NCJ Number
166832
Date Published
1994
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This paper shows how the Coleman v. Stanziani litigation in Pennsylvania was a catalyst in elevating detention as an issue that required official attention and in describing the uneven uses of detention in Pennsylvania at the beginning of the decade.
Abstract
Coleman v. Stanziani was filed in 1981 as a Federal court class action which alleged that Pennsylvania law was unduly vague regarding the detention of juveniles, which led to its arbitrary application. Defendants were Pennsylvania's Juvenile Court judges and juvenile probation officers, who also had authority under Pennsylvania law to order pretrial detention. Both parties, uncertain about how the Pennsylvania scheme would be perceived by the Federal courts, agreed to explore a negotiated agreement. The negotiation was also encouraged by the findings of the plaintiffs' expert witness, John Goldkamp, whose study of Pennsylvania detention practices confirmed many of the plaintiffs' allegations about variations in Pennsylvania detention practice. The litigation prompted Pennsylvania judges, probation officers, and other officials to examine their detention practices. While the litigation was pending, these officials substantially reduced the detention rate in the State, and they closed nearly one-quarter of the State's secure detention centers. The key to the Pennsylvania model is the requirement of a statement of reasons and examination of alternatives to secure detention in every case prior to adjudication, as well as the requirement for judicial review every 10 days for juveniles remaining in detention. This model increased consistency in decisionmaking, resulted in the fairer use of secure detention, and made secure detention practices consistent with the treatment philosophy on which the rest of the State's juvenile justice system is based. Appended Standards Governing the Use of Secure Detention Under the Juvenile Act, 3 notes, a 1-item bibliography, and a list of legal cases