Troubling
If you had to make a list of all the dumb things you did when you were a teenager, how many sheets of paper would you need? And how many of those things could have landed you in the back of a police car?
Be honest.
Truth is, many of us who skated through the teen years with a clean record were the fortunate beneficiaries of good luck or good timing — or both.
We’re not talking about violent or major crime. We mean the petty stuff that, while not serious, could get a kid in trouble with the law. It happens all the time and to far fewer kids than actually commit minor offenses. There are only so many cops.
For the unlucky few who do get in trouble with the law, an arrest isn’t the end of the world. And shouldn’t be — depending on the crime.
The criminal justice system takes into consideration that often juvenile crime has less to do with willful intent and a lot more to do with immaturity, peer pressure, and a host of teenage troubles that might skew a kid’s thinking or judgment. Point is, a teenager who’s broken the law isn’t necessarily a criminal — and shouldn’t be tagged with that label for the rest of his or her life. It’s why juvenile records are not public and why kids who’ve run afoul of the law often end up on probation rather then in a detention center. And it’s why any record of a criminal offense can be expunged if a kid satisfies the conditions of probation. The idea is to rehabilitate and not punish — indeed to protect kids — a baseline philosophy that should guide all decisions made by the juvenile justice system.
We raise the issue because a recent state appellate court ruling could erase that protection.
The ruling involves a Lehigh County teen who had downloaded child pornography from the Internet and was found delinquent on one count of sexual abuse of children. The judge ordered the teen’s juvenile probation officer to notify Temple University, where the boy planned to study after high school. This is a break from standard practice — if not the law — and will be appealed.
The issue and the concern is how the university might respond? It could limit the student’s access to the Internet or impose other sanctions as a means of safeguarding staff and students. Considering the litigious nature of our society, these would not be unrealistic measures if the university is worried about future lawsuits over nondisclosure of a student’s criminal past. The impact on a targeted student or would-be student could be to quit or not pursue a college education rather than deal with the embarrassment that might result from the disclosure. Ironically, if not tragically, these are the very kids who could reap significant long-term benefits from a college education.
That’s not to issue a blanket condemnation of disclosure. Our view is that if we are to depart from the protection the juvenile justice system now provides, the past crime or crimes must be of a violent or otherwise serious nature. A potential roommate should have the right to know that he or she could be bunking with a sex offender — just one scenario that makes a reasoned case for some disclosure.
Bucks County Courier Times