History and background American juvenile justice system

1 history , background

1.1 pre-1900
1.2 1900s
1.3 1960s 1980s
1.4 1990s present day

history , background
pre-1900

juvenile delinquency punishments trace middle ages when crimes severely punished church. throughout 17th , 18th centuries, few legal differences existed between children , adults. children young 6 , 7 years considered productive members of family , labor contributed family income. in court, children young 7 treated adults , receive death penalty. debates questioned whether there should separate legal system punishing juveniles, or if juveniles should sentenced in same manner adults

with changing demographic, social, , economic context of 19th century resulting largely industrialization, social construction of childhood...as period of dependency , exclusion adult world institutionalized. century saw opening of first programs targeting juvenile delinquency. barry krisberg , james f. austin note first ever institution dedicated juvenile delinquency new york house of refuge in 1825. other programs, described finley, included: houses of refuge , emphasized moral rehabilitation; reform schools , had widespread reputations mistreatment of children living there; , child saving organizations , social charity agencies dedicated reforming poor , delinquent children. these child-saving efforts attempts @ differentiating between delinquents , abandoned youth.

prior ideological shift, application of parens patrea restricted protecting interests of children, deciding guardianship , commitment of mentally ill. in 1839 landmark case ex parte crouse, court allowed use of parens patrea detain young people non-criminal acts in name of rehabilitation. since these decisions carried out in best interest of child, due process protections afforded adult criminals not extended juveniles.

early 1900s

the nation s first juvenile court formed in illinois in 1899 , provided legal distinction between juvenile abandonment , crime. law established court, illinois juvenile court law of 1899, created largely because of advocacy of women such jane addams, louise dekoven bowen, lucy flower , julia lathrop, members of influential chicago woman s club. chicago court opened on july 1, 1899 judge tuthill presiding, along several members of chicago woman s club acted advisors juvenile offender s backgrounds. establishing juvenile court helped reframe cultural , legal interpretations of best interests of child. underlying assumption of original juvenile system, , 1 continues prevail, juveniles more amenable rehabilitation adult criminals. new application of parens patrea , development of separate juvenile court formed foundation modern juvenile justice system.

1960s 1980s

debate morality , effectiveness surrounded juvenile courts until 1950s. 1960s through 1980s saw rise in attention , speculation juvenile delinquency, concern court system social issue. era characterized distinctly harsh punishments youths. there new focus on providing minors due process , legal counsel in court. criticism in era focused on racial discrimination, gender disparities, , discrimination towards children mental health problems or learning disabilities. while still recommending harsher punishments serious crimes, community-based programs, diversion, , deinstitutionalization became banners of juvenile justice policy in 1970 s . however, these alternative approaches short lived. rising crime rates of 1960s , media misrepresentation of crime throughout 1970s , 80s, paved way reagan s war on drugs , subsequent tough-on-crime policies. heightened fears of youth problem revealed white, middle- , upper-class anxieties growing social unrest , potential volatility stemming social , economic inequality . public perception of juvenile deviance such @ 1999 juvenile justice hearings, bill mccollum claimed , sadly put: today in america no population poses larger threat public safety juvenile offenders . in late 1980s, united states experienced large increase in crime, , juvenile crime brought public view (juvenile delinquency in united states). americans feared juvenile super-predator , , fear met government harsher policies juvenile crime.

1990s present day

in 1990s, juvenile crime – violent crime – decreased, although policies remained same. schools , politicians adopted 0 tolerance policies regard crime, , argued rehabilitative approaches less effective strict punishment. increased ease in trying juveniles adults became defining feature of tough-on-crime policies in 1990s. loyola law professor sacha coupet argues, [o]ne way in tough advocates have supported merger between adult criminal , juvenile systems expanding scope of transfer provisions or waivers bring children under jurisdiction of adult criminal system . states moved specific classes of crimes juvenile court adult criminal court while others gave power judges or prosecutors on case-by-case basis. still others require courts treat offending youth adults, within juvenile system. in states, adjudicated offenders face mandatory sentences. 1997, 3 states had passed combination of laws eased use of transfer provisions, provided courts expanded sentencing options , removed confidentiality tradition of juvenile court. juvenile courts transformed more allow prosecution of juveniles adults @ same time adult system re-defining acts constituted serious crime. 3 strikes laws began in 1993 fundamentally altered criminal offenses resulted in detention, imprisonment , life sentence, both youth , adults. 3 strikes laws not specific juvenile offenders, enacted during period when lines between juvenile , adult court becoming increasingly blurred. war on drugs , tough-on-crime policies 3 strikes resulted in explosion in number of incarcerated individuals.

implementation of gun free school act (gfsa) in 1994 1 example of tough on crime policy has contributed increased numbers of young people being arrested , detained. intended prosecute young offenders serious crimes gun possession on school property, many states interpreted law include less dangerous weapons , drug possession. many schools interpreted gfsa include infractions pose no safety concern, such disobeying [school] rules, insubordination, , disruption . these offenses can warrant suspension, expulsion , involvement juvenile justice courts. schools have become primary stage juvenile arrest , charges brought against them , punishments face increasing in severity. today referred school prison pipeline.