Juvenile Justice Overview

AN OVERVIEW OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
The chief problem in any community cursed with crime is not the punishment of criminals,
but the preventing of the young from being trained to crime (WEB DuBois)

The juvenile justice system in America is based on approximately 4,000 juvenile courts which specialize in the problems of youth and operate with a philosophy (of rehabilitation) that even the worst delinquent is not to be considered a criminal, or bad person, but instead an erring or sick child who needs help. Some 2.8 million juveniles are arrested for crimes by police annually, but only about 1.8 million are processed as delinquents by the courts. Numerous others are dealt with in a variety of ways, as the following list illustrates:

The juvenile justice system can be defined as all government or government-funded agencies that investigate, supervise, adjudicate, care for, confine, or treat youth who are subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. There are some unique aspects of juvenile court jurisdiction, however. For one thing, most state juvenile courts will gladly prosecute federal laws or the laws of another state on behalf of another jurisdiction. This runs contrary to the principle that nobody should enforce another jurisdiction's laws. The juvenile justice system is also encapsulated with many non-governmental social workers, psychologists, and behavioral scientists because a large number of staff are needed to handle the enormous workload. There is also notable variation between states and even at the county level in the various ways problems are dealt with. The most common theme is jurisdiction by age, in what is called the age of majority (the age at which one is considered an adult). 39 states set that age at the 18th birthday, 8 states (Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, Massachusetts) set it at 17, and 3 states (New York, North Carolina, Connecticut) set it at 16. When a child reaches the age of majority in a state, they come under adult criminal court jurisdiction.

Juvenile court jurisdiction also varies by whether it is exclusive, original, or concurrent. Exclusive means that the court only has statutory authority over certain kinds of crimes, usually of a minor nature or involving status offenses. In such places, serious crimes like murder are automatically handled by an adult criminal court, no matter how young the offender. Original means that the juvenile court must serve as the first place for a hearing on the issue - no matter what kind of case it is - before it goes before an administrative law tribunal, a court of civil law, or a court of criminal law. Processing of complaints against parents, for example, must begin at the juvenile court level in such jurisdictions. Concurrent means that juvenile court proceedings occur side-by-side, or simultaneously with other hearings, tribunals, or case processing. In such places, it is indeed possible for a juvenile to be charged twice for the same thing - once in juvenile court and once in adult court.

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have made provisions for waivers to adult court, and established a minimum age of transfer (no minimum age in 17 states, age 10 in 3, age 12 in 3, age 13 in 6, age 14 in 17, and ages 15-17 in the rest). In most cases, the practice is called discretionary waiver or direct file, where the prosecutor files a motion, evidence is presented for and against a waiver, and the judge decides whether the offender should be tried as a juvenile or adult. In other cases, the practice is called mandatory waiver, and if the offense is serious enough (typically murder), the prosecutor doesn't even have to file a motion, but can try the juvenile offender in adult court. Some states have set up a presumption scheme in favor of waiver (for crimes bordering on the seriousness of murder). Only 35 states allow reverse waiver, which is like a process of appeal to review the original judge's decision to waive to adult court. However, most states abide by the once an adult/always an adult doctrine, which means once convicted as an adult (or even tried as an adult in 4 states - California, Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi), all subsequent criminal charges require adult criminal court handling. Punishments are always more severe as an adult than as a juvenile.

In America, the ideas of childhood, adolescence, and juvenile delinquency are fairly recent concepts. In fact, the history of juvenile justice in America is a modern parallel to the English Poor Laws that go back to the Black Plague in the middle ages, with the establishment of almshouses and workhouses. Prior to the 19th century in America, young people above the age of five were considered mature, and looked upon as miniature adults or property. Society had the notion of "infants" and "toddlers", but not any notion of childhood. When children got into trouble, and their family gave up hope, one of three punishments took place: (1) the apprenticeship system - where middle and upper class children were bound out to a skilled craftsman to be used as assistants; (2) the binding-out system - where poor children were bound out to any responsible adult to be used any way needed; and (3) church discipline - where church officials administered floggings, whippings, beatings, and brandings. These were considered the equivalent of punishments that a fully-grown adult would receive.

This all changed with the industrial revolution. The early 1800's saw factory life replacing family life, and children became displaced factory workers - leaving their homes at an early age, traveling around the country looking for factory jobs. As you can imagine, this created a whole host of social problems, such as vagrancy, drunkenness, and crime committed by children. Added to this was the problem of mass immigration to the United States. State governments responded by creating the so-called Houses of Refuge. The first house of refuge was established in New York City in 1825. Their primary objective was to reform poor, wayward children and turn them into hard-working, productive members of the community. The house of refuge philosophy caught on and became quite popular. Before long, a new conception of youth came into being - an idea that families held all along - that children required special guidance and molding, that there was something special about the time of life between age 5 and 21. This age period became seen as the devil's playground - a time when humans are most corruptible, but still young enough to be redeemed and worth correcting.

Houses of refuge were widely used. Children could be easily placed there on the word of a constable or by order of any city alderman. They were kept there for indeterminate periods of time. Some got out when they were 18, but most didn't get out until they were 21. It was common for craftsmen to operate shops inside them. In return for making shoes and furniture, the inmates were paid 10 to 14 cents a day. Discipline was a matter carried out by state employees who worked inside, or older trustees.

Shortly after the House of Refuge movement, another fad or fashion took hold. Around 1830, the practice of placing out was established. This was the forced placement of inner city children to farms out West or in the Midwest. Children of poor immigrants were the main focus, their parents seen as incapable of ever providing a decent parental relationship. While a few placements were treated as family by their rural caretakers, most were abused and exploited as farm hands, and practically none ever saw their real families again. This practice signified a growing concern for family factors, although some experts claim it signified a idealization and mystification of rural life.

In 1841, the practice of probation was invented by a Boston shoemaker, John Augustus. He bailed out a number of young offenders he saw as redeemable, took them back home to their parents, and had one of his volunteers (from the Boston Children's Aid Society) regularly visit the home and keep an eye out for lawbreaking. The probation movement was self-funded by philanthropic foundations until about 1899 when states started picking up the tab and got into authorizing the appointment of probation officers.

After the Civil War (late 1800s), state and city governments created a variety of custodial institutions. These were nothing more than holding pens for the many truant and vagrant children roaming the country after the war. They were called Reform Schools, Industrial Schools, or Training Schools. Some of them housed girls in the same institutions as boys, but others had strict gender segregation. Despite what the general name was for this kind of institution, they were administered in one of two ways - as a cottage reformatory - or as an institutional reformatory. Those that were cottage administered were less overcrowded, with no more than 20-40 youth living with some adult role models in a housing unit. Those that were institutionally based resembled a large maximum security prison, and housed as many as 500 youth in a cellblock living unit. Parents would often show up at the gates of these institutions, and turn their children over to authorities for being "incorrigible." There were few opportunities to learn a trade since these kind of institutions focused more on providing a formal education. The educational curriculum was quite unique and moralistic, however. Feminists who have studied the period make a lot out of the so-called chastity movement that started within such institutions.

In 1899, the Juvenile Court was invented in Chicago by passage of the Juvenile Court Act. This date and place is generally regarded as the birth of juvenile justice and the birth of the concept of juvenile delinquency. A group of reformers known as the "child savers" were the advocates of this new institution, and they represented a variety of philanthropic and civic organizations. They had an idealistic belief in the effectiveness of the criminal justice system - police, courts, and corrections - to supervise children and also provide legal safeguards. Specifically, two legal concepts became important, as follows:

Parens patriae (the state as parent) - a legal philosophy and doctrine established in the case of Ex parte Crouse (1838) when a father challenged the Philadelphia House of Refuge's right to hold his daughter who had been committed there by the mother. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that such placement was not punishment but benevolence, no due process claim could be made by the father, and that the father had no standing anyway because the state had a legal obligation to step in whenever the parents are irresponsible. A related concept is In Loco Parentis established in State v. Pendergrass (1837) where the North Carolina Supreme Court said a teacher is the substitute of a parent, and can administer moderate punishment if not inflicted out of malice or bad passion.

Due process (legal safeguards) - a legal philosophy protecting the rights of anyone coming in contact with authorities, established first for juveniles in the case of People v. Turner (1870) were a youth committed to Chicago's House of Refuge against both his parent's wishes was found to be indeed experiencing punishment and not being helped by his placement. The Illinois Supreme Court stated that there should be some kind of court order that spells out how such youth are to be protected, controlled, and reformed.

Establishment of juvenile courts, like the one in Chicago during 1899, caught on across America as a ready-made solution to these legal considerations. By 1925, all but two states had juvenile courts (many are known by names other than "juvenile" - family or probate, for example). With few exceptions (Chicago's court established jurisdiction over anyone delinquent, dependent, or neglected under the age of 16), they all followed the Chicago model, which was popularized as the "best interests of the child" model, or a "focus on the whole child" model. The essential features of this model are as follows:

An interesting legal question came up in 1905 with the case of Commonwealth v. Fisher, where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that parens patriae always trumps due process in juvenile justice. When the state acts under its parens patriae powers, no due process protections are necessary. No treatment plans are necessary, and it is assumed anything the government does to a child in custody is obviously better than what the parents could provide. The Fisher case set the tone for juvenile justice up until the 1960s.

An activist U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960s significantly altered the tone and shape of juvenile justice. At least four cases are worth reviewing, as follows:

Kent v. U.S. (1966) - the first full-scale examination of the juvenile justice system brought on by the case of a 16-year old rapist who was transferred to adult criminal court. Justices ruled that such waivers or transfers should be accompanied by a special hearing, the assistance of counsel, access to records by such counsel, and a written statement of reasons for the transfer.

In re Gault (1967) - a landmark case on the failure of the juvenile justice system involving a 15-year old adjudicated delinquent on the word of an Arizona sheriff's deputy sentenced to 6 years for an offense (telephone harassment) that carried a 2-month penalty if committed by an adult. Justices ruled that juveniles deserve the right against self-incrimination (Miranda), adequate notice of charges, the right to confront and cross-examine accusers, assistance of counsel, and the rights of sworn testimony and appeal. Juvenile justice became less informal and more formal and adversarial after this.

In re Winship (1970) - a seminal case that made juvenile justice more like adult justice by changing the standard of proof from preponderance of the evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt. It only applies when the juvenile faces imprisonment as a possible penalty that each and every fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For status offenses, evidence that would not ordinarily be admitted under adult standards (such as hearsay) would be admissible.

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) - a seminal case that slowed down the granting of due process rights to juveniles by denying them the right to a trial by jury, Justices reasoning that bench trials were adequate and that America was not yet ready to abandon the philosophy of juvenile justice as a less-than fully adversarial process.

Juvenile delinquency is widespread, so widespread, one can talk about it being a normal part of growing up, in the sense that rebellion and anti-adult behavior is normal. Each generation engages in it with such a regular, creative fervor, that you would think we know something about it by now. Some of those regularities include the following:

It is vital to know how the system operates, and it is a very big system indeed. The first thing I would recommend is for students to familiarize themselves with much of the VOCABULARY involved. A good glossary of terms for juvenile justice can be found on the Internet, one in Utah at http://www.hsdyc.state.ut.us/terms.htm and another (mine) in North Carolina at http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/juvjusp.htm. Students need to know that juveniles are never "arrested" but instead receive "intake" or screening. Likewise, juvenile defendants are never "convicted", but instead "adjudicated." Parole is called "aftercare", etc.

It is also vital to know the STEPS to the juvenile justice process, and these generally appear as case flow diagrams which can be found in a number of places, but specifically by searching the website for OJJDP (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention). It is generally agreed upon that there are ten basic steps to all procedures: (1) intake and screening; (2) detention; (3) probation; (4) record-keeping; (5) psychological services; (6) protective services; (7) medical services; (8) volunteer services; (9) court services; and (10) parole or aftercare.

A vast CORRECTIONAL apparatus exists in juvenile justice. There are short-term facilities (detention centers), as well as shelters and reception and diagnostic centers. Long-term facilities include training schools, ranches, forestry camps, boot camps, farms, halfway houses, and group homes. There are more of the latter than the former. In addition, there are numerous private institutions and a number of psychiatric hospitals and treatment centers. The correctional landscape of juvenile justice is quite different from the correctional system in the adult world. While most facilities are small, America contains about 70 large facilities for juveniles.

Juveniles usually enter the system via police contact. About 85% of delinquency cases involve a police referral. 10% of cases involve parents who have their child declared ungovernable. The remainder of cases are the work of teachers, neighbors, and business owners using the juvenile justice system to rid themselves of a troublemaker. There are many avenues of entry. The POLICE RESPONSE involves several options:

There have been many sociological studies of police response. The majority tell us that about 66% of police contacts involve the non-arrest options, station adjustment being quite common. Other studies indicate that arrest is only used 15% of the time. There has been significant research interest in the determinants of arrest. Most studies find that black males are the most likely group to be arrested, but then, that is the group most likely to be involved in serious offending. Females are surprisingly likely to be arrested for minor offenses, however, some studies indicate that if the female cries, has children to care for, and claims, for example, they were led astray by men, police officers show some discretion. Experts argue over whether police officers hold paternalistic and chivalrous attitudes toward female offenders, or whether we have entered an age marked by the end of chivalry where police arrest females just as frequently as males.

The factors that can influence a police response are many. Early sociological studies made much of the "demeanor hypothesis" - the idea that how the offender behaves or carries himself (demeanor) determines the police response; i.e., whether or not they flunk the "attitude test". The most important factor in recent studies has been offense seriousness; i.e., a felony merits an arrest, and cannot be overlooked. Police departments develop their own style of policing juveniles, and many make use of community sentiments and/or the wishes of complainants in this day and age of community policing. Police regularly read Miranda rights to juveniles they process, and they don't have to have a parent present to do so since the case of Fare v. Michael (1979) allowed juvenile to waive their own rights. Police can also exercise something called preventive detention (if the offense is serious and the person is deemed a danger to themselves or others) under the ruling in Schall v. Martin (1984). Federal guidelines require a juvenile so detained in a lockup normally designed for adults to not exceed six hours and be in a separate area out of sight and sound of adult inmates.

The COURT RESPONSE begins with intake screening, of course, and traditionally, this has been done by probation officers although there is some current controversy over what the educational qualifications ought to be for someone who does intake. Social workers are used in some jurisdictions as well as paralegals from the prosecutor's office in other jurisdictions. During the intake period, a parent or guardian is interviewed, criminal backgrounds are checked, the complaint is reviewed for legal sufficiency (grounds to continue), and appropriateness for diversion or treatment is determined. Whether or not detention is appropriate before a formal court appearance is also determined. The court response involves several options:

Intake personnel are usually influenced heavily by prior offenses (if any). There should be a determination of the pattern of delinquency being displayed by the youth. In some jurisdictions, intake personnel have their hands tied by prior-record criteria. In such cases, automatic waivers to adult criminal court may kick in. Separate hearings are usually required, however, to go over the waiver's appropriateness, but the process varies by jurisdiction, in some cases being based on the absence of good juvenile treatment programs in the local area, and in other cases, not even involving a judge, but prosecutorial discretion. A standard finding in the criminal justice literature is that transfers to the adult system have no deterrent effect, and often make the person more likely to commit crime in the future once released (Bishop et. al. 1996). There are few good national estimates on how frequently adult waivers are used, but a modest estimate would be about 5% of all cases.

The adjudication hearing is the equivalent of a trial, with all the trappings of a trial, such as pretrial motions, subpoenas, and plea bargaining. The same rules of evidence and procedure used in the adult system apply to juvenile adjudications. Jurisdictions vary over the qualifications of the hearing officer. In some places, it doesn't have to be a judge, but can be any lawyer empowered to hear juvenile cases, sometimes called a referee, court master, commissioner, or mediator (in places that have embraced restorative justice). Also, some places allow jury trials, even though juveniles have no right to a jury trial. The vast majority of adjudications go "uncontested" which means, like an arraignment, the offender pleads guilty (accepting a preset plea bargain). The most common dispositions are dismissal of charges and informal probation (with the understanding that the offender will voluntarily do something to redeem themself). In some places, parental responsibility laws kick in, and one or both parents are the ones facing punishment. However, this practice has been mostly replaced by parenting classes.

The prevailing sentiment of juvenile justice is to get as many "uncontested" adjudications as possible. Some states use TEEN COURTS as a way to do this. Someone qualifies for teen court by admitting the charges against them, but allows the teen court to understand the circumstances and settle on the punishment. There are three varieties of teen courts: (1) the youth advocate model where youth serve as attorneys and an adult as judge; (2) the youth judge model where a youth serves as judge and adults serve as attorneys; (3) the tribunal model where three or more youth serve as judges; and (4) the peer jury model, where jurors question the defendant directly. The youth advocate model is probably the most commonly used. The most frequent disposition is community service, but teen courts come up with rather unique methods of victim apology as well as rely strongly upon restitution (monetary cash payments) for harm done.

When incarceration is the disposition (usually mandated by statutory sentencing guidelines), an indeterminate sentence is the norm. This means a stretch in the number of years making up the sentence, say 1-3 years, with parole eligibility sometime after a year and a half. If the offender is old enough, a blended sentence may be used, which means that some of the time will be spent in a juvenile facility and some of the time will be spent in an adult facility. The disposition hearing is a separate hearing from the adjudication hearing. If state juvenile facilities are overcrowded, the juvenile court can simply commit the youth to the state for later placement in a facility, effectively making it the state's problem. Disposition hearings requires the filing of a presentence investigation report (PSI) which is completed by a probation officer or investigator with the prosecutor's office.

The CORRECTIONAL RESPONSE can be described as involving institutions which are either "open" or "closed", with the open institutions being community-based to some degree. Community-based corrections has been the emphasis of juvenile justice ever since the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 started the decarceration or deinstitutionalization movement as well as a concern over disproportionate minority confinement. National statistics do not clearly differentiate between types of institutions, but it is clear that more detention facilities exist than training schools. Detention centers are supposed to be short-term facilities, and indeed that is true since the average length of stay is longer in training schools.

Detention centers tend to be jail-like structures located in rural areas. Some are private, and most are well-run. They hold a variety of youth, including status offenders, boot-strapped status offenders (technical violators of a court order), and in some cases, those awaiting trial. There are few treatment programs, however, with medical and educational services only being available. There are studies of detention centers that show high rates of attempted suicide, suicide, self-mutilation, and self-destructive behavior, but not significantly higher than that found in the typical jail population. Some private detention centers are more "open" than closed, relying more upon staff rather than walls and fences.

Training schools tend to look like the grounds of a high school, some are even co-ed, and they are either secure or semisecure facilities; i.e., closed institutions. State-of-the-art perimeter security is likely to be found, although all such correctional institutions for juveniles are staffed at a much greater ratio than for adult correctional facilities. There are about 70 maximum security facilities for juveniles across America, and each state has at least one. The average training school holds about 50 residents, and the large-scale ones hold 800 residents or so. Youth placed in such facilities must first go through a reception and diagnostic center. There are a variety of treatment programs, such as counseling, education, vocational training, peer group activities, and GED completion is often a condition of release. There are reports that healthcare and injury prevention are slack, however. 75% of all training schools are state-run facilities, and most are overcrowded. Inmate rape and abuse are believed to be common.

Wilderness programs based on the Outward Bound model of mountain climbing, backpacking, and mountain biking can be found in some places, and promise incarcerated youth a physically and emotionally challenging experience. Studies of such programs parallel the results from evaluations of boot camps and Scared Straight-like programs - there are brief positive effects on self-esteem and desire not to reoffend, but over time, the effect is diminished, and can have backlash effects, which mean even worse offending.

Group homes, halfway houses, foster homes, and day treatment centers are the primary "open" facilities in juvenile corrections. They usually allow the residents to go out during the day but require them to come in at night. Escapes, reoffending, and technical violations are common. Many such places are used as part of an aftercare plan for inmates who have worked their way up a point or honor system from training schools or detention centers. There is little sound research on the effectiveness of such institutions. It can safely be said, in summarizing the literature, that there are few juvenile justice responses that have been found to reduce delinquency.

PRINTED RESOURCES
Bishop, D. et al. (1996). The transfer of juveniles to criminal court: Does it make a
difference? Crime & Delinquency, 42. 171-191.
Chesney-Lind, M. & Shelden, R. (1991) Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
Edwards, L. (1992) The Juvenile Court and the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge. Reno: UNCJFCJ.
Elliott, D. & Huizinga, D. (1983) "Social Class and Delinquent Behavior in a National Youth Panel" Criminology 21: 149-77.
Grisso, T. & R. Schwartz. (2000). Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gurr, T. (1977) "Crime Trends in Modern Democracies since 1945" International Annals of Criminology 16(1-2): 41-86.
Jessor, R. & Jessor, S. (1977) Problem Behavior and Psychological Development. NY: Academic.
Shaw, C. & H. McKay (1942) Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: Univ. Press.
Snyder, H. & Sickmund, M. (1999) Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 Report. Washington: OJJDP.
Thornton, W., Voight, J. & Doerner, W. (1987) Delinquency and Justice. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.
Wolfgang, M., Figlio, R. & Sellin, T. (1972) Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.