This paper describes the various legislations and movements that were established in 19th century to address the issue of juvenile justice system. It outlines the challenges faced by the legislation and movements and their implications in addressing the issues of the juvenile justice system.
Late eighteenth and early nineteenth century was the beginning of creating a difference in the way delinquents were handled. Historically, an offender who was above seven years of age was imprisoned together with the adults. Though an offender who was between seven and fourteen years of age was presumed as one who is not able to form the required criminal intent it gave the prosecutor room to prove otherwise. A house referred to as the New York House of Refuge was established by reformers in 1824, and it was meant to curb the problem of sending a child offender to an adult jail. In 1899 a juvenile court was established in Cook County, Illinois and another one in April 1905 in Birmingham (Shore). There was an educational reform movement that advocated for reform in juvenile justice. The movement was referred to as the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. The main issue that legislation and movements sought to address was the separation of delinquents from the adult offenders. In a case of an adult offender the court looks at the act committed. However, with the emergence of juvenile courts the focus is on the delinquent who is viewed as a child, and who needs to be helped. In the spirit of ensuring that trials against children were handled in a speedy and in a confidential manner, children below fourteen years were tried immediately before two magistrates (19th Century Bedford Gaol).
These early ref...
... middle of paper ...
... been recognized as criminal proceedings. The double jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment prohibits the state from trying an offender as juvenile and later as an adult for the same crime.
Works Cited
Einstein law, (2008). Lawyershop.com. Retrieved from:
http://www.lawyershop.com/practice-areas/criminal-law/juvenile-law/history
Hill, D.E., (2008). Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from:
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/In-Ke/Juvenile-Justice.html
Shore, H. The Idea of Juvenile Crime in 19th-Century England. Retrieved from:
http://www.orange.k12.oh.us/teachers/ohs/tshreve/apwebpage/readings/juvcrime19cbr.html
Stier, K., (2009). Getting the Juvenile-Justice System to Grow Up. Retrieved from:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887182,00.html
19th Century Bedford Gaol. Retrieved from:
http://www.schools.bedfordshire.gov.uk/gaol/contents.htm
Vito, Gennaro F., and Clifford E. Simonsen. Juvenile justice today. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2004. Print.
The Progressive Era ignited one’s greater desire for family unity however, teenager delinquency was increasing. Judge Benjamin Barr Lindsey is noted for one’s contribution to the American family with the creative plan of Juvenile Court Systems which was formed in 1901(Campbell, 1978). Judge Lindsey wanted to insure that minors would not be punished through adult judicial systems. The Juvenile Court Systems currently offers more services than originally planned. Juvenile Court provides services which protects neglected and abused minors and also is responsible for collecting child support payments.
This paper will analyze the different theoretical issues pertaining to the modern juvenile court, determine their origin, and suggest a course of action for resolving these issues to the best extent possible. It is important to note, however, that the juvenile justice system alone cannot ever prevent all juvenile crime, respond perfectly to every situation or treat every suspect fairly. Furthermore, an effective antidote to modern juvenile crime would necessitate far broader action, addressing underlying social structure inequalities that breed poverty and social disorganization.
Although putting juveniles into institutions, for many juvenile offenders occurred in the first decades of the 1900s, extensive use of probation for juveniles existed as well. As it does today, probation gave a middle ground nature for judges connecting release and placement in an institution. By 1927, trial programs for juvenile offenders existed in approximately every state. In the 1940s and 1950s, reformers attempted to improve the conditions found in most juvenile institutions. Alternatives to institutions emerged, such as forestry and probation camps. These camps provided a prearranged setting for male juvenile offenders, while emphasizing learning and occupational skills. Though, the efficiency of these options as alternatives to incarceration was dubious since they were not obtainable to the worst offenders. Yet, these changes marked the start of formal, community-based instruction that would turn out to be more extensive in following decades.
The New York House of Refuge was the first juvenile reformatory in the nation, and opened its doors on New Years Day, January 1st, 1825. With the opening in New York, it led to a House of refuge being built in Boston in 1826, followed by Philadelphia opening one of their own in 1828.11 The prison was funded by a philanthropic association called the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism, which conducted a survey in 1820 which extensively surveyed prisons across the country, and their findings led to the creation of the House of Refuge.12 In particular, the finding discovered that revenge was often a primary motivation for dealing with prisoners, and that age or severity of the crime committed rarely influenced the severity of punishment doled out. In short, the punishment did not always fit the crime. On the opening day of the prison, only a total of nine children, six boys and three girls were admitted.
With increased media coverage of violent juvenile behavior, legislators began to pass laws to toughen up on juvenile crime. Many laws made it easier to waive juveniles into adult courts, or even exclude juveniles who had committed serious crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. Furthermore, the sentences to be handed out for offenders were lengthened and made much more severe. As a result, the juvenile courts began to resemble the adult courts. Yet, this movement’s influence began to fade, and by the turn of the century, another shift had occurred. In the current juvenile courts, a balanced approach is emphasized. While the court deals with chronic and dangerous offenders with a heavy hand, needy youth who need help to get back on track are still assisted under the parens patriae philosophy. Restorative justice has come to be the preferred method of today’s juvenile courts. In an overall sense, the modern juvenile court has taken on a paternalistic view similar to parens patriae towards youths who are in need of guidance, while punitively punishing offenders who do not respond to the helping hand extended to
It was during the mid nineteenth century in England when the parliament initially recognised juvenile delinquency as a distinctive social phenomenon and accepted the responsibility not only for young offenders, but also for the children who, though not in trouble with the law, required full care and protection. Children who stood before the courts were no longer seen as little adults but were seen as beings in their own rights who were entitled because they lack full responsibility for their actions. Through this change in status it accomplished the introduction of reformatory rather than punitive treatment. A reformatory system undoubtedly distinguishes a child’s offence from an adult crime replaced penal systems which made little dedicated provisions for children. This departure culminated in Herbert Samuels Children Act 1908 (Margaret May 2002). The Children Act 1908 represented a key step in the progress of the idea that children were a special category of problem. Through the establishment of Juvenile Courts which were criminal courts in terms of the procedures and giving them jurisdiction over the care and protection issues. The Juvenile Courts became the family law courts which dispensed family justice. The courts and the state can intervene for the first time in working-class family life when children are seen to be immoral, conditions which were regarded as neglect included: truancy, begging, being beyond control etc...
The historical development of the juvenile justice system in the United States is one that is focused on forming and separating trying juveniles from adult counterparts. One of the most important aspects is focusing on ensuring that there is a level of fairness and equality with respect to the cognitive abilities and processes of juveniles as it relates to committing crime. Some of the most important case legislation that would strengthen the argument in regard to the development of the juvenile justice system is related to the reform of the justice system during the turn of the 19th century. Many juveniles were unfortunately caught in the crosshairs of being tried as adults and ultimately receiving punishments not in line with their ability to understand their actions or be provided a second chance.
Before the Progressive Era, children who were over the age of seven were put in jail with adults. In the early part of the 1800’s reformers started to become concerned with the overcrowded environment in the jails and prisons, and the corruption young kids were experiencing when locked up with adult prisoners. The Progressives in the late nineteenth century started to push for universal reform in the criminal justice system (Myers, 2008). The Progressives looked to move away from the penalizing aspect and more towards a rehabilitative system, with regard to the rectification of delinquent children and adolescents. A specific group of Progressives, called the "child savers," focused the majority of their attention on finding and curing the causes of juvenile delinquent behavior. The child savers group viewed the juvenile offenders as adolescents in need of care and direction, not punishment (Myers, 2008). In In re Gault (1967), Justice Fortas summed up the views of the child savers: “The early reformers were horrified by adult procedures and penalties, and by the fact that children could be given long prison sentences and thrown in jails with toughened criminals. They were overwhelmingly convinced that so...
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system.
In 1899, the nation’s first juvenile court for youth under the age of 16 was established in Chicago to provide rehabilitation rather than punishment. By 1925, following the Chicago model, all but two states had juvenile courts whose goals were to turn youth into productive citizens utilizing treatment that included warnings, probation, and training school confinement(Cox et al. 2014, p.2). Treatment lasted until the child was “cured” or turned 21. Although judges spoke with the offending children and decided upon the punishment, the lack of established rules and poor rehabilitation led to unfair treatment. In 1967 “ U.S. Supreme Court case of In re Gault held that juveniles were entitled to the same constitutional due process rights as adults, beginning a national reform in juvenile justice and the system was repaired to afford children many of the same rights that adults have in court” (Cox et al. 2014, p.4). Also, state legislatures passed laws to crack down on juvenile crime, as recently, states have attempted strike a balance in their approach to juvenile justice systems as research suggests that locking youth away in large, secure juvenile facilities is ineffective treatment towards different genders in which it doesn’t provide appropriate rehabilitation.
In conclusion, the development of the juvenile justice system resulted from social development and human needs. By modifying and integrating, the legal authorities have made the legal system more efficient and just to the young people, providing that necessary punishments are executed to the criminal acts while protections are given to the ordinary youth. It is believed that the stability of a society depends on a sound justice system.
The dilemma of juvenile incarceration is a problem that thankfully has been declining, but still continues to be an ethical issue. The de-incarceration trend has coincided with a decrease in crime. It is hopeful that our nation is changing the approach to the treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. It means we know what to do and what is working, now just to follow through and continue the change to creating a juvenile justice system that is truly rehabilitative and gives youth tools to be able to be positive members of
The legal treatment for youth varies all over the world because developed countries base the juvenile laws in the constitution, whereas the developing countries legally treat the youths by customs in the society. Before democracy South Africa used to treat the youths by societal rules, today it complies with the country’s constitution and international laws. I am sharing South Africa efforts with the Child Justice Act (CJA) 75 of 2008 to improve juvenile justice policies and its similarities and discrepancies with the international community and the United States. Per Sloth-Nielsen and Gallinetti (2011) South Africa new justice system is a significant advance in children’s human rights. Because of the debate on human rights, especially children,