1. © 2015 Cengage Learning Chapter 15 The Juvenile System Chapter 15 The Juvenile System © 2015 Cengage Learning

2. Learning Objective 1 Describe the child- saving movement and its relationship to the doctrine of parens patriae. AP/Handout photo from Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department

3. © 2015 Cengage Learning The Evolution of American Juvenile Justice Child Savers: – Wealthy, civic minded citizens who were concerned with the welfare of disadvantaged children – Argued that the state has a responsibility to take control of children who exhibit criminal tendencies or had been neglected by their parents – Instrumental in opening the House of Refuge in 1825

4. © 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objective 2 List the four major differences between juvenile courts and adult courts. AP Photo/Keith Srakocic, Pool

5. © 2015 Cengage Learning The Evolution of American Juvenile Justice The Illinois Juvenile Court: – Established in 1899 – Different from adult court No juries Different terminology No adversarial relationship Confidentiality – All states have juvenile courts by 1945

6. © 2015 Cengage Learning The Evolution of American Juvenile Justice

7. © 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objective 3 Identify and briefly describe the single most important Supreme Court case with respect to juvenile justice. AP Photo/Mark Duncan

8. © 2015 Cengage Learning Kent v. United States Morris A. Kent Jr., a 16-year-old boy, was detained and interrogated by the police in connection with several incidents involving robbery and rape. After Kent admitted some involvement, the juvenile court waived its jurisdiction. This allowed Kent to be tried as an adult. Kent was indicted in district court. Kent moved to dismiss the indictment because the juvenile court did not conduct a "full investigation" before waiving jurisdiction, as required by the Juvenile Court Act. A jury found Kent guilty and sentenced him to serve 30-90 years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, although it noted that the juvenile court judge provided no reason for the waiver.

9. © 2015 Cengage Learning Kent v. United States In a 5-4 decision, Justice Abe Fortas wrote for the majority. The Supreme Court determined there was not a sufficient investigation prior to the juvenile court waiver of jurisdiction. Kent did not receive a hearing, access to counsel, or access to his record prior to the waiver. The Court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the waiver was proper. Because Kent was 21 years old at the time of this decision, the juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction if the waiver was proper. In light of this, the Court ordered that the conviction be vacated if the waiver was improper and sustained if proper. Justice Potter Stewart wrote a dissent stating he would vacate the judgment and remand the case for reconsideration in light of two recent decisions by the court of appeals. Justice Hugo L. Black, Justice John M. Harlan, and Justice Byron R. White joined in the dissent.

10. © 2015 Cengage Learning The Evolution of American Juvenile Justice In re Gault: Gerald Francis Gault, fifteen years old, was taken into custody for allegedly making an obscene phone call. Gault had previously been placed on probation. The police did not leave notice with Gault's parents, who were at work, when the youth was arrested. After proceedings before a juvenile court judge, Gault was committed to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21. – The court held that juveniles are entitled to many of the same due process rights granted to adult offenders

11. © 2015 Cengage Learning In re Gault The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. These requirements included adequate notice of charges, notification of both the parents and the child of the juvenile's right to counsel, opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination at the hearings, and adequate safeguards against self-incrimination. The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's case met none of these requirements.

12. © 2015 Cengage Learning The Evolution of American Juvenile Justice © Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

13. © 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objective 4 Describe the reasoning behind recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have lessened the harshness of sentencing outcomes for violent juvenile offenders.

14. © 2015 Cengage Learning Determining Delinquency Today The age question Juvenile behavior The culpability question Diminished guilt Roper v. Simmons (2005) Life imprisonment issues Graham v. Florida (2010) Miller v. Alabama (2012) Resentencing issues

15. © 2015 Cengage Learning Graham v. Florida When Terrence Graham was 16 years old he was convicted of armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. He served a 12 month sentence and was released. Six months later Mr. Graham was tried and convicted by a Florida state court of armed home robbery and sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, he argued that the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile, on its face, violated the Eighth Amendment and moreover constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and thus violated the Eighth Amendment. The District Court of Appeal of Florida disagreed. It held that Mr. Graham's sentence neither was a facial violation of the Eighth Amendment nor constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

16. © 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objective 5 Explain how law enforcement’s emphasis on domestic violence has influenced female juvenile arrest patterns. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

17. © 2015 Cengage Learning Trends in Juvenile Delinquency According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, juvenile courts handled twice as many cases involving girls in 2009 as they did in 1985 Family-based delinquency School violence Bullying

18. © 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objective 6 Describe the one variable that always correlates highly with juvenile crime rates. Cheryl E. Davis/Shutterstock

19. © 2015 Cengage Learning Factors in Juvenile Delinquency Risk factors for juvenile offending: – Age of onset – Substance abuse – Child abuse and neglect – Gangs – Guns

20. © 2015 Cengage Learning Factors in Juvenile Delinquency

21. © 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objective 7 Indicate some of the reasons why youths join gangs. Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

22. © 2015 Cengage Learning Factors in Juvenile Delinquency Youth gang—a group of three or more persons who: – Self-identify as an entity separate from the community by clothing, vocabulary, hand- signals, and names – Engage in criminal activity

23. © 2015 Cengage Learning Factors in Juvenile Delinquency Why do youths join gangs: – Status – Protection – Excitement – Fear

24. © 2015 Cengage Learning Factors in Juvenile Delinquency © Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

25. © 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objective 8 List the factors that normally determine what police do with juvenile offenders. © Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.

26. © 2015 Cengage Learning First Contact: The Police and Pretrial Procedures Police exercise low-visibility decision making when working with juveniles. Factors that impact discretion: – Nature of the offense – Past criminal history – Attitude of the offender – Role of the parents – Race and gender of offender – Setting of offense

27. © 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objective 9 Describe the four primary stages of pretrial juvenile justice procedure. Photo by Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post via Getty Images

28. © 2015 Cengage Learning Trying & Punishing Juveniles The four primary pretrial stages are: 1.Intake- court decides to file a petition, release, or put juvenile under supervision 2.Pretrial diversion-probation, treatment and aid, or restitution 3.Waiver to adult court- automatic waiver, prosecutorial waiver 4.Detention- temporary custody, detention hearing within 24 hours

29. © 2015 Cengage Learning Learning Objective 10 Explain the distinction between an adjudicatory hearing and a disposition hearing. AP Photo/Columbus Dispatch, James D. DeCamp

30. © 2015 Cengage Learning Trying & Punishing Juveniles A Bifurcated Process: Adjudication Hearing The process by which the court determines whether there is sufficient evidence to support the petition. Detention Hearing The hearing in which the appropriate sanctions for the delinquent or status offender is determined. Predisposition report

31. © 2015 Cengage Learning Trying & Punishing Juveniles Juvenile corrections is based on graduated sanctions. – Probation – Residential treatment programs Foster care programs, group homes, family group homes, rural programs – Secure confinement- boot camp – Aftercare programs

32. © 2015 Cengage Learning Discussion Questions Discuss the juvenile justice system in your own community and/or state. Discuss the concept of graduated sanctions and their effectiveness within your system. Discuss what changes should be made to improve your juvenile justice system to better enhance your own community.

33. © 2015 Cengage Learning Research Questions Research the gangs in your own community. Who are they, how do they identify themselves, what sets them apart from community members? Are they mostly juveniles are they both adults/juvenile gangs? What can you do to prevent gang formation?

34. © 2015 Cengage Learning Discussion Questions Observe a youtube.com video which relates to juveniles and gangs. Discuss the reasons you see through the video that juveniles would choose to join gangs. Discuss the initiation process and why youth believe this is an effective way to lead their lives.