juvenile justice parens patriae. a doctrine that holds that the state has a responsibility to look...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
RISK FACTORS
FAMILY
Lack of parental role model Family drug abuse Extreme economic deprivation Family gang involvement
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