In the criminal justice system, we treat juveniles differently. We recognize that their physical, intellectual, social and moral development is incomplete, so we take steps to ensure that the focus of their interaction with the system is rehabilitative. Juvenile records are sealed to prevent youthful misbehavior from affecting an offender's future prospects. Terminology like “convicted” and “guilty” is not used, and juveniles who are detained are provided with educational and other services to a degree adult inmates are not.

But all that is put at risk when juveniles encounter the most dehumanizing elements of the adult criminal justice system. The overuse of shackling juvenile defendants in court and while in detention and of strip searches can traumatize young offenders and sends the message that they are criminals, not children in need of rehabilitation and reform. The Baltimore Sun's Erica Green reported on Sunday that a consensus is growing nationally, including to some degree in Maryland, that those practices should be curtailed as much as possible, yet they still happen routinely in Baltimore's juvenile courts and in facilities run by the Department of Juvenile Services.

We understand the department's concerns about security and safety. There are doubtless occasions when a detainee is so out of control that physical restraints are the only way to ensure that DJS staff and other youths are safe, and the department surely needs to take steps to ensure that weapons and other contraband aren't smuggled into its facilities. But parents and attorneys shouldn't have to think twice about visiting their children or clients because they know the encounter will end in a humiliating strip search. Nor should children who pose no known threat be shackled every time a DJS worker transports them from one place to another. Judges should treat shackling as a last resort to maintain order and safety in the court; to do otherwise conveys the message that an accused youth is a criminal, whether or not he has actually committed a crime.

A September resolution from the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, displayed an understanding of what is at stake. It cited the risk that shackling “may infringe upon the presumption of innocence,” that it “interferes with healthy identity development,” and that it “can be traumatizing and contrary to the developmentally appropriate approach to juvenile justice.” The court found that shackling can in itself worsen a child's behavior and “promotes punishment and retribution over ... rehabilitation.” It specified that once a child is in a court or hearing room, he or she should be unshackled, “absent a particularized security concern.”

Courts in some jurisdictions have made real progress in the last few months in changing the culture around juvenile shackling. But discretion remains with the judges, and public defenders say the practice is still pervasive in Baltimore courts.

Meanwhile, the resolution does not affect what goes on at DJS facilities. The state's independent juvenile justice monitor, Nick Moroney, expressed concern about “indiscriminate” shackling and strip searching by DJS in his annual report. The vast majority of children in the juvenile justice system have experienced trauma, and those practices amount to “in essence a policy of retraumatization,” he wrote. He advocates for a policy in which shackling and strip searching would be limited to cases with “an individualized determination of risk.”

The Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation publishes a set of best practices on strip searches and use of restraints that DJS should adopt. The foundation emphasizes that restraints should be used inside a facility only when necessary to bring a situation under control, and that staff should employ the least restrictive means possible. During transportation, the standards call for the use of handcuffs only — not the handcuff, belly belt, leg shackles DJS uses now — except in “rare instances” when more restraint is needed to prevent harm or escape. In those cases, staff should be required to “provide particularized reasons for their use and obtain approval by the facility administrator.” Finally, the standards say that youths who have been supervised during visits, trips to school or court, or medical appointments should be searched using metal detectors, pat-downs and/or clothing searches. Strip searches should be used “only with prior supervisory approval, upon reasonable suspicion that a youth is in possession of a weapon or contraband, and in accordance with applicable law.”

A blanket policy mandating the use of shackles or strip searches in a particular situation makes no more sense than a ban on their use in all circumstances. Officials in courts and juvenile facilities need to use discretion, and the default should be not to employ them. Maryland's courts have recognized this, even if progress is uneven. But DJS has not. We urge the Hogan administration to carefully examine its policies and practices in this area to ensure that the juvenile justice system lives up to its promise.