Juvenile Justice

views updated

Juvenile Justice

In the early twenty-first century most people assumed juveniles would be treated differently than adults in the U.S. criminal justice system. This distinction did not come to pass until the end of the nineteenth century. In criminal justice, juveniles are youths who are not old enough to be held fully responsible for their crimes. Juvenile justice is largely a state matter and is separate from the regular adult criminal justice system.

Most states set the age of eighteen as when a person assumes the responsibilities of being an adult in criminal law. Some states send youth as young as seven to juvenile courts. Though there are federal juvenile laws for persons under age eighteen, for youths accused of committing federal crimes, this is a very minor part of criminal law.

Juvenile courts have jurisdiction over children in three basic kinds of situations: (1) when they are accused of conduct that would be a crime by an adult; (2) when parents or guardians abuse or neglect them or when they are in need; and, (3) when they violate rules that apply only to juveniles, called status offenses. Status offenses include unapproved absence from schools (truancy), running away, alcohol and tobacco use, or refusing to obey parents. Juveniles who commit acts considered adult crimes are referred to as delinquents.

Juvenile courts also perform duties such as determining paternity and child support, or custody in divorce cases (where a child lives and how often he or she visits the other parent). In adoption cases, the court grants parental rights to foster parents or guardians.

Juvenile court procedures are less formal than those in adult criminal courts. For status offenders and delinquents, rather than punish the offenders, juvenile courts seek to rehabilitate, supervise, or provide counseling. Treatment of juveniles is usually more lenient than for adults. The purpose is to protect youth and guide them to more productive lives while still holding them accountable to some degree for their actions.

Changing social attitudes toward children

Determining the minimum age of responsibility for criminal actions has been a problem throughout history. Until the nineteenth century the public considered children below seven years of age incapable of crime, while those above seven were considered adults and responsible for their actions. Children over seven years of age could face criminal charges and, if convicted, be placed in adult prisons. They faced the same punishment as adults including whipping, branding, and hanging. At times, however, courts informally considered an offender's age in their deliberations, especially those under fourteen.

Many social changes, however, occurred throughout the nineteenth century including perceptions of children and how they should be punished for committing criminal acts. Children began to be viewed as different from adults, since their thoughts and decisions were made in a different manner than adults. They were innocent and vulnerable to bad influences since they had not gained wisdom from experience. Because of this innocence, it was believed states should not hold them accountable for their actions. Rather than being punished, youthful offenders needed to be reformed and educated.

Reformers

In the 1800s the Child Savers Movement was dedicated to improving the conditions of children in America. They promoted free public education and child labor laws restricting the use of children in factories. Social reformers in the nineteenth century were distressed that youngsters charged with crimes were placed in facilities along with hardened adult criminals. Reformers claimed children who came out of prison were more likely to turn to a life of crime or be harmful to society. Most states created work farms and reform schools for children convicted of crimes.

During the nineteenth century, juvenile crime rates were low and not considered a major issue. With rapid population growth, however, both in city size and through east European immigration, children faced serious neglect and poverty. Uneducated children who lived in poverty were likely to commit crimes, and reformers believed they were a threat to not only themselves but to the nation as well.

Reformers hoped supervision of children whose parents worked long hours in factories would help prevent crime. They turned to the English common law concept of parens patriae, where the government had the right to become the parent of children in need, to save them from terrible living conditions and protect them from criminal influences. The government was responsible for shaping the habits and morals of juveniles.

Juvenile courts

Reformers including Chicago social worker Jane Addams (1860–1935) argued for a separate legal system for juveniles to teach them the proper way to behave. Some supported this idea for the sake of the children, others simply feared immigrant street youths. As a result, Illinois was the first state to establish a separate court system for juveniles in 1899. In these new courts, specially trained judges had many choices in how to deal with youthful offenders.

Judges acting like parents instead of doling out harsh punishment dominated for the next century. During this period, the law defined a juvenile as a person less than sixteen years of age. Rather than prosecute juveniles for a crime, courts placed them in reform schools or with foster parents. These juveniles then remained under court supervision until age twenty-one.

To further reduce the stigma of formal courts, the terms used in juvenile proceedings were borrowed from civil rather than criminal courts. For example, prosecutors charged juvenile offenders using petitions rather than indictments. Juveniles were not arraigned before the court upon their arrest, but given an intake hearing instead. In addition, court proceedings were not called trials, but hearings. Juveniles, rather than being found guilty, were ruled delinquent. Less proof was needed to find a youth delinquent, called a "preponderance of evidence," rather than the criminal court's requirement of an evidence level considered to be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Juvenile Crime Statistics

The National Center for Juvenile Justice offered the following statistics on their Internet Web site for 1999: law enforcement arrested some 2.4 million juveniles, and for every 1,000 juvenile delinquency cases handled, 238 resulted in probation and 93 received residential placement.

On a given day, October 27, 1999, nearly 109,000 juveniles were held in residential placement nationwide. Of all juveniles who went to court, about 25 percent were charged with violent crimes. Fifty-seven percent of the juvenile cases were handled formally through court proceedings and 43 percent were handled informally by law officers or court workers.

Of the status offenses, about 25 percent of runaway cases, 40 percent of those judged unruly, 34 percent of alcohol cases, and 47 percent of truancy cases resulted in formal probation. For all offenses committed in the United States in 1999, juvenilescommitted 16 percent of the violent crimes, or 68,000 arrests, and 32 percent of property crimes. Property offenses tended to occur in mid-teen years and violent offenses in later teen years. Juveniles comprised almost 28 percent of all arrests with juvenile males accounting for over 16 percent of total male arrests and juvenile females almost 22 percent of all female arrests.

About 1 percent of all juvenile cases are transferred to adult criminal court. Of those, 55 percent were black Americans and 90 percent were male. Of those transferred to adult courts, 75 percent resulted in prison sentences. Of those sent to prison 61 percent were for violent crimes, 22 percent for property crimes, and 16 percent for drug or other public disorder crimes. Approximately 2 percent of the adult prison population is teens, amounting to some 15,400 juveniles. Some states had only a few juveniles in prison, while Florida and Connecticut had over 500.

Black Americans made up 15 percent of the U.S. juvenile population in 1999 but accounted for 25 percent of all juvenile arrests, almost 41 percent of violent crimes, and over 27 percent of property crimes.

In determining treatment for young offenders, courts tried to take the best interest of the juvenile into account. Protecting the constitutional rights of the child was not a concern, since the court was supposed to be acting on his or her behalf. Rather than hearing arguments by attorneys, judges made decisions based on the facts presented by the plaintiff and a background investigation of the juvenile.

By 1925 almost all states had juvenile systems using the Illinois law as a model. Although varying slightly from state to state, eighteen generally became the age of transition from juvenile to adult criminal courts. Much of the twentieth century was a period in which the courts and the public clearly favored rehabilitation over punishment for youth. The states increasingly intervened in family issues, creating status offenses in addition to criminal laws. The government considered these lesser violations to be a stepping-stone to criminal behavior.

Into the 1960s juvenile justice remained informal and flexible, records were kept confidential, and the media was not allowed in the courtroom. The court kept only two records, the original police report and the report of a probation officer who interviewed anyone familiar with the juvenile and the case. During the hearing, the judge would question the juvenile defendant and witnesses; unlike other courts, however, the juvenile did not have the right to an attorney or to cross-examine witnesses.

In 1947 Congress passed the federal Juvenile Courts Act to establish a more consistent informal process for juveniles among the states and to emphasize treatment (rehabilitation) over punishment.

Changes in the system

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, thoughts on how to treat juveniles in the criminal justice system changed as the public became increasingly concerned about delinquent behavior. Some states changed to a more formal and harsher process in the 1950s as criticism of the juvenile system increased.

In the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several rulings strengthening civil liberty protections in adult criminal courts. Supporters of juvenile justice feared youthful offenders were not benefiting from such decisions because of the informality of the juvenile court system. By protecting juveniles from the harshness of the adult system, they were being denied their constitutional protections as well. As a result, adults enjoyed more constitutional safeguards than juveniles.

Concerns over the rights of youthful offenders led to a series of Supreme Court decisions affecting juvenile courts beginning in the late 1960s. In 1967 the Court ruled that constitutional protections were not only for adults but for juveniles as well. Parents had to be notified in a timely manner concerning charges against their child and juveniles had a right to a lawyer, the right of protection against self-incrimination, and the right to cross-examine witnesses.

These safeguards, known as due process requirements, also stated that the court had to notify juveniles of charges and hearings. In a 1970 case the Court increased the level of proof needed to find juveniles guilty. The level of proof changed from a preponderance (significant amount) of evidence to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as in adult criminal courts.

Following the initial Supreme Court rulings on juvenile justice procedures, Congress passed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act in 1972. The act set out general rules for state juvenile justice systems, such as keeping juveniles separate from adults in jails and prisons, and required juveniles to have a court-appointed guardian. In another case affecting juvenile justice, the Supreme Court ruled in Breed v. Jones (1975) that a person could not be tried for the same offense in both juvenile and criminal courts.

A New Justice Approach

General disappointment with the juvenile justice system in the early twenty-first century led to exploring alternative processes. One approach, called the "restorative justice approach," came into use in several countries including the United States. Called a community-based approach, in these cases the juvenile offender, the victim, their families, and several members of the community meet to repair the harm done. A person not associated with either of the parties guides the group to an agreed upon consequence or punishment for the juvenile. Positive results with this approach led to increasing interest and proposals that less serious juvenile offenders be treated through such community-based programs, leaving the more serious cases for the adult criminal justice system.

Getting tough on crime

By 1980 youth gangs coupled with gun violence caught the public's attention. In Schall v. Martin (1984) the Court
ruled that juvenile court judges could arrest and hold (detain) juveniles, but they must have a special hearing and inform parents of the date, charges, and reasons for detention. Juveniles were sent in greater numbers to adult courts to face more severe punishment, including possible execution. Some states even passed laws making parents legally responsible for their children's criminal acts.

Juvenile crime rates rose steadily from 1980 to 1994. A rash of fatal school shootings in the 1990s kept fear of juvenile crime high and many believed dangerous offenders were not punished enough in the juvenile justice system. Violent juvenile crime rates, however, declined after 1994 and by 2000 had fallen back to 1980 levels.

Despite lower crime rates, fear of juvenile violence remained high. As a result, the line between juvenile and adult criminal justice was less clear than in earlier decades—juvenile sentences were tougher, a higher number of cases were deferred to adult criminal courts, and youthful offenders were held to greater levels of accountability for their crimes.

Modern juvenile justice

In the early twenty-first century all states had juvenile courts and laws identifying the rights of juveniles and the options available to judges. Larger U.S. jurisdictions had full-time juvenile courts, while smaller ones were part time and often combined with some other form of court.

Juvenile judges were licensed attorneys in most states and often elected officials. Because of the large caseloads in some areas, experienced attorneys acted as assistant judges under supervision of the juvenile judge. The most frequent violent offense for juveniles is aggravated assault, while the most common property crime is larceny-theft.

Delinquency proceedings

Though juvenile justice procedures vary among the states, they do share certain basic features. For juveniles accused of criminal acts or status offenses, police often issue reprimands or notify parents instead of taking offenders into custody. If juveniles are taken into custody, they have a right to telephone their parents and an attorney. Juveniles in custody are usually separated from adults but some occasionally find themselves among adult defendants. Almost half of the states require a juvenile's school receive some form of notification.

Within hours of an arrest, a juvenile will be interviewed by an intake worker, a person trained to work with youthful offenders, such as a probation officer. Most jurisdictions have a detention center, which is used for intake interviews and houses juveniles awaiting hearings or serving short sentences. The worker also interviews the parents and the victim or person who filed the complaint.

After the hearing, the juvenile is usually released to a parent or guardian. The intake worker then decides whether the case should be dismissed, go to court for a hearing, or be handled informally with a warning to the offender or referring the family to a social worker. Many cases are dismissed or settled informally. If the intake worker decides the case should proceed, then the information is forwarded to a prosecutor. Parents are advised of the right to legal representation, if the prosecutor proceeds by petitioning (formally requesting) a hearing before the court to began prosecution.

Juveniles and their parents have a right to hear any pending charges and to have an attorney. The court will appoint an attorney if the juvenile's family cannot afford one. Youthful offenders cannot be made to testify against themselves and prosecutors must prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, just like in adult criminal cases.

Like adult criminal court, a prosecutor presents evidence before a judge, the offender responds to the evidence and is able to question witnesses. Unlike adult cases, however, juveniles cannot have jury trials and their records are sealed (kept private) in most states. In addition, juvenile court proceedings are held in rooms separate from adult courtrooms.

If juvenile offenders are found delinquent, they face another hearing with a probation officer who prepares a more detailed report on the youth's background. The officer may require alcohol and drug tests, check for learning disabilities, and explore mental health needs. The report is shared with the juvenile and his or her lawyer before the sentencing hearing is held. During the hearing, the victim or a victim's family can talk about how the offender's crime has affected them.

Treatment of delinquent youths

Juvenile court judges have many sentencing choices, such as probation, issuing fines, sending offenders to juvenile correctional institutions or foster homes, referrals to day treatment or social skills classes, mental health programs, or community service. A combination of treatments is often ordered by the judge. These can include probation, community service, fines, or medical treatment. Repeat offenders can be declared juvenile delinquents and removed from their homes and placed in foster care or a state facility.

The harshest treatment a judge may order is commitment to a secure reform facility. In other words, the juvenile is locked into the facility for the duration of his or her sentence. These facilities are often called youth development centers. Though rehabilitation is the goal of juvenile justice, these centers resemble prisons and serve to protect the community from the juvenile.

The length of time juveniles serve in secure facilities can vary. Since offenders are only sentenced to confinement for more serious crimes, they often remain there until they reach eighteen years of age. Most states, however, allow juvenile courts to keep jurisdiction over the offenders beyond eighteen. Some states, like New Hampshire, place juvenile offenders in adult prisons if they commit a violent crime and are at least sixteen years of age.

Most youth offenders receive a sentence of probation. Probation means a juvenile is released back into the community under the supervision of a youth services officer. The juvenile has to meet certain conditions such as completing school with a good record and not using drugs or alcohol. If the juvenile does not fulfill these conditions, the judge can order him or her to be confined in a development center.

By the early twenty-first century the privacy of juvenile records was no longer assured. About half of U.S. states do not allow records of serious or violent offenses to be sealed or destroyed. Some thirty states grant access to sealed records under certain circumstances, as spelled out in state laws. Nine states allowed the release of juvenile court records without any restrictions, while thirteen permitted or required delinquency hearings be open to the public.

Juveniles in adult criminal court

Thousands of youths are transferred to adult courts every year. In the most serious cases, juveniles can be reassigned immediately, and in some states the move is automatic for certain offenses. Assigning juveniles to adult courts has always been controversial. As a result, state laws differ as to what offenses deserve to be transferred and how it should be handled. In 1997 forty-six states allowed reassignment. These offenses increased during the "get tough" period of the 1980s and 1990s.

In most states, cases involving murder, rape, aggravated assault, and armed robbery are transferable. Other offenses include drug violations, running away from juvenile facilities, stalking, and various sex offenses. Juveniles have the right to appeal court decisions to adult courts. In federal courts a juvenile can be sent to an adult criminal court for violating federal firearms laws or selling illegal drugs.

The process requires a prosecutor to request a transfer from juvenile to adult court and to show the juvenile is the one who committed the crime. The prosecutor may also say the juvenile is not likely to be helped by treatment and is a danger to the community. According to the 1966 Supreme Court ruling in Kent v. U.S., juveniles have the right to be present at the transfer request with an attorney.

Juvenile offenders can provide evidence at transfer hearings and cross-examine witnesses to prevent moving to adult court. The decision often depends on the crime and the offender's prior offenses. If the decision is made to transfer the case, the prosecutor notifies the adult court in another hearing.

Juveniles tried in adult courts are considered first offenders and generally receive lighter sentences. The transfer of a juvenile to adult courts, however, can have serious consequences. The juvenile could be sentenced to life in prison or even execution. In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that no juvenile younger than sixteen years of age at the time of the crime could be executed by a state.

As emphasis shifted from rehabilitation to crime control, most states passed laws in the 1980s and 1990s making it easier to send juveniles to adult courts. As a result, the number of cases transferred between 1988 and 1994 increased by 73 percent before declining in the late 1990s. Another consequence was that the number of juveniles in prison doubled between 1985 and 1998.

Cases of abuse or neglect

Besides handling cases of delinquency and status offenses, juvenile justice systems also deal with cases involving abuse, neglect, custody, adoption, paternity (identification of the biological father), and parental rights in general. Where abuse or neglect is a concern, a state agency or private citizen may petition a juvenile court to take action.

In cases of suspected physical or emotional abuse, the judge will assign a guardian or trained volunteer to serve as an advocate for the juvenile in court and in dealing with other services. This person may also prepare a report on the youth's living conditions to help the judge make a decision. The judge will usually place the juvenile in foster care or a state home, and keep certain people from having contact with the juvenile.

Removal of a juvenile from home may also occur when the court determines the parents do not have enough money to raise the child. In such cases, the parents have the right to be heard in court and the juvenile may also testify. Many times the judge will refer the juvenile or parents for counseling.

Reasons for juvenile crime

Various theories for juvenile crime have been offered through the years. Some researchers point to individual traits, such as neurological (brain) functioning, nutritional deficiencies, and psychological or emotional problems. Others point to the youth's living environment. Poor children often do not have educational, economic, and social opportunities. Drug use and other criminal activity may be occurring within the family. The juvenile may be hanging around with other delinquent youths, sometimes in gangs who offer alternative ways to gain social status.

Many still believe the major factor affecting delinquent behavior is poor parenting, with little or no control over the youth or worse, when parents simply do not care. The favored method to solving juvenile crime for some is not through harsh punishment, but in childcare and educational programs to address the issues of poverty, drug abuse, and neglect.

The future of juvenile justice

Public support for a separate juvenile system declined in the late twentieth century. Critics argued they should be abolished, claiming juvenile courts coddled youthful offenders and rehabilitation was ineffective in many individuals. Critics further claimed the courts were established only to handle status offenses such as truancy, not the violent mass murders of the late twentieth century.

Youthful offenders, critics believed, should be punished according to their crimes, just like adults. If offenders believed juvenile courts would not hold them fully responsible for their crimes, they would be more likely to commit serious crimes. Juveniles who were confined for serious crimes were released by age twenty-one or even eighteen, serving far shorter sentences than adults who committed the same offense. Critics of the juvenile justice system believed the age of an offender should be a factor, but only on an individual basis during sentencing.

Defenders of juvenile courts claimed youth crime rates have decreased and the court system should not be judged on the highly publicized violent acts of a few, such as the school shootings of the late 1990s. They claimed the court system allows judges to transfer the most violent offenders to adult courts, which did occur on an increasing basis by the early 2000s. Supporters further remarked that since children are treated differently than adults in every other part of society, it should be the same in the criminal justice system as well.

Juvenile justice defenders believed exposing youthful offenders to the violent world of adult prisons increased the potential of future criminal behavior. Rather than pay for a juvenile to be imprisoned, the funding would be better spent on rehabilitation programs, including education and job training. Instead of branding youthful offenders as adult convicted criminals, give them the chance to learn from their mistakes. Statistics showed youths who went through juvenile courts had lower rates of returning to criminal behavior than those who went through adult courts. Most importantly, supporters of juvenile justice believed society had to address the basic social and economic causes of juvenile crime while still holding violent offenders accountable for their actions.