COM 404 Case Construction Assignment Example

A. Blame [could be switched with Ills in order of presentation]:

i. The JJDPA expired in September 2007 and has only been kept alive
by short term resolutions that have not changed the necessary
parts of the bill through passage of Senate Bill 678.
American Bar Association (2009) Criminal justice improvements: Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act. Accessed online: https://www.americanbar.org/

Authority for the JJDPA expired in September 2007, but the 110th Congress temporarily
maintained its status under the 2002 reauthorization through a series of “continuing resolutions”
while considering reauthorization legislation. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved
bipartisan JJDPA reauthorization legislation in July 2008, but no further action occurred.

In the 111th Congress, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) on March 24, 2009
introduced S. 678, legislation to reauthorize the JJDPA. S. 678 is substantially the same as S. 3155, reauthorization legislation introduced in the
110th Congress, as amended and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last July.
S. 678 as introduced March 24
includes the “Cardin amendment” that phases out over three years the statutory exception to the
JJDPA enacted in 1980 that currently allows states to hold status offenders charged with non-
criminal offenses in jail or secured confinement. The ABA has long sought this change in the
law so that homeless teens, runaways, truants, and other non-criminal youth are not moved into
and socialized to the criminal justice system. S. 678 as introduced also contains the “Kennedy
amendment” adopted by the Committee last July, which provides for early mental health
assessment, referral, and treatment of youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system
who have mental health needs and disorders. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved S.678 by a 12-7 vote on December
17, 2009. The full Senate is likely to consider S. 678 this fall.

In the House, the principal jurisdiction for the JJDPA resides not in the Judiciary Committee, but in the Education and Labor Committee, chaired
by Representative George Miller (D-CA) and Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) as Senior Republican Member. The House
Committee held a hearing on JJDPA reauthorization on April 21, 2010.

Analysis: This card shows structural blame, it demonstrates that the

US Congress has failed to follow up on the necessary actions to
ensure that the Kennedy and Cardin amendments were included in
recently passed temporary extensions of the JJDPA.
COM 404 Case Construction Assignment Example

B. Ills [could be switched with Ills in order of presentation]:

i. The failure to treat mentally ill juveniles creates a revolving door of
crime and punishment, a self-fulfilling prophecy with increasing
recidivism rates.
Carothers, C. (2004) Juvenile detention centers: Are they warehousing children with mental
illnesses? National Alliance on Metal Illness
*Carothers is the Executive Director, NAMI Maine

Finally, if youth housed in the center have undiagnosed mental disorders, which many do, then
the correctional setting is slow to respond, complicating matters and leading to a deterioration in
mental status, increased violations of rules, and increased discipline. The unfortunate reality is
that the more experiences that youth with mental illnesses have in juvenile detention centers, the
more likely it is that they will descend deeper and deeper into the criminal justice system. The
initial placement in juvenile detention becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Analysis: This card is a qualitative ill – it describes the harms not just as in the
past, bust as continuing in the future – a “self-fulfilling prophecy”.

ii. Juveniles with mental illnesses need new models of treatment,

traditional models have them incarcerated for twice as long as their
peers.
Burns, C. (2009). Access to mental health services. Annals of Health Law, 18, 150-158.

Why is this especially important for juveniles with mental health? Juveniles with mental illnesses
need a distinct model of care from regular detainees. Many juvenile institutions use the positive
peer culture method, a system of rewards and punishments for rehabilitation. It puts the juvenile
in charge of his own progress, using group feedback, group confrontation, and group physical
discipline. One can imagine how hard some of these methods might be on a juvenile with a
mental illness. These traditional methods (which can work well with adult detainees) can
seriously endanger juveniles with mental illness, not only exacerbating their symptoms, but
putting them at an increased risk for repeat offenses. In addition, “children who are in the
juvenile justice system because of their mental health issues tend to stay up to twice as long as
the general population of juvenile detainees, often because there is nowhere to place them upon
discharge.”

Analysis: This card is a qualitative ill – it describes how existing models and
methods fail to treat mentally ill juveniles and result in social and behavioral
issues that extend their stay twice as long.
COM 404 Case Construction Assignment Example

iii. 55% of Juveniles released from incarceration are rearrested within

one year!
Wilson, J. (2007) Reducing Juvenile Recidivism in the United States. Stanford University
Executive Summary. Accessed Online: http://www.scribd.com /

The American juvenile justice system desperately needs reform. Some 2.4 million juveniles are
charged with offenses annually. An appalling 55 percent of juveniles released from incarceration
nationwide are rearrested within one year. In urban centers, that percentage- referred to as the
rate of recidivism- reaches up to 76 percent. High recidivism is associated with increases in
crime, victimization, homelessness, family destabilization, and public health risks. Government
sponsored correctional programs cost sixty billion dollars annually. Most tragically, high
recidivism indicates a failure to provide meaningful rehabilitation for offenders. Reducing
recidivism specifically among juveniles should be of primary importance to the U.S. Department
of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Our government’s
current approach to lower recidivism emphasizes the creation and funding of rehabilitative
programs. While these initiatives have made marginal gains, efforts have been insufficient.
Substantial progress will only come by eliminating recidivism-fostering features of the juvenile
justice system itself.

Analysis: This is my only quantitative ill – but it is important evidence, it

demonstrates the significance of my harms, 2.4 million Juveniles annually, an
overwhelming majority (55-76% depending on region) who are likely to reenter
the criminal justice system within a year. Statistical proof of the ‘revolving
door’.
COM 404 Case Construction Assignment Example

iv. Failure to incorporate the Cardin Amendment has led to Juveniles

being incarcerated and detained in solitary confinement as adults.

Arthur, P. J. & Waugh, R. (2009) Status offenses and the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act: The exception that swallowed the rule
Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 7(2), 555-576
In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA)
prohibiting the placement of status offenders in secure confinement. Unfortunately, this
prohibition has been significantly undermined by a 1980 amendment to the act that allows the
detention of status offenders for violations of a valid court order (VCO). A VCO might be an
order entered by a judge in a dependency or status offense proceeding commanding a juvenile to
desist specified noncriminal behavior. For example, a foster youth may be ordered at a dependency review hearing to stop
running away from placement, or a truant may be ordered to stop skipping school. If the juvenile continues the prohibited
behavior, he or she may be incarcerated for violating the court's order. Not surprisingly, the VCO
exception to the JJDPA has increased the harmful use of detention for juveniles throughout the
United States and should be repealed as part of the act's reauthorization process.

Analysis: This qualitative ill is important because it sets up my plan, it makes

clear that the reasons these harms are happening to juveniles is a direct
consequence of the failure to sign the Cardin Amendment, this reminds my
audience of the initial blame card and sets up my plan text.
COM 404 Case Construction Assignment Example

C. Cure
i. Plan – You write this in its entirety
(as paragraph or bullet point list)
1) Mandates - The United States Federal
Government through an act of congress will
pass the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandating the Cardin
Amendment (to eliminate the confinement of
youth status offenders charged with non-
criminal offenses) and the Kennedy Amendment
(which provides early assessment, referral and
treatment for the mental health needs of youth
offenders).
2) Agent - The United States Federal Government
through an act of congress
3) Enforcement - the U.S. Department of Justice
and the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
4) Funding - the Normal Means of the JJDPA’s
Congressional Allocation
5) Intent – I reserve the right to clarify intent
through case texts and cross examination.
 COM 404 Case Construction Assignment Example

ii. Solvency
1) Solvency Advocate – The JJDPA is key to reducing the harms that
occur to more than 150,000 children a year

The New York times (2009) De-Criminalizing children. Accessed online: http://www.nytimes.com/

As many as 150,000 children are sent to adult jails in this country every year -- often in
connection with nonviolent offenses or arrests that do not lead to conviction. That places them at
risk of being raped or battered and increases the chance they will end up as career criminals. To
fix this problem, Congress needs to properly reauthorize the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and
Prevention Act of 1974, under which states agreed to humanize juvenile justice policies in
exchange for more federal aid. This act was largely bypassed in the 1990s when unfounded fears of an adolescent crime wave
reached hysterical levels. When it reauthorizes the law -- it is already three years late -- Congress should
make it illegal for states to place children in adult prisons, perhaps with the exception of truly
heinous criminals. The House has yet to introduce a new bill; in the Senate, an updated version has yet to be voted out of the Judiciary
Committee. The Senate bill is less than ideal, but it does encourage the states to de-emphasize the practice of detaining children in adult jails
before trial and requires them to better protect young people who end up there. Several
states have begun to reform their
systems: housing young people in juvenile facilities -- where they are better protected and can
get mental health treatment -- even if they have been convicted in adult courts. The current
version of the law threatens states with loss of federal aid if they make that decision. The Senate
bill would do away with that language. The bill also would require states to phase out policies
under which children are detained in either juvenile or adult facilities for offenses like violating
curfew or smoking. These children should be dealt with through community-based counseling or
family intervention programs, which are better for the child and for taxpayers. In addition, the
bill increases financing for mentoring, drug treatment, mental health care and other programs
that have been shown to keep children out of custody in the first place. And it would require states to closely
monitor -- and address -- racial inequities in their system. Studies show that black and Hispanic children get harsher treatment at all levels of the
juvenile justice system than white children. The Senate bill is not perfect. But it
represents a welcome step away from the
cruel and self-defeating policies that subject children to irreparable harm at the hands of the state
and puts them on a path that too often leads to a lifetime spent behind bars.

Analysis: This card is a solvency advocate because it directly supports my plans

mandates and provides quantitative evidence about the number of juveniles
who would, as a result of my plan, escape the fate of sharing a cell an adult in a
prison.
COM 404 Case Construction Assignment Example

2) The APA supports the JJDPA as it is the most important law pertaining to
treatment of juveniles and is critical to providing screening and care for
mentally ill youth.

American Psychological Association (2009) APA supports reauthorization of Juvenile Justice Act on
law's 35th anniversary. Accessed online: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com

"In reauthorizing this law, Congress needs to effectively address the seriously troubling reports
of parental relinquishment to juvenile justice agencies to obtain care by providing community-
based mental health services for troubled youth," Keita said. "In so doing, we still need to
provide an appropriate range of critical services in the juvenile justice system. In addition, we
need to meet the goal of not housing individuals in secure detention facilities when they are not
facing criminal charges." APA also urged the federal judicial system to consider psychological research when examining sentencing
guidelines for juvenile offenders. In July, APA filed an amicus brief in the joined U.S. Supreme Court cases Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v.
Florida. These cases focus on juvenile sentencing and whether the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons, which declared the death
penalty unconstitutional for juveniles, should be applied to sentences of life without the possibility of parole for those who committed crimes as
juveniles. APA's brief supports the petitioners, citing evidence countering the position that a sentence of life in prison with no chance for parole is
an appropriate level of punishment for juvenile offenders. The cases are set to be heard by the Supreme Court in its next term. The Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which is the nation's most important law pertaining to the
treatment of juvenile offenders and the prevention of delinquency among at-risk youth, was signed into
law by President Gerald Ford on Sept. 7, 1974. It is the only law that sets out federal standards for the
custody and care of youth in the juvenile justice system. It also provides direction and support for juvenile
justice system improvements.

Analysis: This is also a solvency advocate – it is a direct endorsement by the APA

who are exceedingly qualified to address issues of juvenile delinquency,
rehabilitation, and effective treatment for young and vulnerable offenders.
COM 404 Case Construction Assignment Example

3) Effective screening is critical to ensuring least intrusive and most

effective treatment, for many at home treatment is best.

Juvenile Justice Advisory Board (2010) Juvenile justice policy brief series: Mental health issues
in California’s juvenile justice system. Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice. Accessed
online:https://www.law.berkeley.edu/img/BCCJ_Mental_Health_Policy_Brief_May_201
0.pdf
Dr. William Arroyo, Medical Director, Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health • Barrie Becker, California State Director, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids • James Bell,
Executive Director, W. Haywood Burns Institute for Juvenile Justice Fairness and Equity • Gena Castro Rodriguez, Executive Director, Youth Justice Institute • Gwen Foster,
Director, CalSWEC, UC Berkeley School of Social Welfare • Curtis Hill, Sheriff, San Benito County • Hon. Kurt Kumli, Judge, Santa Clara County, Superior Court • Barry
Krisberg, President, National Council on Crime and Delinquency • Rick Lewkowitz, Supervising District Attorney, Juvenile Division, Sacramento County District Attorney’s
Office • Winston Peters, Assistant Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office • Jerry Powers, Chief Probation Officer, Stanislaus County; Past-President,
Chief Probation Officers of California • David Steinhart, Juvenile Justice Program Director, Commonweal • Richard Word, Chief, Vacaville Police Department • Frank Zimring,
Professor, UC Berkeley School of Law
May 2010
Title: JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY BRIEF SERIES: Mental Health Issues in
California’s Juvenile Justice System

In addition, juvenile justice practitioners should use the most effective, least intrusive
interventions possible while still protecting public safety (Arredondo, 2006; Koppelman, 2005). Research
indicates that when public safety is not an issue, youth with mental health needs are better served through
community-based treatment in a natural setting. Treatment is likely to be more effective
if behavioral issues are addressed when and where they occur (Melton and Paglicocca, 1992). For
some youth, referral to community counseling services or family-centered services
provided in the home—or using family insurance to receive therapeutic services from a
private therapist—would be a sufficient and effective rehabilitative tool. Unwarranted or
excessive therapeutic intervention and mental health services that are necessary but
poorly delivered can have equally damaging effects (Latessa, 2004; Lowenkamp et al., 2005). Finally,
youth who do not need serious treatment should be identified so that limited resources are
not spent where they are not needed, and less intensive treatment can be provided as
appropriate.

Analysis: This card expands from the solvency advocates presented prior; it
suggests that new forms of treatment which don’t require confinement and
isolation allow for more effective treatment and rehabilitation.
COM 404 Case Construction Assignment Example

4) Juveniles who received proper treatment had a decrease in recidivism

U.S. Department of Justice (2000) Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. Accessed
online: http://www.ncjrs.gov

Overall, juveniles who received treatment showed an average 12-percent decrease in recidivism.
This result, while not enormous, was positive, statistically significant, and large enough to be
meaningful. More important, however, was the large variability ineffects across studies. Intervention effectiveness was
associated with the characteristics of the juveniles who received treatment. The effects were
larger for more serious offenders (indicated by the types of prior offenses that included both
person and property offenses) than for less serious offenders. Type of treatment was important and is discussed in
the next section.

Analysis: This card continues the previous cards expansion, it says that
good treatment has been shown to decrease the ‘revolving door’ effect. It
provides statistical data to suggest that treatment can reduce re-entry by
more than 10%, an meaningful statistical correlation. Further – it comes
from the DOJ – this is top notch evidence and research.

5) Screening and Staff training lowers suicide rates.

Hayes, L. M. (2004). Juvenile suicide in confinement: A national survey. U.S. Department of

Justice. Accessed online: https://www.ncjrs.gov

Although the OJJDP study could not assess the quality of each of the four criteria operating within the juvenile facilities because most data were
self-reported, other findings were equally revealing. For
example, facilities that conducted screening for suicide
risk at admission and trained their staff in suicide prevention had lower rates of suicidal behavior
among their residents than those that did not. Furthermore, although written policies to provide
close observation of suicidal residents did not appear to significantly reduce the rate of suicidal
behavior, they could play a role in reducing completed suicides because these policies are often
implemented after the risk is recognized (Parent et al., 1994).

Analysis: This card impacts out the previous cards, as if it was not enough for
my audience that I was reducing the mental harms of isolation and
confinement and reducing the rate at which young offenders re-enter the
system, well – on top of that, I’m also directly saving lives by reducing the
risk of suicides in juvenile facilities.