You are a state legislator who is a member of the subcommittee on juvenile justice. Your committee has been asked to redesign the state’s juvenile code, because of public outrage over serious juvenile crime.
At an open hearing, a professor from the local university testifies that she has devised a surefire test to predict violence-prone delinquents. The procedure involves brain scans, DNA testing, and blood analysis. Used with samples of incarcerated adolescents, her procedure has been able to distinguish with 90 percent accuracy between youths with a history of violence and those who are exclusively property offenders. The professor testifies that, if each juvenile offender were tested with her techniques, the violence-prone career offender could easily be identified and given special treatment. Their scores could be kept in a registry and law enforcement agencies notified of the offenders’ whereabouts.
Opponents argue that this type of testing is unconstitutional, because it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and can unjustly label nonviolent offenders. Any attempt to base policy on biosocial makeup seems inherently wrong and unfair. Those who favor the professor’s approach maintain that it is not uncommon to single out the insane or mentally incompetent for special treatment and that these conditions often have a biological basis. It is better that a few delinquents be unfairly labeled than to ignore seriously violent offenders until it is too late.
Writing Assignment Write a memo to your subcommittee addressing this issue. Make sure you cover your view on whether some kids are born to be delinquents or if they purposely choose crime. Make a recommendation: Should kids be tested to see if they have traits related to crime even if they have never committed a single offense? And if so, should special laws be created to deal with the potentially dangerous offender?
