KENTUCKY CORRESPONDENCE

'A child's right to privacy in juvenile court'

It was with great disappointment and frustration that I read a second editorial by The Courier-Journal urging the erosion of a child's right to confidentiality. In a thinly disguised alliance between the Justice Cabinet and the Kentucky Press Association, the two groups have attempted to amplify support for their respective positions by asserting that House Bill 3 and House Bill 436 are somehow linked. They are not. HB 3 toughens penalties against sex offenders; HB 436 takes away a child's right to privacy in juvenile court.

To date, our elected representatives have demonstrated that they are aware of the importance of retaining a confidential, treatment-oriented juvenile court system. They know that for the juvenile court to be effective, proceedings need to be private. The First Amendment may protect an audience's right to leer and jeer at the pathetic participants on the "Jerry Springer Show," but as the courts have held, the First Amendment is not absolute when the media turn their prying eyes on juvenile court.

Another bogus argument put forth is that open juvenile courts are necessary to ensure that personnel and agencies are doing their jobs properly. Juvenile court confidentiality rules have not been a bar to child advocates around the state working with The C-J and other news agencies to expose the failures of the juvenile justice system. To mention just a few examples: The C-J, with the assistance of the Louisville Metro Public Defender's office, has shined light on the abusive "treatment" practice of "grouping," exposed sexual abuse of female residents by staff at Morehead Youth Development Center, reported on the physical abuse and neglect in other state-run facilities, as well as bringing to light the failure to provide an appropriate residential classification system by the Department of Juvenile Justice.

It is a shame that the C-J's editorial board has such tunnel vision. Why does the newspaper turn its back on child advocates who have spent their careers working to make our juvenile justice system better? Why are editors aligning themselves with the Department of Juvenile Justice, which has earned its share of criticism from the newspaper for the manner in which it has handled children under its care and supervision? Principled positions seem to be taking a back seat to political advantage and other agendas.

If The C-J's editorial position prevails, the commonwealth's children will be handed a scarlet letter in exchange for giving up their decades-old right to individualized, effective treatment in a confidential juvenile justice system. We must not let this happen.

Peter L. Schuler
Chief Juvenile Defender, Louisville Metro Public Defender Kentucky

6 March 2006

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060306/OPINION02/603060340

home / Previous viewpoint