Founded by the New York State Unified Court System and the Fund for the City of New York, the Center for Court Innovation strives to “aid victims, reduce crime, strengthen neighborhoods, reduce incarceration, and improve public trust in justice” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.).
The Center also hopes to transform the judicial system approach. Rather than simply trying each case, the Center believes the court should “change the behaviors of offenders, enhance the safety of victims, and improve public trust in justice” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.). To prompt this change, the Center has created demonstration projects that “test innovative approaches to public safety problems” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.). One such demonstration project is the Youth Domestic Violence Court, which stems from the Center’s work with domestic violence.
The Youthful Offender’s Domestic Violence Court was launched in Brooklyn, New York in 2003. It began in response to the ineffectiveness of the traditional court system when addressing domestic violence cases among teenagers. The Youthful Offender’s Domestic Violence Court serves exclusively teenagers ages 16-19 involved in domestic violence. It hires one judge to ensure consistency and provides a range of services for both the defendants and the victims aimed at stopping the violence. Features of the Youthful Offender Domestic Violence Court include: Victim Advocacy, Accountability, Specialized Attention, and Evaluation.
Victim Advocacy: The Court hires a teen victim advocate who works with the victim explaining the criminal justice process, provides counseling services, as well as helps the victim with safety planning. The teen victim advocate also connects the victim with services in the area. According to Rebecca Hauser, the Associate Director of the Youth Domestic Violence Court, the Court works with community violence projects in Brooklyn that have impact on young teens experiencing violence, as well as, trainings, school based prevention, and peer mentoring” (personal communication, March 4, 2015).
Accountability: Perpetrators are mandated by the Court to attend a free, 12-week STEPS to end family violence program designed to re-educate and break the cycle of violence. Perpetrators are also required to appear in court once a month for monitoring. According to Ms. Hauser the Court also focuses on “getting him/her the services s/he needs such as teen appropriate batterer program, mental health, substance abuse, parenting, GED” (personal communication, March 4, 2015).
Specialized Attention: According to the Court, judicial decision making should be “based on knowledge of adolescent development and relationship violence among teens” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.). Therefore, the Court hires a specialized judge who presides over all the teen dating violence cases. A District Attorney, who is informed and knowledgeable in teen dating violence, is also assigned to the Court.
Evaluation: The Court, in order to collect comprehensive information about adolescent victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, tracks each case as well as each case’s outcome. The Court then uses this information to modify the program.
My Analysis
I chose to look at the Center for Court Innovation: Youth Domestic Violence Court’s because I was interested in the Center’s work to reduce crime and incarceration and aid victims through victim advocacy, accountability, specialized attention, and evaluation. I was also fascinated in reading more about how this work is done through the traditional judicial system framework. My analysis of the Center for Court Innovation as well as the Youth Domestic Violence Court, specifically are below:
- The Center for Court Innovation’s goal to transform the judicial system approach is encouraging, however the way in which they hope to do so seems deficient: “change the behaviors of offenders, enhance the safety of victims, and improve public trust in justice” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.). Yes, the offender’s behavior needs to be changed, but their behavior is interconnected with gender stereotypes of aggression, the lack of education around communication and healthy relationships, as well as other structural injustices and forms of oppression that play a role. Shouldn’t these also be addressed?
- The Youth Domestic Violence Court lists Victim Advocacy as one of its four goals. I think this goal is positive because it changes the focus from blaming the victim and instead goes about educating and thus empowering the victim about the judicial process. It also places an importance on the mental health of the victim by providing counseling services and information about additional services. As we know, Teen Dating Violence has many long-term effects and Victim Advocacy not only helps the victim immediately, but also helps them find the support they need throughout their healing process.
- Another goal of the Youth Domestic Violence Court is Accountability of the offender. Although I do think it is positive that the offender is provided support in an effort to stop future violence, the Court still works from the traditional judicial system and therefore, the offender does not find retribution from the victim through “apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation” (Capeheart & Milovanovic, 2007). In other words the process holds the offender in what is called “passive responsibility” or when the offender is told, in an act of domination, that they are responsible for a certain activity (Capeheart & Milovanovic, 2007). But does this make a difference? Does the offender really change? I wish instead that the Court’s goal of Accountability would engage the offender in more “active responsibility” thus “taking responsibility for putting things right” which in turn allows the offender to more clearly “see the consequences of their harm” (Capeheart & Milovanovic, 2007).
- The Court also has a goal of Specialized Attention, which places importance on the knowledge of the judge who tries the teen domestic violence cases. Although I may not agree with the traditional judicial system, I think this aspect of the Court is imperative. It also says something about the need for specialized knowledge when working with specific populations and specific crimes and recognizes that a person’s identities, such as their age, need to be taking into consideration and addressed. Can a judge try an adolescent properly if they do not truly understand their development process?
- The Court also includes Evaluation, which is key. In most other professional processes, such as medicine and education, evaluation and modification is necessary for growth and improvement in the field. The justice system seems to be so rooted in history that not many changes are made. Adding this element to the Court is groundbreaking and, in my opinion, should be emulated by other courts.
Overall, I think the Youth Domestic Violence Court has some positive qualities and for a program working within the traditional framework, I think it is one of the most promising. However, it is also limited and incomplete. There is a need for community participation and dialogue, which this system does not permit. The system also disregards major steps to prevent such violence in the future. It functions instead from a more reactive model. Through my analysis, I came to realize that I am not a supporter of the traditional judicial system because I feel that individuals are not truly brought justice. We as a society abide unquestioningly to laws and a legal system that is created and controlled by the patriarchal system that governs our country. In other words, “justice” is defined and determined not by us as a people, but by the state. I also feel that the judicial system ignores the impact of environment and ecological influences, structural injustices, and oppression, which must be taken into consideration. As I learn more about teen dating violence, I think we need to move away from the traditional punitive system and instead examine where the violence it is stemming from, implement preventive measures, turn our focus from the punishment of the offender to the physical, emotional, and mental healing of both the victim and the offender, and integrate community participation and responsibility, in order to take steps to create a better future.
References
Capeheart, L. & Milovanovic, D. (2007). Social justice: Theories, issues, and movements. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Center for Court Innovation (n.d.). Youth domestic violence court. Retrieved from http://www.courtinnovation.org/project/youth-domestic-violence-court
The Center also hopes to transform the judicial system approach. Rather than simply trying each case, the Center believes the court should “change the behaviors of offenders, enhance the safety of victims, and improve public trust in justice” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.). To prompt this change, the Center has created demonstration projects that “test innovative approaches to public safety problems” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.). One such demonstration project is the Youth Domestic Violence Court, which stems from the Center’s work with domestic violence.
The Youthful Offender’s Domestic Violence Court was launched in Brooklyn, New York in 2003. It began in response to the ineffectiveness of the traditional court system when addressing domestic violence cases among teenagers. The Youthful Offender’s Domestic Violence Court serves exclusively teenagers ages 16-19 involved in domestic violence. It hires one judge to ensure consistency and provides a range of services for both the defendants and the victims aimed at stopping the violence. Features of the Youthful Offender Domestic Violence Court include: Victim Advocacy, Accountability, Specialized Attention, and Evaluation.
Victim Advocacy: The Court hires a teen victim advocate who works with the victim explaining the criminal justice process, provides counseling services, as well as helps the victim with safety planning. The teen victim advocate also connects the victim with services in the area. According to Rebecca Hauser, the Associate Director of the Youth Domestic Violence Court, the Court works with community violence projects in Brooklyn that have impact on young teens experiencing violence, as well as, trainings, school based prevention, and peer mentoring” (personal communication, March 4, 2015).
Accountability: Perpetrators are mandated by the Court to attend a free, 12-week STEPS to end family violence program designed to re-educate and break the cycle of violence. Perpetrators are also required to appear in court once a month for monitoring. According to Ms. Hauser the Court also focuses on “getting him/her the services s/he needs such as teen appropriate batterer program, mental health, substance abuse, parenting, GED” (personal communication, March 4, 2015).
Specialized Attention: According to the Court, judicial decision making should be “based on knowledge of adolescent development and relationship violence among teens” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.). Therefore, the Court hires a specialized judge who presides over all the teen dating violence cases. A District Attorney, who is informed and knowledgeable in teen dating violence, is also assigned to the Court.
Evaluation: The Court, in order to collect comprehensive information about adolescent victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, tracks each case as well as each case’s outcome. The Court then uses this information to modify the program.
My Analysis
I chose to look at the Center for Court Innovation: Youth Domestic Violence Court’s because I was interested in the Center’s work to reduce crime and incarceration and aid victims through victim advocacy, accountability, specialized attention, and evaluation. I was also fascinated in reading more about how this work is done through the traditional judicial system framework. My analysis of the Center for Court Innovation as well as the Youth Domestic Violence Court, specifically are below:
- The Center for Court Innovation’s goal to transform the judicial system approach is encouraging, however the way in which they hope to do so seems deficient: “change the behaviors of offenders, enhance the safety of victims, and improve public trust in justice” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.). Yes, the offender’s behavior needs to be changed, but their behavior is interconnected with gender stereotypes of aggression, the lack of education around communication and healthy relationships, as well as other structural injustices and forms of oppression that play a role. Shouldn’t these also be addressed?
- The Youth Domestic Violence Court lists Victim Advocacy as one of its four goals. I think this goal is positive because it changes the focus from blaming the victim and instead goes about educating and thus empowering the victim about the judicial process. It also places an importance on the mental health of the victim by providing counseling services and information about additional services. As we know, Teen Dating Violence has many long-term effects and Victim Advocacy not only helps the victim immediately, but also helps them find the support they need throughout their healing process.
- Another goal of the Youth Domestic Violence Court is Accountability of the offender. Although I do think it is positive that the offender is provided support in an effort to stop future violence, the Court still works from the traditional judicial system and therefore, the offender does not find retribution from the victim through “apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation” (Capeheart & Milovanovic, 2007). In other words the process holds the offender in what is called “passive responsibility” or when the offender is told, in an act of domination, that they are responsible for a certain activity (Capeheart & Milovanovic, 2007). But does this make a difference? Does the offender really change? I wish instead that the Court’s goal of Accountability would engage the offender in more “active responsibility” thus “taking responsibility for putting things right” which in turn allows the offender to more clearly “see the consequences of their harm” (Capeheart & Milovanovic, 2007).
- The Court also has a goal of Specialized Attention, which places importance on the knowledge of the judge who tries the teen domestic violence cases. Although I may not agree with the traditional judicial system, I think this aspect of the Court is imperative. It also says something about the need for specialized knowledge when working with specific populations and specific crimes and recognizes that a person’s identities, such as their age, need to be taking into consideration and addressed. Can a judge try an adolescent properly if they do not truly understand their development process?
- The Court also includes Evaluation, which is key. In most other professional processes, such as medicine and education, evaluation and modification is necessary for growth and improvement in the field. The justice system seems to be so rooted in history that not many changes are made. Adding this element to the Court is groundbreaking and, in my opinion, should be emulated by other courts.
Overall, I think the Youth Domestic Violence Court has some positive qualities and for a program working within the traditional framework, I think it is one of the most promising. However, it is also limited and incomplete. There is a need for community participation and dialogue, which this system does not permit. The system also disregards major steps to prevent such violence in the future. It functions instead from a more reactive model. Through my analysis, I came to realize that I am not a supporter of the traditional judicial system because I feel that individuals are not truly brought justice. We as a society abide unquestioningly to laws and a legal system that is created and controlled by the patriarchal system that governs our country. In other words, “justice” is defined and determined not by us as a people, but by the state. I also feel that the judicial system ignores the impact of environment and ecological influences, structural injustices, and oppression, which must be taken into consideration. As I learn more about teen dating violence, I think we need to move away from the traditional punitive system and instead examine where the violence it is stemming from, implement preventive measures, turn our focus from the punishment of the offender to the physical, emotional, and mental healing of both the victim and the offender, and integrate community participation and responsibility, in order to take steps to create a better future.
References
Capeheart, L. & Milovanovic, D. (2007). Social justice: Theories, issues, and movements. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Center for Court Innovation (n.d.). Youth domestic violence court. Retrieved from http://www.courtinnovation.org/project/youth-domestic-violence-court