Dawayne Patterson: Poster Child for a Broken Juvenile Justice System

Kansas City is about eight hours from Chicago by car, but its approach to juvenile justice seems light years away from the principles of Chicago’s first-in-the-nation juvenile court in 1899. 16-year-old Dawayne Patterson’s future, and society’s attitude toward kids like him, depends on whether we would prefer to do right by children or to be politically expedient.

Jackson County prosecutors have charged Patterson with second-degree murder, armed criminal action, and illegal discharge of a firearm. He was initially charged as a juvenile but was later certified to stand trial as an adult.

Certified? I’ve always thought my English was pretty good, but I still looked up that word, “certify.” The dictionary says it means “to attest as certain” or “to guarantee.” I am beyond curious as to how the county did that with Patterson, especially given how clear the juvenile court principles are. We’ve gotten away from the child-centered approach as politicians running for office and bureaucrats looking to advance within their agencies cannot do what is right for kids because it may make them look soft on crime from the perspective of equally-ignorant voters and supervisors.

The establishment of the juvenile court in 1899 recognized that children and youths were different from adults. It was not just to treat them the same as adults then, and it isn’t today, either, but we do it anyway because kids cannot vote and cannot contribute to political campaigns. Those who do vote and finance campaigns want a world that is tough on crime without recognizing the far greater benefit to society that would come from building up the very youth who now are intentionally held down.

The Chicago court in 1899 saw children as immature, less capable of criminal intent, prone to various violations typical of growing up. The court saw its function as intervening to prevent children from becoming delinquents and to prevent delinquents from becoming adult criminals.

Here’s my question: What inquiry did the police and prosecutors conduct that led them to attest as certain and to guarantee that this child was mature? What allowed them to attest as certain and to guarantee that Patterson was as capable of criminal intent as any adult? How did they probe his background, life experiences, intelligence, upbringing, and psychological health to attest as certain and to guarantee that he was somehow immune to the problems, stumbles, and transgressions that any other teenager would experience? How did Patterson pass the stringent yet specific test that the Chicago court set forth in 1899?

What will this trial and possible sentence upon conviction do to prevent him from being an adult criminal? The overarching reason for waiving juveniles into adult court is to afford the opportunity for a harsher sentence. If convicted, the State of Missouri will not have to address Patterson’s problems as soon as if he were handled through the juvenile system—far more punitive than the founders of the original juvenile court had intended, but still the only avenue for treatment and rehabilitation compared to the adult system that provides next to none.

It is time for society as a whole to examine why we try harder to rehabilitate empty soda cans and old newspapers than we do to rehabilitate kids like Dawayne Patterson.