Kids accused of truancy entitled to lawyers

Because truancy is considered such a high crime these days, anyone who has even a basic understanding of the Constitution should be able to see that a minor accused of truancy is entitled to a lawyer if their case goes to court.

But apparently it's taken until now for any American state to declare that this is so.

An appeals court in the state of Washington ruled on Monday that young people accused of truancy are entitled to an attorney even at their first court hearing.

The tragedy is that it took until 2009 to decide this - and that other states aren't following the Evergreen State's lead.

Am I correct in assuming that truancy may carry a punishment imposed by courts? State law in Washington says minors with a certain number of unexcused absences may be ordered to appear in juvenile court, so it's clear that the state considers truancy not just a $100 'Judge Judy' lawsuit but a punishable offense.

It's unclear how authorities in Washington will respond to this ruling. Kentucky's response would probably be to raise the age of majority to 80 (even though that wouldn't prevent minors from being entitled to lawyers).

A commentary about my home state that I haven't been able to fit anywhere else: Kentucky law clearly says truants may not be sent to juvenile detention or any other confinement facility. That is because truancy is a status offense, and status offenses in Kentucky are not legally punishable in this manner. However, judges ignore the law and send truants to detention anyway.

Judges who ignore this law do so because they hate children. Many citizens have told me how these jurists conduct themselves and have witnessed their hostile attitudes towards young people.

There is a reason children are not supposed to be locked up for truancy, and that is to protect them and to find positive solutions. When a judge ignores a law that protects children, it is not a good testament to the court's fairness.

The Washington ruling follows one in Kansas last year that correctly declared that juveniles accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a jury trial. This reversed an old ruling to the contrary.

The Constitution is very clear on this matter: If someone is accused of a crime, they have a right to a jury trial. The Constitution places no age restrictions on this right.

Despite these rulings, there's still work to be done. With the failed "lock 'em up" trend of recent years, our work is cut out for us.

(Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hUiKBoTI7AKovMj1e1Sz8ORlAztgD95M92300)