JUVENILE JUSTICE
PARENS PATRIAE
PARENS PATRIAE
A doctrine that holds that the state has
a responsibility to look after the wellbeing of children and to assume the
role of parent if necessary. Literally
means “father of his country”
ENGLISH HISTORY
LAW PUT PEOPLE INTO THREE
CATEGORIES
 UNDER 7 COULD NOT FORM CRIMINAL
INTENT THEREFORE COULD NOT BE TRIED
FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
 7-14 PRESUMED INCOMPETENT UNLESS
EVIDENCE SHOWED THEY COULD FORM
CRIMINAL INTENT AND TRIED FOR CRIMES

OVER 14 WHO THE LAW PRESUMED
COMPETENT TO FORM CRIMINAL INTENT
UNLESS THEY WERE INSANE OR
RETARDED
Doctrine of Parens Patriae and
presumptions against children’s capacity
to form criminal intent came to the U.S.
PURITAN PERIOD
1646-1824

English procedures continued into the
nineteenth century
 Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law 1646

Puritans imposed the law that the child was evil and
the family needed to discipline. Those who did not
obey their parents were dealt with by the law
REFUGE PERIOD
1824-1899
Population of American cities grew as did youth crime
and neglect
Reformers focused their efforts on the urban
immigrant poor
The state’s power was used to prevent delinquency
NEW YORK’S HOUSE OF
REFUGE
Opened in 1825
Half prison, half school for destitute and
orphaned children and those convicted
of crimes
Placed by court order usually for
neglect or vagrancy
“Reform Schools” opened
DESPITE REFORMS CHILDREN COULD
STILL BE ARRESTED, DETAINED,
TRIED AND IMPRISONED.
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS FOR
CHILDREN WAS THE SAME AS THAT
FOR ADULTS
JUVENILE COURT PERIOD
1899-1960
Questions arose



Could the State incarcerate children who
had not violated the law?
Should children be held in the same
facilities that housed adults?
Should a juvenile court be established?
“Child Savers” Upper and middle class
reformers who sought to use the power
of the state to save children from a life
of crime
Children are not fully responsible for
criminal conduct and are capable of
being rehabilitated
ILLINOIS JUVENILE COURT
ACT IN 1899
No juries---Judges had wide discretion
in disposing of each case. Therefore, no
lawyers
Different terminology: Petitions instead
of warrants, children were respondents
not defendants, not found guilty but
adjudicated delinquent
No adversarial relationship—did
not try to determine guilt or
innocence but how to rehabilitate
rather than punish
Confidentiality—records kept sealed and
proceedings were closed to the public
BUT STILL NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
FIRST JUVENILE COURT
CHICAGO
1899
By 1925 every state had a juvenile
court system
Still based on Parens Patriae—the state
acting in the best interest of the child;
the juvenile court treats the child as a
kind and loving father
THE JUVENILE RIGHTS
PERIOD
1960-1980
Supreme Court actions

Kent v United States 1966
 Right to Counsel at a hearing at which a
juvenile judge may waive jurisdiction and pass
the case to the adult court

In Re Gault 1967
 Extended due process rights granted to adult
offenders including notice of charges, the right
to counsel, the privilege against selfincrimination and the right to confront and
cross-examine witnesses

In Re Winship 1970
 Proof must be established “beyond a
reasonable doubt” and not on “a
preponderance of the evidence”

McKeiver v Pennsylvania 1971
 Trial by jury in the juvenile court’s adjudicative
stage is NOT a constitutional requirement

Breed v Jones 1975
 Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s double
jeopardy clause prevented a juvenile from
being tried in an adult court for a crime that
had already been adjudicated in juvenile court
DELINQUENCY
CONDUCT THAT WOULD BE CRIMINAL
IF AN ADULT ENGAGED IN IT
STATUS OFFENSES
Conduct that is illegal only because the
child is under age.
WHAT ARE THEY??
RUNAWAY
GAMBLING
SMOKING
GOING TO SCHOOL
1974 Congress passed the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

Included provisions for taking status
offenders out of correctional institutions
THE CRIME CONTROL PERIOD
1980 to present
Public has demanded a “crackdown on
crime”
Harsher punishments for juveniles who
commit crime
Schall v Martin 1984



Juveniles can be held in preventive
detention if there is concern that they may
commit additional crimes while awaiting
court action. They are deemed a “risk” to
the community
More juveniles tried in adult court
Support for a get tough stance growing
POLICE OFFICER DECISIONS
CRIME REPORTED
INVESTIGATION
SUSPECT IDENTIFIED/APPREHENDED
ACTIONS

Counsel and release to parents

Referral diversion to community resources


Citation and referral to court/release to
parents
Transport to jail
CONSIDERATIONS
THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE
JUVENILE’S PAST HISTORY
SETTING OF OFFENSE
PARENT’S ATTITUDE TOWARD
OFFENSE
PASS OR FAIL THE “ATTITUDE TEST”
JUVENILE’S RACE AND GENDER
TERMS
Adult Court




Defendant
Complaint
Arrest
First Appearance
Juvenile
Child
Petition
Detain
Detention
Hearing
Omnibus Hearing
Evidentiary
Trial
Trial
Sentencing
Dispositional Hearing
PETITION
DOCUMENT ASKING THE COURT TO
ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER A
JUVENILE
CHIPS PETITION
CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTIVE
SERVICES
PRETRIAL PROCEDURES
Initial Hearing

Juveniles are informed of their rights

Pleas must be voluntary

TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT
 Factors such as seriousness and age
considered.
EJJ
EXTENDED JURISDICTION JUVENILE
HOLDS AN ADULT SENTENCE UNTIL
THE AGE OF 21
ADJUDICATION---GUILTY
Adjudications hearing determines the
facts in the case and if appropriate
labels the juvenile “delinquent”
Proceedings formal
Traditionally closed to the public

Unless they are 14-17 years of age and
offense is felony level
EMILY’S LAW
JUNE, 2006
DISPOSITION
Disposition hearing follows find of
delinquency
Cases can be dealt with by:





Dismissal
Probation
Alternative dispositions—diversion programs
Custodial care
Community treatment
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
2007
death
Juveniles cannot be put to
June, 2012 Juveniles cannot be
sentenced to life without parole
JUVENILE CORRECTIONS
Many aspects resemble adult
corrections
Predominant aim is to avoid
unnecessary incarceration
Labeling effect

Treatment is believed to be more effective
if child is in a normal, supportive home
Probation
Usually involves education or counseling
Fine or restitution
Juvenile probation officers have smaller
caseloads
Belief that juvenile can change
SCARED STRAIGHT
RISK FACTORS
FAMILY




Lack of parental role model
Family drug abuse
Extreme economic deprivation
Family gang involvement
SCHOOL




Academic failure
Learning disabilities
Negative labeling by teachers
Disciplinary problems
COMMUNITY





Gangs
Drug use
Availability of firearms
High crime/feeling of danger
Lack of social and economic opportunities
PEERS




Delinquent friends
Friends who are gang members
Friends who use drugs
Lack of “positive” peer pressure
INDIVIDUAL






Tendency toward aggressive behavior
Inability to concentrate of focus
Alcohol or other drug use
Fatalistic/pessimistic viewpoint
Lack of positive goals
Unable to detach from negative behavior
PROBLEMS AND
PERSPECTIVES
Disparity between the treatment ideal
and the practice of placing juveniles in
institutional settings.
Juvenile court is complex and most
perform a variety of functions
Crime control policies have caused
higher rates of minority youth
incarcerations.
Philosophy of Juvenile Justice
Reduced concern with legal issues of
guilt or innocence
Emphasis on the child’s best interest
Emphasis on treatment rather than
punishment
Privacy
No long term confinement
Separate facilities
Broad discretionary alternatives at all
points in the process
Parens Patriae