We'll leave it to legal authorities to figure out if Juvenile Court Judge Herbert Kernaghan Jr.'s dismissal of charges against a 15-year-old boy charged with breaking into a home and stealing $4,000 was legally correct.
What we do know is that if Kernaghan's interpretation of the law is right, then the law is just stupid and needs to be changed. If his ruling is wrong, then someone in the legal system - starting, perhaps, with the state Attorney General's Office - needs to set him straight, although the boy can't be charged again.
Kernaghan's ruling is the kind of technical application of the law that affronts common sense and undermines public confidence in the judicial system.
He threw the case out of court even though the teenager had signed a statement admitting his role in the burglary - after the kid had been advised of his rights, according to the Sheriff's Office.
Kernaghan didn't allow the statement because, he said, the Department of Juvenile Justice had not been notified before the boy was interviewed. "The minute they take a juvenile into custody, the law requires them to contact DJJ," said Kernaghan. "They advise them how to handle the juvenile."
Prosecutors believe they still had enough evidence - testimony from a co-defendant and two eyewitnesses - to convict without the youth's statement. But the judge threw those elements out, too. The failure to notify Juvenile Justice, he said, nullified the whole case.
Thus, the courts can never even try to hold the youth accountable, despite charges he broke into a home and stole $4,000. An important part of the job of the juvenile justice system is to try to change the behavior of budding suspects and criminals while they're still young enough to be changed.
Kernaghan is sending precisely the wrong message to young people - that they may be able to get away with criminal behavior. And, according to Sheriff Ronnie Strength, the surprise ruling, if it becomes controlling, will also make it more complicated for his investigators.
Deputies followed the same investigatory protocols in this juvenile crime case as they always have, but somehow they did wrong this time. The sheriff wants to get with the judge to clear up the confusion. Good idea. Judges and law-enforcers should be on the same wavelength.
The Sheriff's Department is under the impression that when the parents are present - and the suspect has been advised of his rights - that it's OK to move ahead with questioning.
District Attorney Danny Craig agrees. He points out it shouldn't be necessary for DJJ to look after the boy's interests when the parents are there to do it.
Let's hope the next time a case like this comes up that common sense, and not questionable legal gobbledygook, rules the day.
