Juvenile Justice in the United States

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Tanenhaus
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Institutional Legitimacy ◽  
Justice Systems ◽  
The 1960S

Juvenile justice is a technical term that refers to the specific area of law and affiliated institutions, most notably the juvenile court, with jurisdiction over the cases of minors who are accused of being miscreants. Although the idea that the law should treat minors differently from adults predates the American Revolution, juvenile justice itself is a Progressive Era invention. Its institutional legitimacy rests on the power and responsibility of the state to act as a parent (parens patriae) on behalf of those who cannot care for themselves. Since the establishment of the world’s first juvenile court in Chicago in 1899, this American idea of creating separate justice systems for juveniles has spread across the nation and much of the world. For more than a century, American states have used their juvenile justice systems to respond to youth crime and delinquency. Since the 1960s, the US Supreme Court has periodically considered whether juvenile courts must provide the same constitutional due process safeguards as adult criminal courts and whether juveniles prosecuted in the criminal justice system can receive the same sentences as adults, such as the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole.

Legalism versus Welfarism in Israel's Juvenile Justice System

1981 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Sebba
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Appropriate Treatment ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
A Minor

In its landmark decisionIn re Gault(1967), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a minor brought before the juvenile court was in principle entitled to the guarantees of due process available to adult defendants in criminal trials. That momentous decision sparked off a debate which has continued ever since in academic and policy-making circles, both on the national and international levels. In essence, the controversy relates to the question of the nature of social control measures to be adopted by the legal system to deal with errant juveniles. Should these be essentially criminal and punitive in character, or are they better considered as welfare proceedings, the essential purpose of which is to determine the appropriate treatment? Thus, the legal, or punitive, model of juvenile justice may be juxtaposed to the welfare or treatment (or even “therapeutic”) model.

Juvenile Courts

Criminology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Ethnic Disparities ◽  
Developmental Differences ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Treatment Programs ◽  
Juvenile Courts

The juvenile court has moved through phases and evolved in numerous ways since originating in 1899. During the Progressive Era, the juvenile court was seen as a social welfare reform and began to establish youth institutions. The due process revolution followed, after a series of significant case decisions established due process rights and equal projection to children. The “Get Tough” phase of the juvenile justice system in the 1980s and 1990s targeted punitive sentencing, rather than rehabilitative sentencing. More recently, the juvenile court evolved to recognize the neurological and developmental differences between youth and adults. This rationale supports the need for a separate court from the adult criminal system, with the goal of early diversion and treatment for youth. Children are more amendable to treatment and rehabilitation, and they should be considered less responsible and less culpable as compared to adults. Children who commit crimes typically will be treated less punitively than adults who commit the same crime. Modern juvenile courts generally seek to address the specific needs of youth in a developmentally appropriate manner, while also maintaining public safety. Adolescence in itself exemplifies a phase of impulsivity, vulnerability, risky behavior, and the testing of boundaries. These aspects of adolescence are widely accepted today and better understood due to neuroscientific research on adolescent development. The multiple stages of the juvenile justice process involve a variety of decision-makers who have the power and discretion to determine a child’s future. The courtroom workgroup makes decisions to divert youth from the system, incarcerate juveniles in a placement facility, or mandate treatment programs. Other systems, such as child welfare, schools, families, and health, can be involved in the juvenile court process as well. In recent decades, juvenile courts have moved away from popular punitive approaches of the latter 20th century and toward more evidence-based rehabilitative strategies. Contemporary juvenile courts seek to serve the best interests of children and youth, but also the community and victims. Moreover, juvenile court jurisdiction, based on minimum and maximum ages and definitions of criminal responsibility, varies across states. Similarly, juvenile transfer laws vary from state to state, and jurisdictional boundaries are currently a popular area of reform. In the aftermath of decreasing juvenile crime rates, many states are considering systemic reforms to remove youth from adult prisons, minimize youth confinement, and reduce racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing.

scholarly journals Achieving Juvenile Justice through Abolition: A Critical Review of Social Work’s Role in Shaping the Juvenile Legal System and Steps toward Achieving an Antiracist Future

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 211
Author(s):  
Durrell M. Washington ◽  
Toyan Harper ◽  
Alizé B. Hill ◽  
Lester J. Kern
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Social Workers ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Deviant Behavior ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Black Youth ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Juvenile Courts

The first juvenile court was created in 1899 with the help of social workers who conceptualized their actions as progressive. Youth were deemed inculpable for certain actions since, cognitively, their brains were not as developed as those of adults. Thus, separate measures were created to rehabilitate youth who exhibited delinquent and deviant behavior. Over one hundred years later, we have a system that disproportionately arrests, confines, and displaces Black youth. This paper critiques social work’s role in helping develop the first juvenile courts, while highlighting the failures of the current juvenile legal system. We then use P.I.C. abolition as a theoretical framework to offer guidance on how social work can once again assist in the transformation of the juvenile legal system as a means toward achieving true justice.

Legal Aid for Children: Some Reflections

1979 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Brian Lucas
Keyword(s):  
United States Of America ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Court System ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
The Supreme Court

In its Second Main Report, Law and Poverty in Australia, the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty expressed the view that “legal representation for children appearing before the children's court, whether in the criminal or protective jurisdiction, is necessary if justice is to be done.”This view coincides with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in In re Gault. It has been said that this decision “unleashed a frontal assault on the juvenile court system.” It confirmed that juveniles were entitled to “due process” and the same protection which the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights afforded to adults.

Differential Effects of Juvenile Justice Reform on Incarceration Rates of the States

1991 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund F. McGarrell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Juvenile Crime ◽  
Differential Effects ◽  
Juvenile Incarceration ◽  
Public Facilities ◽  
Social Structural ◽  
Political Choices ◽  
The 1960S

Since the 1960s, juvenile justice systems in the United States have faced divergent calls for reform. Included have been demands to deinstitutionalize as well as demands to “get tough” on juvenile crime. This article examines the wide variation across the states in the use of incarceration in public facilities from the mid-1970s to 1987. The findings suggest that the level of change in juvenile incarceration rates is determined by a range of political, social structural, and bureaucratic factors. These factors appear to have led to varying political choices within the states, either supporting or disfavoring incarceration in public facilities.

Rights in Twentieth-Century Constitutions: The Case of Welfare Rights

1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-156
Author(s):  
Mary Ann Glendon
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Welfare Rights ◽  
Government Grants ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The 1960S

In the 1960s and 1970s, when the judicial rights revolution was in full swing in the United States, poverty lawyers and allied legal scholars urged the courts to add to the expanding catalog of constitutional rights certain social and economic rights—to housing, education, and a minimum decent subsistence. The advocates of welfare rights were not deterred by the absence of pertinent constitutional language. After all, if the Court could find a right to privacy in the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights, who knew what else might be discovered there? Those efforts to constitutionalize what were historically matters of legislative discretion had only partial success. The Supreme Court did hold that, once government grants certain statutory entitlements such as welfare and disability benefits, the recipients have a constitutional right not to be deprived of those benefits without procedural due process. The Court declined, however, to find that the entitlements themselves were constitutionally required.

scholarly journals Is the United States Juvenile Justice System Working: An Empirical Investigation from the Life Course Approach

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 142
Author(s):  
Gbolahan S Osho
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Delinquency ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Delinquency Prevention ◽  
Dependent Child ◽  
Prevention Act ◽  
And Control

The juvenile court was given jurisdiction over neglect and dependent children for the purpose of this act the words dependent child and neglected shall mean any child who for any reason is destitute or homeless, abandoned, no proper parental care or guardianship; or who habitually begs or receives alms; or who is found living, in any house of ill fame or with any vicious or disreputable person; or whose home, by reason of neglect, cruelty or depravity on the part of its parents, guardian or other person in whose care it may be, is an unfit place for such a child” (Abadinsky pg 102). In 1968 Congress “passed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act. The act was designed to encourage states to develop plans and programs that would work on community levels to discourage juvenile delinquency. The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act was precursor to the extensive Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act that replaced it in 1974. However, to prevent a juvenile from committing a crime or re-offending, this study believes that the juvenile court and the state legislators must designed a program that juveniles can participate in and engage them in positive activities. This way a youth will change his or her behavior and become a law-abiding

Race, Legal Representation, and Juvenile Justice: Issues and Concerns

2004 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Guevara ◽  
Cassia Spohn ◽  
Denise Herz
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
White Youth ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
Court Referrals ◽  
Using Data ◽  
To Receive

The objective of this study was to examine the influence of type of counsel across race on juvenile court outcomes. Using data from a sample of juvenile court referrals from two midwestern juvenile courts, this study examined the interaction of race and type of counsel on disposition outcome. The results indicated that youth without an attorney were the most likely to have the charges dismissed, and this effect was more pronounced for non-White youth. In addition, non-White youth represented by a private attorney were significantly more likely than similar White youth to receive a secure confinement disposition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document