The Evolution of Juvenile Justice - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – The Evolution of Juvenile Justice PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 56051c-ZGE5N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

The Evolution of Juvenile Justice

Description:

Title: fffAssessment/Classification in Institutional Corrections Chapter 8 Author: Mike Grabowski Last modified by: latitude Created Date: 7/23/2005 7:21:17 AM – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:149
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 77
Provided by: MikeGra
Learn more at: http://www.professormikereid.com
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Evolution of Juvenile Justice


1
The Evolution of Juvenile Justice
  • Chapter 1

2
Introduction
  • CA juvenile justice system evolved from English
    common law heritage
  • Other Codes had laws relating to juveniles
  • 2270 B.C. Babylonian Code of Hammurabi
  • Byzantine Codes of Justinian
  • Old Testament

3
Introduction
  • These early laws regulated what might be
    considered criminal conduct
  • Theft
  • Burglary

4
Early Law Regulations
  • Social conduct was also regulated
  • Relationships with adults
  • Obedience
  • Education
  • Hard work
  • Respect for elders
  • A good moral life

5
Early Law Regulations
  • Punishments were severe
  • Designed to correct the child for his or her own
    good
  • Some included death
  • Others were abusive
  • No protection from abuse
  • Juvenile rights have evolved today to include
    many adult rights sometimes they have more rights

6
Age of Responsibility
  • Juvenile system was erected on three conceptual
    pillars
  • The first is the age of responsibility or minimum
    age of responsibility
  • At what age is a juvenile considered eligible
    for entry into the juvenile justice system or
    responsible for his or her conduct?
  • Answer
  • It all depends upon
  • 1) What the offense is
  • 2) In what state the juvenile
  • commits the offense

7
Age of Responsibility
  • States vary on their legal definition of
    adulthood for purposes of criminal prosecution
  • It is usually between the ages of 16-18 years

8
Age of Responsibility
  • 23 states have no lower age of responsibility
  • In 1999, an 11-year old Michigan boy became the
    youngest person to be prosecuted in criminal
    court
  • In 2000, a 13-year old Philadelphia, PA girl was
    prosecuted as an adult for a murder she allegedly
    committed when she was 11-years old

9
Age of Responsibility
  • Many states have a minimum age under which an
    individual is considered too young to enter the
    juvenile system
  • 6 - NC
  • 7 MD, MA, NY
  • 8 AZ, CA
  • 10 AR, CO, KS, LA, MN, MS,
  • PA, SD, TX, VT, WI

10
Age of Responsibility
  • All states have laws regarding the fitness of a
    juvenile to be transferred to adult court, in
    other words
  • If the juvenile may be found unfit to remain
    within the juvenile system and then be
    transferred to adult court to stand trial
  • Between 1992-1997, 47 states made it easier to
    transfer juveniles to adult court

11
Age of Responsibility
  • 1995 CA lowered the age from 16 to 14 for
    certain offenses
  • 2000 Prop 21 was passed and addressed the Gang
    Violence and Juvenile Prevention Crime Act of
    1998
  • This Act substantially changed the nature of
    juvenile procedures for minors 14 years or older
  • Dealt with certain felonies 602b WIC (See
    later chapters)

12
The English Experience
  • Under English common law
  • Children ages 7 and under were not responsible or
    accountable for their acts
  • Entered the system as dependent or neglected
    children

13
The English Experience
  • Children ages 14 and older were held accountable
    like adults
  • Included corporal or capital punishment
  • Included penal colony sanctions

14
The English Experience
  • Children ages 8-13 were brought before the Court
    for the sole purpose of determining
    responsibility
  • Was the youth capable of forming intent?
  • Did he or she know right from wrong
  • Could they appreciate the consequences of his or
    her act?
  • Those found responsible were treated as adults

15
The English Experience
  • Two concepts joined the issue of age of
    responsibility
  • Parens patriae
  • Loco parentis

16
The English Experience
  • Parens patriae
  • Latin phrase
  • King is the father of the country
  • Implies the responsibility of the State
  • King is responsible for the welfare of his
    subjects
  • Particularly those who cannot care for themselves

17
The English Experience
  • Application of this concept emerged in the 12th
    century
  • Kings Chancery Court was created in London
  • Court heard petitions for aid and relief for
    those in need

18
The English Experience
  • Primarily for those children who had no one to
    support them
  • These were dependent and neglected children
  • Those under 14 could become apprentices under a
    master in some trade
  • Or were sent to homes to work as servants

19
The English Experience
  • Regardless of where they were sent they were
    expected to be
  • Industrious
  • Obedient
  • Some ran away
  • Others disobeyed

20
The English Experience
  • The State helped one category of juveniles
  • The dependent
  • Created a second category, the status offender
  • Included the
  • Runaway
  • Incorrigible

21
The English Experience
  • A special court was created
  • Kings Chamberlain Court
  • Second philosophy of loco parentis came into play
  • Latin term
  • This implies the authority of the King To stand
    in place of the parent

22
The English Experience
  • King (state) could step in and become the legal
    parent
  • State had the responsibility and authority to
    define the problem and the solution

23
The English Experience
  • Chamberlains Court became the forerunner of our
    present (modern day) juvenile court
  • Established under the
  • Protective umbrella of parens patriae
  • Authority of loco parentis

24
The English Experience
  • Hearings were private and confidential
  • Due process was never considered an issue
  • Purpose was to settle the unruly child down
  • Teach him some habits of industry for his or her
    own good

25
The English Experience
  • These courts increased during the late 1500s and
    early 1600s due to a series of Poor Laws
    enacted
  • Increasing numbers of children were roaming the
    streets of London
  • Many became beggars
  • Many were in gangs or involved in stealing
  • Parents would not or could not control them

26
The English Experience
  • Poor Laws expanded Kings authority to
    intervene in the family
  • This authority helped in deciding which juveniles
    needed removal and placement in apprenticeships
    or to work in private homes

27
The English Experience
  • Age of jurisdiction for the incorrigible or
    wayward child was extended to 18
  • Those with a 2nd or 3rd offense
  • Hanged
  • Transported to Penal Colony
  • Jailed in congregate cells in Londons Newgate
    Prison

28
The English Experience
  • During the early 1800s
  • Hundreds of young boys and girls were thrown
    together in prison with adult prisoners
  • Focus began to change on separating juveniles
    from adults
  • 1850 the Borstel (reform school) System was
    developed and commonly used in England

29
The English Experience
  • Many children were placed in stocks and whipped
    by their parents for misconduct
  • Many stout and healthy juveniles were committed
    to the Marine Society
  • Founded in 1756 by Jonas Hanway and Sir John
    Fielding
  • In 1758 Sir John Fielding also founded the
    House of Refuge for Orphan Girls

30
The English Experience
  • 1788 a private institution was founded by
    Robert Young to house
  • Dependent and neglected children
  • Status offenders
  • Purpose was to educate and instruct them in some
    useful trade or occupation

31
The English Experience
  • Reform efforts grew in the 1800s
  • Focused on the separation of juveniles from adult
    offenders in facilities
  • They could receive
  • Education
  • Training
  • Treatment

32
The American Experience
  • We accepted three common law principles
  • Parens patriae
  • Loco parentis
  • The age of responsibility

33
The American Experience
  • Youths under 8 were incapable of forming intent
  • Children 14 were fully responsible
  • Children 8-13 were given responsibility hearings
  • If a jury found an accused juvenile guilty and
    capable of discerning between good and evil the
    minor would receive an adult sentence

34
The American Experience
  • The adult sentence included
  • Corporal punishment
  • Capital punishment

35
The American Experience
  • Delinquency was not as widespread as in England
  • Fortunately, for those found guilty, most were
    found not responsible by juries sympathetic to
    children

36
The American Experience
  • So-called wayward children were removed from
    parents
  • Placed with master craftsmen or indentured
    servants until
  • 18 Boys
  • 21 Girls

37
The American Experience
  • By the 1800s many of the larger cities were
    experiencing a delinquency problem
  • NY Commission was appointed to study the problem
  • Though many youth were released as not
    responsible, they continued their delinquent ways

38
The American Experience
  • The NY Commission reported
  • Juveniles who were locked up learned more and
    better ways to commit crimes
  • Those left unpunished, were encouraged to
    re-offend
  • NY Commissions Report recommended separate
    facilities for juveniles

39
The American Experience
  • 1824 1st House of Refuge opened in New York
  • 1826 Boston
  • 1828 Philadelphia
  • Purposes of the houses of refuge were threefold

40
The American Experience
  • 1) Separate juveniles from the adult offender
  • 2) Protect juveniles from evil influences
  • 3) Educate, train, and treat the juvenile instead
    of punishing them

41
The American Experience
  • Original intent of the reform was well meaning
  • Wording was lost in the application
  • Softness was lost all cases
  • Most juveniles experienced
  • Hard work
  • Severe discipline
  • Brutal corporal punishment

42
The American Experience
  • Whether the offense was for
  • Stealing
  • Running away from placement
  • Leading an immoral life

43
The American Experience
  • 1838 - Right to remove a child from the home was
    challenged in an Ohio case
  • Mary Ann Crouse was taken away from her parents
    custody and committed to a refuge for being a
    wayward girl
  • Father filed a Writ of Habeus Corpus
  • Claimed his daughter was deprived of her freedom
    without due process

44
The American Experience
  • Court ruled against the father
  • Upheld the right of the State to become the
    substitute parent
  • The juvenile hearing followed civil procedures
  • The Court was acting on behalf of the minor, not
    against her
  • The Court would provide all the protections
    needed for the child

45
The American Experience
  • By the mid-1800s the House of Refuge concept had
    been adopted by most states
  • Established as state reformatories
  • 1870s and 1880s economy faltered
  • States could not adequately fund these facilities
  • Industries were brought in on a contract basis
  • Factories shoes, clothing, and shirt factories
    were established

46
The American Experience
  • Juveniles were contracted out as indentured
    servants
  • They were leased to
  • Households
  • Shippers
  • Whalers
  • Apprenticed in trade

47
The American Experience
  • In many cases an institution would send
    representatives out to take orders from
  • Households
  • Stores
  • Farms
  • Juveniles were escorted out to the various jobs

48
The American Experience
  • The original protective reform concept was
    transferred into the philosophical custody of
    hard work
  • Many social reformers were concerned these
    schools replaced one form of punishment with
    another equally as bad and legally unfair

49
Reform Begins
  • Reformers pushed for other alternatives not as
    punitive
  • Among these was probation
  • John Augustus is considered the Father of
    Probation
  • Since 1841, he had used probation successfully in
    Boston
  • (See page 6 for his journal)

50
Reform Begins
  • Augustus efforts set the tone for reform for the
    next twenty years
  • 1890 Through the local court, the PA Childrens
    Society started to receive children in foster
    homes
  • NY Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
    Children followed suit
  • MA welfare agencies did the same

51
Reform Begins
  • 1899 Illinois 1st Juvenile Court Act passed
    took almost 8 years to pass
  • Court model used today
  • Separate juvenile court was created
  • Civil in nature
  • Confidential
  • W/O the due process ( came later)
  • Juveniles did not have constitutional
    protections as the result of the early juvenile
    courts and appellate cases.
  • Preponderance of the evidence was sufficient for
    a finding of guilty

52
Reform Begins
  • Parens patriae and loco parentis became statutory
    law
  • Petitions were filed on behalf of the minor
  • Separate detention and institutional facilities
    for juveniles
  • Probation staff was there to supervise the minor
    in his or her home

53
Reform Begins
  • 1910 32 states had
  • Juvenile courts
  • Juvenile systems
  • Probation services
  • 1925 all but 2 states had followed suit

54
The California System
  • CA behind in dealing with juvenile social
    problems
  • When it did evolve, it assumed the
  • British Common Law model
  • Chicago Model
  • 1870s Juveniles up to age 21 accused of crimes
    were tried as adults
  • Criminal or status offenses
  • If convicted sent to adult facilities prison

55
The California System
  • Between 1850-1860
  • 300 boys were sent to San Quentin
  • Some as young as 12
  • For their own good
  • Boys were committed to the San Francisco
    Industrial School

56
The California System
  • 1876 appellate case
  • Confirmed the concepts of parens patriae and loco
    parentis
  • Ah Peen case 16 year-old Chinese boy was found
    delinquent and committed to the SF Industrial
    School for
  • leading an idle and dissolute life

57
The California System
  • Case was appealed under the issue of minor
    deprived his freedom without due process
  • Court disagreed
  • Constitutional issues not relevant in this case
    involving a minor
  • The action did not amount to criminal
    prosecution
  • purpose of this case was not about punishment,
    but reformation and training

58
The California System
  • The Court further stated
  • having been abandoned by his parents, the State
    as parens patriae has succeeded to his control
    and stands in loco parentis
  • The restraintis in its nature and purpose the
    sameas parents, guardians and others

59
The California System
  • The CA precedent was set
  • Juvenile proceedings were civil in nature
  • Any actions taken on behalf of a minor were legal

60
A Reform School System Develops
  • San Francisco Industrial School (SFIS) was
    established in 1859 by the Legislature
  • 48 boys and girls
  • Ages 13-18

61
A Reform School System Develops
  • State Reform School of Marysville was opened in
    1860
  • Closed in 1868 due to low numbers
  • 28 boys committed there were transferred to the
    San Francisco Industrial School
  • State agreed to pay 15/mo for each juvenile
  • 1868 Girls in the San Francisco Industrial
    School were transferred to the Magdalene Asylum
    in San Francisco

62
A Reform School System Develops
  • 1875 The ship Jamestown was transferred from
    the Navy to SF harbor
  • Acted as a supplement for the SFIS for boys as a
    place of commitment
  • Boys were given training
  • Seamanship and navigation
  • After 6 months they became eligible for
    employment on merchant marine ships

63
A Reform School System Develops
  • Jamestown program only lasted 4 years
  • Ship was given back to the Navy due to
    mismanagement
  • Complaints that the ship was really a training
    ship for young criminals

64
A Reform School System Develops
  • Need for placement facilities for juveniles
    continued
  • 1890 state established a state reform school
    system
  • 1891 Whittier State Reformatory opened for
  • Boys and girls
  • 300 youths
  • 1892 SFIS closed

65
A Reform School System Develops
  • 1895 Preston School of Industry opened
  • Older boys
  • 1907 all youths under 18 transferred from San
    Quentin to reform schools
  • 1913 Girls and boys separated
  • Girls were transferred to the Ventura School

66
Juvenile Court and Probation Services
  • 20th century brought a call for reform an
    alternative for juveniles to the adult court
    system
  • 1903 separate juvenile court and probation
    system started
  • Tacked on to the Penal Code at the last moment
  • Adult age set at 16 changed to 18 (1909)

67
Juvenile Court and Probation Services
  • Probation officer role was authoritarian in
    nature under the control of the superior court
    system
  • (1903-4) Local judges staffed and administered
    probation services
  • 1905 Law required judges to set up probation
    committees to help select probation officers

68
Juvenile Court Probation Services
  • Law also required
  • County detention facilities be established
  • Written probation court reports
  • Procedures be established for commitment to state
    reform schools (Whittier and Preston)
  • Jurisdiction of juvenile matters was given to the
    superior court of the county

69
Juvenile Court Probation Services
  • Some confusion still existed over the exact court
    procedures required for dependant and delinquent
    cases
  • Conflict existed between reform groups and local
    judges
  • Compromise resulted in the Juvenile Court Law of
    1915 which detailed procedures until 1961

70
Juvenile Court Probation Services
  • Until 1929 juvenile probation officers
    established in all but three counties
  • Disparities existed from county to county on how
    juveniles were treated
  • Reform efforts came and went for many years

71
Juvenile Court Probation Services
  • 1957 Karl Holton of the CYA convinced Governor
    Knight to appoint a juvenile justice commission
    to study the problems (reform the juvenile
    system)
  • After much politics, in 1961 Governor Brown
    signed into law revolutionary CA juvenile
    procedures

72
A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law
  • The 1961 law signed by Governor Brown was the
    first time in CA that standardized juvenile
    procedures were codified (WIC) for
  • Police
  • Courts
  • Corrections (Probation)

73
A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law
  • Descriptions of behavior by which the police and
    courts could exercise jurisdiction were narrowed
  • Distinctions were made between 601s (status
    offenders) and 602s (real delinquents)

74
  • 601 WIC Under the Welfare and Institutions Code
    (WIC), a 601 is defined as a status offender.
  • A juvenile whose behavior might be against the
    law, but is not really delinquent or criminal as
    we know it
  • 602 WIC Under the Welfare and Institutions Code
    (WIC), a 602 is defined as a juvenile delinquent
  • A juvenile whose behavior is against the law and
    is criminal if committed by an adult

75
A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law
  • 600s (dependant/neglected cases) were redefined
    they later became 300s in 1976
  • They could no longer be mixed or housed with
    601s and 602s in juvenile hall

76
A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law
  • Court procedures were made more realistic
  • New standards for probation and parole roles
    and responsibilities were defined
  • Intake powers and procedures were standardized
    between counties
  • Procedures were included to reduce court
    commitments of status offenders to the CYA
About PowerShow.com