What’s Wrong with Victims’ Rights in Juvenile Court: Retributive versus Rehabilitative Systems of Justice

What’s Wrong with Victims’ Rights in Juvenile Court: Retributive versus Rehabilitative Systems of Justice


There has been very little discussion about the intersection of victims’ rights and the juvenile justice system. Statutes that allow victims to attend juvenile hearings and present oral and written impact statements have shifted the juvenile court’s priorities and altered the way judges think about young offenders. While judges were once primarily concerned with the best interests of the delinquent child, victims’ rights legislation now requires juvenile courts to balance the rehabilitative needs of the child with other competing interests such as accountability to the victim and restoration of communities impacted by crime.

In this article, Professor Henning contends that victim impact statements move the juvenile court too far away from its original mission and ignore the child’s often diminished culpability in delinquent behavior. She also argues that victim impact statements delivered in the highly charged environment of the courtroom are unlikely to achieve the satisfaction and catharsis victims seek after crime. Professor Henning proposes that victim impact statements be excluded from the juvenile disposition hearing and incorporated into the child’s long-term treatment plan.

PDF

More in this Issue

Defrauding the American Dream: Predatory Lending in Latino Communities and Reform of California’s Lending Law

The recent mortgage crisis has brought national media attention to the problem of predatory lending. Predatory lenders target vulnerable communities who have been precluded from conventional financial markets, and minority communities are disproportionately affected. This Note examines predatory lending in the Hispanic population to illustrate why California’s anti-predatory lending law is not effective. Many of […]

Courting Genocide: The Unintended Effects of Humanitarian Intervention

Invoking memories and imagery from the Holocaust and other German atrocities during World War II, many contemporary commentators and politicians believe that the international community has an affirmative obligation to deter and incapacitate perpetrators of humanitarian atrocities. Today, the received wisdom is that a legalistic approach, which combines humanitarian interventions with international criminal prosecutions targeting […]

Judging Journalism: The Turn toward Privacy and Judicial Regulation of the Press

Courts, John Marshall famously declared, must “say what the law is.” Increasingly, it seems, they are also called upon to say what the news is. When subjects of unwanted publicity sue for invasion of privacy or other torts, journalists commonly defend on the ground that the challenged disclosures were privileged as newsworthy. Traditionally, courts minimized […]

Constitutional Constraints

The main ambition of “Constitutional Constraints” is to open up the subject of constitutional constraints on government officials, including Presidents and Supreme Court Justices, as a topic for discussion within the field of Constitutional Theory. The subject has so far received little comprehensive discussion in the law reviews, in part because of a division between […]