This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
In seeking to strike a balance between the rights of defendants in Utah juvenile court proceedings and the public's interest in maintaining an open system of justice, don't forget why similar proceedings in adult court are generally open to the press and public.
The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee a "speedy and public trial" just for the purpose of offering the public a morbid look at criminal acts. Or to humiliate and embarrass the accused.
Proceedings are presumed open because a system that operates in secret runs a substantially higher risk of abandoning justice and, depending on the circumstances and personalities involved, either freeing dangerous predators or railroading innocent defendants.
Members of the media and other court-watchers are rightly worried that too many juvenile proceedings in Utah, particularly those involving high-profile and violent cases, are skating through a loophole in state law that allows judges to close a process that generally is presumed to be open. These include the case of three juveniles, ages 14 and 15, who were in a car that killed a West Valley City Police officer, and of a 17-year-old boy accused of assaulting and murdering a 12-year-old girl.
U.S. juvenile courts have long gravitated toward secrecy on the valid grounds that young people involved in crime are beneath the age of consent and full reasoning. To routinely drag youthful offenders into the spotlight does present a risk that one bad childish decision could turn an otherwise redeemable juvenile into a career criminal.
Prosecutors and judges have as much of an interest in preventing such a career path as defendants and their attorneys.
What should not happen, and what state lawmakers should work with the judicial system to prevent, is such levels of secrecy that the public remains ignorant of the circumstances that led to such tragedies, clueless as to how the system handled them and uninformed as to whether the outcome was appropriate and just.
The maturity of juvenile offenders must be always in the minds of those who oversee the system. Some details can be redacted. Juveniles who successfully complete ordered programs can have their records expunged.
But the presumption that secrecy shields youthful defendants must always be weighed against the risk that a system that is itself exempt from public scrutiny is ripe for corruption, error and other failings that endanger both defendant and community.