Why do US courts still shackle children accused of minor crimes?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/us-courts-still-shackle-children-minor-crimes

Version 0 of 1.

Adults accused of the most heinous crimes regularly come into courtrooms without restraints. But every day youngsters accused of minor transgressions are led into the courthouse in irons. Young people who have been shackled in court frequently describe themselves as looking and feeling like criminals. This can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their humiliation, particularly when family members see them in chains, is so profound and defeating that many mental health experts say it causes permanent harm.

Why do our juvenile courts persist in this troubling practice?

In the 19th century, Chicago established America’s first juvenile court to save young boys from being locked up with “murderers, anarchists and hardened criminals.” Rather than treat kids accused of minor transgressions as criminals, the court focused on rehabilitation and functioned more as a civil body. Every state adopted some version of this system. Reformers had intuited what more than a century of research and experience now confirms: keeping kids out of the criminal justice system makes them less likely to break the law a second time, particularly when they get effective services that address the root causes of their behavior.

Though the chains suggest that these youth are a threat to others, judges will deem many of them safe enough to be released to their families that very day. Most face misdemeanors, the least serious of charges. This is not to say that no youth ever poses a flight or safety risk. In the rare cases where they do, judges should have the authority to order restraints. Currently, however, shackling is the default in many courtrooms.

In the 21 states that restrict juvenile shackling, courts do their business safely and efficiently. Just as is standard nationwide for adult defendants, there must be a finding that the youth poses a flight or safety risk before shackles are ordered. In all other states, any youth who has been held in detention can be led into the courtroom in chains.

This automatic shackling is an archaic practice continued out of mere inertia. It is difficult to have faith in a system governed by inertia. Communities will not collaborate with prosecutors if the courtroom is seen as a place where children are treated with disdain.

A prosecutor’s job is not to impose the harshest treatment possible on a wrongdoer, but to protect the public safety and to advance justice. I do not know any prosecutor who wants to see a 13-year-old accused of stealing a candy bar weighed down by chains.

The juvenile court, with the aid of appropriate services, possesses a unique ability to alter the course of a juvenile headed down the wrong path. Research shows that young people are more compliant with the court’s directions when they feel they have experienced procedural fairness. The juvenile court has an obligation to hold young people accountable for wrongdoing, but that should never mean ignoring their rights or the basic respect that every human being deserves – including those who break the law.

There is a dignity to our courts. I cannot imagine, for example, appearing in court without a suit and tie. We stand when the judge enters. We use elevated speech. We strive to be correct even in the smallest of things, because we know that what happens in the courtroom is tremendously important in the lives of the people directly affected by a case and in the life of our society.

The shackling young people led into juvenile courtrooms, most of whom present no safety or flight risk, is an attack on their dignity and the dignity of our justice system. The appearance of justice is critical to creating law-abiding communities. A 13-year-old in chains is not what justice looks like. More importantly, it is not what justice is.