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Data
• Boston (Limon, J.)
– Dates observed: periodically since the start date
of the policy
– Implementation not uniform
– Juveniles are still shackled when brought in
– Boston has the most favorable layout for the
implementation of the policy, from a security
standpoint

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Data
• Dorchester (Harris, J.)
– Date observed: March 9, 2010
– Policy has been implemented
– Client held in custody unshackled prior to entering
the courtroom for a suppression hearing

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Data
• Cambridge (King, J. and Tyree, J.)
– Date observed: April 6, 2010
– Policy has been implemented
– Judges aware of form, but do not use it
– Some use of the prisoner dock as an intermediate confinement measure
– King, J. concerned that defense attorneys not objecting to determination of
need for shackles
– Layout of Cambridge court house requires that juveniles be brought through
the public to one of the courtrooms
– When it is determined that a juvenile will be taken into custody, court officer
applies handcuffs in the courtroom
– Court officers inform judges of their concerns about a juvenile to assist in the
shackling determination
– Court officer indicated that policy has not made job more difficult

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Data
• Lowell (Blitzman, J., Flynn, J., and Donahue, J.)
– Dates observed: ongoing since policy implemented
– Policy has been implemented
– Use of form
– Juveniles never in the courtroom in shackles unless the
judge makes determination of need
– During recent jury trial, court officers waited to apply
shackles until juvenile in hallway behind the courtroom
– Policy has been fully implemented despite the fact that
this courthouse has the poorest layout from a security
standpoint

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project
Future
• Collect data from more courts

Juvenile Defenders Clinic


Shackling Policy Project

You might also like