No Matter How Loud I Shout

Throughout the book, Humes repeatedly refers to the futility of the juvenile-justice system, criticizing many aspects of it that all seem to work together to cripple the system itself. Humes discusses the idea that the juvenile-justice system seems to be working against itself, thwarting its own attempts to affect change in kids’ lives. One of the problems that Humes discusses is the lack of consistency evident within the system itself:

Odds are a repeat offender will get a different judge, a new lawyer, another prosecutor, and a new series of probation officers […] most judges and lawyers haven’t the time or inclination to read anything in the file beyond the most recent piles of paper […] A ward’s history before the court is often ignored or misplaced (190).

This lack of consistency seems to be built into the very fabric of the juvenile-justice system, ensuring that kids are not treated equitably and allowing many of their futures to be held in fate’s hands. However, even though Humes argues that much of the relative success of the juvenile-justice system—or rather, its futility in punishing and accidental rehabilitation—stems from fate, the reality is that much of a kid’s fate has to do with his or her socioeconomic status. This is especially evident in the case of John Sloan, whose private attorney is more or less able to ensure his humanization and sways Dorn to consider rehabilitation in place of punishment: “For kids with money behind them, justice—at least when it comes to sentencing—is for sale” (215). Money gives kids like John Sloan many more options, as they can be sent far away to rehabilitative private camps for extended periods of time. They can pay for non-overworked private attorneys who remember their cases and are paid not to lose their case files. This emphasis on socioeconomic privilege then has repercussions throughout the juvenile justice system, as it can effectively dictate the trajectory of a kid’s entire future.

Similarly, money itself—or rather, the lack thereof—represents a huge impediment to the implementation of a successful juvenile-justice system. During the time that Humes writes the book, California suffers from massive budget cuts that completely annihilate rehabilitative programs available for juveniles:

The budget cuts, then, are creating a Juvenile Court destined to fail even more often than before. That failure—in the form of repeat offenders—will increase the need for more lockups and more programs for the hardened, dangerous kids, which will in turn increase the pressure to try more children as adults because, the critic of Juvenile Court will argue, the system isn’t working (361).

As Janet Reno suggests, locking everyone up represents a symptom that the system is broken, not an indication that it is working. In theory, a juvenile-justice system that is successful would gradually eliminate the need for the justice system itself, although it would require more money upfront. Herein lies precisely the problem, as no politicians seem willing to shell out the necessary money in order to create a preventative and rehabilitative juvenile-justice system. Rather, their insistence on get-tough policies only serves to increase crime rates, further weakening the effectiveness of the system. This can be seen in regards to recidivism rates, which show the ineffective nature of punitive measures:“doing nothing, and throwing everything the system has at kids, produced the same overall result” (30). The answer, as many of the adults within the system argue, does not lie in punishment but rather in rehabilitation, an idea that is directly thwarted by the get-tough movement.

But the main reason that the juvenile-justice system is broken, Humes argues, does not lie in its lack of money or seemingly arbitrary implementation of laws. Rather, the fault lies within the adults themselves, who use the system to play their own games. There is a constant back-and-forth between the prosecution and the defense attorneys, who often focus only on winning their respective cases and not on what is in the best interest of the kids. Defense attorneys’ “hard line in attempting to disprove every allegation and to exploit every legal technicality is what provokes the prosecution’s lock-the-monsters-away hard line, and vice versa” (77). The two sides of court play off each other, and both sides willingly participate in these games.

Humes notes that:

[T]he hypocrisy implicit in playing such games bothers [Beckstrand], but they are a big part of the process here, a shabby mirror image of adult court. In both venues, winning the case is everything. Figuring out what’s best for a kid—and for the community—well, that isn’t her job. Peggy’s job is to get a conviction (40).

Here, Beckstrand’s job is separate from the goal of the juvenile-justice system. She, like many of the other adults, is removed from the kids themselves. Without the kids’ futures in mind, the focus of the system revolves around the adults who use it to satisfy their own personal goals. There is no consideration of the community or the collective; rather, the individual comes to the forefront. If there is consideration of the community, the kid is usually separated from that conception.

Another symptom of the lack of focus on the juveniles themselves is manifest in the way in which the juvenile-justice system is viewed as a training ground for adult court:“Juvenile Court, however, is as much a training ground as a court of law, where errors are more easily forgiven, and problem lawyers more easily hidden from sight” (131). The stakes of the juvenile system are seen as being much lower, which is counterintuitive when one thinks about the relative ease of changing a child’s behavior or thoughts versus those of an adult. Reformers like Hickey believe that the juvenile-justice system is instrumental in preventing the increase in incarceration later on, yet many of the other adults who work within the system do not take it seriously. They fail to understand how their decisions affect the outcome of these kids’ lives, therefore rendering the system itself ineffective in actually affecting positive change.