Overview of Juvenile Justice CRIM 309

Overview of the Juvenile Justice System The JJS is a relatively new system—the first juvenile court was established in 1899 The JJS was created to address criminal and problem behaviors among children between the ages of (approx.) 10 to 18 Criminal offenses (aka delinquency) Status offenses Abuse/neglect cases

Basis of the JJS Different levels of culpability (I.e., responsibility) of adolescents compared to adults served as the basis of the JJS “Childhood” was created in the early 19th century and stages of childhood, specifically adolescence was defined shortly afterward Developmentally distinguished adolescents from adults emotionally, psychologically, and physically Supported the notion that (1) adolescents were less culpable than adults, and (2) adolescents were more amenable to change than adults

Are Adolescents Different from Adults? Increasingly, research demonstrates that adolescents are not little adults Adolescence is a period of intense physical, emotional, and cognitive development Forced to make choices under the worst conditions Exposed to highly risky situations Often overestimate their understanding of a situation while underestimating the consequences of their actions Further complicated when youths live in disadvantaged, high risk environments Perhaps most important for this discussion is the fact that adolescents process ‘emotionally charged’ information from a more reactive, gut-level place than adults

JJS v. CJS The JJS was purposely developed as a different system from the adult criminal justice system (CJS) The JJS recognized the need for different responses and emphasized rehabilitation over punishment JJS differs significantly from the the CJS: Informal proceedings Confidential Less adversarial Different responses, with an emphasis on treatment

Juvenile v. Adult Justice Systems Juvenile System Adult System Basis Civil (no due process) Criminal (due process) Goal(s) Rehabilitation Punishment Style Non-Adversarial Adversarial Terminology Medical Model Legal/Constitutional Role of Family Very Significant Little to No Significance Functioning Private, confidential Open Process Adjudication/Delinquent Trial/Guilty or Innocent Sentencing Indeterminate-Broad Determinate-Focused

History of the Juvenile Court

Prior to Juvenile Court Prior to 19th century, children were either viewed as: Not culpable for crime (ages <7) As responsible and subject to the same penalties as adults 19th century—Introduction of “childhood” and recognition of developmental differences between children and adults Efforts were made by reformers to remove juveniles from criminal court and treat them differently from adults using legal precedent of parens patriae

Reformers and the Juvenile Court 19th Century time of drastic change as a result of industrialization and high rates of immigration Wealthy and middle class develops and turns its attention to social ills of the nation Child-Savers—MC/W women who took on a variety of social issues Progressive Reformers—growing intelligentsia that wanted to reduce social problems with the creation of professional organizations

Reforming the System Reformers focused on evils of urbanization and poor upbringing—family was at the center of their criticism and a target for their efforts Benevolent Reform turns into bias Class, Race, & Gender Bias Utilize the legal precedent of parens patriae to justify work in many areas related to children Parens Patriae=provides state the right to intervene in the best interest of a person This precedent is critical to all reforms, including juvenile justice, compulsory education, and child labor

Origins of Juvenile Court House of Refuge 1825 Concerns regarding this development led to court cases Ex Parte Crouse, 1835—upheld parens patriae People v. Turner, 1860—struck parens patriae down Response: Cottage House Systems and reformatories-mid 1800s “Placing Out”—sending juveniles west Each of these institutions were an attempt to: Separate juveniles from adults Provide “treatment” to prevent youths from adopting a life of crime

Purpose of the New Response Differential treatment of juveniles (from adults) was intended to save juveniles from themselves—salvage their souls Treatment” in these institutions translated to vocational skills training and religious training Based on stereotypes and role expectations of the time Juveniles in these institutions were largely poor, immigrant, and female Black youths were often processed by and placed in adult system. When allowed into the juvenile system, these youths were segregated from Whites and given custodial types of tasks

Creation of the Juvenile Court Concern over legal challenges led reformers to seek permanent placement of juvenile court in law,culminating in the creation of the first juvenile court---1899 in Cook County, Illinois Created legal categories and jurisdiction for juvenile delinquency, status offending, and abuse/neglect System was separate from adult court in theory and practice By 1925, all states except Maine and Wyoming had functioning juvenile courts

Evolution of Juvenile Justice 1905 Commonwealth v. Fisher: Brought legal question once again to parens patriae Court upheld legal doctrine and creation of separate legal jurisdiction for juvenile delinquents, status offenders, and abused/neglected youth Legitimacy not questioned again until the 1960s

Juvenile Justice in 20th Century 60s: Legal/court reform Kent v. United States, 1966 Hearings required for transfer to adult court In Re Gault, 1967 Representation for all offenders who face institutionalization In Re Winship, 1970 Standard of proof, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” required Breed v. Jones, 1975 Protection against double jeopardy McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971 Rejected access to jury trial

20th Century Continued 70s: Federal reform Focus on prevention and concern over status offenders Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act Federal Act that Prohibited placement of status offenders in secure facilities Required sight and separation of juveniles and adults in detention and correctional facilities Removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups Voluntary compliance but connected to funding Reauthorization by Congress in 1988 required states to examine over representation of minorities in secure confinment

20th Century Continued 80s: Crime Control Policies Increase in facility use Increase waivers Increase in statutory limitations Death penalty New ways of sentencing 90s: Distinguishing Offenders 2000: Punitive mixed with integrating sanctions and rehabilitation & restorative justice

Juvenile Justice In Context Creates a contradiction between our social policies related to children and adolescents and our treatment of children and adolescents who break the law: Assumption that the nature of adolescence is to face ambiguous decisions and learn appropriate behaviors/choice-making Social policies reflect the lack of maturity and skills to make certain decisions Criminal justice policies reject many of these notions and put juvenile offenders on same level as adult offenders Complicated further by the fact that adolescence is the highest period of criminal activity

Structure of the Juvenile Justice System

Contemporary Juvenile Court Structure Juvenile justice is state-based; there is no federal juvenile justice system The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provides guidance on policy and resources for program development, but it has no authority over juvenile justice systems operating in any state Juvenile courts may be located organizationally as general jurisdiction courts, special jurisdiction courts, or limited jurisdiction courts Extent to which juvenile courts have jurisdiction in all matters involving juveniles varies by state

The Juvenile Justice System

1st Step in the JJ Process: Arrest/Referral Juveniles can enter the jjs through: Parent referrals School referrals Social service referrals Police referrals Police are responsible for the majority of referrals to the juvenile justice system

Policing and Juveniles Juveniles are responsible for a lot of police contacts Nature of Police-Juvenile Encounters Often difficult Developmental differences and lack of training Hostile behavior Officer response can significantly impact result Role conflict—what is their role

Police Organization of Juvenile Work Depends on the size of the police department, the community, amount & quality of resources available, and policing philosophy of department Special units-officers specially trained Special units are more likely to exist in large, urban areas. Smaller areas are less likely to have specialized juvenile officers

Police and the Law Police have more latitude in handling juveniles: Charging decisions Ability to detain If juvenile is charged as an adult, he/she is entitled to full due process If juvenile is taken into custody as a juvenile, police act “in the role of parents” and have more control over what happens to the youth

Police Discretion Discretion=Use of personal decision-making and choice in carrying out operations in the justice system (I.e., deciding whether to arrest) Discretion applies to all processing stages of the juvenile and adult justice systems Particularly large amount of discretion used in the case of juveniles Informality and “individualized” treatment lends itself to discretion

Impact of Discretion Discretion can keep offenders out of the system--have significant impact of who enters the system and who does not Discretion can increase chance of being placed in the system Discretion can deteriorate into discrimination and other abuses Personal, environmental, departmental, and situational factors impact the extent to which discretion plays a role in processing juveniles into the juvenile justice system

2nd Stage of the JJ Process: Detention Police decide whether to detain an offender or release him/her to parents Intake officer determines whether the placement is necessary (using a risk tool) Offenders can be detained for their own safety or the safety of the community—no bond. Must be released by prosecutor or order of the judge Many negative consequences to detention—efforts growing to build alternatives Types: Shelter, Staff-Secure, & Secure Detention can be used at any time in the process

3rd Stage of the JJ Process: Charging In some states, Prosecutor decides how to charge the case—decision is based on state statute around juvenile court jurisdiction and waivers to adult court Also has the option to not charge or offer diversion to an offender The diversion option allows the offender to avoid processing if they complete the diversion program successfully In other states, Juvenile Court Intake makes the decision to informally handle or formally handle Decision is then sent to the Prosecutor Diversion is also possible at this point

Transferring Cases to the Adult Court Case may be waived to adult court by a judge prior to adjudication Judicial waiver Hearing to determine whether case warrants transfer to the adult court In some states, case may also be charged directly in adult court by a prosecutor Prosecutorial waiver No hearing; defense can file a reverse waiver to transfer the case to juvenile court In most states, legislatures have mandated that certain cases be automatically processed in adult court—statutory exclusion

4th Stage of JJ Process: Adjudication Formal Processing Arraignment Hearing Charges read in court Need for Representation Assessed If represented, type of responsibility is entered If responsiblecase goes to disposition If not responsiblecase goes to adjudication hearing (I.e., trial) If not responsiblecase is dismissed Plea bargaining occurs during these stages

5th Stage of JJ Process: Assessment Pre-disposition assessments Thorough evaluations of juvenile’s risk and need levels Judge orders at adjudication hearing Report completed and returned to judge prior to the disposition Report contains recommendations to the judge on what type of disposition the offender should receive

Content of Pre-Disposition Assessment This stage may include any or all of the following: Individual factors: previous jj experience, peers, living situation, etc. Family factors: occupations, living situation, history of abuse/neglect, relationships, etc. School factors: attendance, performance, behavior Also provides the opportunity for: 1. Substance abuse screening 2. Mental health screening 3. Risk Assessment 4. Referral for further assessment (SA, MH, medical, family, etc.)

6th Stage in JJ Process: Disposition Disposition Hearing (Sentence) Judge reviews pre-disposition materials (if available) and decides on the following options: Probation: Supervision in the community Different levels May include placement in camp or detention facility State Custody: Out-of-Home Placement Different types of placements Parole and Aftercare Blended Sentencing: Combination of juvenile and adult sentencing

Probation Traditional Supervision (Low, Medium, and High) Intensive Supervision (High Only) Drug Courts Camps Probation has conditions that can include curfews, treatment, family counseling, etc.

State Custody Foster/Group Homes Correctional Facility Treatment Facility Placements Parole Aftercare Programming

Caveats to JJ Process Offender placed on probation who violates the conditions of that order, can return to court and be moved into state custody Offender place in state custody who makes parole and violates the conditions of parole, can return to court and to an institution