Juvenile Delinquency 3-22-11

  1. The JJS was created to address two fundamental problems facing children in our society:
    • 1. Criminal behavior committed by children - delinquency
    • 2. Neglect and abuse of children – dependency
  2. JJS is an amalgam of agencies meaning it is composed of
    • - police, prosecutors, social workers, psychiatric institutions, welfare agencies, juvenile court
    • - juvenile court is the “cog” or “hub” of the wheel – the central agency of the JJS
  3. Characteristics of the MODERN JJS
    • there is a clear distinction between juvenile and adults
    • - children require a separate system in every respect
    • - never combined with adult offenders
    • - deemed negative to come in contact with adult offenders
    • - undermining to treatment if they are together
    • - can be abused because they are weaker
    • - new concept in jurisprudence
    • - first juvenile court was in Illinois
  4. The Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899
    - first legislation that started the modern JJS system

    • - blueprint for modern JJS
    • - same fundamentals as we have now
    • - states began to adopt versions of the Act
    • - PA in 1903
    • - also had an international impact
  5. Two Fundamental Factors that Led to Need for JJS
    1. Urbanization (which led to…)

    • 2. Child Saver’s Movement
    • - Child Saver’s Movement advocated for significant changes
  6. Urbanization
    • usually occurred in areas around rivers (easy transportation)
    • - factories grew and urban centers grew
    • - immigration increased
    • - dense populations occupied little space
    • - lots of crime, including child crimes
    • - parents neglected children
    • - more children were in trouble
    • - children went to same jails as adults
    • - people were concerned with the number of children in the system
  7. Child Saver’s Movement
    • The NY Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
    • - formed from the SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
    • - animal advocacy was first
    • - spread throughout the US, particularly urban areas
    • - advocated for alternative housing for juvenile offenders
    • - Houses of Refuge
    • - placement for children
    • - harsh by today’s standard
    • - reformed children by labor, work, religion
    • - advocated for more laws so judges would intervene in children’s lives
    • - based on parens patriae
    • - at the beginning, there were no due process protections
    • - no constitutional rights for children
    • - nothing regarding self-incrimination, right to trial, right to confront witnesses, etc.
  8. Ex Parte Crouse (PA
    • - committed to Philadelphia House of Refuge because child was “unmanageable.”
    • - didn’t listen to parents, incorrigible
    • - charitable organization appealed based on the assertion of illegal commitment
    • - commitment was illegal because she didn’t have due process
    • - she wanted a jury trial
    • - she was losing liberty – why should she go away without a jury trial?
    • The Court said the child had no due process protection and she didn’t need any because the purpose of the proceedings was to treat and rehabilitee, not to punish. They rationalized that because she wasn’t being punished, she had no rights.
    • This went on until the 1960s…
    • Inconsistencies between jurisdictions continued to be a problem.
  9. Guiding Principles of Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899
    • 1. Children who commit crimes are not as accountable as adults
    • - less culpable, less blameworthy, less experienced
    • 2. Children who commit crimes are victims of a negative circumstance
    • - they are not inherently evil
    • - something has gone wrong to make them a criminal
    • 3. The child should be treated and rehabilitated, not punished
  10. Innovation of the Juvenile Court Act of Illinois
    • 1. established a separate court for children from top to bottom
    • 2. established new and separate legal principles that apply to children
    • 3. created individualized treatment model
    • - fit the unique needs of each and every child
    • - we all have our own history
    • - must shape treatment plan for each child
    • 4. probation was empowered to be the right arm of the court
    • - investigate, recommend (much more influential than adult probation)
    • 5. wide range of treatment programs were created
    • - far more than adult court
    • 6. extremely informal and flexible court process
    • - maximize information flow
    • - everything is open
    • - no strict rules of evidence
  11. Early Years of the Modern Juvenile Justice System
    • first 60 years (1899 – mid 1960s)
    • - extreme informality and lacked procedures
    • - no rules of evidence, hearsay was admissible
    • - no constitutional rights, no due process protections, no attorneys, no trials
    • - standard of proof was a preponderance of the evidence
    • - a lower, easier standard of proof as compared to BARD
    • - standard of proof – quantum of evidence required before an agency can take action
    • - preponderance of the evidence was the standard for the first 60 years
    • - function was to rehabilitate and treat
    • - sought reduction of stigma impact
    • - closed juvenile proceedings to the public
    • - adult hearings are open for checks and balances – to keep judge honest
    • - avoid giving too much power to any one person
    • - juvenile proceedings were private to shield children from stigma
    • - juvenile records are closed
    • - different set of terminology
  12. Terminology Differences:
    • ADULT --------------------------JUVENILE
    • Indictment………………………………….Petition
    • Jail…………………………………. ……...Detention Center
    • Convicted………………………………….Adjudicated
    • Incarcerated……………………………….Committed
  13. Standards of Proof
    • 1. Probable cause – standard of proof necessary before you can be arrested
    • 2. Civil Court – preponderance of the evidence (scale tips a bit in favor of one side)
    • 3. Criminal Court – beyond a reasonable doubt (most difficult to meet)
    Kent v US (1966)
    • dealt with narrow issue of certification
    • - when child commits big crimes, they are charged as an adult
    • - certain children cannot be treated or rehabilitated – they are incorrigible
    • In those rare cases they can’t be rehabilitated, children can be transferred from juvenile court and treated as an adult. A child can be certified by informal procedures (by judge). The judge by himself decides whether to certify or not. There is no discussion – it is a unilateral decision. The court looked back at the Crouse rationale which was to treat and rehabilitate. But in the case of a certification, a child must be given some sort of due process as the result is punishment – a removal of their liberty:

    • 1. Right to hearing
    • 2. Child has a right to an attorney at the hearing
    • 3. Child has the right to discovery (to know what evidence is against you before the hearing)
    In Re Gault (1967)
    • dealt with protection when adjudicated
    • Child was adjudicated delinquent – prank phone calls. He was being sent away until he turned 21. Appealed on the basis of no due process protections when adjudicated. Attorneys asked Supreme Court to look at rational of Crouse. With modern sensibilities, can we base constitutional protections on the basis of the state purpose of the proceedings?
    • The Supreme Court said NO. The child must have some fundamental due process at the adjudication hearings.
    • A child would have the following rights under Gault:
    • 1. 6th Amendment right to an attorney.
    • 2. 6th Amendment right to notice of the charge (know what you are being accused of)
    • 3. 6th Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses (right to disagree and defend)4. 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (cannot be forced to testify against yourself
    In Re Winship (1970)
    • dealt with standard of proof
    • Standard of proof (was preponderance of the evidence) should be changed because a child loses the same liberty as an adult so a child should also have the same standard as adults – beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Supreme Court agreed to standard of BARD when liberty is at stake.
  17. CASES ON DUE PROCESS RIGHTS In Re McKeever v PA (1971)
    • dealt with jury trial
    • Should a child adjudicated delinquent be afforded the right to a jury trial? Supreme Court said NO. Rejected because of formality that jury trials bring. They are very rigid. The trier of fact cannot be tainted. All rules of procedure need to be followed in jury trials. If permitted in juvenile proceedings, all notions of informality would be gone.
    • NO jury trials.
  18. CASES ON DUE PROCESS RIGHTS Bree v Jones (1975)
    • dealt with certification procedure in context of double jeopardy
    • A child goes to the adjudication hearing and was adjudicated delinquent. After adjudication, the judge would decide whether the child would be certified or not to adult court...to be tried again. Known as double jeopardy. The question – does the 5th amendment double jeopardy meaning apply to children?
    • Supreme Court said YES.
  19. Court cases of Kent, Gault, Winship and Bree gave constitutional protections to children
    McKeever – no jury trials for children
  20. SINCE THE 1960s
    • - far more formal and structured
    • - many of the same constitutional rights
    • - still less structured than adult prosecution
    • - children are considered to have all the same constitutional rights of adults EXCEPT:
    • - no jury trials
    • - no public trials
    • - rules of evidence now apply to juvenile cases
    • - hearsay is now inadmissible by implication (there was no Supreme Court decision on this)
    • Hearsay…
    • Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses is intertwined with the hearsay rule. When you have a hearing, you have a right to confront witnesses against you. Hearsay is a statement made outside the courtroom against you. By implication, the Supreme Court made hearsay rules applicable and now all rules of evidence apply to juvenile cases.
    • - Juvenile hearings are still informal and stigma shielding elements are still there.
Card Set
Juvenile Delinquency 3-22-11
Juvenile Delinquency 3-22-11