The End of the Pocket Knife
(February 2006 Case Study)
What boy doesn’t cherish his first, shiny pocket knife? How many dads don’t keep one convenient for frequent use (my father keeps one on his key chain)? Lawyers here at The Heritage Foundation keep extras handy in their desk drawers. It used to be common for adolescent boys to carry their pocket knives everywhere, “in their pockets,” although we know most schools would not approve. Such school policies might make sense today. However, the mindlessness with which these policies sometimes are enforced by school officials is alarming. Even more alarming is when the criminal justice system is employed in ways that defy common sense and our traditional notions of justice.
Twelve-year-old Miles Rankin was a victim of such a policy in Henry County, Georgia. After a student reported to his teacher that Miles had been showing his friends a 2 inch pocket knife in the school bathroom, Miles, a dedicated student with good grades , was handcuffed and taken away in a police vehicle -- in view of his classmates -- to a juvenile detention center.
At a hearing in juvenile court, Miles was shackled and handcuffed as if he were a dangerous criminal. The judge presiding over the hearing, who also happened to be the attorney for the school board, decided that Miles should remain in the detention center. Miles’s parents were only able to pick him up on conditional release the following evening, after he had been imprisoned for over 48 hours.
His punishment didn’t end there -- following Miles’s traumatic experience in the juvenile justice system, his middle school held a disciplinary hearing. The presiding officer began by asking the scared twelve-year-old if he understood his right to a hearing and to confront the charges against him by calling witnesses and cross examining witnesses called by the school. Though Miles’s mom was in attendance, the transcript of the hearing demonstrates that Miles and his mother were, understandably, not experts in due process rights.
Miles was asked to sign an admission of guilt. He was clearly willing to admit that he brought the knife to school, but he and his mother did not know that the hearing officer would use Miles’ admission to justify meting out severe punishment.
None of the students who saw Miles with the knife reported feeling threatened or believing that Miles would do them any harm with the knife. The school superintendent acknowledged this, but under the zero-tolerance policy these factors don’t matter. The hearing officer took the recommendation of the principal and decided to apply the severest punishment available: expulsion from school for the remainder of the school year, with the option to attend an “alternative” school. Though the Rankin family appealed the punishment, the County School Board simply reviewed the transcript of the initial hearing and then affirmed the decision.
Unfortunately for Miles and his mom, expulsion was not the extent of the punishment. The juvenile court found Miles to be “in a state of delinquency.” The court issued an abeyance and protective order which placed him under thirty days of house arrest, provided a curfew, and placed him on probation for 180 days. The court documents describe only that Miles carried a weapon on school property. There is no discussion of his intent or behavior with the knife.
In the effort to make schools safer, misguided school officials have established a disciplinary system that does more harm than good for students. According to the policy in Henry County Georgia, mere possession of a weapon on school premises warrants expulsion as well as juvenile court action, regardless of the intent, purpose, or other relevant behavior of the student. The hearing officer may have some discretion in determining the punishment; however, Miles’ case shows how unwilling many school officials are to deviate from prescribed harsh punishments. Miles clearly disobeyed the rules by bringing the weapon to school, yet the punishment of expulsion and probation is severe and completely unnecessary. The end result of the zero-tolerance policy in this case was the removal of a good student who posed no threat to others and a traumatic disruption in his life and education.
overcriminalized.com |
