The history of the juvenile justice system dates back to the 1760s when William Blackstone published the Commentaries on the Laws of England. In Blackstone’s writing, he separated adults and juveniles by the juveniles’ ability to understand that they were committing a crime and their full intent to commit an unlawful crime. Any person over the age of 14 were able to differentiate right from wrong and therefore should receive punishment, even if it consisted of the death penalty. A child under the age of 7 were not capable of being sentenced to a felony charge and were classified as “infants,” not able to fully understand their actions. If a child within the age range of 7-14 were capable of understanding they were committing a crime and had full intent to commit an unlawful act, they may possibly receive punishment too (ABA Dialogue Program, n.d., p.4). For example, a youth caught stealing within the age of 7-14, the court would have to authenticate the juveniles’ knowledge of the activity they were engaging in and provide evidence of the intent of the juvenile to commit the theft in order for them to be sentenced. If a child under the age of 7 committed a crime as harsh as murder, the child was not held responsible for their crime because they were considered too young to understand their actions. …show more content…
The community and the courts began to view juveniles as capable of molding and rehabilitating, so thus began a modification in the court system and sentencing of juvenile offenders. In 1899, the first US court system existed in Cook County, Illinois which opened up doors to numerous juvenile court systems. “Children were no longer to be dealt with as criminals, but rather through the parens patriae power of the state were to be treated as wards of the state, not fully responsible for their conduct and capable of being rehabilitated (Davis, 1976, p. 3).” Parens patriae: the notion that grants the state power and authority to protect juvenile offenders who are unable to care for themselves is important because the court moved from viewing juveniles as criminals to juveniles as delinquents, a minor between the age of 10 and 17 who violated the law (Juvenile Delinquents). Juveniles violates laws while adults commit crimes. Instead of imprisonment of the juvenile delinquent the court assessed why the juvenile violated the law and tried to treat the child’s problem by sentencing them to an intervention program rather than placing them in prison. The judge, “the father figure,” stood dedicated to protecting the juvenile rather than punishing (Davis, 1976, p. 3) making sure to evaluate the best interest of the
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
The article titled “ Juvenile Justice from Both Sides of the Bench”, published by PBS, and written by Janet Tobias and Michael Martin informs readers on numerous judges’ opinions on the juveniles being tried as adults. Judge Thomas Edwards believed that juveniles should not be tried as adults because they are still not mature enough to see the consequences of their actions and have a chance to minimize this behavior through rehabilitation programs. Judge LaDoris Cordell argues that although we shouldn’t give up on juveniles and instead help them be a part of society, however, she believes that some sophisticated teens that create horrible crimes should be tried as adults. Bridgett Jones claims that teens think differently than adults and still
The Juvenile Justice system, since its conception over a century ago, has been one at conflict with itself. Originally conceived as a fatherly entity intervening into the lives of the troubled urban youths, it has since been transformed into a rigid and adversarial arena restrained by the demands of personal liberty and due process. The nature of a juvenile's experience within the juvenile justice system has come almost full circle from being treated as an adult, then as an unaccountable child, now almost as an adult once more.
Throughout the history in the article “Early in U.S. history, children who broke the law were treated the same as adult criminals” (1999) that was written by the Bulletin: Juvenile Justice, explains around the nineteenth century, young children at age seven who are accused for a dishonest behavior were to be imprisoned either with the adult or sentenced to death if found guilty on stand trial in criminal court offenses (1999).
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
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.
This paper will discuss the history of the juvenile justice system and how it has come to be what it is today. When a juvenile offender commits a crime and is sentenced to jail or reform school, the offender goes to a separate jail or reforming place than an adult. It hasn’t always been this way. Until the early 1800’s juveniles were tried just like everyone else. Today, that is not the case. This paper will explain the reforms that have taken place within the criminal justice system that developed the juvenile justice system.
Justice has always been the goal of our court system, but it is not always served, especially in cases involving juveniles. The judiciary process has evolved from a system that did not initially consider juveniles, to one where juveniles have their own court proceedings, facilities, and even rules or laws. The juvenile justice system has come a long way, and people have worked very hard in its creation. A juvenile is considered to be an individual, under the age of 18, resembling an adult. However, resembling an adult does not always mean that juveniles will have an adult mindset. Thus, juveniles may need extra attention to help get their lives on track. This paper will analyze various ways involving juveniles and correction facilities and programs.
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 juvenile justice court system began in the United States in the state of Illinois. The focus was intended to improve the welfare and rehabilitation of youth incarcerated in juvenile justice system. The court mainly was focused on the rehabilitation of the youths rather than punishing them being that they still have immature ways and still growing. Specialized detention centers, youth centers, and training schools were created to treat delinquent youth apart from adult offenders in adult facilities. “Of these, approximately 14,500 are housed in adult facilities. The largest proportion, approximately 9,100 youth, are housed in local jails, and some 5,400 youth are housed in adult prisons” (Austin, 2000).
In today’s society, race and socioeconomic standing can determine the quality of treatment one receives while in the criminal justice system. Racial inequality and discrimination seems to be a permanent fixture within the criminal justice system, and the juvenile justice system is no exception when it comes to that form of injustice. As it is depicted in the PBS documentary, a teenage boy named Shawn from a white, upper-middle class family was first arrested after he stabbed his father multiple times while he was sleeping in a brutal murder attempt. Apart from the attempted murder charge, Shawn also racked up a charge of sexual assault against a fellow juvenile hall cellmate and also a drug charge when he got caught smoking pot while he was
The focus of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate juvenile offenders, rather than to imprison and punish like the systems adult counterpart. According to Caldwell (1961) the juvenile justice system is based on the principle that youth are developmentally and fundamentally different from adults. This has lead to the development of a separate justice system for juveniles that was initially designed to assist troubled juveniles providing them with protection, treatment, and guidance. When performing as it is designed and up to the initial intentions, the juvenile court balances rehabilitation (treatment) of the offender with suitable sanctions when necessary such as incarceration. According to Mack (1909) the focus of the juvenile justice system has shifted from “how can we help the child”, “why did the child commit the crime” to “was the crime committed”. According to Griffin (2008) in some cases juveniles may be required to be “transferred” to adult court. The prerequisites for transfer to adult court are the duty to protect the public from violent youths, serious crime, and the lack of rehabilitation chance from the juvenile court. According to Flesch (2004) many jurisdictions handle the issue of serious juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. Charging a juvenile as an adult is done by a method which is called waiver to adult court. This waiver allows adult criminal court to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles and handle the juvenile’s case as an adult’s case would be tried. According to Flesch (2004) a juvenile is both tried and if convicted of the crime the juvenile will be sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived from the juvenile court. Waiver to adult court initially was viewe...
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.
The United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.