What Tomorrow's Voters Think About Criminal Justice
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of participating in the National Law Day celebrations by leading a Dialogue about juvenile justice at Ms. Sharon Heflin’s U.S. Government class at Basic High School in Henderson. Every year, the Community Service Committee of CCBA, in conjunction with the State Bar of Nevada and the Clark County School District, facilitates this program. These dialogues were designed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy after 9/11 to increase student awareness of American freedoms.
This year’s topic was officially “Liberty Under Law: Empowering Youth, Assuring Democracy.” As a speaker, I received a packet of materials offering suggested topics according to age groups. For high school students, the topic was our system of juvenile justice. In preparation for my visit, Ms. Heflin had discussed the U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault with the students. In case you don’t recall (as I had not, assuming I had ever known) In Re Gault held that juveniles are entitled to certain basic civil rights, such as the right to representation and the right to knowledge of the charges.
What the Kids Think
The discussion was spirited, with students expressing a wide range of opinions about both the juvenile justice system, and our criminal justice system in general. A discussion of this type leads fairly easily into something near and dear to this former prof who taught crim law in college and law school settings: the age old debate over whether the primary purpose of criminal justice should be punishment, rehabilitation, or deterrence.
I found the passionately held opinions of 17 and 18 year high school seniors fascinating. In this diverse classroom, various students argued for each of these traditional justifications of criminal law. One student urged retribution as stringent as that found in medieval times, arguing for both the use of extreme measures such as delimbing as punishment for theft, as well as the immediate execution of death sentences. More than once, the phrase “an eye for an eye” was uttered by classmates. Another student, shy despite her obvious faith in her opinions, almost whispered her belief that rehabilitation is a more appropriate goal. And while some agreed that the example of harsh sentences might deter crime, one student pointed out that violent criminals probably aren’t engaged in serious reflection of the potential consequences while committing the crime.
In short, this single classroom was a microcosm of the diversity of opinion on the larger debate that exists throughout our society. What was particularly interesting to me was that such variety exited within a classroom where many volunteered their close hand knowledge of the criminal justice system through the experiences of family and friends. In a state with the most rapidly growing prison population in the country, the views of these future voters are important.
Thanks for the Memories!
Many thanks to Ms. Heflin and her students for inviting me. I’d offer pictures, but two problems arose: 1) school rules don’t allow publication of photos of students without their parents’ permission and 2) without realizing it, I had my camera on video, instead of whatever setting takes still shots. The IT guy I sleep with (my husband) is checking into options to resolving the second problem, but these kids may graduate before permission slips can be rounded up.
PS- Ms. Heflin has a very cool classroom, filled with thought provoking quotes, bumper stickers, and posters, in addition to books and other scholarly materials. My favorites were the series of posters of smug-looking, affluent types proclaiming:
“Don’t Vote – We like things the way they are.”
