Overview of the Juvenile Justice
Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Initial contact (police, parents, schools, DFS)
Discretion to make referral
Taken into custody
arrest
Investigation
Diversion
Detention hearing
Pretrial procedures
Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
File a petition (indictment)
Adjudicatory hearing (trial)
Agree to a finding or deny petition
Adjustment (plea bargain) Adjudication (conviction)
Disposition (sentence)
Bifurcated process
Aftercare
Process
• Commitment (incarceration, institutionalized)
• Youth development center, training school
(prison)
• Residential facility (halfway house)
Current legislation
• National advisory commission on criminal justice
standards and goals (1973)
• Emphasized:
• Prevention
• Diversion
• Dispositional alternatives
• Due process
• Controlling the violent and chronic delinquent
Legislation
• Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
of 1974
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP)
• Removed juveniles from adult jails
• Separation of status offenders and delinquents
• Violent crime control and law enforcement act of
1994
Police and Juveniles
• Role conflicts: law enforce or service-oriented
delinquency prevention
• Arrests
• 64% referred to juvenile court
• 28% informally handled and released
• 5% referred to criminal court
• 2% referred to DFS
History
• 19th century: increase in number of unemployed
and homeless youths
• Wickersham Commission, IACP advocated
police reform
• Delinquency control squads
• Vollmer (Berkeley): prevention programs and
juvenile aid bureaus, first organized special
police services for youths
History
• 1960s: increased tension between police and
citizens
• Civil unrest; police seen as oppressors
• Increase in crime
• Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(LEAA)
• Development of role in community awareness
and crime prevention
History
•
•
•
•
Specialized programs for juveniles
Police athletic leagues
Project DARE
Community outreach (crime prevention, Weed &
Seed
• School resource officers
• Gang control
Police and the law
•
•
•
•
•
•
Law of arrest the same for adults and juveniles
Probable cause
Misdemeanor: police must observe crime
Felony: probable cause
Otherwise must have a warrant
Police can “arrest” youths for status offenses such as
truancy, running away and alcohol use
Police and the law
• In loco parentis
• Protective rather than punitive function
• Once arrested, formal safeguards of the 4th and
5th amendment attach
• 4th amendment standards of search and seizure
have been determined to apply to juveniles
Police and the law (exceptions to
the warrant requirement)
• Same stop and frisk rule (Terry v. Ohio)
• Search after a legal arrest in the immediate area
of the subject’s control (Robinson v CA)
• Automobile can be searched if there is probable
cause
• Consent to search
• Abandoned property
Law and the police
• Plain view doctrine
• What about school officials?
• Can school officials do searches and turn over
what they find to police?
• New Jersey v. T.L.O.
• What should be the standard?
New Jersey v T.L.O.
• Balance between the student’s right to privacy
and school’s need to provide a safe environment
• Teachers do not need to obtain a warrant before
searching a student
• Justified if violating the law OR violating school
rules
• Legality depends on reasonableness, rather than
probable cause
New Jersey v TLO
• Considerations are the scope of the search, age
and sex of the student, and that behavior that
prompted the search
• An adult could not be searched by an agent of
the government under this standard
• This case is a balance between protections of
adults and the needs of youths
• In loco parentis
Veronia School district
• Supreme Court allowed for suspicionless drug
testing program for those in the athletics
program
• Would this case apply to youths who are not in
such programs, i.e., random testing ? Not clear,
has not be litigated
Custodial interrogations
• Miranda v. AZ (1966)
• In re Gault applied Miranda warnings to juveniles
(1967)
• Is a child’s waiver of those rights valid?
• People v. Lara: whether juvenile can waive
depends on the totality of the circumstances:
• Age and other factors
Interrogations
• People v Lara also said that other factors could
be considered: education, knowledge, whether
youth could consult with family or friends,
method of interrogation, whether youth had
refused previously to give statements
• Validity of waiver to be determined on a case by
case basis
Other cases on interrogations
• Fare v. Michael: asking to speak to his probation
officer not the same as asking for his attorney,
statements were admissible
• CA v Prysock: Miranda warning worded slightly
differently (taped), court ruled that it was
understandable to the juvenile
• Many jurisdictions require attorney and/or
parent, just to be sure
Police discretion and juveniles
• Problem of discretion: need for flexibility, but it
can be misused (can result in discrimination,
especially against the poor and minority groups)
• Considerable evidence that poor children and
perceived and treated differently from middle
class children
Studies of police discretion
• More than ½ of police juvenile encounters are
handled informally
• Stationhouse detention
• Factors affecting decision to handle
formally/informally
• Piliavin and Briar: other factors being equal, the
demeanor of the juvenile
Studies of police discretion
•
•
•
•
•
•
Other factors:
Type and seriousness of offense
Wishes of the complaintant
Prior contacts
Race, sex and age
Perceived willingness of the parents to solve the
problem
Discretion
•
•
•
•
•
•
Location
Police perception of community alternatives
Police department practices
Perceived community standards and norms
Racial bias? Mixed results
Police appear more likely to arrest minorities for
more minor offenses, makes little difference for
serious offenses
Discretion
• African Americans more likely to be
recommended for formal processing
• However, greater involvement of minorities in
offenses
• Factors interact with others indicated above
(perceived community standards, alternatives,
etc.)
Police and gender bias
• Paternalism, chivalry hypothesis
• Police tend to be more lenient toward female
delinquency, but treated them more harshly
• Females more likely to be referred for status
offenses
• Inconclusive
Class bias
• Youths growing up in poor areas had a
significantly greater chance of having an arrest
record than youths in other areas, regardless of
the crime rates in these areas.
• Might be a function of departmental policy to
concentrate on certain areas
New directions: law enforcement
• Field interrogations
• Foot patrol and neighborhood storefront police
stations
• Community mobilization programs (block watch,
weed and seed, Neighborhood Watch,
neighborhood cleanups, etc)
• Community policing
Should discretion be controlled?
• Policies?
• Recording of decisions?
• Narrowing the scope of the juvenile code?
Other directions
•
•
•
•
Mentoring
Curfews
Afterschool programs
School resource officers