Juvenile courts
Juvenile courts are specialized legal systems designed to address offenses committed by individuals under the age of 18, focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Established in the late 19th century, with Illinois founding the first juvenile court in 1899, these courts emerged from a growing understanding that juveniles possess developmental differences from adults, necessitating a distinct approach to justice. Central to juvenile court philosophy is the concept of "parens patriae," where the state assumes a parental role to ensure the protection and welfare of minors.
Historically, juvenile courts operated with fewer due process rights compared to adult courts, but landmark Supreme Court decisions, particularly in the 1967 case In re Gault, mandated certain rights for juveniles, including the right to counsel and protection against self-incrimination. Over the decades, juvenile courts have undergone significant reforms, shifting from a rehabilitative focus to a more punitive approach in response to rising public concerns about juvenile crime in the latter part of the 20th century. Today, the juvenile court process typically involves initial case evaluation by prosecutors, with options for informal handling, and formal adjudication stages where judges decide on appropriate interventions, such as probation or treatment programs. The structure and practices of juvenile courts can vary widely across the United States, reflecting diverse state policies and community attitudes toward juvenile justice.
Subject Terms
Juvenile courts
SIGNIFICANCE: Relative to adult criminal courts, juvenile courts provide a more rehabilitative and prevention-oriented approach to defendants, while observing the specific legal rights of juveniles.
In 1899, Illinois established the first juvenile court in the United States, marking a significant change in the way society dealt with youthful offenders. Prior to that time, criminal courts treated juveniles and adults similarly, and they often convicted and sentenced children as young as seven. Throughout the nineteenth century, individuals and organizations advocated for reforms in the criminal justice system. They argued that juveniles are developmentally different from adults and that the justice system should recognize this difference in its treatment and punishment of juveniles. The juvenile court was a product of these reforms.


A guiding principle of the early juvenile courts was parens patriae, which refers to the state acting in a parental role to care for the protection and welfare of juveniles. Under this principle, the courts treated juvenile offenders as delinquents, not criminals, and they used a variety of noncriminal sanctions in an effort to rehabilitate delinquent juveniles. Relative to criminal courts, juvenile court proceedings were less adversarial, and judges considered a larger variety of extralegal factors in making decisions. Every state had some form of juvenile court legislation by 1945, established on the premise that juveniles could be rehabilitated through appropriate treatment programs and services.
Changes in Juvenile Courts
While the early reforms fostered a more benevolent and humane system of juvenile justice, they also produced a system in which juveniles lacked many due process rights afforded to adults charged with crimes, including access to counsel. With the state acting in a parental role, these rights seemed unnecessary for juveniles. This lack of rights and protections was frequently challenged, however, and as the twentieth century progressed, juvenile courts experienced several procedural changes stemming from decisions of the US Supreme Court.
Some of the most significant changes came from the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in the case In re Gault, in which, among other things, the Court ruled that a juvenile has a constitutional right to a notice of charges, a right to counsel, and a protection against self-incrimination. These and other Supreme Court rulings created a juvenile court that was more formal procedurally but still focused on the unique developmental capacities and needs of juveniles.
Legislative changes also affected juvenile courts in the latter half of the twentieth century. During the 1950s and 1960s, the public became concerned with the large number of juveniles detained or imprisoned for rehabilitative treatment, especially as treatment programs generally failed to demonstrate effectiveness in reducing delinquent behavior. In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which required the deinstitutionalization of juvenile detention facilities. As part of this process, detention and correctional facilities began to remove status offenders and to separate juvenile and adult offenders.
During the 1980s, the public’s perception that juvenile crime in the United States was rapidly increasing led to a second wave of significant legislative changes. Several states enacted punitive laws and limited the discretion and jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Some states identified certain offenses for which juveniles would be automatically transferred to adult criminal court, and other states established mandatory minimum sentences for serious offenses. In sum, these changes produced a juvenile court system that more closely resembled the adult criminal court system.
In the twenty-first century, juvenile courts varied widely from state to state. As a group, however, juvenile courts continued to reflect the public and legislative intent to get “tough on crime.” During the 1990s, almost all state juvenile court systems became more punitive in their procedures regarding transfers to adult court, sentencing, and confidentiality of juvenile court records and hearings.
The Juvenile Court Process
Juvenile courts typically follow a similar pattern in processing delinquency cases. When a juvenile is accused of breaking the law, the prosecution, typically referred to as the district attorney or state attorney, must decide whether to pursue the case in court, to handle it informally, or to dismiss the case altogether. In 2020, the National Center for Juvenile Justice reported 424,300 arrests of people under 18. Informal processing usually involves diverting the juvenile’s case to community service or to some type of counseling or education program. These services and programs are often designed to prevent future delinquent behavior.
If the prosecution formally processes the case by filing a delinquency petition, the judge is then responsible for adjudicating the case. The adjudication process often requires a trial, at which the judge will determine if the juvenile is delinquent or is responsible for the offense. At the disposition stage, the judge typically has the discretion to place a delinquent juvenile on probation or in a commitment facility for a specified length of time. The juvenile court also handles cases in which delinquent juveniles violate conditions of their juvenile probation, and it determines the need to hold juveniles in secure detention during the adjudication process.
Bibliography
Humes, Edward. No Matter How Loud I Shout: A Year in the Life of Juvenile Court. 1996. Simon & Schuster, 2015. Print.
McCord, Joan, Cathy Spatz Widom, and Nancy Crowell, eds. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy, 2001. Print.
Merlo, Alida, Peter Benekos, and Dean Champion. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing, and the Law. 8th ed. Pearson, 2015. Print.
Puzzanchera, Charles, Sarah Hockenberry, and Melissa Sickmund. "Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report." National Center for Juvenile Justice, December 2022, ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/2022-national-report.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2024.
Tanenhaus, David S. Juvenile Justice in the Making. New York: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.
Watkins, John C., Jr. The Juvenile Justice Century: A Sociolegal Commentary on American Juvenile Courts. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic, 1998. Print.