 A juvenile is a young person not yet an adult  7-18 years of age  Can be sentenced to life in prison but not death

 1899 in Cook County, Illinois  Juvenile corrections,16 th century  Europe reform movement  Poor children vs. rich children  African Americans, Native Americans, and people who were considered the dangerous class  1825, the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency  1899, Illinois passed the Juvenile Court Act of 1899  Parens patriae (a British doctrine that is literally the state as the parent)

 J UVENILE COURT VS. ADULT  D UE P ROCESS WAS DEEMED UNNECESSARY  T REATMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO UNTIL THE JUVENILE WAS SAID TO BE “ CURED ” OR BECOME AN ADULT WHICH WAS SAID TO BE 21  1960’ S, THE S UPREME C OURT ORDERED THE JUVENILE COURTS BECOME MORE FORMAL  A CCORDING TO THE J UVENILE D ELINQUENCY P REVENTION AND C ONTROL ACT OF 1968 STATED THAT CHILDREN CHARGED WITH NONCRIMINAL OFFENSES WILL NOT BE HANDLED IN THE COURT SYSTEM BUT OUTSIDE OF IT

 J UVENILE COURT VS. ADULT  D UE P ROCESS WAS DEEMED UNNECESSARY  T REATMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO UNTIL THE JUVENILE WAS SAID TO BE “ CURED ” OR BECOME AN ADULT WHICH WAS SAID TO BE 21  1960’ S, THE S UPREME C OURT ORDERED THE JUVENILE COURTS BECOME MORE FORMAL  A CCORDING TO THE J UVENILE D ELINQUENCY P REVENTION AND C ONTROL ACT OF 1968 STATED THAT CHILDREN CHARGED WITH NONCRIMINAL OFFENSES WILL NOT BE HANDLED IN THE COURT SYSTEM BUT OUTSIDE OF IT

 Amended in the 1980’s  Deinstitutionalization of status offenders and nonoffenders  Separation of juvenile delinquents from adult offenders  Encouraged community-based programs, diversion, and deinstitutionalization  “Sight and sound separation” (no contact with adult offenders)  “Jail and lockup removal”( juveniles can’t be in adult lockups)  “Disproportionate confinement of minority youth”(reduce problems in the State)

 Amended in the 1980’s  Deinstitutionalization of status offenders and nonoffenders  Separation of juvenile delinquents from adult offenders  Encouraged community-based programs, diversion, and deinstitutionalization  “Sight and sound separation” (no contact with adult offenders)  “Jail and lockup removal”( juveniles can’t be in adult lockups)  “Disproportionate confinement of minority youth”(reduce problems in the State)

 Transfer provision- easier to transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court  Sentencing authority- gave criminal and juvenile courts to expand on sentencing options  Confidentiality- made juvenile records and proceedings more available  Victim Rights-increase role of victims in juvenile court  Correctional Programming- developing new programs

 Juveniles held accountable for actions  Provide effective deterrence  Keep criminal activity out of the public  Balance all attention  Punishment severity = Criminal Act

 Social  Cultural  Mental  environmental  Legal factors such as attitude, home life, education, and parents

Kent vs. United States  1966  Morris Kent, age 16  Charged with rape and robbery  Confessed, Guilty  Sentenced to years in prison  Attorney issued a dismissal  Judge waived it  Counsel should have full access to records  Judge should have provide a written statement for waiver  Due process to transfer in adult court In re Gault  1967  Gerald Gault, age 15  Probation for minor property crimes  Prank telephone call to an adult neighbor  Adult punishment- $50 fine and 2 months in jail  Right to notice and counsel, to question witnesses, and to avoid self-incrimination  Encourage States to give these rights but did not apply it to this case

In re Winship  1970  Samuel Winship, age 12  Charged with stealing $112 from a woman’s purse in a store  Seen running from the seen  Witnesses stated employee could not see the incident in the position they were in  Adjudicated delinquent  Reasonable Doubt  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt was ruled to be used in Juvenile Court in delinquency cases  “Save” not “punish” McKeiver vs. Pennsylvania  1971  Joseph McKeiver, age 16  Charged with robbery, larceny, and receiving stolen goods  other youths chased 3 other youths and took $.25 from them  Requested a jury trial  Adjudicated and put on probation  Supreme Court ruled jury trials not required for Juvenile Court

Breed vs. Jones  1975  Gary Jones, age 17  Charged with armed robbery  Judge waived jurisdiction  Violated double jeopardy  After adjudication, waivers can’t be used Oklahoma Publishing Company vs. District Court in and for Oklahoma City  1977  Press can report name and photograph of a youth in Juvenile Court Smith vs. Daily Mail Publishing Company  1979  Can’t stop the press from publishing a juvenile’s name  Free Press Schall vs. Martin  1984  Gregory Martin, age 14  Charged with robbery, assault, and possession of a weapon  Stole jacket and sneakers from a boy he hit on the head with a loaded gun while with 2 other youths  Preventive “pretrial” detention of juveniles only allowed on certain issues

 N O VIOLENT OFFENDER CONTACT = NO NEW TRADES LEARNED  S EEN AS GOOD PEOPLE WHO JUST DID A BAD THING  D IFFERENT PROGRAMS TO FIT INDIVIDUALS  N O COMMUNITY, PEER, OR OTHER ABUSE  I MPULSIVE BEHAVIOR IN THE BRAIN HAS DEVELOPED FURTHER THAN DECISION MAKING  C ONTINUE TO LIVE LIFE OUTSIDE PRISON WORKING ON ISSUES

 37 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO COMMIT CRIME IN / OUT J UVENILE D ETENTION C ENTER  O FFENDERS WHO ARE IN JAIL LONGER DON ’ T TRY TO “ ONE UP ” JUVENILES OR VICE VERSA  F EAR OF PUNISHMENT / DETERRENCE  S OCIAL C ONTROL  L ESS MONEY TO HOUSE INMATE  W HAT IS A GOOD ENVIRONMENT ?  B ALANCE  T HOSE PEOPLE WHO DON ’ T GET A SECOND CHANCE BECAUSE A JUVENILE TOOK THAT AWAY  P UNISHMENT FITS THE CRIME  N O EASY WAY OUT

 Bilchik, Shay. United States. Department of Justice National Report Series. Washington D.C: Web..  Information for this Bulletin was taken from chapter 4 of Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National  Report. For a full listing of sources for this chapter,see page 109 of the National Report.