Chapter Five Juvenile Courts

Introduction The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act defines a juvenile as a person who has not reached 18 years of age Some states will treat 15, 16 and 17-year-olds as adults The juvenile justice system emerged in response to concerns about treating juveniles as adults

The Development of Care for Children Poor Laws Reflected an increasingly compassionate attitude toward the poor Helped provide work or apprenticeships for orphaned children and children whose parents could not support them Children were essentially forced into indentured worker conditions until adulthood

The Development of Care for Children Poor laws also set up tax collection schemes Precursors to modern welfare systems The strong colonial work ethic was reflected in all poor laws If you received assistance, you should contribute to the community through work

The Development of Care for Children Chancery Courts Created in the 15th century to address cases that could not be decided in other common-law courts Applied principles of equity rather than law Issued decisions based on fairness Frequently heard cases of minor children e.g. would exercise jurisdiction over infant heirs who lost their parents

The Development of Care for Children One of the original guiding principles of chancery courts was parens patriae Allowed the Crown to replace natural family relations when a child’s welfare was at risk Suggested that government can, and should, intervene in family affairs when the need arises Still serves as the core principle of the juvenile justice system e.g. Brittany Spears and Kim Delaney

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice The Child Savers (1850-1890) Groups who sought to improve the living conditions of poor urban children Functions included providing shelter and education Charles Loring Brace and the Children’s Aid Society Felt that poor and vagrant children should be placed with farm families Some evidence children basically became laborers, however, there were some success stories

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice The Refuge Movement The New York House of Refuge (1825) became the first juvenile reformatory The concept caught on and similar institutions emerged The children who lived in these facilities worked, learned trades, and received basic education Conditions were poor and discipline harsh, but these Houses were significant to the development of juvenile justice

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice The Juvenile Court The Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1889 established the first court to deal with delinquent children under the age of 16 By 1925, 46 states, three U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia had juvenile courts In the early years they were focused on providing individualized decisions in the best interests of the children Relied on parens patriae

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice Legal Protections Rather than being protected by the 5th Amendment, children were frequently encouraged to plead guilty Standard of proof was a “preponderance of evidence” versus proof beyond a reasonable doubt Made it easier to hold juveniles accountable

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice Beginning in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a number of important cases that dealt with juveniles legal rights. Some examples: Kent v. United States In re Gault The Lasting Impact of In re Gault Breed v. Jones Thompson v. Oklahoma and Stanford v Kentucky Roper v. Simmons The Lasting Impact of Roper v. Simmons

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice Figure 5-1 Timeline Of Supreme Court Decisions Dealing With Juveniles

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice Federal Legislation 1968 Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act (JDPCA) Encouraged states to develop community-level plans Replaced by the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) Created several new entities including: The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) The Runaway Youth Program The National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (NIJJDP)

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice The JJDPA was also responsible for some key reforms: The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 (the Act) establishes four custody related requirements. The deinstitutionalization of status offenders and nonoffenders requirement (1974) specifies that juveniles not charged with acts that would be crimes for adults “shall not be placed in secure detention facilities or secure correctional facilities.” This requirement does not apply to juveniles charged with violating a valid court order or possessing a handgun, or those held under interstate compacts. The “sight and sound separation” requirement (1974) specifies that “juveniles alleged to be or found to be delinquent and [status offenders and nonoffenders] shall not be detained or confined in any institution in which they have contact with adult inmates” in custody because they are awaiting trial on criminal charges or have been convicted of a crime. This requires that juvenile and adult inmates cannot see each other and no conversation between them is possible.

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 (the Act) establishes four custody related requirements. (continued) The “jail and lockup removal” requirement (1980) states that juveniles shall not be detained or confined in adult jails or lockups. There are, however, several exceptions. There is a 6-hour grace period that allows adult jails and lockups to hold delinquents temporarily while awaiting transfer to a juvenile facility or making court appearances. (This exception applies only if the facility can maintain sight and sound separation.) Under certain conditions, jails and lockups in rural areas may hold delinquents awaiting initial court appearance up to 48 hours. Some jurisdictions have obtained approval for separate juvenile detention centers that are colocated with an adult facility; in addition, staff who work with both juveniles and adult inmates must be trained and certified to work with juveniles. Regulations implementing the Act exempt a juvenile held in secure adult facilities if the juvenile is being tried as a criminal for a felony or has been convicted as a criminal felon. Regulations also allow adjudicated delinquents to be transferred to adult institutions once they have reached the state’s age of full criminal responsibility, where such transfer is expressly authorized by state law.

The Creation of American Juvenile Justice The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 (the Act) establishes four custody related requirements. (continued) In the past, the “disproportionate minority confinement” (DMC) requirement (1988) focused on the extent to which minority youth were confined in proportions greater than their representation in the population. The 2002 Act broadened the DMC concept to encompass all stages of the juvenile justice process; thus, DMC has come to mean disproportionate minority contact. States must agree to comply with each requirement to receive Formula Grants funds under the Act’s provisions. States must submit plans outlining their strategy for meeting these and other statutory requirements. Noncompliance with core requirements results in the loss of at least 20% of the state’s annual Formula Grants Program allocation per requirement. As of 2005, 56 of 57 eligible states and territories were participating in the Formula Grants Program. Annual state monitoring reports show that the vast majority were in compliance with the requirements, either reporting no violations or meeting de minimis or other compliance criteria.

Juvenile Courts Today: Priorities, Organization & Process Juvenile Court Priorities Some states follow a “Balanced and Restorative Justice” approach Emphasizes public safety, individual accountability and offenders services Others follow the “Standard Juvenile Court Act” Emphasizes care, guidance and control of the youth that will “conduce to his welfare and the best interest of the state”

Juvenile Courts Today: Priorities, Organization & Process Others follow the Legislative Guide for Drafting Family and Juvenile Courts, which list four purposes of juvenile courts: Provide care, protection and wholesome mental and physical development Offer a program of supervision, care and rehabilitation Remove a child from a home for their welfare or in the interests of public safety Assure all parties their constitutional and other legal rights

Juvenile Courts Today: Priorities, Organization & Process Stand-Alone Courts Found in relatively few states Have their own administration, staff, judges and other personnel Family Court Have jurisdiction over several types of cases including divorce, child custody and child support

Juvenile Courts Today: Priorities, Organization & Process General Jurisdiction Court Majority of states have opted to process juvenile cases in these courts Complications arise when states pass laws and enact new courts that adjudicate juvenile cases or have juvenile courts dedicated to specific types of cases Courts in the News: Cyberbullying

Juvenile Courts Today: Priorities, Organization & Process Four main steps: intake, detention, judicial decision and judicial disposition Figure 5-3: Juvenile Court Processing for a Typical 1,000 Delinquency Cases

Juvenile Courts Today: Priorities, Organization & Process Intake A decision is made whether a case should enter the juvenile justice system 80% of cases are referred by police officers A number are also referred by parents, victims, school officials and probation officers If referred to the intake department, a case will either be petitioned or non-petitioned Request action or authorization of action from the court, or handled informally (i.e.placement or probation)

Juvenile Courts Today: Priorities, Organization & Process Detention Usually occurs when a juvenile is arrested for a fairly serious offense A hearing must be held within 24 hours of detention Approximately 20% of juvenile cases result in detention of the juvenile

Juvenile Courts Today: Priorities, Organization & Process Adjudication Assuming the case is not waived to adult court, an adjudicatory hearing is held Evidence and testimony are heard There are no juries, a judge determines if the juvenile should be adjudicated The hearing can result in a dismissal of the petition, a “continuation in contemplation of dismissal”, or adjudication Cases that result in adjudication requires staff to prepare a disposition plan

Juvenile Courts Today: Priorities, Organization & Process Judicial Disposition The juvenile justice system has at its core a set of graduated sanctions If the juvenile is an adjudicated delinquent, a treatment program will be assigned based on his or her “needs and deeds” Can include fines, restitution, community service or participation in drug treatment More serious offenders are placed in secure juvenile detention facilities

Treating Juveniles as Adults Juvenile courts have always had mechanisms in place for transferring juveniles to adult court Figure 5-5 state legal arrangements governing treatment of juveniles as adults

Treating Juveniles as Adults Legislative Exclusion Also called statutory exclusion Refers to the fact that a statute excludes a juvenile from being tried as a juvenile Requires certain juveniles to be treated as adults e.g. Mississippi excludes all felonies committed by 17-year-olds

Treating Juveniles as Adults Waivers Juvenile waiver refers to trying juveniles as adults (“waiving” them to adult court) Three main types of waivers: Discretionary waivers gives judges discretion to waive jurisdiction in individual cases involving minors Presumptive waivers require the juveniles to bear the burden of proof in the waiver hearing Mandatory waivers involve cases in which the juvenile meet certain age, offense or other criteria

Treating Juveniles as Adults Concurrent Jurisdiction Means that certain cases can be tried in both juvenile and adult court The Prosecutor determines where the case should be tried Courts in the News: Court Rulings are Consistent on Video Game Violence

The Changing Landscape of Juvenile Justice Increased Sanctioning Juvenile sentences are more punitive than ever before For example, many states allow offense-based sentencing Can include the use of so-called blended sentences that require probation along with time in an adult correctional facility Some states also allow extended jurisdiction that allows juvenile court judge to extend a sentence beyond the age of 18

The Changing Landscape of Juvenile Justice More Accountability An increase in the courts handling of cases (formal) signals a movement toward increased accountability States are also changing laws affecting how juvenile cases are screened e.g. In 1977 Washington state ceased to rely on probation officers for screening and left filing decisions totally in the hands of prosecutors

The Changing Landscape of Juvenile Justice Less Privacy Juvenile court records have historically been “off limits” Some states have begun to relax restrictions on access to juvenile records Court records are also disclosed more readily e.g. Central record repositories, data systems, sex offender registries Some states have increased the period of time before juvenile records are expunged