Youth and Parental Perceptions of a Holistic Juvenile Public Defense Model
| Author | Stephen Phillippi,Jeffrey Berman,Casey L. Thomas,Kaylin Beiter,Ariel Test |
| Published date | 01 August 2022 |
| Date | 01 August 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420938138 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420938138
Youth Justice
2022, Vol. 22(2) 145 –165
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1473225420938138
journals.sagepub.com/home/yjj
Youth and Parental Perceptions
of a Holistic Juvenile
Public Defense Model
Stephen Phillippi, Jeffrey Berman,
Casey L. Thomas , Kaylin Beiter
and Ariel Test
Abstract
This study examines client and parent/guardian perceptions of holistic juvenile public defense. A total of 66
subjects responded to a structured survey measuring satisfaction with holistic representation. Differences
between perceptions were analyzed using paired T-tests and the Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used
to analyze strength of association and interrelationships among variables and satisfaction. Qualitative data
were collected through open-ended survey questions. The findings of this study indicate that holistic defense
was perceived positively as measured by high client satisfaction. Further empirical research is necessary to
evaluate the outcomes of holistic models and offer comparison to traditional models.
Keywords
advocacy, holistic, juvenile delinquency, juvenile justice, law, program evaluation, public defense
Introduction
Juvenile public defense
Less likely to be familiar with the justice system and their legal rights, indigent youth
accused of delinquent behavior typically under-utilize the legal resources that are availa-
ble to them (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 2018). In
the United States, statewide assessments of indigent youth access to counsel indicate that
many of those accused of offending behavior are not appointed counsel in the early stages
of court proceedings, which increases their likelihood for formal processing, adjudication,
and out-of-home placement at disposition (OJJDP, 2018). Empirical evidence suggests
that other countries share similar constraints and shortcomings regarding youth access to
Corresponding author:
Casey L. Thomas, Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Louisiana State
University Health Sciences Center New Orleans, 2020 Gravier St, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA.
Email: ctho44@lsuhsc.edu
938138YJJ0010.1177/1473225420938138Youth JusticePhillippi et al.
research-article2020
Original Article
146 Youth Justice 22(2)
justice (McGough, 2011; Nichols and Weaver, 2013; United States Department of Justice,
2011). Previous research shows that courts are not fully compliant in appointing counsel
to this population for several reasons, including excessive caseloads, inadequate funding,
weak standards, and a lack of meaningful oversight of public defense delivery (McCarthy,
2013; Majd and Puritz, 2009; National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) 2013; National
Legal Aid & Defender Association, 2015; OJJDP, 2018). This failure to appoint counsel
to indigent youth in the justice system violates the legal precedent set by In re Gault,
where the United States Supreme Court held that juveniles have the constitutional right to
counsel regardless of their ability to pay (In re Gault, 1967).
The function of the Gault ruling was to protect juveniles’ rights, including the right to
notice of charges, presence of an attorney, cross-examination of the prosecution’s wit-
nesses, and the freedom from self-incrimination (OJJDP, 2018). Moreover, the Gault deci-
sion granted youth the right to act as participants in their court proceedings, rather than
spectators (OJJDP, 2018). The American Bar Association (ABA), a national representative
of the legal profession in the United States, offers several recommendations regarding the
role of legal counsel in juvenile delinquency proceedings. In particular, the ABA states that
status as a minor should not prevent a normal client–lawyer relationship whenever possible
and recommends that juvenile waiver of counsel be prohibited. Furthermore, the ABA
advises a presumption of indigence for all juvenile clients, stating that courts should appoint
counsel to all youth who do not hire their own attorney (ABA, 1983).
Internationally, the legal standards for detained youth are similar to that of the United
States. Since its establishment in 1990, world leaders from 196 countries have adopted the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a treaty that describes the
obligation of justice systems to provide legal aid to youth and identifies the elements nec-
essary to do so (Kilkelly, 2019; United States Department of Justice, 2011). The CRC was
further explained by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. In particular, the commit-
tee published General Comment No. 10, which ruled that children in conflict with the law
must be treated in a manner that accounts for the child’s age, maturity, intellectual, and
emotional capacity and measures must be taken to promote their ability to comprehend
and participate in the court proceedings (Bernuz Beneitez and Dumortier, 2018; General
Comment, 2007; Liefaard and Kilkelly, 2018). Similarly, in 2010, the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the Guidelines on Child-Friendly Justice for
European states to follow when modifying justice systems to meet the needs of youth
populations (Liefaard, 2015; Liefaard, 2016). Now an established concept in Europe,
these guidelines were the first instrument to examine the justice system from the lens of
children’s rights in a holistic manner (Liefaard and Kilkelly, 2018). According to the
guidelines, child-friendly justice is accessible, age appropriate, timely, diligent, adapted
and concentrated to the needs of the client, and respectful of the client’s right to due pro-
cess, participation in proceedings, and dignity (Bernuz Beneitez and Dumortier, 2018;
Liefaard and Kilkelly, 2018). Most recently, in its 24th General Comment, the Committee
on the Rights of the Child revised the guidance of General Comment No. 10 (General
Comment, 2019). Underscoring the CRC commitment to comprehensive juvenile justice
policy, the revisions include changes to the minimum age of criminal responsibility (from
12 to at least 14 years of age), an encouragement of diversion programs, and other
To continue reading
Request your trial