Juvenile Delinquency Laws and Juveniles in Criminal Court - Coursework Example

Running Head: Juvenile Delinquency and The Juvenile Justice System Juvenile Delinquency and The Juvenile Justice System Introduction In legal parlance, juvenile delinquency has two layers of misconduct. In one instance the term refers to any act committed by a minor that would be considered a crime had the act been committed by an adult. (Roucek, 4) In another instance a juvenile can be delinquent for what amounts to mere “incorrigible” conduct and does not involve criminal acts. (Roucek, 5) For instance, a juvenile who leaves his or her home without consent or is idle or associates with “vicious or immoral persons” can be designated a delinquent under the laws of various US States. (Roucek, 5) This paper explores the various aspects of juvenile delinquency under the laws of the US and attempts to explain its purpose and adequacy. This paper takes the position that juvenile delinquency means different things to different adults. For the police a juvenile delinquent is an “under-aged criminal” for teachers a delinquent can be a truant student and for parents the juvenile delinquent may be an uncontrollable child. (Roucek, 29) From each of these perspectives it is clear that juvenile delinquency laws are designed to either prevent criminal conduct in minors or to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. History of Juvenile Delinquency Laws The progressive era in the US which commenced in the 1900s and lasted until around 1918 saw a number of social changes particularly relating to women’s rights and labor reform. (Whitebread and Heilman, 285-305) Prior to the progressive era juvenile delinquents under the age of 7 were typically punished with adults. (Whitebread and Heilman, 285-305) Previously however, the efforts of psychologists as well as social and political reformers during the 18th and 19th century began to influence a shift in the attitude toward juvenile delinquency. (Whitebread and Heilman, 285-305)For instance, the New York House of Refuge was established in 1824 for the express purpose of rehabilitating rather than punishing the juvenile delinquent. (Whitebread and Heilman, 285-305) By 1899 other states followed suit, setting up similar youth reform centers. (Whitebread and Heilman, 285-305) The juvenile justice system also saw some changes in the attitude toward juvenile delinquents and took an approach that assimilated the court with a “parens patriae” role. (Whitebread and Heilman, 285-305) In other words the court acted as parent or guardian. By the time of the progressive era children would no longer be treated as adults in a criminal trial and their hearings would take on an informal decor. Extenuating circumstances would be taken into account and reformatory houses would become the norm for juvenile incarceration. (Whitebread and Heilman, 285-305) By the 1960s juvenile courts were hearing all cases in which a minor under the age of 18 was a party. Those matters could only be transferred to an adult criminal court if and when a waiver was obtained from the juvenile court with jurisdiction over the matter. . (Whitebread and Heilman, 285-305) Under the new system of juvenile justice the juvenile courts lifted some of the formalities associated with adult criminal justice. However this proved to have constitutional implications and the matter was finally resolved by the US Supreme Court in the case of re Gault. (re Gault 387 US 1, 1967) In this case 15 year old Gerry Gault had been accused of making an obscene telephone call to a neighbour. The police arrested Gault and transported him to a juvenile detention center while his parents were at work and the police neglected to inform his parents of the arrest and detention of their minor child. (re Gault 387 US 1, 1967) Gault’s parents are informed later on however that a trial is scheduled for the next day, but they are not informed of the charges against their son. At the trial, the complainant did not appear and the court took evidence of the complaint from a police officer. Gault denied that he had made the telephone call but is pronounced guilty and sentenced to a juvenile detention center until he attains the age of 21 unless a court intervenes in the interim. (re Gault 387 US 1, 1967) Gault’s attorney filed a writ of habeaus corpus with the Superior Court of Arizona but his application was denied. An appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court was unsuccessful as well and the matter was taken to the US Supreme Court. Much of the grounds of appeal related to the relative informal nature of the arrest, detention and the hearing, each of which violated fundamental freedoms and protections under the US Constitution. Those violations included a denial of a proper trial record, denial of the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, denial of the right to a jury trial, denial of the right to appeal, denial of the right to council and denial of the right to be provided with notice of the charges and to have time to prepare for the trial. (re Gault 387 US 1, 1967) The US Supreme Court ultimately held that juveniles were entitled to the protections of due process contained in the Bill of Rights and ruled that: “Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone.” (re Gault 387 US 1, 1967) Re Gault is therefore for its significance in shaping the form of juvenile justice. After this ruling juvenile proceedings would be required to ensure that juveniles received the same constitutional rights and protections afforded adults in a criminal trial. In 1968 Congress enacted the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, 1968. The Act was calculated to engage states in the development of plans and programs that involve community intervention with the aim of preventing juvenile delinquency. (Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, 1968) The 1968 Act was replaced by the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act 1974. The 1974 Act created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Runaway Youth Program and the National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. (Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act 1974). These organizations are manifestations of the nation’s commitment to rehabilitating and preventing juvenile delinquents. This system of justice distinguishes itself from adult justice which is primarily aimed at punishing the adult offender. Trying Juveniles as Adults Get tough on crime policies and the rise in violent crimes by young offenders prompted additional changes to the juvenile justice system in the decades of the 1980s and the 1990s. (Wolfson, 13-22) These changes were reflected in the number of states adopting legislation that permitted juveniles to be tried as adults in respect of some violent crimes, particularly crimes involving handguns and other types of deadly weapons. By 2003 most US states had adopted this type of legislation. (Wolfson, 13-22) The reality is however, that many of the cases sent to the adult criminal courts are far from violent crimes. In fact half of these cases are non-violent drugs and/or property offences. (Stahl, 1999) The manner in which the practice has evolved over the years is a direct contravention of the initial intent to protect the juvenile delinquent, to rehabilitate the young offender and to prevent youth offending. Jill Wolfson explains the initial mandate of the juvenile court as follows: “The juvenile court recognized that youth are not finished products and could benefit greatly from education, health an mental health treatment, vocational direction and other pro-social interventions. It recognized that children and teens are malleable and easily influenced. As a result, the court developed youth-only facilities where youngsters would not mingle with adult prisoners.” (Wolfson, 5) By virtue of the nation’s get tough on crimes policies during the decade of the 1990s a number of state legislations were drafted and implemented to narrow the gap between childhood and adulthood. The results of the thinning line between adults and children are reported in the media quite often. In Detroit, in 2000, 14 year old Christie Clore was sentenced to one year in an adult facility for a setting a fire in which no one was harmed. (Andi, 2000) In Los Angeles in 2001, 16 year old Michal Duc Ta was sentenced to 35 years in an adult facility for firing shots from a car in which no one was harmed. (Krikorian, 2001) A report issued by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice in 2002 indicated that on a national level approximately one in every five juvenile offenders are prosecuted as adults. (Lanza-Kaduce, 2002) Moreover, a vast majority of the offences involved are non-violent offences. (Lanza-Kaduce, 2002) On an annual basis, 218,000 juveniles are “automatically excluded from the juvenile justice system”. (Wolfson, 7) This is made possible by a number of state legislative provisions that have lowered the age from 18 to between 16 and 17 so that minors charged with an offence are automatically treated as adults. (Wolfson, 7) According to a study conducted by the National Center for Juvenile Justice in Pennsylvania in 2004, a majority of these offences are misdemeanors. (Bozynski, 2004) By virtue of the direct file or concurrent jurisdiction system many states have devised a scheme whereby the prosecution can determine whether or not to prosecute a minor as an adult. (Wolfson, 7) Kurt Kumil, Deputy District Attorney and head of the Juvenile Division in Santa Clara County, California noted that: “Not every jurisdiction is filled with enlightened decision makers and prosecutors who have enough experience to know which youth are truly unfit for juvenile court.” (Wolfson, 12) Previously, it had been a long held tenet of juvenile justice in the United States that only the judge had such discretionary powers. The ambit of that discretion has been set by the US Supreme Court in Kent v The United States 383 US 541 (1966). In Kent v The United States the US Supreme Court ruled that in deciding whether or not to remit a juvenile to an adult court the trial judge was required to consider the child’s age, the seriousness of the offense, whether or not the child poses a safety risk to society, his antecedents or lack thereof, the child’s mental and physical condition and whether or not the child can be kept in a facility while being treated for any mental or physical defects. (Kent v The United States 383 US 541 (1966)) Kumli, Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney and head of the Juvenile Division, in that county expressed the opinion that the direct file system is a means by which the courts can cut back on time and costs at the expense of the juvenile’s welfare. By permitting the prosecutor to make the decision to try the juvenile as a an adult a waiver hearing is not necessary. By avoiding a waiver hearing there is no need for attorneys or expert witnesses such as psychologists. (Wolfson, 15) The result is, according to Kumli: “Direct file is very subject to political whim and overuse.” (Wolfson, 16) The consequences for juvenile justice and its intent to provide second chances to the delinquent juvenile are compromised by the direct file system of justice. Christine Johnson of Vermont’s Juvenile Commission explains the consequences by pointing out the disparity in treatment for the juvenile who is brought before the adult court and the juvenile who is brought before the juvenile court: “Under the juvenile system, a 16 year-old would have a ticket to services – a social worker, mental health treatment, a foster home, a rang of home, school and community-based services. In the adult system the same 16 year-old gets sentenced to probation and becomes part of a 100-to-200 person caseload. Essentially, he or she may fall through the cracks, in an adult system not entirely equipped to meet the multi-faceted needs of 16-17 year olds.” (Wolfson, 16-17) At least thirty-four US states have implemented what has become known as “once and adult always an adult” laws. (Wolfson, 7) Jill Wolfson explains what these laws mean: “a youth who is convicted in adult court will typically remain in adult court, no matter how small and insignificant the subsequent offense.” (Wolfson, 7) These laws are inconsistent with the ruling of the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Kent which held that one of the primary functions and purposes of the juvenile justice system was to ensure that the juvenile delinquent’s records were sealed. (Kent v The United States 383 US 541 (1966)) Studies indicate that young persons prosecuted and sentenced via the adult courts and by adult standards do not act as a deterrent. (Wolfson, 23) In fact the evidence gleaned from research studies reflect that passing youth offenders through the adult criminal justice system substantially increases the risk of recidivism. (Wolfson, 23) In fact, these young offenders are: “...more likely...to re-offend more quickly and by committing more serious offenses—than youth who are prosecuted through the juvenile system.” (Wolfson, 23) These findings only support the argument that the juvenile system of justice can only be effective in preventing offending and rehabilitating young offenders if it is used. As long as youth offenders are passed through the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile justice system cannot work for those young offenders. Conclusion The juvenile justice system came into being as a result of mistake in juvenile delinquent mismanagement over one hundred years ago. Society as whole came to the realization that the practice of treating young offenders as adults was not in the best interests of society. Nor was in the best interests of the child. Children after all are not considered to be responsible enough to vote, or to drink alcohol nor are they considered to be responsible enough to get married. It only makes sense that society should take some responsibility for their misconduct. This is ultimately why the criminal justice system created a separate system of justice for the management of juvenile delinquents. However, developments over the last couple of decades have eroded the juvenile justice system to such an extent that it is in danger of becoming obsolete. If the practice of trying juveniles as adults continues on its present course, eventually we will be right back where we started; trying all juveniles in adult courts. Bibliography Andi, Tamara. “Prison at 14: Teenage Girls Serve Time with Adult Inmates.” Detroit Free Press, 20 July, 2000. Bozynski, Melanie, and Szymanski, Linda. “National Overviews.” State Juvenile Justice Profiles. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2004. Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, 1968 Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act 1974. Kent v The United States 383 US 541 (1966) Krikorian, Greg. “Dispute Grows Over Tough Gang-Related Sentencing By Court.” Los Angeles Times. 9 April, 2001. Lanza-Kaduce, L; Fraier, C.E.; Lane, J. and Bishop, D. Juvenile Transfer to Criminal Court Study: Final Report. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2002. http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:i2J09FHDh5EJ:www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/juveniletransfers.pdf+Juvenile+Transfer+to+Criminal+Court+Study:+Final+Report.+Florida+Department+of+Juvenile+Justice,+2002&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us Retrieved November 4, 2008 Roucek, Joseph. Juvenile Delinquency. Ayer Publishing, 1958. re Gault 387 US 1, 1967 Stahl, Anne, et al. Juvenile Court Statistics 1996. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, July, 1999. Whitebread, Charles and Heilman, John. “An Overview of the Law of Juvenile Delinquency.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law. Vol. 6(3), 285-305, 2006. Wolfson, Jill. “Childhood on Trial: The Failure of Trying and Sentencing Youth in Adult Crimnal Court.” Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Washington D.C., 2005. Read More