TEEN COURT DIVERSION PROGRAM
Lake County Teen Court, Florida, USA
Principle, Politics, and Purpose
By
Garrison Pollard and Holly Stidham
As volunteer attorneys in the Lake County Teen Court Program, we can consistently count on two things: cold courtrooms and juvenile defendants. As Forrest Gump would say, the latter are a lot like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re gonna get. The program gives minors a second chance at becoming upstanding members of society. However, every so often we receive a case where the defendant is philosophically indifferent—or even opposed—to the charges presented against him. For the sake of confidentiality, the discussion that follows is a fictionalized telling inspired by true events.
On this particular day, the defendant before us had been charged with two first degree misdemeanors: possession of marijuana less than 20 grams and possession of drug paraphernalia (a common pairing). As usual, we sat down with the defendant and his guardians, discussed the details of his case, and prepared them for the trial to come. When asked questions about the incident, none of the defendant’s answers stood out as heinous or disquieting. The circumstances surrounding the case were simple, and the guy appeared to be a perfectly capable witness, not needing any additional conditioning.
Then, we moved to character questions, asking about things, such as his behavior at home and school, his grades, his job, etc. Once again, nothing appeared grossly detestable and, the questions continued to flow like a deserted back-road highway. That is, until we asked about his future ambitions. “I’m going to make some money and move to Colorado or Washington or something, so I can smoke without all of these stupid problems. Maybe I’ll start a business selling the stuff,” he answered with a gram of frustration. He persisted that since marijuana is legal in places outside Florida, this program is a meaningless waste of his time. Defending this case had become an uphill battle, as it grew apparent to us that our defendant did not believe the law should apply to him. We inferred that, after Teen Court, he would resume the acts which got him arrested in the first place, only learning to be more discreet.
From this dilemma, several questions arise. How does an individual’s legal philosophy impact the effectiveness of juvenile diversionary programs? Has our view on Teen Court’s purpose inadvertently affected our ability to resolve this issue? If so, what can be done to help?
To tackle this issue, we must first understand a concept known as the rule of law. In 2004 the Secretary General of the United Nations described the rule of law as a principle of governance in which everyone, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, class, wealth, or any other factor, must be held equally accountable to laws that are:
1) “publicly promulgated” or known by the public
2) “equally enforced and independently adjudicated” or enforced without bias
3) “consistent with international human rights norms and standards”
Since Florida statutes regarding possession of marijuana and paraphernalia undeniably adhere to these standards, the rule of law is applicable. Our personal stance on this controversial issue is immaterial. We must follow principle, not politics, in holding all offenders accountable to the law’s full extent. However, must a defendant also acquire this perspective for the Teen Court program to effectively serve as rehabilitation? We would argue yes.
It would be absurd to suggest that one has accepted culpability for his actions if he continues to legitimize them. In our case, the defendant believed that his political view—coupled with the marijuana laws of other states—justified his actions. He was unable to grasp the severity of his charges because he contested the validity of the law itself. As a result, this defendant viewed Teen Court as a laughable step to resolve getting caught for a pointless crime brought about by an equally pointless law. Unless his perspective changes, it is difficult to identify what purpose the Teen Court program has served. Our hope for a change in behavior is met with eye rolls. If a defendant thinks the process is useless, then does it not, in fact, become useless?
By virtue of this conclusion, we have found that the ultimate goal of Teen Court lies not in changing behavior, but in changing perspective. Behavior is the outward expression of one’s perspective, thus we would reason that the key factor in preventing delinquent behavior is in altering that perspective. For example, those charged with battery must empathize with the victim’s pain, regardless of whether or not they believe their action was warranted. Those who “joke” about school shootings need to recognize that even false threats instill panic, and worse, can conceal the real threats. Those who provide law enforcement with false information must recognize the difficulties and disrespect they have deposited upon the officers. Thieves must understand how the repercussions of their actions have impacted not only their victim, but society and the economy as a whole. Offenders seldom recognize that prices must increase to counteract the losses brought about by their thefts. Those who trespass and burglarize private property need to put themselves in the resident’s place and imagine the alarm that they must have caused.
In regard to our defendant, it is essential that he shift his perspective away from politics and towards principle. Rather than concentrating solely on himself, he must focus on society as a whole. He must learn to respect the rule of law. Safe societies are comprised of people who respect the law for its own sake, not criminals who are adept at concealing their activity.
Often, the Teen Court program is viewed as a means of punishment, rather than an opportunity to rehabilitate. Under this mentality, a change in perspective is never sought. Teen Court should not simply instruct one on how to act, but how to think. Teaching someone to change their perspective on one issue causes a ripple effect that alters the person’s attitude toward all criminal behavior. The decision of whether or not to act criminally is no longer determined by a self-centered disregard for society and the law but, instead, by an understanding of the impacts that the action would have on others. Teen Court can and will be able to turn delinquents into upstanding members of society as long as the program takes steps to focus on this principle. Personal conviction is a stronger deterrent than fear of retribution.