Hyman, J. D.

English

Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law

Buffalo Law Review Volume 12 Number 3 Symposium: New York Family Court Act Article 11 6-1-1963 More Light on Youth in the Courts: A Book Note J. D. Hyman University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview  Part of the Family Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation J. D. Hyman, More Light on Youth in the Courts: A Book Note, 12 Buff. L. Rev. 536 (1963). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol12/iss3/11 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact lawscholar@buffalo.edu. MORE LIGHT ON YOUTH IN THE COURTSA Book NofeJ. D. Hy -,*The foregoing discussions make it abundantly clear that the establishmentof a Family Court provides no automatic solution to the manifold problemswhich led to its creation. A new and flexible institution is now available inwhich the most promising approaches to vitally important community problemsmay be explored. But the hard work of discovering the best solutions remains.-And effective facilities for implementing them must be provided. Thesereminders are forcefully presented in the latest report of the Joint LegislativeCommittee on Court Reorganization entitled Young Offenders and CourtReorganization.1Of the many issues involving youth and the law, none has commandedmore public attention in New York in the last decade than the question of theage categories within which the regular procedures of the criminal law maybe replaced by more flexible methods designed to minimize the risk of en-couraging the development of careers of adult criminality. For many years,this basic category has been fixed by the sixteenth birthday which markedthe upper limit of the jurisdiction of the Children's Court. More recently,the Youthful Offender Act provided a non-criminal type of proceeding for youthssixteen, seventeen and eighteen at the option of the court. With the increaseof teen-age crime throughout the country, the advisability of broadening theuse of these procedures for youths between sixteen and twenty has been fre-quently debated. Upon the recommendation of the Temporary Commissionon the Courts, the New York Legislature in 1956 passed the Youth Court Act,extending the availability of youthful offender treatment to those under twenty-one and encouraging its use.2 For several years, heated controversy swirledaround the Act, both on substantive and procedural grounds. After successivepostponements of its effective date, the Youth Court Act was finally repealed. 3But the question of the appropriate age limits for the use of non-criminalprocedures has not been answered.The latest report of the Albert Committee contains the results of themost extensive effort thus far made to assemble all available statistical datarelating to the age of youths embroiled with the law, as well as a carefulanalysis of the legal and service problems involved in the use of non-criminalprocedures. The Commission makes no positive recommendations about theage categories to which these procedures should be available. In reviewingthe history of the problem in New York, it suggests that "without an over-whelming demonstration that change was necessary, it would be difficult to* Dean, School of Law, State University of New York at Buffalo1. N.Y. Joint Legis. Committee on Court Reorganization, Rep. VII (Young Offendersand Court Reorganization) (1963).2. N.Y. Sess. Laws 1956, ch. 838.3. N.Y. Sess. Laws 1961, ch. 196.YOUTH IN THE COURTSjustify an increase in the juvenile delinquency age."4 But in view of the lan-guage of the constitutional amendment adopted in the fall of 1961, the Com-mittee concluded that further study was required:Given this constitutional language, this Committee has concludedthat the Legislature is under a constitutional mandate to examineagain the question of whether the juvenile delinquency age should bechanged or other arrangements made for dealing with young offenders.In its judgment, the decisions of the past must now be subordinatedto the policies of the new constitutional amendment. And these policiesrequire a practical judgment, based on current experiences andrealistic estimates, as to how the courts of the unified state courtsystem may be most effectively used to deal with problems of youth.5Most of the report is devoted to a thorough analysis of the relevant data.Cautiously as they are used, the statistics assembled by the Commissionappear to be pressing it toward the conclusion that the increasing relativeincidence of crimes of violence in the age group below 18 has serious implica-tions for the age limit which should be fixed for Family Court authority overdelinquents.In addition to subjecting the available statistical data to a most careful,many-angled analysis, the staff of the Commission has attempted to formulatefresh perspectives on the issues involved in defining the scope of the work ofthe Family Court in such a way as to maximize its effectiveness. An effort ismade, in this connection, to appraise the effect upon the judges, and henceupon the way in which they approach their job in its totality, of loading theirdockets too heavily with cases of young teenagers charged with acts ofviolence which seem seriously threatening to the community. It is suggestedthat they may be led to shift their general approach toward short-range protec-tion against further acts of violence and away from a concentration upon givingthe most effective corrective service to the young people who come beforethem. As the report states,' at a certain point "the community's concern withpreventing violence asserts itself and in large measure overrides its generallytolerant attitudes towards the crises and rebellions of youth." Certainly thisis a factor which must be reckoned with in making the ultimate decisions aboutallocating jurisdiction over youths between the Family Court and the criminalcourts in the first instance.On account of both the new statistical material made available and thesensitive exploration of many of the complex and subtle factors involved, thisReport should receive careful scrutiny from everyone interested in contributingto the most effective development of the new Family Court. Whether or notone agrees with the conclusions hinted at, the entire community is greatlyindebted to the Albert Commission and its diligent staff for this thoughtfulReport.4. Op. cit. supra note 1, at S.5. Op. dt. smpra note 1, at 6.6. Op. cit. supra note 1, at 107.

More Light on Youth in the Courts: A Book Note

https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2900&amp;context=buffalolawreview

More Light on Youth in the Courts: A Book Note

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law