Juvenile justice system

SIGNIFICANCE: Since the turn of the twentieth century, one of the most significant developments in the American justice system has been a trend away from treating juvenile offenders in the adult justice system by developing a largely autonomous system of justice designed for the special needs of adolescents.

The origins of America’s separate juvenile justice system go back to 1899, when the state of Illinois created the first juvenile courts in Cook County, which includes Chicago. That first system had a special juvenile court and associated clinics staffed with experts in social services. Compared to traditional adult courts, that juvenile court was informal. Focusing on rehabilitating minors, it operated under the philosophy of parens patriae, which means the state playing the role of parent. That principle gave Illinois’s court the power to intervene in the lives of any juvenile under the age of sixteen who committed delinquent or criminal acts or was thought to be in need of state help. Since then, parens patriae has been the cornerstone of the juvenile justice system in the United States.

The special clinics that opened in conjunction with the first juvenile court system employed experts in psychology and sociology to treat and punish juveniles. During the nineteenth century, troubled minors who were taken from their homes were generally confined in so-called houses of refuge, which attempted to reeducate youths using indeterminate sentencing, education, skills training, physical labor, religious training, parental discipline, and apprenticeships. In reality, the houses of refuge resembled harsh military training camps, in which minors were ill-treated and overworked in overcrowded conditions.

New reformatories were developed after problems with houses of refuge became apparent. Reformatory facilities were systems of cottages that resembled traditional family homes. Most of the reformatories were located in rural areas, where physical labor was emphasized. Like the houses of refuge, the reformatories tried to teach minors skills they could use to become law-abiding and contributing adults. Foster parent arrangements were also made for some juveniles, and probation became popular for juveniles during the early twentieth century.

The Philosophy of Parens Patriae

The principle of parens patriae has had a profound impact on the development of juvenile justice in the United States. Under that philosophy, minors can be confined in houses of refuge or reformatories for being incorrigible and unruly, regardless of their parents’ wishes. The constitutionality of the broad government power was challenged on numerous occasions. The first challenge came as early as in 1838, when the case of Ex Parte Crouse reached the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In that case, a father challenged the constitutionality of parens patriae through a writ of habeas corpus after his daughter, Mary Ann, was sent to a house of refuge against his will. Although Mary Ann was described by her mother as wayward and disobedient, she had not actually committed a crime. Nevertheless, the courts upheld the state’s decision, holding that confinement was in Mary Ann’s best interests.

In 1870, an Illinois court limited parens patriae in People v. Turner. In that case, another minor was confined for a noncriminal action against the will of both of his parents. In that case, however, the court ruled that the son should be released to the care of his parents. The case was significant because it went against common practice of the day. However, it did not set a widely followed precedent and was largely ignored by other courts. Parens patriae was challenged again in 1905 in Commonwealth v. Fisher. In this case, a juvenile was sentenced to seven years confinement for a minor crime that would have received a much less severe sentence in an adult court. A court held that state intervention was necessary and in the best interests of the child. In essence, this opinion gave the courts even more discretion.

Beginning in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court began limiting how parens patriae could be practiced. In Kent v. United States (1966) a sixteen-year-old boy was waived to an adult jurisdiction, without a hearing in juvenile court, to be tried on robbery and rape charges. As a result, the juvenile received a sentence that was harsher than he would have received if he had been tried in a juvenile jurisdiction. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court agreed, holding that the state was not acting in the boy’s best interests.

In 1967, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in another challenge to parens patriae in the case of In re Gault. That case originated in Arizona when fifteen-year-old Gerald Gault was taken into custody by police after allegedly making lewd phone calls and was confined in a detention facility for one week before he was granted a hearing before a juvenile court judge. Meanwhile, his parents were not even informed of the charges against him. There was no record of the hearing, and Gault’s alleged victim did not make a court appearance. Nevertheless, Gault was sentenced to confinement in a reform school until he reached legal majority.

Lower courts in Arizona that heard the Gault case upheld the doctrine of parens patriae. On appeal, the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, whose ruling changed the way juveniles are treated in the juvenile justice system. The Court held that juveniles are entitled to due process and fair treatment and that notices of charges against them must be sent to their parents or guardians in a timely manner. The Court also held that juveniles are entitled to be represented by attorneys, and, finally, they must be interviewed in the presence of their parents or guardians. The In re Gault decision severely limited the power of parens patriae by giving juvenile offenders and their parents more rights.

The Juvenile Justice Process

The workings of the juvenile justice system differ from those of the adult justice system in processing of cases. When juveniles are detained or arrested, decisions are made whether to process their cases formally in the juvenile justice system or to divert them to less formal proceedings. Cases that are diverted may be handled by parents, school administrators, or others.

Diversion is a common practice in juvenile justice and in some instances is mandatory, particularly in cases involving status offenses. Decisions to divert cases are usually made by the arresting officers, but sometimes intake officers may be consulted. Intake officers typically work on behalf of state prosecutors. Both police and intake officers have the authority to talk to juvenile offenders’ family members, examine their criminal records, and talk to their teachers and others before making diversion decisions.

Juveniles who are not diverted are formally charged in petitions, the juvenile justice version of arrest warrants. In addition to specifying charges, the petitions also serve as informing documents to the juveniles’ parents and guardians. Finally, the petitions specify the court jurisdictions in which the cases are to be adjudicated.

The matter of what jurisdiction in which juveniles are tried is a controversial subject in the field of juvenile justice. Juveniles may be tried in juvenile court or waived to adult jurisdictions. There are three mechanisms with which juvenile cases can be waived to adult jurisdictions. The one most commonly used is statutory exclusion. This type of waiver is used for certain serious offenses that are automatically excluded from juvenile jurisdiction. Such offenses include, most notably, murder. Most states have statutory exclusions.

The second mechanism used to waive juvenile cases to adult jurisdictions is the judicial waiver, which is simply the use of judicial discretion. Some states set lower age limits for this type of waiver. The third type of waiver is the concurrent jurisdiction, or prosecutorial, waiver. In some states, prosecutors have the authority to file cases in both juvenile and adult jurisdictions concurrently because of the nature of the offenses and ages of the offenders. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Breed v. Jones (1975) ensured that juveniles cannot be tried in a juvenile court and then be waived and tried in an adult jurisdiction. This protection is the juvenile equivalent of the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy protection.

After juveniles have been tried or adjudicated, their records are usually sealed and can be expunged when the offenders reach legal majority. The rationale behind this principle is that juveniles should be allowed to enter adulthood with clean records and not have juvenile criminal records that may impede their educational or employment opportunities. Expungement is not automatic, however, and is usually dependent upon the offenders demonstrating good behavior. Moreover, in some instances, juvenile records can be unsealed. Such a situation might arise in the case of a former juvenile offender who commits a violent crime as an adult, leading a prosecutor to suspect that his juvenile record may be relevant to his later acts.

Juvenile Dispositions

Disposition is the term given to juvenile sentencing. Dispositions for juveniles are based on the principle of least detrimental alternative, that is, what is in the best interest of the juvenile. Dispositions should also be part of an overall treatment plan for the juveniles and are based largely on predispositional reports prepared by prosecutors or intake officers. Predispositional reports contain information about such matters as the juveniles’ criminal records, family backgrounds, and their academic progress. Judges consult these reports to determine what are the best sentences for the juveniles.

In addition to traditional dispositions, such as confinement and probation, a number of alternative dispositions are available for juveniles. One type that began being used widely during the mid-1980s, but that is less used now, is juvenile boot camps. Boot camps, also known as shock incarceration, are viewed as intermediate forms of punishment. Stays are usually brief and seem to be most effective for juveniles who need more structure in their lives and are able to retain what they learn after their release. Modeled on military boot camps, juvenile justice boot camps are based on the notion that sending troubled juveniles into the military may straighten them out.

Another alternative form of disposition is wilderness programs. Like boot camps, these programs are comparatively brief in duration and are considered a form of shock incarceration. Current wilderness programs have evolved from such well-established programs as Outward Bound. Wilderness programs teach youths basic survival and dispute-resolution skills and promote self-esteem and confidence.

States that administer creative juvenile justice systems have additional alternative strategies that are implemented even before the dispositions stage. For example, during the late 1990s, Washington State began a special juvenile gun court. Although that court is technically part of the state’s adult system, juveniles who are charged with certain first-time handgun-related offenses are processed through gun court and participate in the Handgun Intervention Program, which teaches them about gun safety. Numerous other states have used Washington’s gun court as models for their own gun courts. Other states have drug courts for juveniles whose guidelines are similar to those of gun courts.

Washington is also known for other innovations in juvenile justice. In 1977, for example, the state passed the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, which required that all adjudicated juveniles between the ages of eight and seventeen spend at least some time in institutions. Many other states have adopted similar legislation. Experts have argued that the rationale behind such legislation was to scare juveniles straight.

Other examples of dispositions for juveniles include court-ordered school attendance, financial restitution, fines, community service, outpatient psychotherapy, drug and alcohol treatment, residential community programs, tattoo removal programs, foster home placement, sentencing circles, shaming, and restorative justice. Dispositions for juveniles may involve either indeterminate or determinate sentences. Indeterminate sentencing allows judges to order detention for indefinite periods, within certain parameters. When it is judged that the juveniles are rehabilitated, they may be released before serving the maximum periods of their indeterminate sentences.

Juvenile Appeals

Appeal is not a constitutionally guaranteed right for juveniles; however, most states provide for juvenile appeals by statute. Appeals may be made directly to appellate courts, asking them to review the facts of the cases. If successful, they result in complete retrials of the original cases. Collateral appeals use legal writs to challenge lower court decisions. Writs of habeas corpus are orders issued by courts to examine whether persons being held in custody are being lawfully detained. Writs of certiorari are orders from the U.S. Supreme Court requiring lower courts to forward the records of cases for review.

Bibliography

Benekos, Peter J., and Alida V. Merlo. Controversies in Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2015. Print.

Mendel, Richard. "Why Youth Incarceration Fails: An Updated Review of the Evidence." The Sentencing Project, 1 Mar. 2023, www.sentencingproject.org/reports/why-youth-incarceration-fails-an-updated-review-of-the-evidence/. Accessed 8 July 2024.

Merlo, Alida V., and Peter J. Benekos. The Juvenile Justice System: Delinquency, Processing, and the Law. 9th ed. Hoboken: Pearson, 2019. Print.

McCarthy, F. B., W. W. Patton, and J. G. Carr. Juvenile Law and Its Processes: Cases and Materials. 3rd ed. Cincinnati: Anderson, 2003. Print.

Sickmund, Melissa, and Charles Puzzanchera, eds. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 National Report. Pittsburgh: Natl. Ctr. for Juvenile Justice, 2014. PDF file.

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: Carolina Academic, 1998. Print.

"Ways to Make the Juvenile Justice Legal System Better Serve Young People and Communities." Pew Charitable Trust, 7 Feb. 2024, www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/12/12/ways-to-make-the-juvenile-legal-system-better-serve-young-people-and-communities. Accessed 8 July 2024.

Whitehead, John T., and Steven P. Lab. Juvenile Justice: An Introduction. 8th ed. New York: Routledge, 2015. Print.

Winterdyk, John A., ed. Juvenile Justice: International Perspectives, Models, and Trends. Boca Raton: CRC, 2015. Print.