Difference Between Open Vs Closed Juvenile Court Proceedings

When it comes to the court proceedings of a juvenile offender there are both open and closed court cases. Closed cases have been used for centuries now. There are pros and cons of this practice.

Some pros of having closed court cases are that the names of the offenders are kept secret. Also closed hearings protect children from public scrutiny. In addition there is a greater opportunity for rehabilitation in this type of atmosphere. Public access to these type of proceedings would only deem entirely too disruptive to the criminal justice system. Children would only be further adversely affected by open court proceedings. An example of this would be the Oklahoma Publishing Co v. District Court and Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. In this case there were photographs taken of an eleven-year-old boy suspected of homicide, when he appeared at a detention hearing. The court in this case had to prohibit further disclosure of the case to the public and press. When the court made the prohibitions, the First Amendment right was brought up by the press in regards to an infringement of rights. Open access juvenile court proceedings can also cause psychological harm to a child. An open system also encounters that the final placement of a child will be delayed due to the resulting increase in unsettled cases. When an accused parent or guardian is a subject of public exposure, there stems a potentiality that more parents will conflict the actions professed against them. There could be less problems if the parents could just admit the actions in the setting of a closed court hearing.

The closed court proceeding approach may in fact however be inconsistent when it comes to the interest of the public in gaining further knowledge of the juvenile justice system. Closed court hearings are as well a con because the First amendment of the U.S Constitution guarantees the public the right to view dependency proceedings. As for open court hearings, the allowance of the public into juvenile court proceedings focuses primarily on the insurance of holding the child welfare system accountable. This would be a con to closed court hearings due to the fact that when the public isn't involved accountability can not be upheld. In addition to holding the court accountable, the public has an impact on the improvement of how courts and agencies make decisions regarding the futures of children in neglect and abuse proceedings. Open court procedures as well would lead to more liability and more community engagement, then in turn, it would lead to better outcomes for children and families who get caught up in the criminal justice system.

Resources:
Larry J. Siegel, Brandon C. Welsh, "Juvenile Justice, The Core, "Second Edition"
Child Welfare