Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report
86Chapter 4: Juvenile justice system structure and process
The juvenile justice system was founded on theconcept of rehabilitation through individualized justice
Early in U.S. history, childrenwho broke the law were treatedthe same as adult criminals
Throughout the late 18th century,“infants” below the age of reason(traditionally age 7) were presumedto be incapable of criminal intentand were, therefore, exempt fromprosecution and punishment. Chil-dren as young as 7, however, couldstand trial in criminal court for of-fenses committed and, if foundguilty, could be sentenced to prisonor even to death.The 19th-century movement thatled to the establishment of the juve-nile court in the U.S. had its roots in16th-century European educationalreform movements. These earlier re-form movements changed the per-ception of children from one of mini-ature adults to one of persons withless than fully developed moral andcognitive capacities.As early as 1825, the Society for thePrevention of Juvenile Delinquencywas advocating the separation of ju-venile and adult offenders. Soon, fa-cilities exclusively for juvenileswere established in most major cit-ies. By mid-century, these privatelyoperated youth “prisons” were un-der criticism for various abuses.Many States then took on the re-sponsibility of operating juvenile fa-cilities.
The first juvenile court in thiscountry was established in CookCounty, Illinois, in 1899
Illinois passed the Juvenile CourtAct of 1899, which established theNation’s first juvenile court. TheBritish doctrine of
parens patriae
(the State as parent) was the ratio-nale for the right of the State to in-tervene in the lives of children in amanner different from the way it in-tervenes in the lives of adults. Thedoctrine was interpreted to meanthat, because children were not of full legal capacity, the State had theinherent power and responsibilityto provide protection for childrenwhose natural parents were not pro-viding appropriate care or supervi-sion. A key element was the focuson the welfare of the child. Thus,the delinquent child was also seenas in need of the court’s benevolentintervention.
Juvenile courts flourished for thefirst half of the 20th century
By 1910, 32 States had established juvenile courts and/or probationservices. By 1925, all but two Stateshad followed suit. Rather thanmerely punishing delinquents fortheir crimes, juvenile courts soughtto turn delinquents into productivecitizens—through treatment.The mission to help children introuble was stated clearly in thelaws that established juvenilecourts. This benevolent mission ledto procedural and substantive dif-ferences between the juvenile andcriminal justice systems.During the next 50 years, most juve-nile courts had exclusive original jurisdiction over all youth under age18 who were charged with violatingcriminal laws. Only if the juvenilecourt waived its jurisdiction in acase could a child be transferred tocriminal court and tried as an adult.Transfer decisions were made on acase-by-case basis using a “bestinterests of the child and public”standard, and were thus within therealm of individualized justice.
The focus on offenders and notoffenses, on rehabilitation andnot punishment, had substantialprocedural impact
Unlike the criminal justice system,where district attorneys selectcases for trial, the juvenile courtcontrolled its own intake. And un-like criminal prosecutors, juvenilecourt intake considered extra-legalas well as legal factors in decidinghow to handle cases. Juvenile courtintake also had discretion to handlecases informally, bypassing judicialaction.
John Augustus—planting theseeds of juvenile probation(1847)
“I bailed nineteen boys, from 7 to 15years of age, and in bailing them itwas understood, and agreed by thecourt, that their cases should becontinued from term to term for sev-eral months, as a season of proba-tion; thus each month at the callingof the docket, I would appear incourt, make my report, and thus thecases would pass on for 5 or 6months. At the expiration of thisterm, twelve of the boys werebrought into court at one time, andthe scene formed a striking andhighly pleasing contrast with theirappearance when first arraigned.The judge expressed much plea-sure as well as surprise at their ap-pearance, and remarked, that theobject of law had been accom-plished and expressed his cordialapproval of my plan to save and re-form.”
Leave a Comment