Part III
STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW, JAILS, JUVENILES,
PRIVATIZATION, AND OTHER
SPECIAL ISSUES IN CORRECTIONS
Chapter 21 – Juveniles and Young
Offenders

Introduction: This chapter looks at the
special considerations given in the
criminal justice system to younger
persons
Chapter Outline



Juveniles: History and Background
Juvenile Court Concepts
More Sophisticated Juveniles

Kent v. United States
In re Gault
In re Winship

Boot Camps


Juveniles: History and
Background

Juveniles in the U.S. criminal justice
system are treated under special rules
designed for their protection – can be
traced to English practices
Juveniles: History and
Background: cont’d

English held that



Children under the age of seven were irrebuttably
presumed to be incapable of having criminal intent
Between the ages of seven and 14, there was a
rebuttable presumption of lack of criminal intent
Over the age of 14, were presumed to be able to
form criminal intent – could be rebutted by the
person – and could be prosecuted as an adult
Juveniles: History and
Background: cont’d

There also is the English concept of
parens patriae – the monarch (the
government) being the protector of the
rights and welfare of the children
Juvenile Court Concepts

With time, the age of criminal
responsibility was raised from 14 to 16,
then to 18

In most states, 18 is the age when children
are presumed to be adults and are held
responsible for their criminal behavior
Juvenile Court Concepts:
cont’d

Other legal concepts that have
historically applied to juvenile court
proceedings


Juveniles not found “guilty” of “committing
crimes” – act is one of delinquency, finding
is one of delinquency; instead of
“sentencing,” there is a “disposition”
Juvenile court sits in protection of the
welfare of the juvenile
Juvenile Court Concepts:
cont’d



Juvenile court proceedings are much less
formal
Often closed to public attendance, to protect
privacy of the juvenile
Juvenile court sits in the position of judicial
protector (guardian) of the rights, and best
interests, of the juvenile
Juvenile Court Concepts:
cont’d

Disposition of the case is based on the
concern for the welfare of the juvenile



Not sentenced to punishment; what is ordered
is for the welfare of the child
Cases are handled more quickly than those for
adults
The court proceedings are usually sealed
Juvenile Court Concepts:
cont’d

Juveniles are not sent to prison – if placed
in institutional care, these are training
schools, residential facilities, juvenile
homes, or of similar nature

There is some movement towards more
juveniles being handled in regular adult
proceedings – from 1972 to 2000 the number
of referrals of juveniles to adult or criminal
courts increased over 500%
Juvenile Court Concepts:
cont’d

Length of jurisdiction over the case is
indeterminate



Could be until person’s 21st birthday, or in
some cases later
Commitments to facilities are for shorter
periods than for most adults
Juvenile may be committed for an
indeterminate time – release determined based
on reports of his adjustment and betterment
Juvenile Court Concepts:
cont’d

Three ways in which juveniles are brought
before juvenile courts:



Those charged with acts of delinquency – would
be crimes if done by adults
Status offenders – those who have violated
societal rules that are not criminal for adults –
example is curfew violation
Dependent children – juveniles who have no, or
deficient, family or support

Foster parents or group foster homes may be used
Juvenile Court Concepts:
cont’d

In 1999, over 1.6 million offenses disposed of
by juvenile courts




Most of the offenses were against property (42%)
Over 23% of the juvenile offenders were female
Over 65% of the petitioned cases resulted in the
person being adjudicated delinquent, with another
0.8% transferred/waived to adult court
Probation is most commonly used sanction
for juvenile delinquents, especially for first
offenders
More Sophisticated Juveniles

Ordinarily, “juvenile” refers to persons
under the age of 18



As of 1999, in 10 states it is persons under
the age of 17
In three states , it is persons under the age
of 16
Can be exceptions - finding person is of
sufficient maturity to be tried as an adult
More Sophisticated Juveniles:
cont’d

Every state has a means for juveniles to
be tried in adult criminal courts


Traditional way - juvenile court holds a
transfer hearing
In 1998, 28 states automatically excluded
cases from the juvenile system that met
specific age and offense criteria
More Sophisticated Juveniles:
cont’d


15 states allow prosecutors to file certain
juvenile cases directly in criminal court
In all but four states, a juvenile court judge
may elect to waive her court’s original
jurisdiction over cases meeting certain
criteria, and refer those cases directly to
the criminal court
More Sophisticated Juveniles:
cont’d

For the traditional transfer to adult criminal
court, the court hears evidence, reviews
reports and recommendations, and considers
arguments on whether the juvenile is of such
a degree of maturity or sophistication that
the case should be heard in adult court


If yes, the judge enters an order waiving the
juvenile court’s jurisdiction over the juvenile
Case is transferred to the local court of adult
criminal prosecution
More Sophisticated Juveniles:
cont’d


In the 1980s, there was a public perception
that serious juvenile crime was increasing,
and that the system needed to “get tough”
In response, many states began to pass more
punitive laws – 5 areas of change appeared in
the 1990s

Transfer provisions – 45 states passed laws to
make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders to the
adult criminal justice system
More Sophisticated Juveniles:
cont’d




Sentencing authority – 31 courts gave criminal
and juvenile courts expanded (tougher)
sentencing options for juveniles
Confidentiality – 47 states modified their laws to
make juvenile records and proceedings more open
Victim rights – 22 states expanded the role of
victims of juveniles in the juvenile justice process
Correctional programming – due to new transfer
and sentencing laws, adult and juvenile
correctional administrators developed new
programs for juvenile offenders
More Sophisticated Juveniles:
cont’d

In addition, some states modified the
“purpose” clauses of their juvenile codes to





Hold juveniles accountable for their criminal
behavior
Protect the public
Recognize and balance the attention given to
offenders, victims, and the community
Impose punishment consistent with the
seriousness of the crime
Provide effective deterrents
Kent v. United States (1966)




In Kent v. United States (1966), the Supreme
Court reviewed the rights of juveniles and the
constitutional protections to which they are
entitled
Kent, age 16, broke into an apartment, stole
a wallet, and raped the woman who was
there
He was interrogated by police (no counsel
present) and admitted these offenses, and
others
His mother then retained counsel
Kent v. United States: cont’d



The juvenile court did not hold a hearing, nor
talk to Kent, his mother, or his counsel
The court did consider reports submitted by
court staff, by social services, and by the
probation section (Kent was already on
probation)
Kent’s counsel was denied access to the file
being reviewed by the judge
Kent v. United States: cont’d

The Juvenile Court Act, under which the D.C.
juvenile judge was acting, allowed waiver to
adult court if the person was at least 16 and
charged with an offense that would be a
felony if done by an adult


Could be done based on a “full investigation” by
the juvenile judge
Kent appealed from the order waiving his
case to adult criminal court – District of
Columbia courts denied his appeals
Kent v. United States: cont’d




At trial, Kent was found not guilty by reason
of insanity on the rape counts
He was found guilty on the other counts,
receiving 30-90 years
He was mandatorily committed to St.
Elizabeth’s Hospital for treatment on the basis
of the insanity acquittals
Kent again appealed his prosecution in adult
court and the convictions
Kent v. United States: cont’d



U.S. Supreme Court held the transfer
proceedings invalid; held that there must be
some due process protections
These include the right to a hearing, access
by the person’s counsel to the reports used
by the court in making the decision, and a
statement of reasons for the court’s decision
This was the first time the Court set minimum
constitutional (due process) requirements for
juvenile waiver proceedings
In Re Gault (1967)



The case of In re Gault involved a regular
juvenile court case, and was not a transfer
case (Kent)
In Gault, a 15 year old was taken into
custody by a county sheriff without notice to
the boy’s parents
When he was placed in a detention home, his
mother was advised that he was being held
for making an obscene phone call
In Re Gault: cont’d





At his juvenile court hearing the next day, the
petition only said he was a delinquent minor
At the hearing, an officer said Gault, when
questioned, admitted to making lewd remarks on the
phone
Neither Gault nor his parents were advised of any
right to counsel
Gault was committed to the state industrial school for
his minority (until he was 21)
Gault’s parents filed a petition for habeas corpus –
which was denied in the Arizona courts
In Re Gault: cont’d



The United States Supreme Court held for the
parents – holding that Gault had been denied
due process
The Court said that delinquency proceedings
must also include minimal due process
protections
Although not as extensive as adult criminal
proceedings, these hearings require (at a
minimum)
In Re Gault: cont’d




Advance written notice, to the juvenile and his
parents, of the specific charges and the factual
allegations that support the delinquency petition
or charges
The opportunity to be represented by counsel
Availability of the privilege against selfincrimination
And, absent a valid confession, a determination of
delinquency and an order of commitment must be
based on sworn testimony, subject to the
opportunity for cross-examination
In Re Winship (1970)




In re Winship dealt with the standard of proof
required in juvenile proceedings
In the case, a 12 year old boy was found to
have stolen $112 from a woman’s purse
Petition charging the boy with delinquency
alleged that if done by an adult, the crime
would have been larceny
Governing New York law held that any finding
that a juvenile did an act or acts must be
based on “preponderance of the evidence”
In Re Winship: cont’d



Winship was ordered to be placed in a
training school for 18 months, subject to
possible annual extensions until his 18th
birthday (six years later)
The Supreme Court held that, for criminal
cases, a guilty finding requires proof beyond
a reasonable doubt, a higher standard than
preponderance of the evidence
Court held that juveniles are constitutionally
entitled to the higher standard when charged
with the equivalent of a criminal law violation
In Re Winship: cont’d

The Court rejected the contrary arguments of
the New York Court of Appeals



That the delinquency adjudication was not a
conviction
That the juvenile proceedings were not designed
to punish, but to “save” the child
That to impose the higher standard would risk
“destruction” of the beneficial aspects of the
juvenile process
In Re Winship: cont’d


That to allow the child to prevail was
probably not in the best interests of the
child
And that there was only a tenuous
difference between the two standards

On this, Supreme Court commented that the
trial judge had acknowledged that the proof
might not meet the higher standard
In Re Winship: cont’d

The Court held that the constitutional
safeguard of proof beyond a reasonable
doubt was required, that

“where a 12-year old child is charged with
an act of stealing which renders him liable
to confinement for as long as six years,
then, as a matter or due process . . . the
case against him must be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt”
Boot Camps



Sometimes called “shock incarceration”
Special type of sentencing – at times referred
to as intermediate sanctions or alternative
sentencing
Boot camps emphasize military drill, physical
training, and hard labor


Geared to young, male offenders, sentenced for
nonviolent offenses
Earliest currently operated correctional boot
camp program dates to 1984
Boot Camps: cont’d



Stay in boot camp is intended to be short
Daily life is long and hard, heavily structured
Boot camps are also used for juvenile
delinquents


Military style uniforms, march to and from
activities, respond quickly to the orders of the
“drill instructors”
Daily schedule – may include drills and ceremony
practice, physical fitness activities, challenge
programs, academic education; misbehavior may
be handled by summary punishment
Boot Camps: cont’d

In one sense, boot camps replaced the
specialized treatment of youth
offenders
Boot Camps: cont’d

Boot camp proponents say boot camps





Are cheaper to run, and thus reduce costs
Help to reduce crowding in regular prisons
Are seen by judges, legislators, media, and
the public as tougher treatment of
offenders, and thus as more fitting
punishment
Help to rehabilitate the offender
Deter future crime and reduce recidivism
Boot Camps: cont’d

Underlying concept of boot camps, as in the
earlier specialized programs


Concentrating on persons of younger age, who
are not criminally sophisticated and not
entrenched in criminal careers, will produce
results, because they are still amenable to
treatment programs and change
Boot camp program teaches respect for authority,
self-discipline skills, accountability, pride in
achievements, self-esteem, and good work habits
Boot Camps: cont’d

Evaluation of these arguments for boot camp
brings mixed results




Because of shorter terms, there are overall cost
savings
Demand for regular prison beds is reduced
As to rehabilitation/reduction of recidivism, studies
don’t show a significant difference from traditional
prison programs
Boot camp concept still relatively new, and
evaluation of them will have to continue
Boot Camps: cont’d


Thus far, few legal challenges to the
conditions of boot camp facilities and
programs
Because boot camp program is perceived as
providing some advantages – shorter terms,
special programming, and early return to
homes and family – the main legal questions
are ones of parity
Boot Camps: cont’d

Does the sentencing or the opportunity for
the program benefits discriminate



Against women offenders
Against disabled persons
Against older offenders or others who are
excluded by the definitions of boot camp
eligibility
Boot Camps: cont’d


It is expected that whether a state can
justify the distinctions and the grounds
for discrimination will be explored in
future litigation
Correctional administrators are advised
to examine their resources prior to any
legal challenge
Boot Camps: cont’d

The examination should include such issues
as



The number of persons who would be included if
the programs were expanded to include others
Whether the programs could include more
offenders
And whether females, disabled offenders, or wider
categories of offenders in age or other criteria
might be included in the programs by special
accommodations or other steps