Recent Supreme Court decisions declaring unconstitutional both capital punishment (Roper v. Simmons, 2005) and life without parole (Graham v. Florida, 2010) in cases involving juveniles might lead a casual observer to think that we are now in an era in which dignity of juveniles is privileged in the legal system and in which humiliation and shame are subordinated. This observation, sadly, would be wrong. Inquiries into a range of issues involving juveniles – commitment to psychiatric institutions; trials in juvenile courts; aspects of criminal procedure that, in many jurisdictions, bar juveniles from raising the incompetency status or the insanity defense; waivers that allow juveniles (some younger than 14) to be tried as adults; caselaw that has developed on the question of the validity of Miranda waivers in juvenile cases; conditions in juvenile punishment facilities – reveal that, regularly, juveniles are subject to shame and humiliation in all aspects of the legal system that relate to arrest, trial, conviction and institutionalization, shame and humiliation that are often exacerbated in cases involving racial minorities and those who are economically impoverished. First, we discuss the meanings of shame and humiliation, and contextualize them into the juvenile justice system that we discuss in this paper. Next, we look specifically at how this is reflected in caselaw involving psychiatric institutionalization and the criminal process (including, but not limited to, juvenile delinquency prosecutions, matters involving mental status defenses, and the correctional system. We then consider these findings through the filters of therapeutic jurisprudence and international human rights laws, urging that these approaches be relied upon so as to best remediate the current state of affairs and infuse this system with some badly-needed dignity. Although scholarship by judges concludes that “Juvenile justice professionals should treat family members with dignity and respect” (Burkemper, Balsam & Yeh, 2007), it is clear that this is, more often than not, not the case. Remarkably, there is a paucity of recent legal scholarship available on much of what is discussed in this paper. We hope that this paper encourages others – judges, scholars, policymakers – to think carefully about the questions we seek to address, and to weigh equally carefully the ultimate impact that out current policies – drenched in shame and humiliation – have on the population in question.

中文翻译：

---

“她不是任何人的孩子/法律根本无法触及她”：寻求为涉及青少年的法律程序带来尊严

最高法院最近在涉及青少年的案件中宣布死刑（罗珀诉西蒙斯，2005 年）和不得假释的终身监禁（格雷厄姆诉佛罗里达州，2010 年）违宪的裁决可能会让不经意的观察者认为我们现在处于一个尊重尊严的时代。未成年人在法律体系中享有特权，屈辱和羞耻在此次要。遗憾的是，这种观察是错误的。调查一系列涉及青少年的问题——对精神病院的承诺；在少年法庭进行审判；在许多司法管辖区，刑事诉讼程序的某些方面禁止青少年提高无能力状态或精神失常辩护；允许少年（一些未满 14 岁）作为成年人受审的豁免；就少年案件中米兰达豁免的有效性问题制定的判例法；少年惩戒设施的条件——表明，少年经常在与逮捕、审判、定罪和制度化有关的法律制度的各个方面受到羞辱和羞辱，羞辱和羞辱在涉及少数族裔的案件中往往加剧经济贫困的人。首先，我们讨论羞辱和屈辱的含义，并将它们置于我们在本文中讨论的少年司法系统中。接下来，我们专门研究这在涉及精神病院和刑事程序（包括但不限于少年犯罪起诉、涉及精神状态辩护的事项和惩戒系统）的判例法中的反映。然后，我们通过治疗性判例和国际人权法的过滤器考虑这些发现，敦促依赖这些方法以最好地补救当前的状况，并为该系统注入一些急需的尊严。尽管法官奖学金得出的结论是“少年司法专业人员应该以尊严和尊重对待家庭成员”（Burkemper、Balsam & Yeh，2007 年），但很明显，通常情况并非如此。值得注意的是，关于本文所讨论的大部分内容，最近的法律奖学金很少。我们希望本文能鼓励其他人——法官、学者、政策制定者——仔细思考我们寻求解决的问题，