2 Source: Elrod, P., & R. Scott Ryder (2021). Juvenile justice: A social, historical and legal perspective (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Introduction This week we examine the history of youth social control and juvenile justice in the United States. This history is significant because it provides important lessons about our efforts to deal with problem children and it continues to inform the operation of juvenile justice. Families and Children in Developing European Societies: Early Views of Childhood From a historical perspective, the modern notions of childhood, adolescence, juvenile delinquency, and juvenile justice are recent developments. Throughout most of recorded history, childhood did not enjoy the special status we now accord it. The modern view that childhood and adolescence are special times during which the young need nurturing and guidance for their healthy development did not exist until the later part of the Middle Ages, and a more modern scientific understanding of children is still more recent and continues to develop. Before, during, and well after the Middle Ages, the young were seen either as property or as miniature adults who were usually expected to assume the same responsibilities as other adults by the time they were five or six years of age.1 Because people did not recognize childhood as a distinct period in human development throughout much of our history, they did not see a need to create a separate legal process to deal with youths who violated community norms or laws. During the Middle Ages, a period that spanned the fifth to 15th centuries, life was difficult for most people. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire, which had dominated Western civilization for centuries, created many uncertainties for people in Western Europe. Although our knowledge of children’s lives during this time is limited, there are some indications that the young often fared poorly. For example, there is evidence that infanticide (i.e., the practice of killing children), which had been common during antiquity, continued to be practiced during the Middle Ages and after.2 Historical evidence from this period indicates that mothers sometimes deliberately suffocated their offspring or abandoned them in the streets or latrines. According to one priest in 1527, “The latrines resounded with the cries of children who have been plunged into them.”3 Infants who were born deformed or were felt to be too burdensome were particularly vulnerable. In other instances, destitute parents abandoned their unwanted children or took them to monasteries to be raised by monks.4 These were solutions chosen by people who could not or chose not to care for their young. The average life expectancy in the Middle-Ages was considerably shorter than today, and the young were particularly at risk from various threats, including plagues and famine. Moreover, common child-rearing practices led to the premature death of many children. Swaddl.

1. 2
Source: Elrod, P., & R. Scott Ryder (2021). Juvenile justice: A
social, historical and legal perspective (5th ed.). Burlington,
MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Introduction
This week we examine the history of youth social control and
juvenile justice in the United States. This history is significant
because it provides important lessons about our efforts to deal
with problem children and it continues to inform the operation
of juvenile justice.
Families and Children in Developing European Societies: Early
Views of Childhood
From a historical perspective, the modern notions of childhood,
adolescence, juvenile delinquency, and juvenile justice are
recent developments. Throughout most of recorded history,
childhood did not enjoy the special status we now accord it. The
modern view that childhood and adolescence are special times
during which the young need nurturing and guidance for their
healthy development did not exist until the later part of the
Middle Ages, and a more modern scientific understanding of
children is still more recent and continues to develop.
Before, during, and well after the Middle Ages, the young were
seen either as property
or as miniature adults who were usually expected to assume the
same responsibilities as other adults by the time they were five
or six years of age.1 Because people did not recognize
childhood as a distinct period in human development throughout
much of our history, they did not see a need to create a separate
legal process to deal with youths who violated community
norms or laws.
During the Middle Ages, a period that spanned the fifth to 15th

2. centuries, life was difficult for most people. The collapse of the
Western Roman Empire, which had dominated Western
civilization for centuries, created many uncertainties for people
in Western Europe. Although our knowledge of children’s lives
during this time is limited, there are some indications that the
young often fared poorly. For example, there is evidence that
infanticide (i.e., the practice of killing children), which had
been common during antiquity, continued to be practiced during
the Middle Ages and after.2 Historical evidence from this
period indicates that mothers sometimes deliberately suffocated
their offspring or abandoned them in the streets or latrines.
According to one priest in 1527, “The latrines resounded with
the cries of children who have been plunged into them.”3
Infants who were born deformed or were felt to be too
burdensome were particularly vulnerable. In other instances,
destitute parents abandoned their unwanted children or took
them to monasteries to be raised by monks.4 These were
solutions chosen by people who could not or chose not to care
for their young.
The average life expectancy in the Middle-Ages was
considerably shorter than today, and the young were particularly
at risk from various threats, including plagues and famine.
Moreover, common child-rearing practices led to the premature
death of many children. Swaddling—wrapping a child tightly in
a long bandage—was common. This prevented the child from
wandering away, crawling into a sewer, or knocking over
candles, which was a major concern because homes and
buildings were usually constructed of wood and contained a
variety of highly flammable materials.5 Swaddling also made
the youngest easier to handle and protected them from air,
sunlight, and soap, which were believed to present a threat to
healthy growth.6 Other common practices included feeding
children from a horn and wrapping food in rags for them to
suck. Such practices may seem unthinkable by today’s
standards, but they were accepted methods of caring for the
young during this time.7

3. Although many people experienced extreme hardship during the
Middle Ages, changes in Europe began to be evident by the
1300 and 1400s. At this time, there was a revival in trade and
town life,8 and the concepts of childhood and adolescence were
beginning to emerge, at least among some wealthier members of
medieval society. Although historians are not in agreement as to
the exact period during which childhood and adolescence began
to be recognized as distinct stages of life, some evidence shows
that many people began to see the young differently by the
1400s. For example, accounts of village life in southern France
during the 1300s indicate that parents displayed love for their
children, and many grieved when their children died.9 In
addition, medical and scientific texts, literary works, and folk
terminology used during the later Middle Ages in England
indicate that many adults were concerned with helping children
and youths make the transition to adulthood.10 Less frequently
were the young seen as miniature adults or as simply the
property of their parents. Childhood was beginning to be
accepted as a unique period in an
individual’s development, a period during which the individual
should be molded and guided to become a moral and productive
member of the community.
Changes in the conception of childhood coincided with a variety
of other changes in social, political, and economic life in
Europe during the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s. Feudalism, a form
of social organization characterized by relationships between
nobles (i.e., knights and greater lords), the exploitation of the
peasantry by the nobility, and subsistence farming, which had
dominated political and economic life in Europe for centuries,
began to decline. In its place was a developing social, political,
and economic system based on exploration and trade, and later,
industrial
capitalism. The factors that produced this transformation are
complex, but the world that evolved during this period, at least
in Europe, was very different than the world of feudal Europe.
Despite high mortality rates, the number of people in Europe

4. grew during the 1500s and 1600s, which placed considerable
pressure on both towns and rural areas. Simultaneously,
political and economic power began to shift away from the
church to a few monarchs who were molding strong
centralized states and to a growing merchant and capitalist
class.11
The two richest countries in the world in 1400 were probably
China and India. After 1400, however, European states began to
increase their wealth and power largely as a result of China’s
withdrawal from world trade and an increase in exploration and
trade by European states beginning with Portugal and Spain and
later the Netherlands, England, France, and other European
countries.12 The acquisition of precious metals such as gold
and silver, minerals and other natural
resources, food stuffs, slaves, and variety of products that were
in demand in Europe and elsewhere
added significantly to the wealth of European rulers and others
involved in trade. Trade and the wealth and power it produced
also led to the development of colonies that could serve as bases
for further exploration and wealth creation. Moreover, colonies
served a variety of other purposes as well. They could serve as
bases that could defend against encroachments from rival states
and from which challenges to rival states could be launched.
They could also serve as places where unwanted or troublesome
populations could be relocated—populations such as the poor
and unemployed
and those who broke and the law, including large numbers of
children.
The large number of poor in England in the 1500s was not
simply a product of bad luck. Traditionally, peasants in England
lived in rural areas, had access to land, and lived relatively well
as subsistence farmers. However, as English society transitioned
to a trade and capitalist economy, these rural farmers were
forced off the land through a process of enclosure in which the
farming land used by peasants was taken over by nobles to grow
cash crops and raise livestock such as

5. sheep. This forced large numbers of people off the land and
deprived them of their traditional means of livelihood. In
addition, many often brutal laws were passed that prevented
peasants from seeking alternative means of making a living.13
People older than 14 who were caught begging were subject to
severe flogging and branding unless someone agreed to take
them in as servants for two years; repeat offenders over 18 were
subject to death unless someone agreed to take them into
service. A third offense resulted in execution.14 Also, the
Statute of Artificers, which was made
part of English law in 1562, restricted access to certain trades
and compelled many rural youths to remain in the countryside.
Despite the efforts of city dwellers and the wealthy to restrict
movement into the cities, however, there was no real alternative
for many of the rural poor. As a result, cities continued to grow,
and urban institutions, such as the guilds and the courts, came
under increasing pressure to maintain order.15
Children in the New World: The Colonial Experience
Population pressures, high mortality rates, the desire for land,
political unrest, religious persecution, a lack of work
opportunities, and the desire for greater wealth and influence
led many in Europe to leave for the New World. Moreover,
many of those who left for the colonies were children. Indeed,
for some people, the colonization of the New World was viewed
as an opportunity for children to be involved in productive
work. Merchants saw children as potential providers of the
labor that would be needed to produce the many goods
necessary for survival in the colonies. Some people felt that
work was good for children because it kept them occupied and
insulated
them from the temptations of the street. For others, such as the
Puritans, the New World represented an environment where they
could establish a community governed by their strict religious
principles and where the souls of their children might be
saved.16

6. Initially, the mid-Atlantic colonies were settled primarily by
individuals—farmers, artisans, and indentured servants—instead
of families. However, the need for child labor in the colonies,
along with worsening conditions in Europe, soon led to the
development of a variety of mechanisms by which youths could
make their way to the New World. In Europe, “spirits”
(commission agents of ship owners and merchants) were
responsible for signing up young men, young women, and even
children for the voyage to America. Sometimes the spirits
bribed, tricked, or coerced people into making the voyage. In
other cases, they found desperate people who dreamed of a
better life. In exchange for their passage to the colonies, those
who signed with the spirits agreed to a period of indenture
(contract), usually four years, as a way to pay for their
passage.17 To ensure they did not
renege on their contract, people were often imprisoned until
they could be transported to the colonies. Furthermore, laws
were passed in the colonies that allowed the recording and
enforcement of these contracts.18 Indeed, the majority of
people who colonized the Chesapeake region during the 1600s
most likely came over as indentured servants.19
In other instances, poor, destitute, and wayward children were
transported from European countries to reduce the costs of
providing relief to the poor or incarcerating them and trying to
correct their behavior. In addition, the colonies needed workers,
and children were seen as a cheap source of labor.20 Not all
children, however, were transported to the colonies or came as
indentured servants. Some came to the New World as part of a
family. This was particularly true in New England, where
Puritan families settled.21
The great demand for labor in the colonies led not only to an
influx of European children but also to the forced transportation
of large numbers of African children. In 1619, the same year
that the colony of Virginia obtained an agreement for the
regular shipment of orphans and destitute children from
England, the first African slaves arrived in that colony. Most of

7. these slaves were children. Slave traders thought that children
would bring higher prices, and more of them could be
transported in the limited cargo space of ships. Furthermore, the
slave traders encouraged
childbearing in order to increase their capital. As Barry
Krisberg and James Austin (1993) note,
“African babies were a commodity to be exploited just as one
might exploit the land or the natural resources of a plantation,
and young slave women were often used strictly for
breeding.”22
The Social Control of Children in the Colonies
Those who settled in the New World brought a variety of ideas
with them about childhood as well as European mechanisms for
responding to those who violated social and legal rules. Like the
Old World, the discipline of children in the New World was
stern. Parents believed that corporal punishment was the
appropriate method of teaching children an appreciation for
correct behavior, sound judgment, and respect for their elders.
The maxim of parents in colonial America was “spare the rod
and spoil the child.”24
In addition to stern child-rearing practices, several other
features of colonial life encouraged conformity among young
and old. Even though the colonists came from varied social
class backgrounds, they generally shared a common set of
beliefs and values.25 Also, most people resided in small
villages and towns, where there was regular interaction between
people intimately familiar with one another. Because the
necessities for survival were produced locally, children
spent much of their time in economic production and under the
watchful eyes of adult members of
the community.26 In short, the organization of community life
was a major factor in the establishment of conformity among
community members.
Several social institutions played key roles in the social control
of children during the colonial period: the family or household

8. (not all households were families), the church, and the binding
out and apprenticeship systems.27 During the colonial period,
the family or household was the basic unit of economic
production28 and the primary mechanism through which social
control was exerted.29 Survival of the family or household and
the community depended on the ability of all able-bodied
persons, including the young, to contribute to the production of
needed commodities. Consequently, a primary responsibility of
the family or household was to oversee the moral
training and discipline of the young and perpetuate the values
that supported existing social institutions and economic
production. For example, in Massachusetts, where the colonists
were more likely to be family groups, parents who failed to
instill respect for community values in their young were subject
to punishment by the authorities.30 According to the Laws and
Liberties of Massachusetts (1648 edition):
The selectmen of every town are required to keep a vigilant eye
on the inhabitants to the
end that the fathers shall teach their children knowledge of the
English tongue and of the
capital laws, and knowledge of the catechism, and shall instruct
them in some honest lawful
calling, labor, or employment. If parents do not do this, the
children shall be taken away
and placed (boys until twenty-one, girls until eighteen) with
masters who will teach and
instruct them.31
The family, along with the binding out and apprenticeship
systems, played a critical role in the
training and control of children in colonial America. These
systems were responsible for the immigration of many youths to
the colonies and served as a primary means by which colonial
youths learned a skill, earned and saved money, and prepared
themselves for adulthood. Moreover, as they had in Europe,
these systems were also mechanisms of social control. In some
instances, children who were difficult to handle or needed

9. supervision were bound over to masters for care. Masters were
responsible for the discipline of those in the household,
including servants and
apprentices. Under the binding out system, masters were not
required to teach servants a trade, and boys were often given
farming tasks and girls were assigned domestic duties. In
contrast, apprenticeships were typically reserved for wealthy
youths, and masters were obligated to teach their apprentices a
trade.32
Religion, particularly in New England, was another powerful
force shaping social life in the colonies. Contemporary concerns
about the separation of church and state were nonexistent.
Regular church attendance was expected,33 and religious beliefs
dominated ideas about appropriate behavior. Little
differentiation was made between sin and crime.34 What was
believed to be immoral was also unlawful and subject to
punishment by the authorities. In colonial towns, children had
few incentives or opportunities to act in ways that deviated
from family and community expectations.35 Gossip, ridicule,
stern discipline by parents, and work—as well as regular
supervision by parents, masters, and others in the community—
ensured that most children did not stray far from community
norms. When children committed minor rule violations, their
parents or masters
were expected to punish them. In other instances, youths who
violated community rules might be sent to the town minister for
a stern lecture and a warning to avoid further infractions.
However, rule violations that, by today’s standards, would be
considered minor were seen as serious by people in colonial
times. For example, in some colonies a child who rebelled
against his or her parents could be put to death.36 Indeed,
colonial legal codes contained a long list of
capital offenses, including murder, horse stealing, arson,
robbery, burglary, and sodomy. According to the Massachusetts
Bay Colony Laws of 1660, for sodomy, a capital crime, children
younger than age 14 years were to be “severely punished” but

10. not executed; for cursing and smiting parents, a capital crime,
only those “above sixteen years old, and of sufficient
understanding” could be put to death. Those older than 16 could
be executed for arson, being a stubborn or rebellious son, and
“denying the Scriptures to be the infallible word of God,” all of
which were capital crimes.37
Banishment was another method used to permanently eliminate
more serious offenders from the community.38 On the frontier,
however, banishment could be tantamount to a death sentence.
In addition, punishments such as fines, whipping, branding, and
placement in stocks or a pillory served as reminders to both
young and old that violations of community norms were serious
matters.39 Incarceration was also used during this period. Some
offenders were placed in the small jails that existed in many
towns, but incarceration was used primarily to hold debtors and
other offenders awaiting trial. The use of incarceration as a
punishment for offenders did not become popular until later.40
Despite the relative homogeneity of the population of the
colonies and the variety of social control mechanisms in place,
social unrest still occurred, including servant revolts, slave
revolts, strikes, demands for political representation, and
discontent among the poor. 41 As the colonies grew,
antagonisms between the poor and wealthy intensified.
Although some servants became landowners after their period of
servitude was over, most continued to be poor, often becoming
tenants on large plantations and providing owners with a cheap
source of labor. Moreover, the towns were typically run by
wealthy elites who maintained their power through
intermarriage and other forms of alliance between families.
In colonial America, the majority of people were poor, and
many of the poor resented their treatment by the wealthy. Even
during the Revolutionary War, those who supported
independence were concerned about the possibility of mutiny
and the lack of support for their cause. This was particularly
true in the South, where many poor people felt that a victory by
the colonies would simply mean changing one master for

11. another. Indeed, the problems of poverty and social unrest
prompted the growing cities to establish poorhouses to provide
for and control the elderly, widows, the physically challenged,
orphans, the unemployed, war veterans, and new immigrants. A
letter to Peter Zinger’s New York Journal in 1737 described
poor street children in New York during this period: “an Object
in Human Shape, half starv’d with Cold, with Cloathes out at
the Elbows, Knees
through the Breeches, Hair standing on end. . . . From the age
about four to Fourteen they spend their Days in the Streets . . .
then they are put out as Apprentices, perhaps four, five, or six
years.”42
Families and Children in the 1800s
By the early 1800s, American communities, particularly in the
growing towns and cities, were changing as a result of
continuing immigration and economic and social developments.
The population was becoming more diverse as English settlers
were joined by Scots-Irish, German, Irish, and French
immigrants.43 Family-based production, which had
characterized colonial social life, was giving way to a factory-
based system of production in the growing towns. Moreover, the
factory-based system was beginning to supplant the binding out
system, which had been the primary
means by which children entered the labor force during the
colonial era.44 As a result, the factory and the factory boss
gradually took the place of the master as agents of socialization
and control for many youths.
As more parents, particularly fathers, and children began to
leave their homes for work in factories, fundamental changes
occurred in the relationships among family members and in the
role of the family in controlling the behavior of children. Before
the Industrial Revolution, parents were involved in making
occupational choices for their children, typically when the
children were 10 to 12 years old. Moreover, there were
important class differences between children. Poor children

12. were bound out or placed in apprenticeships, whereas wealthier
children were sent to schools or began preparing for careers in
the military, government, or medicine by their late teens. Even
in the lower classes, there were various distinctions between
youths, because youths who learned better trades would be
assured of higher incomes. And, of course, there were
tremendous differences in the occupational opportunities
available to males, females, and children of color. As a result,
children developed specific identities based on their gender,
class, and race or ethnic position. The growth of
industrialization, along with increases in the population, led to
the erosion of these traditions, however. The professions
became more difficult for many White children to get into
because of the larger number of people vying for entry. More
often, youths became employees
rather than apprentices, although most Black children continued
to remain slaves. Finally, young people began to remain at home
longer, and the period of transition into full adulthood
lengthened.45
Another change that accompanied industrialization was the
decline of the large extended family. A typical family of the
colonial period comprised parents, children, relatives, and
perhaps servants and apprentices, but this type of family began
to be replaced by the nuclear family. Also, the work that people
performed for pay began to be carried out in factories and other
job sites away from the home. Not only did men work outside
the home, but also in many cases women and children began to
work outside the home as a result of the development of
industrial machinery.
For example, Samuel Slater, the “father of American
manufacturers,” initially employed a workforce of nine boys in
his Rhode Island factory. By 1801, this workforce had expanded
to 100 youths between 4 and 10 years old.46 As apprenticeships
became less important as a way of learning a trade and earning
money, and as the extended family declined in importance,
childcare became much less of a collective responsibility

13. (shared by family members and the community) and
more of a responsibility of the mother.
Although industrialization brought prosperity to some people, it
was accompanied by growing concern about social unrest and
crime. There were increasing numbers of poor people as well as
people suffering from mental illness. In the smaller, more
homogeneous towns and villages of colonial times, people had
accepted these problems and attempted to devise a community
response. Although some offenders and those considered rogues
or vagabonds were banished or barred from communities, no
systematic attempts were made to isolate those who were
deviant or
dependent. By the early 1800s, however, notions of dependency
and deviancy had changed dramatically. Deviant children were
more often seen as products of pauperism, and many people
believed that problem children could be transformed into
productive, hardworking adults.47 It was in this context that
new institutions for the control of children were developed.48
The Development of Early Juvenile Correctional Institutions in
the United States
The population of the United States grew rapidly after the
revolution. In 1790, there were fewer than 4 million Americans,
and the majority lived within 50 miles of the Atlantic Ocean.49
Colonial America was rural; even the largest cities were small.
When George Washington became president, “only two hundred
thousand Americans lived in towns with more than twenty-five
hundred people. . . . In 1790, no American city had more than
fifty thousand residents.”50 However, by 1820, the population
of New York City was around 120,000 and growing rapidly as a
result of immigration.51 Indeed, by 1830, the United States was
home to approximately 13 million people, and more than 4.5
million lived west of the Appalachian Mountains. Moreover,
immigration and slavery changed the
ethnic composition of many communities, making them less
homogeneous than during colonial times.

14. In contrast to the influx of immigrants, the population of Native
Americans living east of the Mississippi was reduced from
120,000 to approximately 30,000 in 1820. They were either
killed or forced to leave their land.52 Although the geographic
size of the United States grew considerably between 1790 and
1820 as a result of land acquisitions, the population increased
even more dramatically after 1820. By 1860, the population of
the United States had grown to approximately
31 million people. Moreover, the diversity of the population
continued to expand. Increasingly, new arrivals came from the
Scandinavian countries and from Ireland and Germany.53
The United States presented tremendous opportunities for
people, and many prospered. For others, however, the American
dream was elusive. The New World had always had its share of
poor people. Many of those who arrived during the colonial
period came as servants, and many of the immigrants to the
United States were poor people seeking a better life. Both
before and after the American Revolution, the poor
outnumbered the wealthy. Moreover, poor and affluent alike
faced a variety of insecurities. The wealthy worried about the
threat of crime, protests, riots, periodic slave revolts, and
various forms of political resistance to their leadership.54 In
addition, periodic economic downturns threatened the
livelihoods of many people and left many out of work.55
Furthermore, there was no safety net to rely on in difficult
times. There was no minimum wage, health-care plan, Social
Security, or pension program to protect workers’ interests if
they lost their jobs, became ill, or became too old to work.
Moreover, most Americans, Native Americans,
women, Blacks, and poor White males had little or no say in the
decisions that influenced their lives.
The Houses of Refuge
Accompanying the changes in the social and economic life of
the growing cities were a host of social problems such as
vagrancy, drunkenness, and crime, including those committed

15. by children. In response to the growth in juvenile crime, the
first correctional institution specifically for youths in the
United States was developed. This institution, the House of
Refuge, was established in New York City in 1825. Soon other
houses of refuge were founded in other cities such as Boston
(1826) and Philadelphia (1828).56 In the 1840s, houses of
refuge opened in Rochester, Cincinnati, and New Orleans; in the
1850s, they opened in Providence, Baltimore, Pittsburgh,
Chicago, and Saint Louis. By 1857, the refuge movement had
expanded to the point that a national convention of refuge
superintendents was held in New York. According to its
committee on statistics, 17 institutions for youths were in
operation in the United States. These institutions had land and
buildings worth almost $2 million and total annual expenditures
of approximately $330,000.57
The development of the houses of refuge represented a new
approach to problem children by relying on formal childcare
institutions as opposed to families, churches, and informal
community controls.58 The houses of refuge were privately run
institutions championed by wealthy reformers who saw youth
crime and waywardness as a natural outgrowth of the pauperism
prevalent in cities like New York. These reformers were mostly
men from established families, and they intended to oversee the
moral well-being of the community and develop policies that
would protect their way of life from the threat posed by the
poor.59 These reformers decried the unwillingness of the
criminal courts to deal with children who committed minor
offenses. The
incarceration of youths who committed any type of criminal
offense was possible because children fell under the jurisdiction
of the criminal courts, but the reformers realized that adult
correctional …
Journal Entry Instructions

16. Each week, watch, read, or listen to a political broadcast of any
kind for 15-30 minutes. This
could be reading an article in the newspaper or online, watching
the news on television,
YouTube, or another source, and even watching political satire
such as John Oliver or the Daily
Show. So long as the source presents political information in an
accurate way, it generally
qualifies as a political source for the purposes of this
assignment. If you are unsure if your source
qualifies, ask me before using it.
Assignment Instructions
● Watch, read, or listen to a political broadcast of any kind for
15-30 minutes each week.
● Using the template provided online, fill in the necessary
information listed at the top.
● Using the template provided online, provide me a 2 paragraph
summary and a 2
paragraph personal opinion of the article. These must be your
own words and quotes
should be used sparingly.
● Sources may be used twice, regardless of the format of the
content. For example, if you
use an article from CNN and a YouTube video from CNN, you
can no longer use CNN.
Formatting requirements:
● Single Spaced
● 1-inch margins

17. ● Times New Roman 12-Point Font
Submission requirements:
● All weekly journal packets are due as a single document
online on assigned due dates.
Questions to help guide your journal entries:
● What was the main subject of the news?
● What government actors are involved in the news story and
how?
● What non-government actors are involved in the news story
and how?
● Does this source seem to have a political bias? If so what bias
and how?
● What terms learned in class help you understand the news?
● What, if anything, is confusing about the news?
Example of personal opinion
“The confidential Justice Department document about the
president’s use of drones, which was
recently leaked to the press, relates to numerous concepts
outlined in the textbook. First, there
are questions of executive authority. Article I of the
Constitution states that the power to
declare war belongs to Congress. While the Justice Department
document does not authorize
the president to declare war, it gives him unchecked power to
take lethal measures. One of the
reasons for the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of
government. In fact, preventing
government from amassing too much power was on the forefront
of the framers’ minds as they

18. drafted the new constitution. Still, presidents have historically
circumvented checks on the
executive branch with devices such as executive orders and
signing statements.”