juvenile justice parens patriae. a doctrine that holds that the state has a responsibility to look...

52
JUVENILE JUSTICE PARENS PATRIAE

Upload: peregrine-fitzgerald

Post on 17-Dec-2015

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

JUVENILE JUSTICE

PARENS PATRIAE

PARENS PATRIAE

A doctrine that holds that the state has a responsibility to look after the well-being of children and to assume the role of parent if necessary. Literally means “father of his country”

ENGLISH HISTORY

LAW PUT PEOPLE INTO THREE CATEGORIES

UNDER 7 COULD NOT FORM CRIMINAL INTENT THEREFORE COULD NOT BE TRIED FOR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

7-14 PRESUMED INCOMPETENT UNLESS EVIDENCE SHOWED THEY COULD FORM CRIMINAL INTENT AND TRIED FOR CRIMES

OVER 14 WHO THE LAW PRESUMED COMPETENT TO FORM CRIMINAL INTENT UNLESS THEY WERE INSANE OR RETARDED

Doctrine of Parens Patriae and presumptions against children’s capacity to form criminal intent came to the U.S.

PURITAN PERIOD

1646-1824 English procedures continued into the

nineteenth century Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law 1646

Puritans imposed the law that the child was evil and the family needed to discipline. Those who did not obey their parents were dealt with by the law

REFUGE PERIOD

1824-1899Population of American cities grew as did youth crime and neglect

Reformers focused their efforts on the urban immigrant poorThe state’s power was used to prevent delinquency

NEW YORK’S HOUSE OF REFUGE

Opened in 1825Half prison, half school for destitute and orphaned children and those convicted of crimesPlaced by court order usually for neglect or vagrancy“Reform Schools” opened

DESPITE REFORMS CHILDREN COULD STILL BE ARRESTED, DETAINED, TRIED AND IMPRISONED. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS FOR CHILDREN WAS THE SAME AS THAT FOR ADULTS

JUVENILE COURT PERIOD

1899-1960Questions arose Could the State incarcerate children

who had not violated the law? Should children be held in the same

facilities that housed adults? Should a juvenile court be

established?

“Child Savers” Upper and middle class reformers who sought to use the power of the state to save children from a life of crimeChildren are not fully responsible for criminal conduct and are capable of being rehabilitated

ILLINOIS JUVENILE COURT ACT IN 1899

No juries---Judges had wide discretion in disposing of each case. Therefore, no lawyersDifferent terminology: Petitions instead of warrants, children were respondents not defendants, not found guilty but adjudicated delinquent

No adversarial relationship—did not try to determine guilt or innocence but how to rehabilitate rather than punishConfidentiality—records kept sealed and proceedings were closed to the publicBUT STILL NO DUE PROCESS RIGHTS

FIRST JUVENILE COURT

CHICAGO 1899

By 1925 every state had a juvenile court systemStill based on Parens Patriae—the state acting in the best interest of the child; the juvenile court treats the child as a kind and loving father

THE JUVENILE RIGHTS PERIOD

1960-1980Supreme Court actions Kent v United States 1966

Right to Counsel at a hearing at which a juvenile judge may waive jurisdiction and pass the case to the adult court

In Re Gault 1967 Extended due process rights granted to

adult offenders including notice of charges, the right to counsel, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses

In Re Winship 1970 Proof must be established “beyond a

reasonable doubt” and not on “a preponderance of the evidence”

McKeiver v Pennsylvania 1971 Trial by jury in the juvenile court’s

adjudicative stage is NOT a constitutional requirement

Breed v Jones 1975 Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s

double jeopardy clause prevented a juvenile from being tried in an adult court for a crime that had already been adjudicated in juvenile court

DELINQUENCY

CONDUCT THAT WOULD BE CRIMINAL IF AN ADULT ENGAGED IN IT

STATUS OFFENSES

Conduct that is illegal only because the child is under age.

WHAT ARE THEY??

RUNAWAY

GAMBLING

SMOKING

GOING TO SCHOOL

1974 Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Included provisions for taking status

offenders out of correctional institutions

THE CRIME CONTROL PERIOD

1980 to presentPublic has demanded a “crackdown on crime”Harsher punishments for juveniles who commit crime

Schall v Martin 1984 Juveniles can be held in preventive

detention if there is concern that they may commit additional crimes while awaiting court action. They are deemed a “risk” to the community

More juveniles tried in adult court Support for a get tough stance

growing

POLICE OFFICER DECISIONS

CRIME REPORTED

INVESTIGATION

SUSPECT IDENTIFIED/APPREHENDED

ACTIONS Counsel and release to parents

Referral diversion to community resources

Citation and referral to court/release to parents

Transport to jail

CONSIDERATIONS

THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSEJUVENILE’S PAST HISTORYSETTING OF OFFENSEPARENT’S ATTITUDE TOWARD OFFENSEPASS OR FAIL THE “ATTITUDE TEST”JUVENILE’S RACE AND GENDER

TERMS

Adult Court Juvenile Defendant Child Complaint Petition Arrest Detain First Appearance Detention

Hearing

Omnibus Hearing Evidentiary

Trial Trial

Sentencing Dispositional Hearing

PETITION

DOCUMENT ASKING THE COURT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION OVER A JUVENILE

CHIPS PETITION

CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTIVE SERVICES

PRETRIAL PROCEDURES

Initial Hearing Juveniles are informed of their rights

Pleas must be voluntary

TRANSFER TO ADULT COURT Factors such as seriousness and age

considered.

EJJ

EXTENDED JURISDICTION JUVENILE

HOLDS AN ADULT SENTENCE UNTIL THE AGE OF 21

ADJUDICATION---GUILTY

Adjudications hearing determines the facts in the case and if appropriate labels the juvenile “delinquent”Proceedings formalTraditionally closed to the public Unless they are 14-17 years of age

and offense is felony level

EMILY’S LAW

JUNE, 2006

DISPOSITION

Disposition hearing follows find of delinquencyCases can be dealt with by: Dismissal Probation Alternative dispositions—diversion programs Custodial care Community treatment

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions

2007 Juveniles cannot be put to death

June, 2012 Juveniles cannot be sentenced to life without parole

JUVENILE CORRECTIONS

Many aspects resemble adult correctionsPredominant aim is to avoid unnecessary incarcerationLabeling effect Treatment is believed to be more

effective if child is in a normal, supportive home

Probation

Usually involves education or counselingFine or restitutionJuvenile probation officers have smaller caseloadsBelief that juvenile can change

SCARED STRAIGHT

RISK FACTORS

FAMILY

Lack of parental role model Family drug abuse Extreme economic deprivation Family gang involvement

SCHOOL Academic failure Learning disabilities Negative labeling by teachers Disciplinary problems

COMMUNITY Gangs Drug use Availability of firearms High crime/feeling of danger Lack of social and economic

opportunities

PEERS Delinquent friends Friends who are gang members Friends who use drugs Lack of “positive” peer pressure

INDIVIDUAL Tendency toward aggressive behavior Inability to concentrate of focus Alcohol or other drug use Fatalistic/pessimistic viewpoint Lack of positive goals Unable to detach from negative

behavior

PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES

Disparity between the treatment ideal and the practice of placing juveniles in institutional settings.Juvenile court is complex and most perform a variety of functionsCrime control policies have caused higher rates of minority youth incarcerations.

Philosophy of Juvenile Justice

Reduced concern with legal issues of guilt or innocenceEmphasis on the child’s best interestEmphasis on treatment rather than punishmentPrivacy

No long term confinement

Separate facilities

Broad discretionary alternatives at all points in the process

Parens Patriae