JUVENILE JUSTICE PARENS PATRIAE

PARENS PATRIAE A doctrine that holds that the state has a responsibility to look after the well-being of children and to assume the role of parent if necessary. Literally means “father of his country”

ENGLISH HISTORY LAW PUT PEOPLE INTO THREE CATEGORIES UNDER 7 COULD NOT FORM CRIMINAL INTENT THEREFORE COULD NOT BE TRIED FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR 7-14 PRESUMED INCOMPETENT UNLESS EVIDENCE SHOWED THEY COULD FORM CRIMINAL INTENT AND TRIED FOR CRIMES

OVER 14 WHO THE LAW PRESUMED COMPETENT TO FORM CRIMINAL INTENT UNLESS THEY WERE INSANE OR RETARDED Doctrine of Parens Patriae and presumptions against children’s capacity to form criminal intent came to the U.S.

PURITAN PERIOD 1646-1824 English procedures continued into the nineteenth century Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law 1646 Puritans imposed the law that the child was evil and the family needed to discipline. Those who did not obey their parents were dealt with by the law

REFUGE PERIOD 1824-1899 Population of American cities grew as did youth crime and neglect Reformers focused their efforts on the urban immigrant poor The state’s power was used to prevent delinquency

NEW YORK’S HOUSE OF REFUGE Opened in 1825 Half prison, half school for destitute and orphaned children and those convicted of crimes Placed by court order usually for neglect or vagrancy “Reform Schools” opened

DESPITE REFORMS CHILDREN COULD STILL BE ARRESTED, DETAINED, TRIED AND IMPRISONED. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS FOR CHILDREN WAS THE SAME AS THAT FOR ADULTS

JUVENILE COURT PERIOD 1899-1960 Questions arose Could the State incarcerate children who had not violated the law? Should children be held in the same facilities that housed adults? Should a juvenile court be established?

“Child Savers” Upper and middle class reformers who sought to use the power of the state to save children from a life of crime Children are not fully responsible for criminal conduct and are capable of being rehabilitated

ILLINOIS JUVENILE COURT ACT IN 1899 No juries---Judges had wide discretion in disposing of each case. Therefore, no lawyers Different terminology: Petitions instead of warrants, children were respondents not defendants, not found guilty but adjudicated delinquent

No adversarial relationship—did not try to determine guilt or innocence but how to rehabilitate rather than punish Confidentiality—records kept sealed and proceedings were closed to the public BUT STILL NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

FIRST JUVENILE COURT CHICAGO 1899

By 1925 every state had a juvenile court system Still based on Parens Patriae—the state acting in the best interest of the child; the juvenile court treats the child as a kind and loving father

THE JUVENILE RIGHTS PERIOD 1960-1980 Supreme Court actions Kent v United States 1966 Right to Counsel at a hearing at which a juvenile judge may waive jurisdiction and pass the case to the adult court

In Re Gault 1967 Extended due process rights granted to adult offenders including notice of charges, the right to counsel, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses

McKeiver v Pennsylvania 1971 In Re Winship 1970 Proof must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not on “a preponderance of the evidence” McKeiver v Pennsylvania 1971 Trial by jury in the juvenile court’s adjudicative stage is NOT a constitutional requirement

Breed v Jones 1975 Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause prevented a juvenile from being tried in an adult court for a crime that had already been adjudicated in juvenile court

DELINQUENCY CONDUCT THAT WOULD BE CRIMINAL IF AN ADULT ENGAGED IN IT

STATUS OFFENSES Conduct that is illegal only because the child is under age.

WHAT ARE THEY??

RUNAWAY GAMBLING SMOKING GOING TO SCHOOL

1974 Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Included provisions for taking status offenders out of correctional institutions

THE CRIME CONTROL PERIOD 1980 to present Public has demanded a “crackdown on crime” Harsher punishments for juveniles who commit crime

Schall v Martin 1984 Juveniles can be held in preventive detention if there is concern that they may commit additional crimes while awaiting court action. They are deemed a “risk” to the community More juveniles tried in adult court Support for a get tough stance growing

POLICE OFFICER DECISIONS CRIME REPORTED INVESTIGATION SUSPECT IDENTIFIED/APPREHENDED

ACTIONS Counsel and release to parents Referral diversion to community resources Citation and referral to court/release to parents Transport to jail

CONSIDERATIONS THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE JUVENILE’S PAST HISTORY SETTING OF OFFENSE PARENT’S ATTITUDE TOWARD OFFENSE PASS OR FAIL THE “ATTITUDE TEST” JUVENILE’S RACE AND GENDER

TERMS Adult Court Juvenile Defendant Child Complaint Petition Arrest Detain First Appearance Detention Hearing

Omnibus Hearing Evidentiary Trial Trial Sentencing Dispositional Hearing

PETITION DOCUMENT ASKING THE COURT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER A JUVENILE

CHIPS PETITION CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTIVE SERVICES

PRETRIAL PROCEDURES Initial Hearing Juveniles are informed of their rights Pleas must be voluntary TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT Factors such as seriousness and age considered.

EJJ EXTENDED JURISDICTION JUVENILE HOLDS AN ADULT SENTENCE UNTIL THE AGE OF 21

ADJUDICATION---GUILTY Adjudications hearing determines the facts in the case and if appropriate labels the juvenile “delinquent” Proceedings formal Traditionally closed to the public Unless they are 14-17 years of age and offense is felony level

EMILY’S LAW JUNE, 2006

DISPOSITION Disposition hearing follows find of delinquency Cases can be dealt with by: Dismissal Probation Alternative dispositions—diversion programs Custodial care Community treatment

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions 2007 Juveniles cannot be put to death June, 2012 Juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole

JUVENILE CORRECTIONS Many aspects resemble adult corrections Predominant aim is to avoid unnecessary incarceration Labeling effect Treatment is believed to be more effective if child is in a normal, supportive home

Probation Usually involves education or counseling Fine or restitution Juvenile probation officers have smaller caseloads Belief that juvenile can change

SCARED STRAIGHT

RISK FACTORS FAMILY Lack of parental role model Family drug abuse Extreme economic deprivation Family gang involvement

SCHOOL Academic failure Learning disabilities Negative labeling by teachers Disciplinary problems

COMMUNITY Gangs Drug use Availability of firearms High crime/feeling of danger Lack of social and economic opportunities

PEERS Delinquent friends Friends who are gang members Friends who use drugs Lack of “positive” peer pressure

INDIVIDUAL Tendency toward aggressive behavior Inability to concentrate of focus Alcohol or other drug use Fatalistic/pessimistic viewpoint Lack of positive goals Unable to detach from negative behavior

PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES Disparity between the treatment ideal and the practice of placing juveniles in institutional settings. Juvenile court is complex and most perform a variety of functions Crime control policies have caused higher rates of minority youth incarcerations.

Philosophy of Juvenile Justice Reduced concern with legal issues of guilt or innocence Emphasis on the child’s best interest Emphasis on treatment rather than punishment Privacy

No long term confinement Separate facilities Broad discretionary alternatives at all points in the process

Parens Patriae