Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Evolution of Juvenile Justice

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Evolution of Juvenile Justice"— Presentation transcript:

1 Evolution of Juvenile Justice
Ancient Social Controls English Roots American Juvenile Justice Puritan Period ( ) Refuge Period ( ) Juvenile Court Period ( ) Juvenile Rights Period ( ) Crime Control Period (1980-now)

2 Ancient Social Controls
Family was the basis of social control Father has “absolute” control of children Corporal punishment , killing, and selling children was OK Children considered “property” of father (Roman society) Children as young as 6 were hanged or burned at the stake (600 AD) Church of Rome – children under age 7 have not reached “age of reason” (1000 – AD)

3 Our English Roots Common Law - King was “father of his country” i.e., right and responsibility to care for children 1555 London’s Bridewell Prison – first institution to control young “beggars & vagrants” England passed “poor laws” resulting in indentured service and work houses, involuntary apprenticeships up to age 21+ 1782 Gilbert Act placed all “poor, aged, sick and infirm” in “poorhouses,” with a “proper person” 1817 London Philanthropic Society opened “house of refuge” to reform juvenile offenders in an institutional setting Bridewell prison focused on discipline, deterrence and rehabilitation Hope was to deter vagrancy and idleness 1576 – England required Bridewell type prisons in ALL counties Some parents voluntarily committed children to Bridewells 1601 – workhouses were proposed workhouses for children who could not be supported by their parents. Poor laws forced poor young to work for wealthy families who trained them in trade, farming, or domestic service as “involuntary apprenticeships”

4 American Juvenile Justice
Punish Protect Punish 5 Distinct Phases Puritan Period ( ) Refuge Period ( ) Juvenile Court Period ( ) Juvenile Rights Period ( ) Crime Control Period (1980-today)

5 Puritan Period (1646-1824) Fathers had absolute control over children
Harsh punishments/death for misbehavior 1646 Stubborn Child Laws created status offenses, e.g., “incorrigibility” Children of poor became indentured servants - placed with “proper” family Industrial revolution shifted control from family to employers. “Dangerous Underclass” 1818 –“juvenile delinquency” was coined - linked to poverty to juvenile crime Family primary mode of control with church and other social institutions helping. Family was also main economic unit until Industrial revolution lead to employers having more control, and with increasing poverty came development of “dangerous underclass” 5 institutions developed to handle poor, abused, neglected, dependent and delinquent youth: 1 – indenture and apprenticeship 2 – mixed almshouses 3 – private orphanages 4 – public facilities for dependent children 5 – jails

6 Refuge Period (1824-1899) Social control shifts from family to State
Houses of Refuge, Reformatories and Foster Homes created for delinquent, dependent and neglected youth, i.e., mostly poor youth 1824 New York House of Refuge – first US reformatory Courts sent youth to homes until age of maturity under the “parens patriae” authority, misbehavior was punished harshly Labor contracted out to local business Reform schools provided more home like environment in mid 1800’s 1853 – neglected/delinquent youth placed in private foster homes in rural areas House of refuge designed to provide “morality and religion,” a means to earn a living, and separate them from “corrupting influence of improper associates” Used harsh discipline and solitary confinement – really designed to protect class privileges Reform schools – intended to provide discipline in a homelike environment where education is emphasized, but had large workshops and contracted labor Foster homes – New York 1853 – private rural homes Child savers viewed children as different from adults in criminal system – and society should try to figure out how to “fix” them – should not be held as accountable as adults, goal should be to help/rehabilitate youth, dispositions should be result of analysis of individual circumstances, system should avoid punitive adversary process

7 Bruce County House of Refuge Walkerton, Ontario 1919

8 Refuge Period (continued)
New philosophy of children as basically good Puritans believed children were sinful by nature Child Savers believed environment makes children “bad” - can be saved by placement in house of refuge, reformatory, etc. Children should not be held accountable as adults Treatment/Rehabilitation rather than punishment Courts should avoid punitive adversarial role Courts should consider individual circumstances of each juvenile Who were Child Savers really protecting? Child Savers saw poor youth as threat to society who needed to be taught to conform

9 Juvenile Court Period (1899-1960)

10 Juvenile Court Period 1899-1960
1899 Chicago, Illinois - Juvenile Court Act – for the first time ever, courts have a different duty to children charged with violating the law. youth (under 16) who commit crimes subject to “medical model,” i.e. treatment not punishment. Progressives view crime/delinquency as disease to be treated and cured by social intervention. Youth should not be imprisoned with adults. Court process should be less formal/adversarial. “One pot approach” combines abused/neglected youth, delinquents, & status offenders Probation Officers were to collect facts, make recommendations for disposition, and supervise in community Expected to investigate environment, be present in court, provide information to court, take charge before and after trial, Separate court records for juveniles established

11 Juvenile Court Period (continued)
Probation applied specifically to juveniles Probation officers have two functions: 1. Investigation and 2. Rehabilitation Investigate youth’s environment Furnish information to court Represent interest of youth in court Supervise before and after trial 1914 Chicago Boy’s Court First attempts at Diversion using 4 religious agencies

12 Juvenile Court Period (continued)
Children in every social class committed crimes, but only the poor become wards of the court Federal Government Gets Involved: 1909 White House Conference on Dependent Children 1912 U.S. Children’s Bureau 1912 Child labor laws passed 1925 All but 2 States had juvenile court systems 1935 Social Security Act - major federal funding to aid children and families 1938 Juvenile Court Act passed By 1948 all states had special laws for juveniles 1951 Federal Youth Corrections Act created a Juvenile Delinquency Bureau in Department of Health, Education and Welfare 1956 Shioutakon v. District of Columbia provided juveniles the right to a lawyer in court (due process)

13 Juvenile Rights Period (1960-1980)
Four D’s of Juvenile Justice: Deinstitutionalization – status offense removed from juvenile court (PINS, CHINS, etc) Due Process – juveniles have Constitutional protections Diversion – shifts power to police, leads to “net widening” Decriminalization - eliminating status offenses from juvenile court

14 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
US Supreme Court dramatically re-shapes Juvenile Justice: Kent v. United States (1961) 16 year old Kent admits breaking into a house, robbery, and rape and is adjudicated as a juvenile then transferred to adult court without any hearing. SC says: Juveniles are entitled to a formal hearing, access to records, and statement of reason before a juvenile court can waive jurisdiction. Certain factors, e.g., seriousness of crime, maturity of the juvenile, juvenile’s record and history, etc., must be considered by the court in deciding whether to try the juvenile as an adult.

15 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
In re Gault (1967) 15 y.o. Gault was on probation and accused of making an obscene phone call and was taken into custody. Petition alleges only “delinquency.” No witnesses appeared, no attorney was present, no record of proceedings. Juvenile admits crime and is committed to an “industrial school” to age 21. (6 years!) SC says: Juveniles have due process rights including notice, counsel, confront witnesses, recording of proceedings, right against self-incrimination. Justice Fortas says “Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.”

16 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
In re Winship (1970) 12 year old Winship charged with taking $112 from a woman’s purse is adjudicated on a preponderance of the evidence and sent to training school for 18 months to 6 years. SC says: Juveniles adjudications must be founded on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

17 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) 16 year old McKeiver charged with robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods. He appealed after adjudication claiming he had a right to a jury trial. SC says: A jury trial is NOT a required element of due process because it is not necessary for accurate fact finding.

18 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
Breed v. Jones (1975) 17 year old Breed charged with committing acts with a dangerous weapon and was adjudicated in the juvenile court. At the dispositional hearing, court found “insufficient facilities” available to juvenile court so Breed was transferred to adult court and again Breed was found guilty as an adult. SC says: Double jeopardy prohibits a juvenile from being tried in juvenile court then tried again for the same crime in adult court.

19 Juvenile rights period, CONTINUED
JDB v. North Carolina (2011) Police questioned JDB about a burglary. A few days later, a uniformed SRO took JDB and a school administrator questioned him at school in a closed-door conference room for at least 30 minutes. They did not give him Miranda warnings or the opportunity to call his grandmother, nor tell him he was free to leave the room. JDB confessed to officials, but then was told that he could refuse to answer questions and was free to leave. JDB said he understood and told police where the stolen items were located. SC says: Age must be considered when law enforcement is deciding whether a juvenile is in custody for Miranda purposes.

20 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
Federal Government further re-shapes juvenile justice system: President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice criticizes juvenile courts for: Lack of due process Law enforcement’s poor relationship w/youth Mixing status offenders w/delinquents Institutionalization of youth Incarceration of non-violent youth

21 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
1967 – Federal Youth Service Bureaus established to coordinate community-centered referrals and diversion programs. YSB’s were an alternative to court action, a.k.a. diversion Goal was to develop local resources Diversion results in “net widening” i.e., brings more youth into the system and transfers authority from courts to police and corrections

22 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
1968 – Uniform Juvenile Court Act National reform of juvenile court, law enforcement, and corrections procedures for juveniles Finds correctional “treatment” is often unnecessarily punitive Recommends treatment, training, and rehabilitation in a family environment if possible

23 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act creates the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the Department of Justice Two key goals of JJDP Act: Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders (DSO) Sight and Sound Separation of juvenile offenders and adult offenders

24 Juvenile Rights Period, continued
JJDP Act is amended over the years to require: Removal of juveniles from adult jails (1980) Disproportionate Minority Confinement (1992) Disproportionate Minority Contact (2002) Funding changes depending on policies of President and Congress (per “the people”) JJDP Act was scheduled for reauthorization in 2007…still waiting with no end in sight

25 Crime Control Period (1980-now)
· Conservative approach returns · “Medical Model” replaced with “Justice Model” i.e., crime is product of adaptation to societal conditions and free will, NOT “disease” or poor environment · Best interests of society replace best interest of the youth · Two more “D’s” added to juvenile justice: 5. Deterrence – specific and general 6. Deserts – youth should get their “just deserts” (they get what they deserve)

26 Crime Control Period (continued)
“Get Tough on Crime” attitudes prevail Punishment is for society’s good; treatment for the individual’s good 49 states allow prosecutors to send youth directly to criminal court 26 states exclude certain offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction Juvenile Justice is still evolving – NOT static!

27 Crime Control Period (continued)
Schall v. Martin (1984) Schall arrested for robbery, assault and possession of weapon then lies to police about his address. Judge orders him detained until trial. Juvenile claims it is unfair to hold him until trial. SC says: The juvenile court can order preventive detention because it serves legitimate state purpose of protecting society and juveniles. Pretrial detention is NOT punishment.

28 What do YOU think? Should the juvenile court act more as a
“parent” or as a traditional (criminal) court? Is juvenile crime the product of poverty, the wrong environment, free will, or something else? Do diversion programs help to keep youth out of court or do they “widen the net” and bring more youth into the juvenile justice system? Whose interests should come first in the juvenile courts – society’s or the juvenile’s?

Download ppt "Evolution of Juvenile Justice"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google