  | ||
|
|
The U.S. Legal System Juvenile Criminal Proceedings Special courts and procedures provided by each to deal with juvenile offenders; these courts differ in terminology and goals from those in the adult criminal system In addition to the normal criminal justice system for adults, each state has a separate system for juvenile lawbreakers. The juvenile justice system differs in philosophy and goals from the adult system in that its primary purpose is to rehabilitate rather than to punish. Juveniles are accorded only some of the rights accorded to adult criminal defendants, and the terminology used in juvenile cases differs from that used in adult cases. History and Philosophy When the United States was first founded, there was no separate justice system for children. Instead, the common-law rule from England was adopted: Children under the age of seven could not be tried at all for criminal acts, children between seven and fourteen years of age could be tried if the prosecutor showed that they were mentally mature enough to be held responsible for their acts, and children fourteen years of age and older were treated as adults. Children who were tried would receive adult punishments, including the death penalty. By the beginning of the twentieth century, however, legal scholars, children's advocates, and others were convinced that delinquent children should be treated differently from criminal adults. The first juvenile court was created in Illinois in 1899, and most jurisdictions soon followed. From their beginnings, juvenile courts were meant to operate under the doctrine of parens patriae. Literally meaning "parent of the country," parens patriae signifies in practice that the court acts as a guardian of wayward and needy children and in such children's best interests. In fact, many juvenile courts have jurisdiction not only over delinquency cases but also over cases involving neglected, abused, and abandoned children and over child-custody cases. Under the doctrine of parens patriae a juvenile court's primary mission is to protect and rehabilitate delinquent children. Juvenile courts should provide individualized attention to each child and seek outcomes that are closely tailored to each child's needs. Juvenile Court Jurisdiction Juvenile courts are courts of limited jurisdiction--that is, they can hear only certain types of cases. States differ in how they define juvenile court jurisdiction. All states specify a maximum age at which a person may be tried as a juvenile for any crime. The most common maximum age is seventeen. Most states also permit some juveniles to be tried as adults under certain circumstances. This usually takes place when older juveniles commit serious or violent crimes. Depending on the jurisdiction, a statute may require that juveniles be tried in adult criminal court in certain cases. Prosecutors may have the prerogative to decide whether to try cases in juvenile or adult court. Most commonly, however, this decision is left to judges (usually juvenile court judges). Proceedings known as waiver hearings are held, in which judges determine, generally according to statutory guidelines, whether it is appropriate to try persons as juveniles or adults. By the end of the twentieth century, a strong movement was in place in many jurisdictions to be more punitive toward juveniles. This movement was a result of the perceived increase in dangerous juvenile crime and a reaction to the perceived inadequacies of the juvenile justice system. Many states lowered the age at which persons could be tried as adults while increasing the range of offenses. Minors tried as adults are subject to the same procedures as adult defendants and may also receive the same sentences, including incarceration in prison. In some cases, minors found guilty in adult trials are kept in juvenile facilities until they reach the age of majority, at which time they are transferred to adult facilities.
a Offenses that would be criminal if committed by adults. b Includes murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. c Includes negligent manslaughter, simple assault, and sexual assault. d Includes burglary, arson, larceny/theft, and motor vehicle theft. e Includes vandalism, forgery, counterfeiting, fraud, stolen property, and unauthorized vehicle use. f Includes weapons offenses, prostitution, commercialized vice, disorderly conduct, minor traffic offenses, curfew or loitering law offenses, and offenses against morals and decency and the like. g Offenses that would not be considered crimes if committed by adults. h Dependency, neglect, abuse, emotional disturbance, retardation, and other. Juvenile Procedures and Terminology The precise procedures in juvenile cases differ among jurisdictions. However, most states use the same general terminology and procedures. In most juvenile cases, the first step is arrest. The arresting officers frequently choose to release juveniles to the custody of their parents. When a serious crime has occurred or when the officers believe that placement with the parents is unsuitable, the juveniles are taken into custody. In most instances, especially in more populous areas, this means that the juveniles will be taken to a temporary juvenile detention facility, usually called juvenile hall. However, as juvenile facilities are not always available, thousands of children each year spend some time in adult jails. At juvenile hall an intake officer (who is usually a juvenile probation officer) determines whether to file a petition against the juveniles. A petition is a statement of formal charges against the minors and serves much the same purpose as a criminal complaint. The intake officer also determines whether to keep the juveniles in state custody for the time being. This determination may be based on factors such as the likelihood that the juveniles will commit more crimes if they are released and the potential danger to them from their parents or others. Unlike adults, juveniles do not have the right to be released on bail; instead, they may be released to the custody of their parents or other responsible adults. The actual "trials" in juvenile cases are known as delinquency hearings. Children in delinquency hearings enjoy some, but not all, of the rights enjoyed by adults in criminal cases. Juveniles are "adjudicated delinquent" rather than found guilty, as are persons in adult trials. The idea behind this differing terminology is that being adjudicated delinquent carries less of a stigma than being found guilty, therefore helping juveniles to rehabilitate themselves and lead productive lives. For the same reason, juvenile proceedings are usually not open to the public, offenders' names are frequently not made available to the press, and delinquency records are often sealed or expunged after affected persons become adults. Juveniles are given dispositions rather than sentences. Thus, after children are adjudicated delinquent, disposition hearings are held. The judge usually receives a report from a juvenile probation officer, which describes a juvenile's background and recommends a disposition. Most youths are placed on probation. If probation is deemed unsuitable, youths remain in state custody. Because dispositions are supposed to treat juveniles' individual problems, most states have a variety of dispositions at their disposal, including foster homes, group homes, treatment centers, wilderness programs, boot camps, and secure facilities. Because the primary purpose of the juvenile system is rehabilitation, rather than punishment, juveniles are often given indeterminate sentences. That is, they remain in custody until they are determined to have been reformed or until they are too old to be held in the juvenile system's jurisdiction. As a result, juveniles may sometimes spend more time in custody than would adults for the same crimes. The maximum age at which persons may remain in custody pursuant to a delinquency adjudication differs from state to state. In some states it may be well past the age of majority. For example, in California the juvenile system may retain custody of persons until they reach the age of twenty-five. Due Process in Juvenile Justice When juvenile courts were originally created, judges were supposed to pay careful attention to each child's needs and the courts were supposed to safeguard children's best interests. For this reason, juveniles were not accorded the same protections as adult defendants under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In practice, juvenile court dockets quickly became overloaded, and juvenile court judges were unable to pay close attention to each child. As a result, some cases became travesties of justice in which neither the best interests nor the constitutional rights of juveniles were protected. By the mid-1960's the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the juvenile justice system frequently did not live up to its ideals. In a series of cases, the Court ruled that juveniles must receive many of the same protections to which adult defendants are entitled. These protections were necessary, the Court believed, to prevent the juvenile justice system from becoming a kangaroo court. However, the Court refused to accord to juveniles all the rights enjoyed by adults. To do so would prevent juvenile courts from fulfilling their duties according to the doctrine of parens patriae and would effectively erase the differences between juvenile and adult courts. The Supreme Court was unwilling to go so far as to completely abandon the juvenile justice system. The most obvious right to which juveniles are not entitled is a jury trial. Problems of Juvenile Justice By the 1990's the juvenile justice system in the United States faced a number of serious problems. Primary among them was overcrowding: Juvenile court dockets and juvenile facilities were so full that offenders, especially those who had committed less serious crimes, could receive little attention. Treatment programs were inadequate and institutions were often so full that juveniles were in physical danger. Juvenile probationers could receive very little close supervision because of probation officers' large caseloads. These problems contributed to another difficulty: The public viewed the juvenile justice system as inadequate. In many cases, this led to a push for more punitive measures, such as longer periods of incarceration, more restrictive dispositions, and more trials of juveniles as adults. These measures required the construction of more secure facilities that often resulted in the decreased availability of funds for prevention and treatment programs. At the urging of many experts, some states reacted by completely reshaping their juvenile justice systems, often with encouraging results. However, this radical reshaping required a change in philosophy for which it was difficult to gain public and political support. By the end of the twentieth century, therefore, the future of the juvenile justice system remained in doubt. Phyllis B. Gerstenfeld Suggested ReadingsGood starting points include The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice, edited by Marilyn D. McShane and Frank P. Williams (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2003), R. Barri Flowers's Kids Who Commit Adult Crimes: Serious Criminality by Juvenile Offenders. (Haworth, 2002), and Handbook of Youth and Justice, edited by Susan O. White (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001). Among the many books offering general overviews of the juvenile justice system are Thomas Grisso and Robert G. Schwartz, editors. Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000); The Changing Borders of Juvenile Justice: Transfer of Adolescents to the Criminal Court, edited by Jeffrey Fagan and Franklin E. Zimring (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000); and Will the Juvenile Court System Survive?, edited by Alan W. Heston and Neil A. Weiner (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Periodicals Press, 1999); and John T. Whitehead and Steven P. Lab's Juvenile Justice: An Introduction (2d ed. Cincinnati: Anderson, 1996). Three texts that summarize important juvenile criminal proceedings are Roland V. del Carmen, Mary Parker, and Frances P. Reddington's Briefs of Leading Cases in Juvenile Law (Cincinnati: Anderson, 1998), Joseph J. Senna and Larry J. Siegel's Juvenile Law: Cases and Comments (2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 1992), and Samuel M. Davis, Elizabeth S. Scott, Walter Wadlington, and Charles H. Whitebread's Children in the Legal System: Cases and Materials (2d ed. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1997). Barry Krisberg and James F. Austin present a critical view of the contemporary juvenile justice system in Reinventing Juvenile Justice (Newbury Park: Sage, 1993). A fascinating narrative account of the daily workings of the Los Angeles juvenile courts is presented in Edward Humes's No Matter How Loud I Shout: A Year in the Life of the Juvenile Court (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996). Studies of problem juveniles include Barry C. Feld, Bad Kids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), and Securing Our Children's Future: New Approaches to Juvenile Justice and Yourth Violence, edited by Gary S. Katzmann (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002). See Also: Age of majority; Arrest; Court types; Criminal justice system; Criminal procedure; Criminal records; Family law practice; Legal guardians; Probation, juvenile. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If you need help with products and ordering, setting up a new account or working with this website, call or email us:
 |
SALEM PRESS, INC. · 131 North El Molino Avenue · Pasadena · CA 91101 © Salem Press, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |