Most of the discussion about a ruling that gives Kansas juveniles the right to a jury trial has been focused on the decision’s monetary impact. However, the philosophical issues raised in this case may be far more important.

Prior to last week’s ruling, juveniles were allowed to request a jury trial, but that request could be denied by the judge handling the case. Now jury trials must be allowed if they are requested by the defendant.

State and county officials raised considerable concerns about the costs of providing courtroom space and personnel to handle the expected increase in trials. That is not insignificant, but it may not be as important as the implications of the reasoning behind the court’s ruling.

According to the justices, changes in the Kansas Juvenile Justice Code since 1984 “have eroded the benevolent, child-cognizant, and rehabilitative” nature of the state’s juvenile proceedings. Rather than taking a paternalistic, cooperative approach to juvenile cases, the code now focuses more on prosecution and punishment. “Because the Kansas Juvenile Justice Code has become more akin to an adult criminal prosecution,” the court reasoned, those juveniles have a constitutional right to a jury trial, just like adult defendants.

The changes the court cites were made by Kansas legislators, often in response to concerns expressed by their constituents. Fearful Kansans wanted to protect themselves and their families by requiring harsher punishment, often involving incarceration, of juvenile offenders. The result, over the last 24 years, is a system that may often lean toward locking juveniles away rather than working with parents, schools and law enforcement to try to put an offender on a more productive path.

Certainly, there are instances where older juveniles commit offenses so serious that they deserve the harsher punishments dealt to adults. But has Kansas moved too far toward punishment and away from rehabilitation for young people? Have we given up on families and others to try to turn a youngster around?

Officials in other states that require jury trials when they are requested by juveniles say Kansas may not experience a large increase in such trials and encourage Kansas lawmakers not to act too quickly to change state laws. Kansas legislators commenting on the ruling differ on that point, but some action may be forthcoming in 2009.

It seems reasonable in such a court-focused society to give juveniles facing serious charges and harsh punishments full access to jury trials. It also seems reasonable to ask ourselves whether Kansans really agree with the tougher code that led the Supreme Court to decide it was necessary to ensure juveniles that access.