If there is one area of law that has changed more than any other through the years, it is juvenile law. And I don’t mean change in terms of legal definitions or statutes, I’m talking about change in terms of societal perception and treatment.

When I was a kid if someone got into trouble at school they were dealt with by adults entrusted with the power to investigate and respond accordingly - Adults with the wisdom to evaluate a situation and discipline a child if necessary. A coach might order someone in gym class to do pushups, have a student run laps around a field, or even whack a behind with a paddle. Teachers might give additional homework, write a letter to a parent, or send a child to the principal’s office. Principals might reprimand a student, expel them, or send them home to face their parents. Parents might ground their child or levy additional chores. Whatever the response, adults in charge could exercise discretion when deciding what discipline, if any, should be administered. Police interrogations, strip searches, and criminal charges were a last resort. Now, investigative measures and disciplinary actions are, more often than not, pre-determined. Now there is zero tolerance.

On October 8, 2003, thirteen year-old Savana Redding was strip-searched while at school. Savana was an honor student who had never been in trouble before. Even so, because of an unsubstantiated allegation that she had brought drugs to school, authorities felt compelled to search her. First, she was forced to take her outer clothing off. A male vice-principal and female school nurse inspected her jacket, t-shirt, pants, shoes, and socks. When nothing was found she was told to pull her bra to the side, exposing her breasts, and shake it out. Still nothing. Finally, she was made to expose her pelvic area by pulling the crotch of her underwear out to see if any drugs had been hidden there. Nothing was found. During this process Savana continued to express her innocence. She never consented to the search and her parents were not contacted.

What kind of dangerous drug would justify such an evasive search? What were they looking for?

Advil.

Parents need to realize that student behavior, which in the past, would have been handled by the school - or better yet, the parents - is now, more often than not, pursued according to pre-determined directives and turned over to law enforcement. Criminal charges are filed and must be dealt with. One kid pushes another kid and assault charges are filed. A child sprays deodorant in a locker room, sets off a smoke alarm, and is charged with a felony. A kid who writes “bomb” on an empty envelope as a joke then makes the mistake of leaving it on top of a trashcan, is charged with terroristic threat. The list goes on and on. Don’t get me wrong - it’s easy to see how we got here. It’s a frightening new world with kids taking guns to school to exact revenge for perceived persecutions, joining gangs in order to feel tough and protected, self-medicating via prescriptions found at home or drugs purchased on the street. Terrible crimes occur in school these days that shock all of us. We have to do everything possible to ensure the safety of our children.

But aren’t we just taking the easy way out with zero tolerance?

A child’s life is so difficult these days, and I fear we are just making it tougher, albeit in the name of safety and a child’s best interests. A child is given no leeway to exercise poor judgment and make the stupid mistakes of childhood without grave consequences. An adult, meanwhile, can avoid making a mistake of judgment altogether by merely turning to zero tolerance. So much easier than weighing the facts and using common sense! We're saying, "It doesn’t matter that you are a child and do not know better, I will not burden myself with personal judgment regarding the situation and run the risk of making a decision that others might not agree with. Zero tolerance will make my decision for me."

Last week the Supreme Court found the search of Savana Redding to be unconstitutional. “Outrageous” was the term used to describe the school official’s actions. But I fear zero tolerance is here to stay in one form or another. A school official faced with the decision of how far to go when dealing with a child’s apparent misbehavior will almost certainly err on the side of caution and avoid the danger of subjective discretion. Whether violating a child’s constitutional rights in an effort to procure evidence or deciding to press criminal charges, caution will be the driving factor, not tolerance. When in doubt, search the child, call the authorities, and file the charges.

I think about this every time I’m confronted by an upset parent who doesn’t understand why their child has suddenly become involved in the juvenile justice system. Why is my child being treated like an adult criminal? Why have criminal charges been filed just because my child got into a schoolyard fight or had ibuprofen in his pocket? It’s hard to understand. Shouldn’t they, as parents, be given the opportunity to discipline their child without such drastic measures being taken? That’s when I remind them that the world has changed. That there was a time when a kid could act like a kid and be treated like a kid, but unfortunately… those days are long gone.

Labels: juveniles, public perception, taking the easy way, zero tolerance

posted by Dal   permalink   0 Comments