bullshit rationale

I've been hearing alot of belly aching about the Appellate Division's recent decision in In the Interest of P.M.P. The consensus is that the Court left juvenile's with a narrower right to counsel than adults.

I don't see it that way. Rather, the Court simply refused to treat a juvenile complaint as the equivalent of an adult indictment. I think that's correct.

The problem is that a juvenile doesn't have a right to indictment, which the Court recognized is that significant moment where it is undeniable that the state becomes the accused's adversary. When is that moment in the case of a juvenile? According to the Court: never.

In fact, the Court bloviated on the differences between the criminal prosecution of an adult and delinquency proceedings against a juvenile. It amounted to a total crock of shit.

The entire process was designed for the juvenile's protection, the Court opined. Indeed, the Court even asserted that getting arrested isn't getting arrested when you're a juvenile - it's merely being taken into custody (for your own good, of course).

Yet anyone who has ever been a juvenile accused of delinquency - and i have - knows that the authorities can be just ruthless with you as they'll ever be with an adult. No adversarial relationship my ass. In fact, in the very case before the Court the police attempted to deceive the accused into making an inadvertent confession. What's that? Lying to you for your own good?

So in the end, I don't disagree with the decision per se - but don't give me the horse shit.