Augustus E. Harvin v. United States

Judge Fahy grant opinion of gree trial Part I of the him a new murder and majority expressed charge the view of com- an instruction of that application the Youth expressed. court on formably with the views above Act, and was concurred Corrections convic- in affirmance I concur majority Part II of the of the court. robbery. tion of Judge Fahy, joined opinion Baze- Wright Judge, Skelly lon, and J. Chief Robinson, III, Spottswood Circuit W. Judges, from the determination dissented validly jury trial was waived. Judge Mac- Part majority expressed the view of Kinnon application of the the court on HARVIN, Appellant, Augustus E. Part II of Act. Correction joined Judge MacKinnon, opinion of America, Wilkey, Robb, UNITED McGowan, Leventhal, STATES Appellee. Judges, expressed the conclusion Circuit validly jury No. 22317. that a trial was waived. Judge Tamm, joined Robb Appeals, United States Court agreed Wilkey, Judges, Circuit District of Circuit. Columbia jury validly trial was waived. Argued Jan. 1970. Robb, Skelly Wright, Tamm, joined J. Reargued En Banc Jan. Judges, Wilkey, dissented Circuit May 7, majority’s toas Decided determination from the application of the Youth Act. by Fahy,

Opinions filed were Senior Judge, Circuit and MacKinnon and Tamm, Circuit-Judges. petit larceny,

eral Sessions for in viola- 22-2202, tion of Code and for un- D.C. § entry property, lawful on in violation of D.C. Code Both offenses 22-3102. § He demand misdemeanors. withdrew his court, jury, for a asked to be tried tried in that was He was manner. petit larceny acquitted of and convicted entry. penalty The for this unlawful 22-3102, offense, prescribed Section exceeding imprison- is a fine $100 jail ment for not more than six months, sentenced, or both. He how- was ever, Act, under the Youth Corrections seq., provides et 18 U.S.C. § that a sentenced under the Act conditionally shall su- be released pervision expiration on or before the years four shall from his conviction and discharged unconditionally be- on or

years fore six from conviction.

Appellant contends his sentence under the Youth Corrections Act caused the Court General to have Sessions jurisdiction try been him be without support pros cause to such a sentence been ecution should have indictment. additionally He contends that his waiver by jury had trial was invalid since he previously court been advised that he could be sentenced entailing possi Act, bly longer liberty deprivation of than is 22-3102 for authorized Section Lamb, Washington, D. B. Mr. David violation was convicted. court), appel- (appointed C. Appeals District of Columbia Court of lant. affirmed. Harvin v. United Atty., Aldock, Mr. S. John D. Asst. U. (D.C.App.1968). A.2d 307 We allowed Flannery, Thomas A. whom Messrs. appeal an to this court. Terry, Atty., Asst. U. and John A. U. S. hear Thereafter the court decided to brief, appellee. Atty., were on S. prior judgment the case en banc and the accordingly BANC of a of the court EN division ON REHEARING hearing Following banc vacated. en Judge, BAZELON, Chief Before in favor consideration the court decided Judge, FAHY, Circuit Senior of affirmance of the conviction. TAMM, WRIGHT, McGOWAN, LEV- MacKINNON, ROBINSON, ENTHAL, Judges Bazelon, McGowan, Leventhal, Judges, WILKEY, sit- Circuit ROBB Spottswood Robinson, III and Mac- W. ting en banc. Fahy’s join Judge Kinnon Part Skelly Judges opinion. Bazelon, J. PER CURIAM: Wright Robinson, Spottswood III W. Judge Fahy’s join opinion. in Part II of an Information tried on Appellant was Judges Bazelon, Fahy, McGowan, Leven- of Gen- of Columbia the District Robinson, Spottswood (1876), III W. thal and L.Ed. 889 Mackin Judge States, supra, join place v. United I of MacKinnon’s in Part Leventhal, McGowan, Judges opinion. sentenced those Judge against join offense Wilkey in Part II of the United States for a Robb and period longer By Judges year. opinion. than a Robb 18 U.S.C. MacKinnon’s history which traces its Wilkey join Tamm’s 2, 1895, 189, 1, Wright Skelly joins Judge in March ch. 28 J. 957, Congress provided Stat. thereof. Parts I-IV penitentiary, a federal what the decisions Affirmed. made clear is in now embodied statute following form: Judge, FAHY, Circuit Senior Persons convicted offenses whom BAZELON and Cir- Chief * * * against the United States LEVENTHAL, Judges McGOWAN, cuit punishable by imprisonment for more in ROBINSON and MaeKINNON concur year may any than one in be confined Judge BAZELON, I, and Chief Part penitentiary. United States Judges Circuit WRIGHT ROBIN- II. With the in Part law this situation Rule 7 SON concur (a) of the Federal Rules Criminal Procedure, adopted 1945, carried for- I. requirement ward the indictment provides part Fifth Amendment The Fifth the Rules as Amendment into fol- as follows: lows: person held to shall be answer No punished by An offense which crime, capital, a otherwise infamous or imprisonment exceeding for a term one presentment or indictment a unless on year prose- or at hard shall be labor * * Jury *. of a Grand * * * cuted indictment [unless U.S.Const, waived]. amend. V. original The Note to Committee “or in the amendment to reference The explains: Rule crime” infamous became

otherwise subject Supreme deci- gives of several This rule to the effect follow- ing sions, by established provision it was of the Fifth Amendment punishable im- such a crime was one Constitution United years prisonment hard at person for a term or States: shall be held “No 417, Wilson, 5 parte 114 capital, U.S. labor. Ex answer for a or otherwise in- (1885); 935, crime, present- 89 Mackin 29 L.Ed. famous on a S.Ct. unless 348, 6 S.Ct. Jury 117 U.S. United ment or v. indictment of Grand -x-* -x->>_ Claasen, 777, (1886); In re 29 909 ^n infamous crime has L.Ed. been 735, 200, 409 punishable 35 140 11 S.Ct. defined U.S. L.Ed. as a crime death Moreland, (1891); by imprisonment penitentiary v. 258 States United 368, 433, labor, 700 parte 66 L.Ed. U.S. 42 S.Ct. or at hard Ex Wilson, 5 935, 427, 417, make decisions clear S.Ct. 29 The U.S. L.Ed. 114 Moreland, years 89; imprisonment a term of States 368, 433, 700, prison peniten- one in a 66 L.Ed. state served early Any which, tiary,1 sentence of im- 992. A.L.R. Karstendick, prisonment parte for a term of over one Ex see Stat. Bridge. palace originally with confinement It built This is contrast * * * by Henry called St. work VIII. So “house correction * * (or by. parte Bridget’s) well near A Ex Bride’s bridewell house and jail correction; loosely, Wilson, supra, house of at prison. “Bridewell” is defined Web Dictionary, International Webster’s New ster as follows: Unabridged. standing Ed. 2nd till house of correction A near Blackfriars in London Fifth Clause of the penitentiary, Process Due year be served Amendment,2 General, it is true that Attorney also by the if so directed de- for an offense available sentence [now 753f §§ 18 U.S.C. [former] * * * infamous.3 Consequently termines whether punishment, 4083]. however, which determines punishable offense infamy question that which year is an in- of over one for a term itself, in Harvin’s the offense related to famous crime. imprison- exceed six months case not to enlarge require- The Rule does is the ment. That beyond “capi- ment of an indictment gov- prevailing reflects erning authorities, views crime,” of tal, infamous or otherwise represented brings simply Amendment. the Fifth law, as the offense to the seriousness of together the criteria which form rule —its or non-infamous char- infamous by Supreme the had been established acter.4 infamous an “otherwise for A under the Correc- sentence by crime,” namely, punishable an offense following Act, tions in this case exceeding one a term for misdemeanor, viction of a is not a year at hard labor. legislature flection the of the serious- of sen- ness that offense. Resort the foregoing it is clear From the tencing judge to the Youth Corrections led to Harvin’s that the offense which punish Act not for the Harvin crime, for an infamous sentence was not misdemeanor; carry it the out by imprisonment punishment carried a congressional purpose represented by the exceed months. Both adults not to six society Act—to serve the interests of youths may prosecuted for that be youth prefer- of in selected an The sentence offense on information. statutory ence to the the sentence for imposed under Youth Corrections the Act misdemeanor. A sentence under the prose for Act does not alter the basis the itself, not related to the and it offense the offense an cution transform into punishment the the latter which infamous one. A sentence under the prosecution determines whether the must Act it is true result loss for year liberty Sentencing protected than a the more of the indictment. under Pilkington Cunningham, 236, v. do Jones 83 not think inter- 371 is to be ; preted holding 373, “greater pen- the 9 as L.Ed.2d 285 United alty” U.S.App.D.C. Fort, States v. under the Youth Act (1969) ; Pilkington to which the court referred is such im- 409 F.2d 441 v. States, prisonment (4th infamy F.2d 204 attaches an of- United Cir. as 1963). fense otherwise not infamous. Pilkington Rule involved Fed.R. parte Wilson, supra; accord, 3. Ex Mackin Crim.P., governing plea guilty, a of supra. States, v. United provides that the court shall * * * States, supra, In accept plea Mackin without Gray, person- addressing U.S. at Justice first defendant the emphasis explaining given ally plea the the determining the form voluntarily understanding of offense an with of made determining infamous his charge its character and the nature of the conse- ** * parte Wilson, supra, Ex earlier of quences plea. required that: observed the Rule The court held that amendment judge pleads fifth had view who the accused advise might law, guilty governing rule that his of the common sentence Act, prosecuting for: the Youth Corrections accused of mode of those deprivation at, crime, an However looked information liberty period years attorney general, possible for a of six without the interven- penalty grand jury, greater than a sentence for tion allowed is a of a was not period. crime, any felony; capital nor lesser a opposed to the rule dis- 315 F.2d at 208. of evidence Pilkington qualifying the court was faced as witnesses those convicted question Moreover, have. we certain crimes. with we possibly upon which led those factors sentence under the Act for more rests Act youth year placed of- than a the misdemeanor enactment—the to its judge, category, contrary fender, appraisal an with infamous would be officials, youth’s gave to the reason which aid of other rise to protection usage, for possibilities, the ancient a sentence under rehabilitative society by self-improvement simply of Act does mis- not denote that the through special youth treatment and demeanor was so serious character goal categorize care, of elimination as to with a infamous.5 conviction, due to the record criminal I reach same conclusion go enabling youth on with consideration the Youth Corrections unimpaired a criminal record. life independently of the non-infamous True, pursuit of those aims penalty prescribed by For Section 3102. longer liberty deprived for a permit the Act does not sentence entangled similarly period than an adult penitentiary. it to be served longer period law, for a than preliminarily rec- note we have under the not sentenced another ognized nonpunitive character of con- questions gives rise to If this Act. finement under the Act.6 Carter v. Unit- protection equal process or of of law due U.S.App.D.C. 123, ed F.2d laws, questions quite those of the apart upheld ap- We there from the Indictment Clause plication of the Act to a convicted 7(a). and Rule Fifth Amendment of a for not crime which an adult could suggested questions not an- imprisoned year. in be excess of one an indictment or either swered commented; We information. an theory basic Act [T]he [the] totally inconsistent with It be would and in a re- rehabilitative sense this statutory plan a to to sen- ascribe the regarded habilitation com- be as a turn- the Act result which tence under quid longer prising pro quo the for a of- misdemeanor into infamous ed the con- but under different youth a of- fense when and than a ditions terms defendant carry to such a sen- To over fender. undergo ordinary prison. in an categorizing the ancient method of tence U.S.App.D.C. 125, infamous or non-infamous a crime as at 113 at 306 F.2d sentence, according severity Gault, the 285.7 It is true that in In re 387 consequence 27, 1428, hold that 1, 49-50, as a to 18 S.Ct. thought every hardly that con- 5. to be Justice Brandéis The discussion Mr. though year, telling argument bolding than in finement more a a that requires penitentiary, place development than a a other illustrated sugges- grand jury a Such Act is as indictment. not to be considered a permissi- infamy attaching doubt tion would cast led the to offenses which judge nothing bility detention, in the absence of in- resort the Act. And persons dictment, juveniles, majority opinion of un- in in Moreland is contrary, perhaps mind, others. for the differences between sound majority and the dissenters centered significance opinion dissenting in solely United In 6. on of the sentence Moreland, supra, majority 258 U.S. at States 441, to bard labor. The considered Brandéis, 868, infamy. Mr. Justice in a hard labor workhouse carried Taft and Chief for himself and Justice The dissenters the labor considered thought Holmes, was Mr. Justice in involved was com- workhouse imprison- penalty parable and, penitentiary, added to a “hard labor” to that in- therefore, infamy in did not create ment a workhouse not a hallmark of as a placed famy. Emphasis penitentiary on be. sentence would sentence; purposes of habilitative Support position thought found a workhouse dissenters deed imposed quoted portion Moreland like sentence usually Cunningham States, primarily v. United F.2d was not intended similarly 1958), (5th Cir. all. at se- of maximum ment institutions (1967), cautioned the Court L.Ed.2d 527 security, curity, minimum disregard medium against of the substantive training including juvenile security types, when detention effect of sidering given procedures lead- labels farms, forestry schools, hospitals, add, might confinement,8 and, ing agencies camps, and other other considering de- nature of provide varieties the essential will itself. The Court stated: tention Bu- The Director treatment. [of there half of over [I]n from time to shall reau of Prisons] juvenile even assurance aside, adapt designate, set time institutions, kept separate will agencies institutions those apart “criminals.” from adult Department of Justice control placed juveniles States practical, Insofar treatment. penal institutions transferred to adult agencies shall such institutions having “delinquent” found after been of commit- be used for treatment juvenile court. youth offenders, youth ted and such at But at segregated shall offenders Youth Corrections under the Federal offenders, and classes of other com- youth placed offender cannot be segre- mitted offenders shall be penitentiary.9 must be The sentence gated according pay- their needs for different “under conditions served undergo terms than a defendant would ment. ordinary prison.”10 Carter v. 30, 1950, Sept. Added c. § States, supra. Stat. 1087. provides: The Act “may 5015(b) Under the Director Section 5011. Treatment any time a committed transfer agency not con- Committed from one or institution undergo ditionally institution,” agency released treat- shall other but rejected process protection equal holding due and 9. In in so find re we ourselves objections Act, reasoning spectful disagreement that with the in decision F.Supp. Reef, Act: 1015 States v. 268 United youthful [Pjrovides (D.Colo.1967). of- for and affords judge, fenders, in the discretion of Wilson, 425, 10. See In re 438 Pa. 264 A.2d penalties punishment heavier and ap- 614, (1970), in 617 where the court offenders, imposed upon than are adult protection praising equal argument in escape opportunity but the physical juvenile detention, relation remarked psychological shocks that: upon serving an or- attendant traumas is our view that there can be no obtaining dinary penal while sentence constitutionally valid distinction between treatment, of corrective benefits juvenile a and an adult offender looking and social re- to rehabilitation justifies making subject one of them demption restoration. longer maximum commitment in a States, 374 See also Johnson v. United the same for the institution same 1967) ; (4th Cir. Brisco v. F.2d 966 duct. (3d States, F.2d 214 Cir. 368 United upheld state nevertheless un- act was ; States, 1966) 353 F.2d Kotz v. United “longer commit- der the condition (8th 1965) ; Eller 312 Cir. v. United receiving juvenile’s ment will result 1964) ; (9th States, F.2d Cir. 639 327 appropriate care and not rehabilitative Rogers F.2d 56 326 v. United liberty just deprived being his in his expressed (10th 1963). The views Cir. longer See also time.” 264 A.2d at 618. of a sentence in Carter as to the nature Gault, supra, n. In re at 22-23 387 U.S. Act do not under the Youth Corrections 30, 1428. prosecution rest the fact that I-Iarvin is now 11. The record reveals indictment. was on an serving Cor- the Youth his sentence 358, Winship, In re See also Reformatory. of Lorton rections Center 1068, 365-366, L.Ed.2d 368 S.Ct. (1970). punishable A agencies referred sentence for institutions an offense year by imprisonment one or less Section 5011. are those mentioned penitentiary in a Moreover, these shall be served under Section “proper ade- of the defendant. without consent certified must be Thus, the quate facilities.” treatment Judge agree I with MacKinnon’s prac- 5011, “insofar as clause Section that the refer conclusion provision “in- prefacing the tical” imprison red to Section 4083 is the only agencies shall be used stitutions Congress specified as the ment which youth of- itself, in for the offense immediately fenders,” coupled with the dependently of the Youth Corrections following provisions, “and Act, months here not to exceed six segregated from other shall be offenders specified also D.C.Code 22-3102. § offenders,” especially read with agree his view would be penitentiary.13 precludes a Section light pur quite of the unreasonable hardly pen- supposed that a It itentiary to be poses Act to agency is an institution permit imprisonment of a construe practical” shall which “insofar as be youth penitentiary while of committed used for treatment Attorney at the time the General same certified prohibited by from con is fining Section penitentiary Prisons the Bureau of an adult sen Director year imprisonment for tenced to purpose.14 less, confine unless consent such Any doubt construction of about this and the ment waived. Section 4083 Act is resolved Youth Corrections Act are related and Youth Corrections by considering conjunction the Act in a manner to har should be construed 4083, which, here- with 18 U.S.C. Boys monize one other. with the Cf. forth, in Markets, Union, set limits confinement inabove Clerk’s Inc. Retail person of 398 penitentiary convicted L.Ed.2d 199 punishable by imprisonment an offense year, for more than and its corol- provisions one We construe place lary provision Youth Corrections Act to limit the reads: Laws, Judge former, provides Chief : the bate This Section Court, who District States No offender shall be committed actively participated Attorney in the enactment of General Act, guided certify chapter until the Director shall the Youth Corrections following by proper adequate are which the considerations treatment fa- that and personnel equally pertinent provid- this case: been cilities and have juvenile court It true that in both is ed. may proceedings person personnel a criminal and If no such facilities and * * * liberty. sentencing deprived available, of his the court could then legal the there is fundamental [But] sentence the offender under not purpose practical difference Act. technique. is the Unless institution practical” proviso, thus, 13. The “insofar as primary the in- concern is one whose only agency that an or institu- can mean well-being, physical moral and dividual’s designed Act for Youth tion for its facilities are intended unless necessary, may used, if treatment also care, adapted guidance, education purposes with that other consistent punishment, training unless rather than function. guardian, supervision not is that of its guard jailor, prison At- seems a similar construction of the For that of a juveniles power torney over to such institution General’s clear a commitment Training by the National of crime reason of conviction is Boys, viola- where under Section an assault School cannot withstand Congressional safe- intent is much less fundamental Constitutional the tion of F.Supp. clear, Reid, guards. see White v. Reid, (D.C.C.1954), F.Supp. Kautter at 650. (D.D.C.1960). F.Supp. the felony may for a or an infam- the Act be under under sentence which purposes en- for the It the con- ous crime. where an institution served to Congress, pen- visaged by purposes which with is consistent finement itentiary may be utilized. not and re- to afford of the Act may liberty The loss of habilitation. in this case with We are not concerned which a character by confinement policy Congress as a matter whether fol- punishment. It infamous constitutes by require prosecution an should in a it be in no event lows un- a sentence dictment as a condition to attribute cannot penitentiary. We due Act, questions of der the or with contrary. It Congress intent to an protection process equal of law and unintended at times an is true with concerned laws. Nor are we enact- of an terms from the sult follows remedy to a available case ment, not think Harvin’s do but we if inconsistent with his confinement is instance, for neither presents an such though .opinion, doubt we have no this he was for which the crime character corpus be available habeas by convicted, sentence as evidenced question appropriate sim- an case. The it, alternative nor the prescribed for ply is whether the Indictment Clause the discretion available sentence Amendment, only applicable the Fifth Youth Corrections the court crime, precludes an utilization infamous requires such a result. following prosecution non- of the Act of a by information. infamous offense under the that a said sentence majority Har- A of the court hold that result in out to turn Act nevertheless validity by jury vin trial and af- waived comparable to confinement confinement firm rea- While for the conviction. for this reason penitentiary, and in a sons in Part set forth II this prosecu- precede must an indictment disagree, I would hold that because Indeed, if Act authorized tion. by prosecution urged information rea- it could be confinement consistently sentence was invalid or that the trial Fifth with the son jurisdiction court was without the Act because a sentence Amendment prosecution imposed after sentence. could be regardless indictment, minor furnished offense character II. judge to resort the occasion for question There remains the whether hand, if such other On the Act. validly appellant jury. waived trial Act, prohibited urges not, He that he did since argument indictment is not for an record does not he was advised disclose set above For the reasons available. might judge if convicted he prohibited. Even it is forth I conclude be sentenced under the Youth Correc- gives rise to the conviction Act, prescribed rather than tions and, felony, there- Act is a resort to the fore, question Section 3102.15 The whether indictment, prosecution is issue decision an accused that the may not under the Act still a sentence guilt of his should be submitted to a penitentiary. validly So be served judge sig- jury may rather than ato be by prosecution informa- is it is when the nificantly by of affected the absence ad- the sentence In neither tion. case months, 2202 exceeds six tlie would appellant crime was ac have indicated As we “petty” larceny. Being not be considered under quitted petit federal tried of standards, 1; § 18 U.S.C. Duncan offense, however, entitled he was that Louisiana, 145, 161, by jury 391 U.S. the Sixth a trial to ; larceny L.Ed.2d 491 nor under “petty” Amendment; was a Amendments, by jury. felony the Sixth and Fourteenth law at common and triable York, Mackey) (9 Baldwin v. New Fauldan, In re 20 D.C. (1970). penalty Moreover, 26 L.Ed.2d author as the larceny by petit 22- § D.C.Code ized for showing timely judge, on the of notice that Sec- absence or a vice accused, held invoked was that tion would be 22-104 of awareness record might penalty preclude of be im- a excess Act a sentence posed. de- a This

maximum for first offender. cision, it that notice of assumes because Columbia, 194 District In Dobkin v. of available af- the nature of the sentence (D.C.App.1963), District A.2d 657 fects to exercise the decision whether Appeals before had of of Columbia Court right jury, tried a whereas to be had been a in which the sentence case estab- nature the sentence Dobkin the of § authorized D.C.Code increased as goes beyond right itself, lishes the The trial 22-104 for a offense. second pertinent to ours. case and more becomes judge of the Court had a of been jury. The without a General Sessions case, appellant’s In decision in how- its uphold Appeals could not Court of ever, of the District of Columbia brought enlargement because its sentence avoided, unpersuasively, Appeals I think conferred the case within class implications of its Dobkin right by jury, he had trial holding Lawrence, by and its decision right. The this not advised of been appellant’s under the Youth sentence court stated: punishment, Act was subjected a defendant to be If though longer possibly duration than fifty greater percent penalty under § A a authorizes. sentence Section 3102 22-104, of this notice he entitled to having the sentence under the Act not ** * prior In this case to trial. punishment, dura- characteristics of its gave ap- government notice to no the pellant prior enlarged, held, not- tion be the court could might be to trial that he withstanding appellant so had not been subjected penalties the added § right to admonished when he waived his 22-104; consequently he could out, pointed by jury. trial The court subjected them. have been however, perhaps fairness procedure better the court A.2d at 660. might to inform a defendant he sen- question whether have is While the we Act, tenced under the Youth Corrections intelligently appellant competently and so doubt that there could no he know- by jury, he trial not whether was waived ingly right intelligently waived his tried, ap- Dobkin entitled so to be by jury. to trial ground in pellant’s on common case are right jury in Dob- neither accept I cannot the distinction drawn jury appel- kin nor the waiver punishment the court between the issue case concerned with lant’s under the sentence Act insofar waiver guilt with the of might but sentence by jury trial is concerned. While follow conviction. true, is opinion, I have Part this said in I of States, 224 A.2d Lawrence v. does not lead to (D.C.App.1966), of Co- District punishment the kind of Appeals affirmed Dob- lumbia Court of requires prosecution which grand to be on further kin and went somewhat jury action, enlarged duration appears appellant’s As enlarged direction case. liberty, similarly to an loss opinion, punishment offender, from the as a second factor of be ad- which the accused must [A]ppellant and had entitled to deciding vised in tried. The how to be trial, originally jury but for a asked length situation, in one voluntarily demand later withdrew length liberty deprivation and the court. to be tried chose other, in de- knowledge are of like relevance had At that time he no termining 22-104 under be sentenced the accused is en- advice waiving trial, second offender]. prior jury [as titled to have to though liberty deprivation even the A.2d at 224 684 by jury; offense which makes the of trial for at date the waiver the the basis of the whole matter

infamous. simple ad- fact that the accused should be reaching have In I the above conclusion vised alternatives available to those by place trial mind the fundamental sentencing judge the which bear guaranteed jury by Amend- the Sixth make, decision the accused must whether crim- ment has in our administration of plead guilty be to or to waive Supreme inal Decisions of the law. right by jury. Sixth Amendment to trial by have establishd strict standards Straite, validity United States v. determine the of waiver App.D.C. 163, (1970), right. 425 F.2d 594 Zerbst, See Johnson 304 v. recently 458, 464-465, developing court 82 L.Ed. reviewed the U.S. greater by participation (1938), law toward 1461 its reference to judge requirement an accused undertakes that waiver of constitution- jury rights “intelligent waive al trial.17 The court must and com- refers be tightening up petent.” Allen, applicable pro- And see Illinois v. 397 Sessions, 337, 343, cedures in the L.Ed.2d Court of General 90 25 hardly States, Jackson v. A.2d unless United 262 subject can so be (1970), consequence the finding to the views on the accused of a knows guilt. by expressed by have been am also fortified the District holding Appeals, guilty plea Columbia Court the cases and to the that a does recommendations of the Bar meet the su- American standards of Rule pra, Project Association in- on Minimum note Stand- unless accused is might (Trial Jury, ards for formed Criminal Justice sentenced I, including 1.2(b)), Part See, g., Section Youth Corrections Act. Kotz e. States, supra; p. prac- statement v. United v. “the better Freeman States, tice (9th is for the court United F.2d to advise defend- Cir. 1965); right jury ant Chapin of his trial ac- United before v. cepting waiver,” (10th Pilking- 1965); F.2d even if the accused has Cir. States, supra; ton v. been informed United and see our his counsel and has complied 23(a), States, supra.16 case of Carter United with Rule v. Fed.R.Crim. In these P.18 cases the absence of such advice While Straite we did not hold the “demonstrably guilt did not waiver tary,” affect the there issue of involun- greater degree my appellant’s supports than court’s case. discussion problem guilty appellant’s plea While the conclusion that in- waiver was valid; plead guilty cases was whether aside from or to the absence of tried, right jury advice here it is the court how one chooses to of his ato tried, important trial also If recommended the Bar Associa- decision. knowledge Project, tion availability appellant’s lack of we have case sentence under absence also of the Youth advice Corrections the court of possibly plea guilty, invalidates the it is extended sentence under the why difficult to see Act. not invali- contrary Cunningham jury trial, 16. To the see sire and will take a States, supra. trial the Court. Is that correct? MR. HARVIN: Yes Sir. 17. In Harvin’s case the record shows right, THE COURT: All we will following: have a trial. [COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:] Honor, 23(a), going Fed.R.Crim.P., provides: Your we Rule to withdraw jury by Jury. trial, required Trial demand and take a Cases to be by jury trial the Court. tried shall sobe tried unless the right. jury writing THE All COURT: On defendant waives a trial in charge petit larceny approval unlawful with the of the court and the entry. government. consent of the Harvin, your attorney Mr. had you your dicated wish withdraw de- Act, Judge, determine MacKINNON, Youth Corrections Circuit any way at BAZELON, is all Judge Senior there whether Chief whom Judges you of a life FAHY, deter the Court can and Circuit Circuit permanent McGOWAN, crime. LEVENTHAL III, ROBINSON, W. SPOTTSWOOD people in opinion of the “It is the Judges I, Mc- Part and Circuit concur Center, Act- the Youth Correction LEVENTHAL, GOWAN, ROBB Psycholo- ing Supervisor, Clinical ap- When concur Part II: you WILKEY only hope is gist, for that you Gen- pellant appeared before psycho- individual receive for sen- on June eral Sessions therapy under the Youth Center’s drug tencing years old and he 19was the unani- trolled environment. criminal record. a substantial addict with opinion, apparently, staff mous probation placed on In 1962 he had been you only alternative for his robbery. purse-snatching Next straight- jail, be sent which will as- probation of an was extended because you your problems; en out Lexington, to send boy. Subsequently paper upon a sault strengthen which will Knolls be- to Cedar he was committed your prob- and not diminish addiction 1964 he of another assault. cause correction. lems housebreaking dis- but arrested concerned, “As far as Court is charge appear. position does not of this of what is this is classic case housebreaking Maryland In 1965 for highly you, best interest for or to be probation years' he received three say, you out technical and can be ‘Sure he twice convicted 1966 was months’, in six but to be released larceny. petit District of Columbia for six is to released on months probation of the at the time He was on inevitable life of crime. instant offense. “So, the the defend Court finds that sentencing appellant’s age trial years Prior to on the date ant 5010(e) handling conviction, court invoked section suitable him ordered under the Federal Youth Corrections Attorney custody hereby to the committed Act. The com defendant study Attorney custody at for observation General mitted to the agency repre additional classification obtain and those authorized General concerning him, supervi de- as to information so sentatives for treatment and benefit sion, pursuant derive termine whether would United States to 18 discharged by authorized 5010(b), from the “treatment” until Code agency Youth Corrections Act. Division Federal Youth Correction court, report Parole, provided made a com- the Board sentencing, the time of 5017(c).2 mented U.S.C.A. as follows: might “I also that the members note Harvin, I “THE COURT: Mr. of the Youth Correction Division of like, record, to purpose the Board of Parole that examined * * * You have your make observations. file also feel that without the sent, Court, Federal training, been no—that stitutional there is report findings.” 1. “If informa the court desires additional to tlie court its 5010(e). offender will tion as to whether § U.S.O. under sub derive benefit from treatment 2. “A sec (b) (c) that he sections order 5010(b) chapter tion of this be re shall custody the At be committed to conditionally supervision leased on study torney General for observation years expiration or before the of four appropriate center or at an classification from the date of his conviction and shall sixty days agency. from the date Within unconditionally discharged on or before period order, or such additional years six from the date of conviction.” 5017(c). grant, shall as the court Division U.S.C. (1) by punishment because infamous a law out only way possibly make is the allegedly may Attorney con- (Emphasis you.” General abiding out citizen youth under committed offender fine a added.) penitentiary for a misde- to a the YCA meanor, under Harvin thus sentenced The court may period (2) for a be this issues The Act. Youth Corrections year. these either of If in excess one sentencing are resulting Harvin’s from punish- “infamous invalid contentions is Fahy. Judge by opinion in the outlined from a YCA sen- result ment” would not First, Har whether These are twofold: my It is con- a misdemeanor. tence for prosecution for the misdemeanor vin’s contention is the first clusion 22- entry under D.C.Code § unlawful my concur with valid and thus views by indictment initiated must be Fahy Judge I in Part result reached adjudged under when a sentence assigns therefor. with reasons secondly, Act; Youth Corrections should appellant’s conviction whether my neither the At- view law preceding his waiver reversed because torney any nor other United General jury advised trial he was may any cause sentence States official judge open he could in court adjudged respect for a misdemeanor as a sentenced any offender to be My answer is Act. Youth Corrections penitentiary served in a without the con- negative questions which both on youth. sent of This result seems ob- Judge Fahy first is on the concurs with viously lan- to be directed clear Judge on the second Tamm and with sue guage pro- of 18 4083 which U.S.C. § issue. vides : “Persons convicted of offenses against or courts- United States Judge Fahy in Part I of his punishable imprisonment martial that it is not a violation of concludes year may for more than one con- prosecute a Fifth Amendment any peniten- fined United States ishe misdemeanor where offender for a tiary. Attorney custody sentenced “to the punish- “A for an offense sentence represent- authorized General and those year imprisonment for one able or supervision, atives for treatment and peniten- less shall not be served pursuant to” the Youth Corrections tiary the de- without consent of notwithstanding (hereafter YCA) (Emphasis supplied.) fendant.” period supervi- “treatment and years sion” such offense run six prisoners This into statute classifies 4 He as a maximum in extreme cases.3 (1) groups: those of stat- two utory convicted interpreta- conclusion on an bases this (imprisonment for more felonies applicable ef- tion of the statutes to the year) than those one convicted statutory fect can- (imprison- sentence under YCA misdemeanors punish- not be carried out year less). “infamous pro- ment of one or It then ment.” Tamm (fel- dissents group vides that those the first conclusion, contending ons) YCA sen- “may be confined a United States tences for misdemeanors be carried penitentiary,” and that those in the see- “Any person who, person occupant, without lawful author- the lawful or of the law- ity, enter, attempt any enter, fully charge shall thereof, or shall be deemed public private dwelling, building guilty misdemeanor, or or of a and on convic- property, part dwelling, punished by other or of such tion thereof shall be a fine building property, against exceding or other $100 occupant per- jail months, will of the lawful or of the for not more than six lawfully charge thereof, being both, son discretion court.” thereon, therein or without lawful au- D.C.Code 22-3102. thority to remain therein or thereon shall quit refuse to the same on 2, supra. the demand 4. See note required judicial serve group may not be whether within or without the ond peni- portion person “in a any sentence district their which the tentiary” Attorney their Under victed. without consent. General also statute, youth my interpretation any authorized of this to order the transfer of person vio- authority misdemeanor held convicted of group and within the second United lations are States statute institu- one requirement judgment assures tion to of consent another if in since the well-being pris- will shall be penitentiary confinement for the of the any con- upon so oner or relieve be enforced overcrowded or un- determining healthful victed, that is tantamount conditions the institution may punishment” prisoner not be where such that "infamous is confined or for My interpre- imposed any (Empha- such case. other 55 reasons.” Stat. 252. legislative added.) upon intent sis tation based statute, here- as relevant manifest 21, And the Act on October 1944 added inafter outlined. following said Section 7: legislative history it is of its Because authority “The conferred the At- my referred opinion that the “sentence” torney by General shall section 4083 second sentence section persons extend to to the imprisonment author- sentence of Training Boys, by National School for prescribing by ized the criminal statute juvenile court of the District of of “su- sentence and not the the offense Columbia, well as to those commit- un- pervision authorized and treatment” by any ted court of the United States.” result 4083 is the der the YCA. Section 55 Stat. 743-744. prior a number of enactments 957), began culmi- (28 Stat. Congress In 1948 the into 80th “enacted termi- present statute. The nated in the positive law” Title the United repre- early nology is not acts5 and Crim- States Code entitled “Crimes statute, be- present sented inal Procedure” which “revised and codi- present form in 1940. gan acquire its doing existing fied” the so law. 1941, Act of June Section prior quoted law above as section was provided: Title 4083 to codified into 18 U.S.C. § persons con- read as all follows: 7. Hereafter “Sec. against the United of an victed offense offenses “Persons convicted of committed, for such shall States be against the United or courts- States court imprisonment as the terms of im- to terms martial sentenced custody the At- may direct, to the prisonment year may than one of more or torney States of the United General peni- any confined in be United States representative, who his authorized tentiary. designate places of confine- shall all sentences of ment where punish- for an offense “A sentence Provided, persons be served: shall year by imprisonment one or for able imprisonment any sentence That for peniten- in a be served less shall not imprisonment punishable an offense tiary the de- without the consent year shall not or less one a term of for c. Act of June fendant.” except with penitentiary served 645, 4083, 62 Stat. 850. Attor- consent. the defendant’s codification any that such designate settled avail- is well ney may General change enactment, does not new is not a institu- able, suitable, appropriate merely forward carries Fed- the law tions, maintained whether otherwise, meaning contained or same or Government eral 957; 29 5. 28 Stat. Stat. by providing persons

prior A 1959 section amendment to convicted law. following against produced of an offense result: courts-martial, punisha- Penitentiary imprisonment; “§ by imprisonment ble more than 1 consent. any peni- year, confined offenses Persons convicted tentiary.” H.R.Rep.No.934, 86th against courts- the United States Sess., Cong., accompany 1st S. punishable imprisonment martial Cong. p. Ad.News, 2 U.S. Code & year than more one peniten- fined in United States legislative emerged history From such tiary. present section 4083. punisha- “A sentence an offense Turning language then sec- year one ble constituted, presently tion as when 4083 peniten- be less shall not served my considered, all factors are is con- tiary de- the of the without consent import the clusion that the clear 1959, 14, September ofAct fendant.” gressional intent the indicates 86-256, Pub.Law 73 Stat. punishable to statute refers “offense [s] to this was The effect of amendment by imprisonment,” Congress intended to for substitute the first sentence to alter imposed punishment by refer to the the reading to “and sentenced clause criminal statute the sub- which defined imprisonment the shorter of” terms of stantive and not to “treat- offense reading by imprison- “punishable clause by supervision” ment authorized for.” ment by compelled YCA. This is conclusion purpose amendment of this 1959 The congressional several indicia of intent. Report ac- stated the House First, provisions the basic of section companied to as follows: the bill be long 4083 were enacted before the YCA pres- “Briefly, part the first contemplated and thus never a YCA (which title is 4083 statute sec. ent question sentence.6 There is thus no Code) provides that States at its time of the term “sen- enactment impris- persons terms of sentenced to solely tence” referred to the sentence year of more than 1 onment by prescribed statute, the criminal penitentiary. a U.S. confined contemplated type disposi- never pro- part statute of that “The second possible YCA, tion now be- for an offense that a sentence vides did cause such not then exist. year imprisonment by for punishable Secondly, pure is additional YCA peniten- not be served less shall legislation. pro- repeal It carries no de- tiary the consent without (64 seq.). et The vision Stat. fendant. any repealer absence of and the tenor is si- law noted that “It bewill entire Act indicates an intent to respect persons who to lent with provisions harmonize the of the YCA is, any felony (that aof convicted existing sup- and not to statutes by imprisonment punishable offense plant them. year) are sen- who than 1 but for more construed, (sec- year purpose the entire statute The So less. to tenced gap pro- 4083) tion an intent to manifests bill is to close the instant probation enacted ers could be or to Act was sentenced The custody Attorney (64 1085). The General for September Stat. juvenile’s exceeding preceded Delinquency terms not minor- had Juvenile ity proviso being years, with the further enacted June two 857). (62 “commitment” shall not exceed the term Jurisdiction Stat. imposed might Delinquency have been had proceed the Juvenile alleged been tried and convicted of the “consent” based Act was 5034) (62 858). (§ required 5032) juvenile Stat. (§ violation which was writing (§ 5033). offend- Juvenile inbe confinement, penitentiary period federal institution for vide variable might year. different non-penitentiary, for two time that one exceed offenses, e., categories those i. Additionally, since Government “more punishable by imprisonment place required to all other criminal of- punish- year,” (2) those than one categories pen- fenders in insofar as two year or “for one able itentiary concerned, I see however, generally YCA, less.” hardship no or violence administrative proceeds different standard. legislative do, conclude, intent is wheth- and that has one criterion sen- under § has committed er the under the YCA tenced misdemeanors imprison- “punishable offense that of the same are receive benefit (c). 5010(b) ment.” 18 U.S.C. § categories purposes two classification supervision” Thus, the “treatment and if determining eligibility pen- their considered the YCA were authorized itentiary punishment, to be which section the “sentence” subjected to more onerous offender, every youth applied to be respect, than adult violators .of concerned, far as section 4083 so accordingly my same statutes. It is view penitentiary confinement. subject youth offender, that no committed sen- variable circumstances Under punishable tenced for an offense misdemeanants for felons defining provisions of the sub- it was section 4083 intended stantive crime for to one wiped completely out enacted would year less, any may be confined youth all of- since offenders all penitentiary. And this the absolute is have the YCA under fenders sentenced regardless rule of desirable how or neces- 6-year period of potential maximum sary person position some in an official supervision.7 sub- It is treatment might consider it to be to confine absurd an mitted that this would be youth offender of a misde- convicted to an intent it attribute as would sult my view, penitentiary. meanor Congress more provide a harsher to entirely interpretation keep- is youth form infamous ing applies with the YCA and also sec- provided for adult than that offenders pre- tion in the manner reasonable However, of the same statute. violators congressional sumed to be intended all everything in- an in the YCA indicates require “proper acts and so to Congress provide milder and tent implied by adequate treatment” understanding and su- more U.S.C. § in- pervision that considerate broad Judge point constru- not be furthered Tamm’s tent would on this ing completely suggests so as to render that the YCA the YCA modeled on Chapter nugatory of section the second sentence 305 of Title United States involving (18 youth (1964)), of- in all cases Code U.S.C. 4081-4086 §§ parallel independent are sentenced under fenders who constitutes system produce processing offenders, youth so YCA. To do would youth congruous supercede of- result those and thus would other more statutory general penal are fenders who convicted correctional statutes. under and sentenced have misdemeanors been remodeled somewhat imprisoned chapter parallel under on would be 305 and it YCA legislation applicable And if rules to felons. but this is true to the parallel provisions held that so sentenced extent were those contains any parallel pro- and it to be confined does not the YCA were contain felons, applicable there vision to 4083 as indicated foot- rules § apply Thus, opinion. rule not to the same note 3 of Tamm’s be no reason juvenile all there no reason to conclude that offenders 2, supra. 7. See note completely in language prohibiting the that a sentence is YCA of 4083 clear § purpose keeping penitentiary beneficent

imprisonment in without interpretation that statute and that such persons convicted of consent of their any hard- would not cause administrative punishable a misdemeanor offense ship. sen- applicable offenders for misdemeanor the YCA tenced under accordingly my It is conclusion that nothing YCA There is offenses. Congress any YCA, never intended the provisions that is inconsistent with enacted, other statute it to be construed nothing there is and hence § so adult misdemeanor offenders any a conclusion that to base penitentiaries could be confined supplements or provision of the YCA but offenders convicted of parallel to it. replaces even 4083 or is § same crimes could be so confined. To so 5011,8 particularly, And more § hold would run counter entire segregation provides for warp congressional leg- woof all treatment, completely subject. islation on the provisions of with the consistent § penitentiary prohibiting II any (youth adult) convicted In the absence of a misdemeanor. However, I do not concur Part the two statutes some conflict between Judge Fahy’s opinion. point II theOn given provisions to be both there discussed I fail to see error gener- is not to be effect and conflict appellant in the manner in which waived legis- ated references to remote broad right jury prejudice to a trial and no history. lative him in the fact that the record does guarantees jury of 4083 not disclose To hold that his waiver of a against preceded by any penitentiary confinement were trial statement inap- judge applicable appellant, trial to adult offenders but the victed, might if con youth plicable a would be offenders be sentenced under the contrary to the YCA rather discrimination whole than to the Actually, purpose by tent and YCA. and of the fine authorized D.C.Code 22- 3102,10 dealing a since are with criminal which we the crime of un defines strictly in entry. always subject statute it should construed lawful be He was being favor of the accused.9 This rule interpretation sentenced the YCA wheth applied jury as to the statute er he was tried a the court. appellant’s waiving jury in would result His a trial did not alter being ap- any respect restriction in controlled the available sentence plicable possibilities. However, to misdemeanors. And to is of course argument importation a judge that the of such desirable for trial a advise youth charged “alien limitation into a YCA sentence is offender who is with a underlying philosophy,” my possibility to its con- misdemeanor of the of his being exactly contrary. find clusion is sentenced under Cor- offenders, “Committed offenders not of youth condi- committed and such tionally undergo segregated released shall shall he offenders from security, offenders, in me- institutions of maximum other and classes security security, types, segregated dium or minimum shall he ac- schools, hospitals, including training cording to their needs treatment.” forestry farms, camps, (emphasis supplied). other U.S.C. § 5011 agencies provide es- other that will Cook, 257, 262, United States v. 384 U.S. Di- sential varieties treament. The 1412, (1966) ; 86 S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d 516 desig- rector shall from time to time Bramblett, 503, United States v. adapt nate, aside, set institutions 99 L.Ed. 594 agencies the control of 3, supra. See note Department treatment. Justice 3, supra. 10. See note practical, Insofar institutions as such agencies only shall for treatment used

gQI 23(a) pro- procedures prescribed by warning Such Rule Act. rections litigation. my understanding view is and avert sufficient. mote argu Appellant support claims for his my be concluded it cannot view point ment on this decision jury properly waived not a trial was Appeals District of Columbia does not show the fact that record Columbia, Dobkin v. District of open court accused was informed (D.C.App.1963). A.2d That decision judge of a fact entitled to held that defendant was way waiver. affected Judge prose advance notice of an intention to Fahy’s opinion on cases 11 relies cute him as a second offender where which Fed.R.Crim.P. under Rule pos additional which became procedure judge prescribes a must adding charge sible virtue guilty. accepting plea The a follow in right he was a created second offender do Procedure Federal Rules Criminal jury to a trial had not existed proceedings in the apply criminal States, 224 before. Lawrence v. United for the Dis Court of General Sessions (D.C.App.1966), A.2d and Brandon case was trict where this of Columbia (D.C.App. A.2d being referred are tried.12 rules Such 1968), cases, upon. are also These relied they involved were to here because Dobkin, like both deal with second of Judge Fahy’s in several cases cited charges fender in which the Government Rules and because Federal give required final notice of its recognized providing widely prosecute as a intention accused acceptable procedures in criminal trials. second offender before withdraws specifically Federal Rule states jury demand for a trial. defendant the court should address the however, cases, guilty accepting plea. Rule These second offender before distinguishable Fed.R.Crim.P.,13 however, provides from situations aris- are ing procedure under the Youth Corrections Act. a different waiver (1) jury In the offender cases accused trial. waiver must second Such writing, (2) approval placed is not on notice of the maximum with the charged court, punishment he the consent of the faces when he actually procedure with an offense sec- Government. This fol additionally charg- court, opin ond offense until it is lowed the trial but Any formally Fahy effect im ed “second offense.” ion would in however, youth offender, always pose procedural requirements sub- the same jury imposed ject possibility that will for of a trial are the be waiver to by entry plea guilty. from the mo- for of a sentenced under the YCA Rule 11 of charged required and maximum To is no for the ment he is the me this more exposed punishment to he is can- Court it would of General Sessions than enlarged way. in not thereafter be However, be Court. the United States District fully complied maximum the YCA the trial court with the judgment upon may jilea a 1 1. The court shall not enter “Pleas —A defendant guilty or, guilty, guilty it is a of unless satisfied that the of the with consent idea j)lea.” may court, is a basis the there factual nolo contendere. The court accept jilea guilty, Fed.R.Crim.P. of refuse to a accejit jilea jilea a of shall not 54(a) (1) 12. See and 54 Fed.R.Crim.P. addressing nolo contendere without first (c). determining personally the defendant by required Jury. jilea voluntarily “Trial Cases be made with by jury tried shall be so tried unless the charge understanding of nature of the jury writing consequences defendant waives a trial jilea. a and the of the If approval with the of court jilead or if the court defendant refuses government.” accejit consent of the Fed.R.Crim. jilea guilty or if a refuses to a 23(a). P. corjioration ajijiear, defendant fails to guilty. jilea court shall enter a of not Supreme possible punishment remains the same which the content of tests traditionally applied altered Court and is in nowise has deter- at all times mining right by jury the Fifth Amendment a trial. waiver of prosecution by indictment attaches. procedure required Thus, since Judge According to the cited in cases by Rule District Courts States guid- Fahy’s opinion, principle the first Fed.R.Crim.P., for the waiver ing analysis present question is of the my jury followed, it is view a trial the determination of whether protected fully procedure all that such by crime is infamous should made ref- rights appellant, and we punishment erence to the which could Dis- should the decision affirm statutory imposed under the relevant Appeals in Court of trict of Columbia provisions, rather than reference A.2d Harvin v. United actually given penalty particular (D.C.App.1968). aspects pos- case. Two of the maximum punishment significant sible in de- TAMM, Judge, Cir- whom Circuit termining whether the crime is infamous concur, Judges cuit ROBB WILKEY meaning within the of the Fifth Amend- Judge and Circuit SKELLY WRIGHT J. (1) punitive ment: the nature ac- concurring part I-IV, concurs in Parts tivity infamous, inherently itself dissenting part: as, example, the case hard labor Judge I MacKinnon’s concur corporal punishment; if the validly appellant conclusion punishment is not its nature right by jury. waived ever, How a trial famous, then the duration and locus of agree either of cannot must confinement ically, be examined. Histor- suggested Judge Fahy approaches standard for infamous crimes statutory provides MacKinnon applied pursuant inquiry latter this satisfactorily re construction will punish- has been whether offense is appellant’s challenge practice solve to the jail peniten- able tiary imposing sentence under the Federal year. Finally, than more Youth Corrections when the defend Act principles cases clear that these make prosecuted by ant ra information applied pragmatically are to be rather Moreover, ther than even if indictment. mechanically, appre- than with realistic accept persuaded I could be one of partic- ciation of the manner in which a interpretations governing these presently ular form statutes, I do not believe that case community; viewed as the Su- undertaking can be decided without leading preme stated in case of meaning careful re-examination parte Wilson, 417, 427, Ex phrase punishment” “infamous (1885), 29 L.Ed. 89 “What contained in the Fifth Amendment punishments shall be considered as in- Constitution, ap when this standard is changes famous be affected plied to Youth treatment. public age from one to anoth- er.” I. II. positions As I understand the taken

by panel, other members the of this there I have no doubt that the relevant sec- concerning is dispute little doctrinal the tions of the Federal “ person penalty ‘Youth offender’ means a lieu of the of other- age twenty-two years by the provided law, youth of the time wise sentence the 5000(e). custody Attorney conviction.” U.S.C. the to supervision “If the shall find a court that convicted General person youth offender, pursuant chapter discharged is a and the of- to this until punishable by imprisonment provided fense is un- the Division as section provisions applicable chapter.” 5017(c) der of law other of this 18 U.S.C. § subsection, may, 5010(b). 2, supra. than this the court in U.S.C. 18 tion of treatment contained hu- edge particular of varieties to how 5006(g) (1964). changed § im- or man behavior can be that insuf- proved, the fact to obscure addition, practical diffi- there is a In correctional Judge for our Fahy’s interpre- ficient resources culty inherent 694 promise often render of stitutions restrictive rules in all its cases con illusory. cerning

therapy rights juvenile offenders, through Winship from Gault1 2—and if practical This is of as well as concern duty all, this should be undertaken at significance theoretical of earlier because discharged should be in the manner holdings certainly suggest which disruptive which is least and burdensome appellant like have for both the courts and the correctional right presumably, and, officials. right judicial they relief if are con III. “in under conditions which are fined sufficiently approach famous” or “rehabilita MacKinnon’s seeks 1, Gault, by applying 22-23 tive.” In re avoid these 387 U.S. difficulties 18 Cf. 1428, exception n. 87 L.Ed.2d 527 as an S.Ct. 18 U.S.C. 4083 to the § (1967); Stone, U.S.App. Creek broad administrative discretion confer- If the red 379 F.2d the FYCA. I do not D.C. believe legislative history provides interpretation comports the Act with the distinguishing purpose design firm basis for between of the Federal Youth of in treatment and the incidents FYCA Corrections Act. Section 4083 is con- punishment, Chapter famous then these factors tained Title 305 of ought precision (18 set forth to be with States Code 4081-4086 U.S.C. §§ advantage clarity; (1964)), least, I generally at see no which deals with the postponing prob pris- consideration of this commitment and transfer federal Construing oners, lem until future cases arise. and which was in effect sub- necessarily im stantially present the FYCA this fashion its at time form reviewing poses promulgated. on the courts the task of FYCA concerning many parallels provisions administrative decisions close between handling post-adjudicatory Chapter of 305 and the relevant sections Supreme FYCA, fenders —an area in which are set forth imposing margin,3 strongly suggest has careful to avoid been that the Youth Gault, petence, presents important 1. In n. re 387 U.S. 87 S.Ct. the case chal- 1428, 1445, (1967) police lenges procedure 18 L.Ed.2d 527 : “The to the problems pre-adjudication upon apprehen- treatment of Juvenile Court officials juveniles, post-adjudication disposi juvenile suspected and of sion of a of serious of- tion, unique juvenile process; to the fenses.” what hold hence we in this regard procedural requirements Winship, 358, 366, re adjudicatory necessary stage 1068, 1074, (1970) has no : 25 L.Ed.2d 368 applicability steps juvenile post-ad opportunity during to other “[T]he process.” judicatory dispositional hearing Kent v. United Cf. 541, 543, 1045, 1048, wide-ranging L. review of the child’s social “Apart raising history Ed.2d 84 : treat and for individualized questions adequacy unimpaired [by adoption of custodial ment will remain policies, and treatment facilities and some of the reasonable doubt standard].” judicial which are not within com- Chapter 305 FYCA § 4081. and treatment 5011. Treatment. Classification * * * prisoners. shall from time to The Director penal aside, adopt agen- designate, The federal and correctional institu- time set * * * ** * planned tions shall be so as to for treatment. Insofar as cies agencies development integrated practical, facilitate the institutions system proper will assure the com- clas- shall be used treatment of segregation youth offenders, sification of Federal mitted and such offend- prisoners according segregated to the nature of the ers shall be from other of- committed, fenders, offenses character and classes according segregated prisoners, mental condition of offenders shall be such other factors as considered their needs for treatment. should be supplanting youth offenders, large the less measure Act was Chapter provisions 305. refined and that upon Chapter modeled addition, and of the sections 5023 parallel and designed to constitute Congress indications processing FYCA contain system independent system providing individualized an ** care, discipline, *. treatment and studies and re- 5014. § Glassification ports. * * * Every youth of- committed sent to a classifica- shall first be fender agency. The classification tion center or * * * complete make a shall center youth offender, study committed each physical including mental examina- and traits, personal tion, his ascertain pertinent capabilities, circumstances any family life, previous school, de- lizs * * experience linquency *. criminal or Attorney finement nate as a able, ment who shall transfer the court against or mitted, § (b) The 4082. (a) facility suitable, A ** tlie United person to another. may direct, General of place designate person Attorney such term * * * ®. of confinement convicted from one appropriate States shall General place imprisonment custody place at may desig- an offense institution any any confine- of con- avail- com- time as confined and afforded committed the Attorney tor or institution for § time or institution. from the classification convicted the offense is § agency signed supervision. * * *, ^{[*] [*]} 5010. (2) (b) may— (a) (b) youth ^{[*] [*]} conditions order * * * committed ^{[*] [*]} If the court On the court person institution to offender to General Director youth receipt the committed * * * punishable protection direct may offender treatment; of the he believes youth shall find that the transfer agency offender from one ** any treatment under by imprisonment transfer treatment report custody youth offender, other * the Direc- or public. sentence best de- ** agency agency of the any * ^{[*] [*] [*] [*]} precise analogue; quoted [No § against part above, probably Persons convicted of offenses closest:] * ** punishable im- United States Committed offenders not condi- prisonment year may tionally undergo than for more one released shall penitenti- security, confined United States institutions maximum med- ary. security, security ium minimum * * * including training punishable types, schools, A for an sentence offense year forestry farms, camps, for one less other shall * * * penitentiary prac- agencies. not be served in a without other Insofar tical, agencies of the defendant. shall consent such institutions be used for treatment of committed * ** youth offenders and classes of segre- offenders shall be gated according to their for treat- needs ment. “ contemplated possibility provision that the Act is believed that [i]t [this] supersede other, general problem more cor- of crime will be met its penal incorpo- statutes, point, rectional focal the traits of namely, before saving provisions rated clauses for those the habitual criminal are to de- allowed preserve velop.” H.R.Rep.No.2979, Cong., which desired to unaffected. 81st Thus, Cong. section 5023 of the Youth Correc- 2d Sess. 1 U.S.Code “Nothing Service, provides p. pri- tions Act that in this 3983. There were two existing chapter why mary shall be construed in wise reasons law made amend, repeal, provisions goal to or affect the The first this difficult to attain. Delinquency of” the Federal of length related Juvenile these to the irrelevance of Act, penalties imposed of the Dis- of Juvenile Act various Columbia, relating prog- trict of or statutes crimes to the treatment needs power youthful impose probation particular the court’s nosis of the offend- prison many statutorily prescribed in lieu of sentences. er: of Section main was also enacted with the sentences were either so short that cor- body of the FYCA amended two rections sufficient time officials lacked years later, implement program of “Noth- similar effect: a realistic of ing chapter long in this shall be as habilitation, construed or benefits so repealing duties, modifying power, or plan of a treatment could lost before * * authority young regained of Board of Parole his free- offender respect parole Therefore, with to the of United dom.4 the drafters of the * * * prisoners virtually spe- States not held eliminated reference juvenile committed delinquents.” offenders or cific crime a determinant light factors, length sentence; youthful of these of a offender’s I do penalties we should upon statutory believe that create reliance rely upon any presumption that section as a determinant of the duration of applicable youth offenders; in- 4083 deed, contained in FYCA confinement is sec- legislative history as I read the of 5010(c) Act, provides tion Act, the Federal Youth there for as that confinement be continued appears strong argument to be that sec- long imposed par- as the sentence respects tion 4083 would some conflict find ticular crime the court shall “[i]f design legis- purpose of that the not be able lation. maximum from treat- derive benefit * * * expiration prior of ment premise The fundamental the Youth of young years Corrections Act is that from six the date of conviction.” change are more amenable to and rehabil- rejection reasoning behind criminals; itation than older as the the of- distinctions based on nature of Report proclaimed, House on the Act fense was summarized Harrison mony Bureau Judiciary, Subcomm. of the Senate System for Youth Offenders Before See, interests, skills efit formed the dividual has received the maximum ben- however, which have come across ment is that of time. overnight. Training in work habits and From the correcting e. from the requires g., Hearings 81st James it is Prisons) standards hundreds conclusion the offender the crucial ele- Cong., just V. institutional time. : 1st Sess. 27 cannot be Bennett, Director, on a Correctional important cases of this Attitudes, habits, my Once the Comm, desk I have in the task program, that changed on the (Testi- type its have become institutions tence is out short, confined promptly. occur at has his best earlier he will release to ^[*] Rarely establishing ^[*] objective if the institution ^[*] youth being community. either there does In the case of each prospects bitter, unsure of himself. himself; time. comes a far younger offenders with- correctional day go community received too His release should ready If long period if is to he later, in one making good be effected whose sen- treatment. carry when he released far person of our task may out too teaching Tweed, president techniques, the American of criminal then with- out inhibitions come Law Institute: counteracting normal contacts institute 6 or 8 The conclusion prophylaxis, many penal our of institu- today years ago and its is actively spread tions the infection of and its administra- criminal law the * * *. crime society protect adequately fail to tion particularly prevent H.R.Rep.No.2979, Cong., devel- to the 81st 2d Sess. opment of habitual offenders because 2-3 Act im- 5011 of the Section purpose, plements philosophy providing and unattainable a false this has impose punishment youth namely, to fit to convicted shall offenders per- varying to reference confined the crime without institutions with de- grees sonality security measures, of the offender to fac- and that “[ijnsofar practical, his offense. as tors which caused such institutions agencies only shall be used for treat- further that if the crim- It concluded offenders, youth ment of committed job is do a more inal law to effective * * * youth classes of protection, to rehabili- must seek segregated according shall be offenders to their needs segregate indefinitely those tate (Empha- treatment.” incorrigibly dangerous. who remain added.) Similarly, sis in- section 5015 purpose, believe, new will be This vests the Director of the Bureau of Pris- through accomplished the instrumen- ons which with broad discretion decide legislation proposed tality of the now facility appropriate is most before Senate. offender, on his classifica- basis Hearings System on a Correctional tion studies. Before a Youth Offenders Subcomm. statutory Accepting Comm, either Judiciary, on 81st Senate urged by Judge Fahy, or the struction (1949); Cong., also id. 1st see Sess. by Judge suggested Mac- broader rule description of the substan- at 35-36 Kinnon,5 statu- this could conflict with drafting played by the ALI in tial role tory For in several situations. scheme the Act. example, un- a misdemeanant sentenced sug- passage quoted above also The immune der the be so FYCA gests major second refinement which short of that no “treatment” habilitation to exist- Corrections Act added Youth regimen prison will traditional segregation ing practice: him; place helpful such an offend- potential on their offenders the basis of therapeutic voca- er in a more lenient primary impor- for rehabilitation. other harm program would tional segrega- Congress accorded tance which helped. still who could attaining the Act’s tion a device for possibility not seem insubstan- does This strong objectives lan- is evidenced youth of- remembered that when it is tial guage Report used the House which years at the old as 22 fenders can be as existing handling method of criticize conviction, misdemean- and that time young offenders. sentencing will ants FYCA who receive long records, probably like By herding youth maturity, criminal have present appellant There case. sophisticate, the im- with the novice the most pressionable hardened, be instances which also with the promising brief subjecting youth course offenders to the evil penitentiary, followed their influences older criminals and approach, obtain when result should MacKinnon’s to wliat Under basically confined of an indictment misdemeanant existence which is not to an institution FYCA no misdemeanor irrelevant: avowedly penitentiary, peniten- but a federal could be confined possess tiary. However, the incidents of claimed this rationale appear question confinement. to be a famous there would still cident on the Federal custody. minds they have of it record that forestry discharged. it and x x fallen he was would have Here was pretty hopeless mum actually put him in San for 2 or 3 months as San an extended ^[*] Senator [W]hen cannot Quentin anticipating that time. x in you absolutely One Congress -X- convince them camp [T] on him. Kilgore. that he made such a have the kid realized that they witness related to hold him for the maxi- get away hey case that they -X- period and usually transferred beaten. during * * * have convince in * * * ^[*] they if of more with 2 appeared will not admit Quentin the world in their own years done He took this sent ^[*] The it and them You him to a hearings wrong, relaxed him to upshot Act: -X an in- to be good first they ** they had in eral Youth regated mous” applied conditions of confinement that are where habilitation will retained in useless treatment pose ternatives: misdemeanor valid, assuming proaches detailed in the other two ions will create fit within adopted judicial agree present either an insufficient factual will thwart then design they in protecting within that either every respect this court.6 without be returned may actively legislation case. adopting others, key treatment facilities under several of the above society, IV. the Act’s operation fact If risking or these interpretation can either of unsatisfactory al Act, Therefore, which is based they save hinder the re offenders who the context some violence concerns or avowed of the they input. will categories the name programs engaging streets, will be “infa I opin Fed can pur seg ap thing persuaded accept is best for them to do to behave if I Even could be statutory themselves. ad either of the constructions pan vanced the other members Hearings System for on a Correctional however, el, I find it difficult Offenders, swpra, at 77-78. possible sentences assume that all FYCA in confinement statisti which the incidents of These situations well be jail cally insignificant the ad than or are somewhat less harsh in relation penitentiary constitutionally in whole, I less ministration as a but are of the Act determining year prison.7 proper in a federal see no famous than basis segregated prosecution had been initiated well be where facilities could Such penalty information, maximum similar to the Joan Howard Pavilion and the Hospital, and confinement we for the offense was fine Elizabeths of which Saint recently “[Tjliere be- work- is reason to in the District of Columbia said: at labor dissenting The in Howard house for twelve months. lieve that John * * * extraordinary depriva- justices regimen in the work- entails described the lyrical liberty it, following dignity in terms: which make house tions acres, effect, penitentiary farm of 1150 more than mental is an industrial Occoquan hospital, bordering provides On it on the River. even if also some Covington Harris, farm, attractive treatment.” v. 136 healthful many small, 35, 40-41, 617, surroundings, U.S.App.D.C. F.2d well- 419 equipped buildings, appropriate (1969). 622-623 occupation inmates. residence and employed premises, vitality year on the continued of the “one These are The partly agricultural, jail penitentiary” partly in indus- test also be * ** pursuits. subject doubt, trial, is The work since the most to some ordinarily performed point Supreme case on was de- such as is cent farms, century ago. nearly on half a favorable conditions cided ; factories, 433, Moreland, trades the mechanical 258 42 S.Ct. States eight-hour 368, The it not harder. There the Su- L.Ed. school, workday prevails. preme is a of this There Court affirmed a decision hospital. complaint library, directing there is no And and a dismissal of court year charge part opinion, mum of Ex on that I am I of this As noted in charged 417, 427, So, therefore, like parte Wilson, with. I’d 114 U.S. give together you (1885), me time from L.Ed. the Court * * * General Mackin Sessions v. United (1886), year, L.Ed. 909 no more I than believe. question what con indicates surely, At some point, the duration of punishment is an stitutes an infamous activity confinement for criminal should appropriate particularly issue which compel the in- conclusion that it is an examination, I do de novo punishment, though famous even properly can this task think cidents of that less incarceration are in this case. avoided jail peni- onerous than the traditional offender, young tentiary regimen; misdemeanor not con- For am aspect important year probably the most vinced that a six sentence for a mis- demeanor, though pal- even bears the Youth Corrections longer much liative label “for treatment and rehabili- fact that results prescribed ation,” than the does not invoke constitutional finement signifi- underlying guaranty. offense. liberty loss of this additional cance of Secondly, I find it difficult to share appellant in clearly perceived by the that, majority’s apparent assumption case, of this if not the members this because the Federal Corrections court, likely that Harvin and it seems premised upon Act is the humanitarian majority of his con- spoke for vast goal of and to em- rehabilitation seeks urged in the court temporaries when ploy techniques of modern behavioral impose Youth Cor- not to his allocution science, FYCA treatment is therefore Act treatment: rection easily distinguishable, purposes of for Harvin, you are THE Mr. COURT: Amendment, the Fifth from sentences sentencing, for back before Court imposed on adult offenders. This ration- having 60-day examination a had after suspect prima in ale seems facie the wake Cen- Youth Correction at the Federal Supreme in of decision Court’s * * * ter. Gault: say you anything before to Do have consequence— It is of no constitutional you? sentences the Court meaning practical and of limited —that * * * just hope youthful I the institution to which [the MR. HARVIN: In- into consideration is is called an the Court takes offender] accused fact the mat- I been dustrial The of the crime School. [have] therefore, misdemeanor, euphemistic that, if ter is however of is a get title, “receiving ac- Correctional a “indus- I a Youth home” or an * * * juveniles it could be six trial an insti- tion school” for is [sic] having up might years, wind in tution of confinement which years, greater go four is three or child incarcerated “a has a maxi- lesser His time. world becomes General Sessions cell, question prosecu- wall, lock, restrain the bar vant whether they subjected tion inmates. Nor are must be initiated indictment: purpose marks of- dress The distinctive of the amendment was to * ** pur- powers legislature, dominant limit The fenders. Oeeoquan punishment, prosecuting officers, pose but is not well as of the * * * compulsory is labor [T]he rehabilitation. States. larger compulsory every protecting education. in sense stitution one from being 444-445, prosecuted, at 372. without the interven- S.Ct. 258 U.S. jury, grand tion of a crime 417, 426, subject by parte Wilson, which law to an 8. Ex infamous (1885), 939-940, punishment, congress L.Ed.2d no declaration of purpose competent Congressional suggests secure or needed to to de- largely safeguard. enacting particular irrele- feat law is the constitutional factors”;10 regi- walls, building ribution whitewashed with change applied to the con hours the labels and institutional mented routine * * mitigate the and fa- finement often does little to of mother Instead stigma which follows from it.11 More and brothers ther and sisters over, promise therapy classmates, even if the Act’s ’his world friends fully realized, appear custodians, were there guards, state would peopled question as “delinquents” to be a substantial to whether confined employees, and years wayward- six intensive anything of confinement him for with clearly psychotherapy, con which was rape and homicide. ness to templated sentence,12 is less Harvin’s this, extraor- In view personal of an on freedom and incursion dinary did not if our Constitution dignity year penitentiary. than a regularity procedural quire The Federal Youth Act is implied phrase of care exercise legis- enlightened undeniably piece process.” “due lation, difficult and a aid welcome 27-28, Gault, 387 U.S. In re offenders; sentencing young task of 1443-1444, L.Ed.2d 527 allowing dangers however, suspicion of “treat The reasons goal im- to obscure the rehabilitation in recent ex programs are rooted ment” pact used on the means the individual of our re perience has demonstrated cogently summar- to attain it have been dealing youthful peated failures leading in this ized commentator widely acknowl offenders: now area: fre edged resources insufficient subject Measures individuals quently facilities rehabilitative force involuntary depri- the substantial institutions;9 custodial mere become liberty an ines- contain vation their profess rehabilita when we that “[e]ven element, capable punitive real- and this objectives, we tion and correction ity by the facts that is not altered probably of us some that to all know prompt incarceration motivations * * * ret punishment and the time 9. 11. See In re 10. A.B.A.J. S.Ct. the Juvenile 376 See, Burger, sources. thing, benefits of the isting facilities, procedures District, reliance years ago rather the lack of tive facilities for see little ment every juvenile Columbia Crime * * * [W]e are Even the best (1970): attempting e. juvenile 1428, 1441-1442, : g., facilities has been than treatment. 325, Bazelon, Racism, “No Man Is an indication that told The Gault, outlined is that Process, as a “criminal.” 326 authorities psychiatric gross overcrowding that one of the offender. report even these fall special (1970). young done to counselors and they Commission 53 of the District short of dismaying 18 L.Ed.2d 527 avoid Judicature and rehabilita- ** juvenile Little, unimaginative Classism, 1, 22-24, increase Island,” first community classifying important The restraint * if helping several of ex- in the detail treat- steps. I can court juve- any- 373, 56 12. At stated: 90 See also the Youth Center’s controlled environ- lems[;] which will problems; which will nile offender linquent.” ment. Youth Correction Center ceive individual however, term “criminal” juveniles havior. however, ternative volve diminish parently, ^[*] S.Ct. Beyond It appellant’s sentencing, ^[*] only is the disclosure only ^[*] 1068, 25 * * your is more rhetoric than hope re this, it is slightly to send * * * Winship, only strengthen not you is now classed as protected by [narcotic] * of their deviational be- unanimous staff L.Ed.2d 368. This claim psychotherapy straighten is to be sent term has come to less you applied frequently correction. you It is 397 U.S. stigma is that addiction the trial court * * disconcerting, people opinion, Lexington, out said that 358, than the only secrecy, you * reality. process adults. a “de- prob- your 366, jail, ap- re- al- therapy functions, retroactivity provide or otherwise five lim- could be are to well-being pursuant holding person’s ited to our Gaither contribute such, States, 154, U.S.App.D.C. these measures As v. United or reform. 174-178, closely 1061, to insure F.2d scrutinized 1081-1085 must be being applied (1969). Accordingly, power consist- I that ently would reverse. the commu- values of those justify nity with lib- interference

erty clear com- the most pelling reasons. Allen, of Criminal The Borderland F. (1964). kinds These were Justice 37 UNITED STATES of America court in led of considerations v. hold that v. Reef13 United States HOLLAND, Appellant. Clifton W. Amendment of the Fifth awas violation No. 24083. Youth Cor- impose sentence under prosecution had rections Appeals, United States indictment, and think initiated been District Columbia Circuit. follow this do well to that we would Argued Jan. teaching. that benevo- I cannot believe May 10, Decided purpose science rhetoric and social lent avoiding grounds provide sufficient “a acts mandate which constitutional safeguard against oppressive substantial proceedings.” arbitrary Smith

997, L.Ed.2d 1041 scholarly phraseology of the ma- fails, impressive; jority opinion is my apprehension however, to overcome shortcomings. its constitutional potential Thus, these in order avoid infirmities, obvi- constitutional complicating or frustrat- ate the risk ing our correctional administration of stitutions, sentence can I would hold that imposed under Youth Corrections prosecution initiated appeared If that such indictment. dislocation cause severe a decision would judicial, prosecutorial, or rehabilita- (D.Colo.1967) F.Supp. 1015, : Cunningham, Jones Cf. “im- between delicate distinction Tlie 242-243, 373, 377, 9 L.Ed.2d prisonment”, “confinement : supervision” prison It is not relevant conditions and appreciated probably * * * may parole] [on strictions behind bars. who is important parts desirable the defendant fact cold process ; rehabilitative what matters period subject for a they significantly petition- restrain “[a]pplying exceeding year, one liberty tilings those discipline er’s to do euphemism ‘treatment’ country men during free are entitled to do. not alter does enough present arithmetic, Such restraints are to invoke and is immaterial help purposes.” Pilkington AVrit. of the Great v. United 1963). (4th Cir. F.2d notes See 1 and primarily (FYCA) provide tation of the Act which a misdemean- arises that vagueness long implicit six from the as term be confined as ant can language my reading years, clear “treatment.” From their and that Attorney majority opinion, precisely provisions, Gen- it invest not clear these applied Bureau to me what test is to deter- be eral the Director mining to select discretion what kind Prisons with broad FYCA confinement place is mandated under Fifth of confinement—discretion Amendment the which, statute, prosecution does on the face when the initiated possibility point not exclude formation. At one as- imposed and sen- of a misdemeanor convicted serts that sentence be incar- under the FYCA could tenced FYCA must carried “in an be out institu- penitentiary. By reference cerated tion where the confinement consistent leg- vague language in the purpose rather to some with the the Act to afford Congress’ history on and reliance islative treatment and and that rehabilitation” enacting generally purpose in benevolent the confinement must not “of a be char- IAct, can- punish- Federal Youth Corrections acter which constitutes infamous provisions of knowledge conclude ment.” Since it common governing place of confinement many FYCA correctional facilities which conditional, and “designed” and transfer fact actually are are do to rehabilitate respect that, to misdemean- at least quite opposite, interpret I this lan- information, prosecuted guage offenders to mean that the institution possibility they encompass do sentenced under infamous incarceration. de- FYCA is confined must not be signed rehabilitation, for treatment and agree result falls I cannot provide If these must benefits. fact statutory proper within the ambit of Judge Fahy this is the test intends developed more As will be struction. enunciate, I believe should state Congress’ fully below, I em- believe explicitly because the Act itself offers “pun- phasis than on “treatment” rather determining guidance in what scant types ishment” in its consideration permissible un- starting point as the FYCA should serve 5006(g) provisions. der its Section inquiry than the conclu- of our sion, rather “ merely ‘treatment’ means states that dangerous is a oversim- that it guidance preventive corrective and legislative plification say his- that the training designed protect public merely Congres- tory demonstrates correcting provide antisocial tendencies purpose “milder” or sional youthful language, offenders,” of- “less harsh” treatment for be- This the FYCA was fenders. Enactment of just easily employed lieve, as could be vague solely desire not motivated admittedly purpose of describe Congress wayward children; nice peniten- infamous pragmatic than that. was much more virtually confinement; all, tiary after theory primary behind the decision sys- every correctional institution our differently young to treat lip service to the tem offers at least patterns of that the behavior the belief defining per- ideal. habilitative easily, young more can be altered right, we imeters of a constitutional protected society and that eradicating should scrupulous uncritical to avoid should be before behavior antisocial unexplicated a nebu- reliance personality This hardens. offender’s which can history like “treatment” legislative lous word from the much clear whole, easily knowl- defini- a lack of as from the to mask as a well used too

Case Details

Case Name: Augustus E. Harvin v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: May 7, 1971

Citation: 445 F.2d 675

Docket Number: 22317

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.