Scholarly Paper Rubric (100 Points Possible) Students.docx

Scholarly Paper Rubric (100 Points Possible):
Students will complete this assignment with attention to the
criteria in the table below.
Exceptional corresponds to an A (95-100%): Performance is
outstanding; significantly above the usual expectations.
Proficient corresponds to a grade of B to A- (83-94%): Skills
and standards are at the level of expectation.
Basic corresponds to a C to B- (75-82%): Skills and standards
are acceptable, but improvements are needed to meet
expectations well.
Novice corresponds to a D to C- (60%-74%): Performance is
weak; the skills or standards are not sufficiently demonstrated
at
this time.
Missing/NA corresponds to an F (0-59%): This criterion is
missing or is not in evidence.
The instructor will compute an analytic score by assigning
points for each criterion, following the percentages indicated
above.
Criteria
Ratings (Levels)
Exceptional Proficient Basic Novice Missing/NA

Content
50 points possible
Issues are clearly
identified and
masterfully addressed.
(48-50 points)
Issues are identified
and logically
addressed.
(42-47 points)
Issues are adequately
identified and
addressed, but some
improvements are
needed.
(38-41 points)
Issues are weakly
identified and
addressed; significant
improvements are
needed.
(30-37 points)
There is little to no
evidence that
issues are identified
and addressed.

(0-29 points)
Writing and
Grammar
25 points possible
Grammar and writing
are significantly above
expectations.
(24-25 points)
Grammar and writing
are of an appropriate
college level.
(21-23 points)
Grammar and writing
are adequate, but
some improvement is
needed.
(19-20 points)
Grammar and writing
are weak; significant
improvement is
needed.
(15-18 points)
evidence of college-
level grammar and
writing.
(0-14 points)

Format
25 points possible
Resources are
complete and
appropriately cited,
and references use
APA style with no
errors.
(24-25 points)
Resources are
complete and
appropriately cited, and
references use APA
style, but 1 or 2 minor
errors are noted.
(21-23 points)
Citations and
references are
acceptable, but some
APA-format
improvement is
needed.
(19-20 points)
Citations and
references are weak;
significant APA-
format improvement
is needed.
(15-18 points)

evidence of cited
resources in APA
format.
(0-14 points)
What Americans Think
Question:
“What do you think is the most
important problem facing this
country today?”
Chapter 17: Juvenile Justice: 17-1 Youth Crime in the United
States
Book Title: The American System of Criminal Justice
© 2019 Cengage Learning, Cengage Learning
17-1 Youth Crime in the United States
In Chicago, a 14-year-old boy is arrested for sexually assaulting
a 15-year-old girl and
streaming it online; he has also been charged with
manufacturing and disseminating child
pornography. In New Hampshire, a teenager is charged with the
murder of a man, and
attempted murder of a woman. In Texas, a juvenile is arrested
for setting 11 vehicles on fire;
he was charged with arson, but will likely be the target of civil

suits by victims who will claim
damages from his destruction of their cars and the property
inside. Such dramatic criminal
acts make headlines. Are these only isolated incidents, or is the
United States facing a
major increase in youth crime?
The juvenile crime incidents just described are unusual. In a
nation with 74 million people
younger than age 18, about 709,333 arrests of juveniles occur
each year, only 39,000 of
which (about 5.5 percent) are for violent crimes (FBI, 2016a:
Table 41). After rising from
1988 through 1994, the number of index crimes (those
considered “serious” by the FBI)
committed by juveniles dropped to an all-time low in 2014
(Office of Juvenile Justice and
Probation [OJJDP], 2015). Public opinion reflects the reality of
declining crime rates in the
United States, with Americans less concerned about crime than
in many past years. As
shown in “What Americans Think,” the public is most
concerned about issues related to the
economy and government.
Youth crimes range from UCR Index
Crimes (such as murder, rape, robbery,
assault) to less serious crimes like
liquor-law violations, gambling, and
disorderly conduct (see Figure 17.1).
Consistent with the trends just
discussed, and although about 1.5
million delinquency cases were handled
in the juvenile court in 2009, the decline
in caseloads since the mid-1990s is the
largest since 1960. Most juvenile crimes

are committed by young men, but young
women make up an increasing
percentage of juveniles appearing in
court. In the 1980s, young men were
arrested 8 times more than young
women for violent crimes; but by 2012
the arrest rate for young men was only
4 times more than for young women
javascript://
javascript://
Source: Gallup, “Most Important Problem,” In Depth:
Topics A to Z, March 2017 ( www.gallup.com).
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to
many small percentages.
(Puzzanchera, 2014). This trend has
occurred primarily because the number
of arrests for boys has decreased at a
faster rate than the number of arrests
for girls (Puzzanchera, 2014).
Figure 17.1
Percentage of Arrests of People Younger than 18 Years Old
(Rounded)
Juveniles are arrested for a wide range of offenses. For some
offenses such as
arson, vandalism, disorderly conduct, and burglary, juveniles
account for a larger
percentage of arrests than the percentage of juveniles in the
general population

would suggest.
http://www.gallup.com/
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime
Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 2016), Table 41.
Criminologists have tried to explain the “epidemic” of violent
youth crime that erupted in the
mid-1980s, which reached its peak in 1993. Among the
explanations, two are heard
frequently. One explanation uses a “cohort” approach, arguing
that during the 1980s the
increase in violence was due to an increase in the prevalence of
exceptionally violent
individuals—so-called “super predators.” Critics of this
approach say that the birth cohort
that peaked during the early 1990s was not at all exceptional
with respect to involvement in
violence in their younger years (P. J. Cook and Laub, 2002: 2).
In addition, there was little
evidence that “super predators” even existed, and much of the
attention given to this
explanation was blamed on media hype (Haberman, 2014).
A second explanation focuses on environmental factors during
the epidemic period that
influenced the rise in violent youth crime. Scholars holding this
position point to the impact
of the drug trade, especially crack cocaine and the related
increase in the number of youths

carrying and using guns. Alfred Blumstein (2002) suggests that
as more juveniles,
particularly inner-city minority males, were recruited into the
drug trade, they armed
themselves with guns and used those firearms in battles over
market turf.
Other factors may have also played a role—violent crime by
youth was most prevalent in
neighborhoods with deteriorating social and economic
conditions. These changes led to
increases in family instability and reductions in shared social
expectations about behavior,
with particular impacts in many minority neighborhoods (K. J.
Strom and MacDonald, 2007).
Violent juvenile delinquency is also affected by exposure to
violence in their communities,
but can be mitigated by fostering a sense of optimism and high
expectations in youth at risk
for delinquency—feelings of hopelessness and low expectations
can be one of the things
that leads to delinquency in these neighborhoods (P. Chen,
Voisin, and Jacobson, 2016).
Certainly, drug use by juveniles has had a significant impact on
the juvenile justice system.
From 1985 to 1997, the number of drug offense cases processed
by juvenile courts
increased from approximately 77,000 cases per year to almost
200,000 cases per year—
where rates stayed constant until decreasing substantially
between 2001 and 2013 which
saw 141,000 cases referred (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang,
2015). In addition, drug use
cases skyrocketed for white male juveniles between 1984 and
2004, increasing 341 percent

(compared to a 32 percent increase for black juveniles).
Increased numbers of drug
offenders have resulted in a higher number of caseloads being
handled by juvenile courts
since 1985 (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015). Read Inside
Today’s Controversies to
consider how a resurgence of problems with opioid abuse have
challenged both criminal
justice and public health officials.
Gangs can draw youths into serious criminal activities. What
kinds of programs
might lure young people away from the attractions of the image
of toughness,
solidarity, respect, and power that youths may believe to be
offered by gang
membership?
javascript://
AP Images/Bob Andres
Youth gangs are another factor influencing violent youth crime.
Gangs such as the Black P.
Stone Nation, CRIPS (Common Revolution in Progress), and
Bloods first came to police
attention in the 1970s. The National Youth Gang Survey
estimates that in 2012 there were
more than 30,000 gangs with 850,000 members in the United
States, and that highly
populated areas accounted for the largest number of gang-
related homicides (National
Gang Center, 2014). Gangs are a primary source of fear and
peril in many neighborhoods.
Especially where gang members are armed, the presence of the

gang can destabilize
neighborhood life. Youth gangs are not restricted to large cities,
and juveniles in urban,
suburban, and rural areas have similar reasons for joining gangs
(Watkins and Taylor,
2016). Fear of being a crime victim can lead youths to seek
protection through gang
membership without realizing that gang members are actually
more likely than other
juveniles to be targets of violence and property crimes (Melde,
Esbensen, and Taylor, 2009).
Because the 1990s heightened awareness about youth crime and
violence, there have
been continuing efforts to develop programs to address those
problems specifically.
Although juvenile delinquency, neglect, and dependency have
been concerns since the
nation’s early decades, a separate system to deal with these
problems did not evolve until
the early twentieth century. The contemporary juvenile justice
system has gone through a
major shift of emphasis as well. The remainder of the chapter
explores the history of juvenile
justice, the process it follows today, and some of the problems
associated with it.
Checkpoint
1. What might explain the “epidemic” of violent crime
committed by juveniles
that peaked in the 1990s?
Stop and Analyze: There appears to be a strong link between

drug use and
delinquency rates. What might you recommend to lawmakers to
help reduce
juvenile drug use so that delinquency rates can be decreased?
Inside Today’s Controversies
Teens and the Opioid Crisis
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there was an
increase of more
than 200 percent in overdose deaths from opioid abuse from
2002 to 2015. Over the
same time period, there was a 600 percent increase in overdose
deaths from
heroin, a single specific illegal opioid drug. These frightening
statistics have
generated increased attention that news media, justice system
officials, public
health workers, parents, and politicians are giving to this
problem. As this problem
has tragically impacted middle-class families in affluent
suburbs and small towns,
politicians have reacted in ways that never happened when
public perceptions of
drug problems assumed that these issues primarily affected poor
people in inner-
cities. When the crack cocaine crisis of the 1990s made
headlines, politicians
responded by increasing prison sentences for possession and
sale of the drug, with
significant impacts on African American young people in
central cities. By contrast,
the opioid crisis has led to calls for increased funding for
treatment programs as well
as “amnesty” policies in which police issue statements

promising not to make
arrests in order to encourage people to call for help when there
is a drug overdose.
The contrasting treatments of the two drug problems arguably
reflect the political
power of the affected groups. Government practices and policies
are moving in the
direction of treating opioid users as “victims,” in contrast to the
prior treatment of
crack cocaine addicts as dangerous “criminals.”
One study of opioid abuse by teens found that many drug users’
problems began
with a legitimate prescription from a doctor for a painkiller to
help treat a sports
injury or other medical problem. For a percentage of teens with
such prescriptions,
as well as for adults, they looked for ways to obtain opioid
painkillers when their
medical treatment was completed. Many teens who develop a
drug addiction
problem with opioids switch from prescription drugs to heroin
because the illegal
drug is cheaper and easier to obtain. As indicated by the
statistics about overdose
deaths, these drugs are the source of significant, tragic
problems.
The opioid crisis presents both criminal justice and public
health issues. For
example, in March 2017, a 15-year-old in Utah was sentenced to
probation,
community service, a fine, and random drug testing after he
sold a synthetic opioid

to two 13-year-old junior high school students who both died of
overdoses after
using the drug. Police officials bear a responsibility for
enforcing drug laws and
trying to prevent dangerous drugs from being sold. On the other
hand, they are also
first responders called to the scene of drug overdoses and many
now are
knowledgeable about anti-overdose drugs, such as Naloxone,
which are
administered with the hope of preventing overdose deaths.
A component of the public health problem for teens concerns
the relative lack of
treatment as compared to adult opioid abusers. One study found
26 percent of adult
heroin addicts received prescription medications from doctors to
help them fight
their addictions, but only 2 percent of juvenile heroin addicts
received such
medications. Some of the differences in treatment related to
health insurance
coverages as applied to juveniles and the adult-oriented focus of
many treatment
centers.
Critical Thinking and Analysis
Consider both the criminal justice and public health aspects of
opioid abuse by
teens. Should the government focus on one of these components
more than the
other? Knowing there are limited resources available for any
government initiatives,
choices must always be made about priorities. Write a memo
explaining the four

most important policies and practices that the government
should emphasize in
addressing this problem with limited funds.
Sources: H. Benson, “For Teenagers, Adult Sized Opioid
Treatment Doesn’t Fit,” National Public Radio,
January 15, 2016 ( www.npr.org); R. Boyd, “Park City Teen
Sentenced for His Role in Classmates’ Fatal
Overdoses on ‘Pink’,” Fox-13 News, March 31, 2017 (
http://foxnow.com); “Few Teens Receive Effective
Treatment for Opioid Addiction,” Fox News, March 13, 2017 (
www.foxnews.com); B. Gholipour, “Teen
Opioid Addiction Often Begins at the Doctor’s Office,” CBS
News, March 20, 2017 ( www.cbsnews.com);
National Institute on Drug Abuse, Overdose Death Rates,
January 2017 ( www.drugabuse.gov).
Check-It
1. Most juvenile crime is committed by young males, and
females constitute a
declining percentage of juveniles appearing in court.
a. True
b. False
http://www.npr.org/
http://foxnow.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/

http://www.drugabuse.gov/
17-2 The Development of Juvenile Justice
The system and philosophy of juvenile justice that began in the
United States during the
social reform period of the late nineteenth century was based on
the idea that the state
should act as a parent in advancing the interest of the child.
This view remained
unchallenged until the 1960s, when the Supreme Court ushered
in the juvenile rights period.
With the rise in juvenile crime in the 1980s, the juvenile justice
system shifted again, to one
focusing on the problem of controlling youth crime. Today,
people are again reexamining the
philosophy and processes of the juvenile justice system.
The idea that children should be treated differently from adults
originated in the common law
and in the chancery courts of England. The common law had
long prescribed that children
younger than seven years of age were incapable of felonious
intent and were therefore not
criminally responsible. Children aged 7 to 14 could be held
accountable only if it could be
shown that they understood the consequences of their actions.
The English chancery courts, established during the Middle
Ages, heard only civil cases,
mainly those concerning property. However, under the doctrine
of parens patriae (The state
as parent; the state as guardian and protector of all citizens
(such as juveniles) who cannot

protect themselves.) , which held the king to be the father of the
realm, the chancery courts
exercised protective jurisdiction over all children, particularly
those involved in questions of
dependency, neglect, and property. At this time the criminal
courts, not a separate juvenile
court, dealt with juvenile offenders. In legitimizing the actions
of the state on behalf of the
child, however, the concept of parens patriae laid the
groundwork for the development of
juvenile justice.
Table 17.1 outlines the shifts in how the United States has dealt
with the problems of youth.
These shifts fall into six periods of American juvenile justice
history. Each was characterized
by changes in juvenile justice that reflected the social,
intellectual, and political currents of
the time. During the past 200 years, population shifts from rural
to urban areas, immigration,
developments in the social sciences, political reform
movements, and the continuing
problem of youth crime have all influenced how Americans have
treated juveniles.
Table 17.1
Juvenile Justice Developments in the United States
Period Major Developments Causes And Influences
Juvenile Justice
System
javascript://
javascript://

Juvenile Justice
System
Puritan 1646–
1824
Massachusetts
Stubborn Child Law
(1646)
A. Puritan view of
child as evil
B. Economically
marginal agrarian
society
Law provides:
A. Symbolic
standard of
maturity
B. Support for
family as
economic unit
Refuge 1824–
1899
Institutionalization of
deviants; House of
Refuge in New York
established (1825) for

delinquent and
dependent children
A. Enlightenment
B. Immigration and
industrialization
Child seen as
helpless, in need of
state intervention
Juvenile
Court 1899–
1960
Establishment of
separate legal system
for juveniles; Illinois
Juvenile Court Act
(1899)
A. Reformism and
rehabilitative
ideology
B. Increased
immigration,
urbanization,
Juvenile court
institutionalized legal
responsibility of child
Juvenile
Rights 1960–

1980
Increased “legalization”
of juvenile law; Gault
decision (1967);
Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention
Act (1974) calls for
deinstitutionalization of
status offenders
A. Criticism of
juvenile justice
system on
humane grounds
B. Civil rights
movement by
minority groups
Movement to define
and protect rights as
well as to provide
services to children
Juvenile Justice
System
Crime Control
1980–2005
Concern for victims,
punishment for serious

offenders, transfer to
adult court of serious
offenders, protection of
children from physical
and sexual abuse
A. More-
conservative
public attitudes
and policies
B. Focus on serious
crimes by repeat
offenders
System more formal,
restrictive, punitive;
increased percentage
of police referrals to
court; incarcerated
youths stay longer
periods
“Kids Are
Different”
2005–present
Elimination of death
penalty for juveniles,
focus on rehabilitation,
states increasing age of
transfer to adult court
A. Roper v. Simmons
(2005)

B. Scientific
evidence on
youth’s biological,
emotional, and
psychological
development
Recognition that
juveniles are less
culpable than adults
Sources: Portions adapted from Barry Krisberg, Ira M.
Schwartz, Paul Litsky, and James Austin, “The
Watershed of Juvenile Justice Reform,” Crime and Delinquency
32 (January 1985): 5–38; U.S.
Department of Justice, A Preliminary National Assessment of
the Status Offender and the Juvenile
Justice System (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1980), 29.
17-2a The Puritan Period (1646–1824)
English legal rules and procedures were maintained in the
American colonies and continued
into the early years of American independence in the nineteenth
century. The earliest
attempt by a colony to deal with problem children was the
passage of the Massachusetts
Stubborn Child Law in 1646. With this law, the Puritans of the
Massachusetts Bay Colony
imposed the view that the child was evil, and they emphasized

the need for the family to
discipline and raise youths. Those who would not obey their
parents were dealt with by the
law.
Checkpoint
2. Until what age were children exempt from criminal
responsibility under
common law?
3. What was the jurisdiction of the English chancery court?
4. What is meant by the doctrine of parens patriae?
Stop and Analyze: In what sense can a court or the government
act as a “parent” to
a child? Parents provide not only discipline, but also love and
care to their children.
Can a court (or judge) really take on this role?
17-2b The Refuge Period (1824–1899)
As the population of American cities began to grow during the
early 1800s, the problem of
youth crime and neglect became a concern for reformers. Just as
the Quakers of
Philadelphia had been instrumental during the same period in
reforming correctional
practices, other groups supported changes toward the education
and protection of youths.
These reformers focused their efforts primarily on the urban
immigrant poor, seeking to have
parents declared “unfit” if their children roamed the streets and

were apparently “out of
control.” Not all such children were engaged in criminal acts,
but the reformers believed that
children would end up in prison if their parents did not
discipline them and train them to
abide by the rules of society. The state would use its power to
prevent delinquency. The
solution was to create “houses of refuge” where these children
could learn good work and
study habits, live in a disciplined and healthy environment, and
develop “character.”
The first of these institutions was the New York House of
Refuge, which opened in 1825.
This half-prison, half-school housed destitute and orphaned
children as well as those
convicted of crime (Friedman, 1993: 164). Similar facilities
followed in Boston, Philadelphia,
and Baltimore. Children were placed in these homes by court
order, usually because of
neglect or vagrancy. They often stayed until they were old
enough to be legally regarded as
adults. The houses were run according to a strict program of
work, study, and discipline.
Some states created “reform schools” to provide the discipline
and education needed by
wayward youth in a “homelike” atmosphere, usually in rural
areas. The first, the Lyman
School for Boys, opened in Westborough, Massachusetts, in
1848. A similar Massachusetts
reform school for girls opened in 1855 for “the instruction …
and reformation, of exposed,
helpless, evil disposed and vicious girls” (Friedman, 1993:
164). Institutional programs
began in New York in 1849, Ohio in 1850, and Maine, Rhode

Island, and Michigan in 1906.
During the nineteenth century, reformers were alarmed by the
living conditions of
inner-city youths. Reformers in Chicago ushered in the juvenile
justice system.
Would it have been better to permit youthful offenders to
receive the same
punishments as adult offenders? Would that approach actually
better fulfill the
nation’s goal of “equal justice under law”?
Topham/The Image Works
Despite these reforms, children could still be arrested, detained,
tried, and imprisoned. Even
in states that had institutions for juveniles, the criminal justice
process for children was the
same as that for adults.
17-2c The Juvenile Court Period (1899–1960)
With most states providing services to neglected youth by the
end of the nineteenth century,
the problem of juvenile criminality became the focus of
attention. Progressive reformers
pushed for the state to provide individualized care and treatment
to deviants of all kinds—
adult criminals, the mentally ill, juvenile delinquents. They
urged adoption of probation,
treatment, indeterminate sentences, and parole for adult
offenders and succeeded in

establishing similar programs for juveniles.
Referred to as the “child savers,” these upper-middle-class
reformers sought to use the
power of the state to “save” children from a life of crime (Platt,
1977). They shared a
concern about the role of environmental factors on behavior and
a belief that benevolent
state action could solve social problems. They also believed the
claim of the new social
scientists that they could treat the problems underlying
deviance.
Reformers wanted a separate juvenile court system that could
address the problems of
individual youths by using flexible procedures that, as one
reformer said, “banish entirely all
thought of crime and punishment” (Rothman, 1980: 213). They
put their idea into action with
the creation of the juvenile court.
Passage of the Juvenile Court Act by Illinois in 1899
established the first comprehensive
system of juvenile justice. The act placed under one jurisdiction
cases of dependency,
neglect, and delinquency (“incorrigibles and children threatened
by immoral associations as
well as criminal lawbreakers”) for children younger than 16.
The act had four major
elements:
1. A separate court for delinquent, dependent, and neglected
children.
2. Special legal procedures that were less adversarial than those
in the adult system.

3. Keeping child offenders separate from adult offenders in all
portions of the justice
system.
4. Programs of probation to assist the courts in deciding what
the best interest of the
state and the child entails.
Activists such as Jane Addams, Lucy Flower, and Julia Lathrop,
of the settlement house
movement; Henry Thurston, a social work educator; and the
National Congress of Mothers
successfully promoted the juvenile court concept. By 1904, ten
states had implemented
procedures similar to those of Illinois. By 1917, all but three
states provided for a juvenile
court.
The philosophy of the juvenile court derived from the idea that
the state should deal with a
child who broke the law much as a wise parent would deal with
a wayward child. The
doctrine of parens patriae again helped legitimize the system.
Procedures would be informal
and private, records would be confidential, children would be
detained apart from adults,
and probation and social workers would be appointed. Even the
vocabulary and physical
setting of the juvenile system were changed to emphasize
diagnosis and treatment instead
of findings of guilt. The term criminal behavior was replaced by
delinquent behavior when
referring to the acts of children. The terminology reflected the

underlying belief that these
children could be “cured” and returned to society as law-abiding
citizens.
Because procedures were not to be adversarial, lawyers were
unnecessary. The main
professionals attached to the system were psychologists and
social workers, who could
determine the juvenile’s underlying behavioral problem. These
reforms, however, took place
in a system in which children lacked the due process rights held
by adults.
Although the creation of the juvenile court was a positive
development for juveniles in
general, some contemporary researchers criticize the tendency
for these reformers to hold
different standards for girls and boys. For example, girls found
guilty of the status offense of
“promiscuity” were frequently incarcerated until adulthood (age
18) for their own protection.
Boys were rarely charged with this type of offense.
17-2d The Juvenile Rights Period (1960–1980)
Until the early 1960s, few questioned the sweeping powers of
juvenile justice officials. When
the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the rights of adult defendants,
however, lawyers and
scholars began to criticize the extensive discretion given to
juvenile justice officials. In a
series of decisions (Figure 17.2), the U.S. Supreme Court
expanded the rights of juveniles.

Figure 17.2
Major Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the
Rights of
Juveniles
Since the mid-1960s, the Supreme Court has gradually expanded
the rights of
juveniles but has continued to recognize that the logic of the
separate system for
juvenile offenders justifies differences from some adult rights.
Sources: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
1999 National Report (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1999), 90–91; Roper v. Simmons,
543 U.S. 551 (2005); Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct.
javascript://
2011 (2010); Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
Note: For discussion of death penalty cases, see Chapter 12.
In the first of these cases, Kent v. United States (1966), the
Supreme Court ruled that
juveniles had the 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) (Juveniles have the right to counsel, to
confront and examine accusers,
and to have adequate notice of charges when confinement is a
possible punishment.)
extended due process rights to juveniles. Fifteen-year-old
Gerald Gault had been sentenced

to six years in a state training school for making a prank phone
call. Had he been an adult,
the maximum punishment for making such a call would have
been a fine of $5 to $50 or
imprisonment for two months at most. Gault was convicted and
sentenced in an informal
proceeding without being represented by counsel. The justices
held that a child in a
delinquency hearing must be given certain procedural rights,
including notice of the
charges, right to counsel, right to confront and cross-examine
witnesses, and protection
against self-incrimination. Writing for the majority, Justice Abe
Fortas emphasized that due
process rights and procedures have a place in juvenile justice:
“Under our Constitution the
condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.”
The precedent-setting Gault decision was followed by a series
of cases further defining the
rights of juveniles. In the case of In re Winship (1970) (The
standard of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings.) ,
the Court held that proof
must be established “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not on “a
preponderance of the
evidence” before a juvenile may be classified as a delinquent
for committing an act that
would be a crime if it had been committed by an adult. The
Court was not willing to give
juveniles every due process right, however: It held in McKeiver
v. Pennsylvania (1971)
(Juveniles do not have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.)
that “trial by jury in the juvenile
court’s adjudicative stage is not a constitutional requirement.”
But in Breed v. Jones (1975)

(Juveniles cannot be found delinquent in juvenile court and then
transferred to adult court
without a hearing on the transfer; to do so violates the
protection against double jeopardy.) ,
the Court extended the protection against double jeopardy to
juveniles by requiring that,
before a case is adjudicated in juvenile court, a hearing must be
held to determine if it
should be transferred to the adult court.
Another area of change concerned status offense (Any act
committed by a juvenile that is
considered unacceptable for a child, such as truancy or running
away from home, but that
would not be a crime if it were committed by an adult.) —acts
that are not illegal if
committed by an adult; these include skipping school, running
away from home, or living a
“wayward, idle or dissolute life” (Feld, 1993: 203). In 1974,
Congress passed the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which included
provisions for taking status
offenders out of correctional institutions. Since then, people
have worked on diverting such
children out of the system, reducing the possibility of
incarceration, and rewriting status
offense laws.
javascript://
javascript://
javascript://
javascript://
javascript://
javascript://

As juvenile crime rates continued to rise during the 1970s, the
public began calling for
tougher approaches in dealing with delinquents. In the 1980s, at
the same time that stricter
sanctions were imposed on adult offenders, juvenile justice
policies shifted to crime control.
17-2e The Crime Control Period (1980–2005)
The public demands to “crack down on crime” began in 1980.
Legislators responded in part
by changing the juvenile system. Greater attention began to be
focused on repeat offenders,
with policy makers calling for harsher punishment for juveniles
who commit crimes.
In 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.) , the Supreme Court
significantly departed from the trend toward increased juvenile
rights. The Court confirmed
that the general notion of parens patriae was a primary basis for
the juvenile court, equal in
importance to the Court’s desire to protect the community from
crime. Thus, juveniles may
be held in preventive detention before trial if they are deemed a
“risk” to the community.
The Schall decision reflects the ambivalence permeating the
juvenile justice system. On one
side are the liberal reformers, who call for increased procedural
and substantive legal
protections for juveniles accused of crime. On the other side are

conservatives devoted to
crime control policies and alarmed by the rise in juvenile crime.
Crime control policies brought many more juveniles to be tried
in adult courts. As noted by
Alex Kotlowitz, “the crackdown on children has gone well
beyond those accused of violent
crimes” (1994: 40). Data from the National Juvenile Court Data
Archive show that
delinquency cases waived to the adult criminal courts increased
dramatically from 1987 to
1994, but have since decreased 61 percent since 1994, mostly as
a result of lower rates of
delinquency. In addition, analysis has indicated that black youth
are more likely to be waived
than white youth for similar offenses, and boys are more likely
to be waived to adult court
than girls—trends that have persisted since the “crime control”
period (Hockenberry and
Puzzanchera, 2014).
javascript://
17-2f The “Kids Are Different” Period (2005–Present)
Some observers believe that a new period in juvenile justice
may be developing. In Roper v.
Simmons (2005), the case discussed in Chapter 12, the United
States Supreme Court ruled
that executions were unconstitutional for crimes committed by
those younger than 18 years
of age. Similarly, in Graham v. Florida (2010) (Juvenile
offenders cannot be sentenced to
life imprisonment without possibility of parole (LWOP) for
non-homicide crimes.) , the Court

decided that sentences of life imprisonment without possibility
of parole (LWOP) for juvenile
offenders were unconstitutional in non-homicide cases. Two
years later, in Miller v.
Alabama (2012) (Juvenile homicide offenders cannot be
sentenced to mandatory life
without possibility of parole (LWOP) imprisonment.) the Court
also deemed mandatory
sentences of life without possibility of parole unconstitutional
for juvenile homicide offenders.
A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices ruled that these
harsh punishments for juveniles,
when mandated by the state legislature without leaving any
discretion for the judge or jury,
were out of step with the contemporary values of society and
therefore they violated the
Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishments.
These important rulings arguably signaled a new era of juvenile
justice. In Roper, Graham,
and Miller, the Court focused on the issue of culpability, and
decided that juveniles were less
culpable than adults due to a number of different factors related
to physical and emotional
development involving the growth and maturation process of the
human brain (MacArthur
Foundation, 2007b). In another case in 2011, the Supreme Court
relied on developmental
factors in redefining the law concerning Miranda warnings.
Additional research into the
development of juveniles indicates that intellectual maturity
occurs at age 16, but other
factors (such as avoiding impulsiveness) are not fully developed
until early adulthood (ages
24–26). In addition, studies indicate that the large majority of

juvenile offenders grow out of
antisocial behavior as they become adults, and most juvenile
delinquency is limited to
adolescence (Steinberg, Cauffman, and Monahan, 2015).
Scientific research has spurred a
growing recognition of the brain development differences
between teens and adults. These
findings provide a basis for new programs and proposed laws
designed to reemphasize
treating juveniles differently than adults for purposes of
rehabilitation and punishment. This
is not to say that juveniles accused of crimes cannot be held
responsible for their actions.
Researchers studying this issue argue that juvenile brain
development does not imply that
juvenile offenders should avoid punishment, but that the
punishment should be more lenient
than an adult convicted of the same crime. Read the Criminal
Justice and the Risk of
Misinformation feature to consider its potential impacts for
young people who have not yet
fully developed their capabilities for critical thinking and
reasoning.
Criminal Justice and the Risk of Misinformation
javascript://
javascript://
javascript://
javascript://
The Worst-Case Scenario for Reacting to Misinformation
In the preceding chapters, we have seen examples of the risks
posed by erroneous

information. Many of these examples concerned harms that
stemmed from
inaccurate record keeping and erroneous communications within
criminal justice
agencies. Other examples concerned members of the public and
their exposure to
misinformation. As you think about those issues, consider
whether risks may be
increased for young people who have not fully developed their
capabilities for critical
thinking and reasoning. Do young people need extra awareness
of risks in order to
avoid making mistakes that cause harm to themselves and
others?
If we look at the role of misinformation in criminal
victimization, it is obvious that
anyone can fall prey to fraudulent communications from those
who hope to steal
money or commit other crimes. For example, when people
donate money to a
phony charity website that claims to support cancer research or
services for
veterans, the messages that lure unwary donors can attract
victims of all ages. In
these cases, we are especially concerned about the elderly who
may have limited
financial resources as well as, perhaps, a reduction in thinking
capacity. However,
we need to be aware that teens can easily be victims, too. As
one example, it is
common to find stories on the Internet about teens who were
fooled into buying fake
drugs that they thought would help turn them into better athletes
or bodybuilders.
Hopefully, by growing up with technology and social media,

today’s teens will
become better informed than their elders are now about how to
recognize fraudulent
website and online “phishing” efforts that seek to facilitate
identity theft.
As described in prior chapters, the blossoming of “fake news”
has presented society
with new problems and poses ever-increasing challenges to
young people who rely
on the Internet and social media for their information about
current events. One
particular example in 2016 highlighted the most severe kind of
risk that can flow
from misinformation: acts of violence perpetrated from reliance
on misinformation.
In March 2017, Edgar Welch, a 28-year-old man, entered a
guilty plea to both
federal and District of Columbia charges related to his actions
in firing a military-
style assault rifle inside a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor. He
had driven from North
Carolina to the nation’s capital in December 2016 with several
firearms because he
believed he needed to take action to save children that,
according to fake Internet
reports, were being held prisoner by a sex-trafficking ring. The
reports falsely
claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
and her campaign
chairperson were involved in the abuse of children. As people
fled the restaurant in
panic when Welch entered with his guns, he fired at the lock on
a door containing
computer equipment because he was looking for the location

where children were
reportedly being held as prisoners. On the same day that Welch
entered his guilty
plea, conservative radio-show host and website operator, Alex
Jones, issued an
apology for his role in contributing to people’s belief in the
false information about
the pizza restaurant’s role in the fictional child-sex-trafficking
enterprise. Welch was
expected to receive up to two years in prison for the federal
charges of illegally
transporting firearms across state lines. He could receive an
additional five years in
prison for the District of Columbia charge of assault with a
deadly weapon, as he
had pointed the weapon at a restaurant employee.
Welch could very easily have killed many people based on his
erroneous belief in
the false information that was spread through the Internet and
social media. He was
in his late twenties, but one can easily imagine younger people,
including teens with
access to weapons, acting with a misguided belief that they
were engaging in heroic
actions when, in fact, their actions were based on
misinformation about alleged
criminals and ongoing crimes. The Welch case highlights the
need for everyone,
including young people, to take care in checking the accuracy of
information,
especially if they are planning to take action based on that
information.

Examine the Issue
How would you respond if one of your friends came to you and
said the following?
“C’mon, we need to do something. I have been reading on the
Internet that a
human-trafficking ring is holding women prisoner in the
apartment complex across
town and the police won’t do anything about it.” Write a memo
describing exactly
what you would say and do, including the steps that you would
take to investigate
whether the Internet information was accurate.
Sources: M. Elmer, “Lawsuit: Fake Cancer Charities Scam $187
Million from Donors,” Des Moines
Register, May 19, 2015 ( www.desmoinesregister.com); S. Hsu,
“Comet Pizza Gunman Pleads Guilty to
Federal and Local Charges,” Washington Post, March 24, 2017 (
www.washingtonpost.com); R. Maaddi,
“Teens Often Fooled by Fake HGH Online,” Poughkeepsie
Journal, July 25, 2014 (
www.poughkeepsiejournal.com).
Current program trends aimed at helping juvenile offenders are
rooted in the principles of
rehabilitation and the prevention of delinquency. Such programs
are not yet widespread nor
fully developed. For example, there are few low-cost substance
abuse programs for
juveniles outside of correctional institutions—therefore, a poor

juvenile must be incarcerated
to receive such assistance without significant personal financial
expense. Reducing drug
use before it accelerates delinquency would seem to be the key
to keeping juveniles crime
free, and thus there is increasing interest in developing more
programs that are accessible
to youths in the community. Research is also focusing on the
relationship between parents
and children, and how parenting programs may help to keep
kids out of the juvenile courts
(MacArthur Foundation, 2007a).
Judicial waiver (Procedure by which the juvenile court waives
its jurisdiction and transfers a
juvenile case to the adult criminal court.) is used to waive or
relinquish juvenile court
jurisdiction and move juveniles into adult court for prosecution
and punishment when youths
commit serious crimes. The use of waiver declined dramatically
from 1996 to 2010, reaching
the lowest number of cases waived since 1988. This decrease in
waiver mirrors the
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/
javascript://
reduction in violent juvenile crime during that period
(Puzzanchera and Addie, 2014).
Recent changes in a few states indicate that judicial waiver is
becoming less popular.
Several states are considering the abolition of juvenile waiver
by increasing their minimum

age for adult trial to 18. A proposed law in Congress, called the
REDEEM Act [Record
Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act],
recommends the expungement of
records for juvenile offenses committed before the age of 15,
and provides incentives for
states to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 18 (Booker,
2015). A recent analysis
indicates that 73 percent of Americans support rehabilitation
strategies for juvenile offenders
over those focused on arrest and punishment. In addition, 50
percent of Americans would
be willing to pay for efforts designed to divert juveniles from
delinquency, compared to the
16 percent who state they would be willing to pay for
punishment strategies for delinquent
youth (T. Baker et al., 2016).
The current movement for more-lenient treatment of juveniles is
still in its infancy. It is
unknown how states will react to changes reflected in Roper v.
Simmons, Graham v. Florida,
and Miller v. Alabama, and there is still considerable support
for the “get tough” stance
toward older juveniles. The Supreme Court has allowed
California’s “three strikes” law, for
example, to count juvenile convictions as “strikes,” thereby
mandating long sentences for
repeat offenders (Nguyen v. California, 2009). Opponents point
out that this violates the
spirit of the parens patriae philosophy (Juvenile Law Center,
2008). In many places, the
juvenile court, where the use of discretion and the desire to
rehabilitate were previously
uppermost goals, employs a system of rules and procedures
similar to those in adult courts.

Read more about programs focused on preventing violent crimes
by juveniles in the Close
Up feature. Efforts at crime prevention seek to keep juveniles
from entering the justice
system and thereby avoid expenditures on rehabilitation and
punishment.
Close Up
Youth Violence Reduction Programs
Several cities have initiated programs to reduce and prevent
juvenile violence. In
New Orleans, the Group Violence Reduction Strategy (GVRS)
uses data analysis to
identify the most high-frequency offenders in the city, then
target those individuals
for selective attention from the justice system. Their attempts
also include identifying
violent criminal gangs and divert resources to those areas.
Interactions with the
targeted youth involve diversion to appropriate social services,
with notification that
future delinquent behavior will result in prosecution. The Office
of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention has rated this program “effective”
based on a 2015
study that demonstrated a significant reduction in homicide
rates.
“Movimento Ascendencia” (in English, “Upward Movement”)
located in Pueblo,
Colorado, is a program designed to provide a pathway for young
females (primarily
Mexican American) out of violence and gang behavior. Girls are
provided with tools

to resolve conflicts, improve self-esteem, and increase cultural
awareness. The
program has been demonstrated to reduce rates of theft among
the study
javascript://
population, but the OJJDP rates this program as “promising”
given that other
aspects of youth behavior have not been similarly affected.
Debate the Issue
New Orleans’ Group Violence Reduction Strategy is designed to
prevent youth from
engaging in violent activities related to gang membership;
however, some argue that
funds spent on programs such as these are better spent on the
“back end” of the
system—strengthening the police response to crime and the
juvenile court
response. Others argue that using funds on the “front end” will
save significant
costs, because successful prevention programs will reduce
associated expenditures
for the police, juvenile courts, and corrections down the road.
What is the most
effective use of public funds with regard to delinquency?
Source: Adapted from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention “Model Programs
Guide” ( www.ojjdp.gov/mpg).
In spite of the increasingly tough policies directed at juvenile

offenders in the late twentieth
century, changes that occurred during the juvenile rights period
continue to affect the
system profoundly. Lawyers are now routinely present at court
hearings and other stages of
the process, adding a note of formality that was not present 30
years ago. Status offenders
seldom end up in secure punitive environments, such as training
schools. The juvenile
justice system now looks more like the adult justice system than
it did, but it remains less
formal. Its stated intention is also less harsh: to keep juveniles
in the community whenever
possible.
Checkpoint
5. What was the function of a “house of refuge”?
6. What were the major elements of the Illinois Juvenile Court
Act of 1899?
7. What was the main point of the In re Gault decision?
8. How did the decline in juvenile crime in the 1990s affect
juvenile justice
policy?
9. What reasons has the Supreme Court given for disallowing
the use of the
death penalty and other harsh sentences for juveniles?
Stop and Analyze: The Supreme Court was deeply divided over
the issue of
whether sentences of death for murder and life without parole
for non-homicide

offenses are out of step with the values of contemporary
society. Do you think
http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg
society’s contemporary values would reject those sentences for
juveniles? If you
were a lawyer, what evidence could you present to a court that
reflects society’s
current values concerning the punishment of juveniles today?
Check-It
2. The period of juvenile justice development is associated with
the idea
that juveniles are helpless and in need of supervision.
a. Puritan
b. refuge
c. juvenile court
d. juvenile rights
3. During the period of juvenile justice development, the
juvenile court
system became more formal, restrictive, and punitive.
a. juvenile court
b. juvenile rights
c. crime control

d. “kids are different”
4. In , the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty cannot be
imposed
on offenders who commit a murder when they are younger than
18.
a. Roper v. Simmons
b. Graham v. Florida
c. Miller v. Alabama
d. Schall v. Martin
© 2020 Cengage Learning Inc. All rights reserved. No part of
this work may by reproduced or used in any form or by any
means -
graphic, electronic, or mechanical, or in any other manner -
without the written permission of the copyright holder.
(1)
(2)
17-3 The Juvenile Justice System
Juvenile justice operates through a variety of procedures in
different states; even different
counties within the same states vary in their processes. Because
the offenses committed by
juveniles are mostly violations of state laws, there is little
federal involvement in the juvenile

justice system. Despite internal differences, the juvenile justice
system is characterized by
two key factors:
the age of clients and
the categories of cases under juvenile court jurisdiction.
17-3a Age of Clients
Age normally determines whether a person is processed through
the juvenile or the adult
justice system. The upper age limit for original juvenile court
jurisdiction varies from 16 to
18. In 43 states and the District of Columbia, it is the 18th
birthday; in 5 states, the 17th; and
in the remaining 2 states, the 16th birthday (National
Conference of State Legislatures,
2017). Given increasing awareness that psychological
development continues throughout
the teenage years, there have been calls to increase the age of
majority so that more cases
can be heard in juvenile courts. In 2012, Connecticut raised the
age of majority to 18 years
old for all offenses except the most serious. Analysis of crime
rates in that state have
indicated that there was not an appreciable increase in juvenile
crime after that change was
made (Loeffler and Chalfin, 2017).
Juvenile courts are not the only place where delinquency cases
can be heard. In 45 states,
judges have the discretion to transfer juveniles to adult courts
through a waiver hearing.

Figure 17.3 shows the age at which juveniles can be transferred
to adult court.
Figure 17.3
The Youngest Age at which Juveniles May Be Transferred to
Adult Criminal
Court by Waiver of Juvenile Jurisdiction
The waiver provisions of states vary greatly, and no clear
regional or other factor
explains the differences.
A map of the United States shows the youngest age at which
juveniles may be
transferred to adult criminal court by waiver of juvenile
jurisdiction. The waiver provision
of states varies greatly, and no clear regional or other factor
explains the differences.
States with the minimum age juveniles can be transferred are as
follows. No minimum
age. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota,
Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii,
Oklahoma, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, West Virginia,
District of Columbia,
Maryland, Delaware, Maine. 10 years old. Iowa, Vermont. 12
years old. Montana,
Colorado, Kansas, Missouri. 13 years old. Illinois, Mississippi,
Georgia, North Carolina,
New York, New Hampshire. 14 years old. California, Nevada,
Utah, North Dakota
Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Texas, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Alabama, Florida. 15
years old. New Mexico.

javascript://
Source: State Juvenile Justice Profiles, online at Juvenile
Justice Geography, Policy, Practice & Statistics (2015) (
www.jjgps.org).
http://www.jjgps.org/
17-3b Categories of Cases under Juvenile Court Jurisdiction
Four types of cases fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
justice system: delinquency,
status offenses, neglect, and dependency. Mixing together
young criminals with children
who suffer from their parents’ inadequacies dates from the
earliest years of juvenile justice.
Delinquent (A child who has committed an act that if carried
out by an adult would be a
criminal act.) children have committed acts that if carried out
by an adult would be criminal—
for example, auto theft, robbery, or assault. Juvenile courts
handle about 1 million
delinquency cases each year, 72 percent involving male
delinquents, and 35 percent
involving African Americans. Among the criminal charges
brought before the juvenile court,
26 percent are for crimes against persons, 35 percent for
property offenses, 13 percent for
drug law violations, and 26 percent for public order offenses
(Hockenberry and
Puzzanchera, 2015). Table 17.2 shows the distribution of
delinquency cases that are

referred to juvenile court.
Table 17.2
Distribution of Delinquency Cases Referred to Juvenile Court
Juvenile courts in the United States handled about 975,000
criminal cases in 2014.
This was a decline of 42 percent from the number handled in
2005.
Percentage of Total Cases Referred, 2013
27% Crimes against
persons
Percentages
Homicide Less than 1
Forcible rape 1
Robbery 2
Other personal
offenses
2
Aggravated assault 3
javascript://
javascript://

Simple assault 18
Other violent sex
offenses
1
34% Property crimes
Burglary 6
Larceny/theft 17
Motor vehicle theft 1
Arson Less than 1
Vandalism 5
Trespassing 3
Stolen property
offenses
1
Other property
offenses
1
13% Drug violations
26% Public order
offenses

Weapons offenses 2
Obstruction of
justice
13
Disorderly conduct 7
Liquor law
violations
Less than 1
Nonviolent sex
offenses
1
Other public order
offenses
2
Source: Sarah Hockenberry and Charles Puzzanchera, Juvenile
Court Statistics, 2014 (Pittsburgh, PA:
National Center for Juvenile Justice, April 2017).
Recall that status offenses are acts that are illegal only if they
are committed by juveniles.

Status offenders have not violated a penal code; instead they are
charged with being
ungovernable or incorrigible: as runaways, truants, or PINS
(Acronym for “person(s) in need
of supervision,” a term that designates juveniles who are either
status offenders or thought
to be on the verge of trouble.) (persons in need of supervision).
Status offenders make up
about 10 percent of the juvenile court caseload. Although
female offenders account for only
28 percent of delinquency cases, they make up 42 percent of the
status offense cases
(Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015).
Some states do not distinguish between delinquent offenders
and status offenders; they
label both as juvenile delinquents. Those judged to be
ungovernable and those judged to be
robbers may be sent to the same correctional institution.
Beginning in the early 1960s, many
state legislatures attempted to distinguish status offenders and
to exempt them from a
criminal record. In states that have decriminalized status
offenses, juveniles who participate
in these activities may now be classified as dependent children
and placed in the care of
child-protective agencies.
Juvenile justice also deals with problems of neglect and
dependency—situations in which
children are viewed as being hurt through no fault of their own
because their parents have
failed to provide a proper environment for them. People see the
state’s role as acting as a
parent to a child whose own parents are unable or unwilling to
provide proper care. Illinois,

for example, defines a neglected child (A child who is receiving
inadequate care because
of some action or inaction of his or her parents.) as one who is
receiving inadequate care
because of some action or inaction of his or her parents. This
may include not being sent to
school, not receiving medical care, being abandoned, living in
an injurious environment, or
not receiving some other care necessary for the child’s well-
being. A dependent child (A
child who has no parent or guardian or whose parents cannot
give proper care.) either has
no parent or guardian or is receiving inadequate care because of
the physical or mental
javascript://
javascript://
javascript://
disability of the parent. The law governing neglected and
dependent children is broad and
includes situations in which the child is viewed as a victim of
adult behavior.
Nationally, about 75 percent of the cases referred to the juvenile
courts are delinquency
cases, 20 percent of which are status offenses. Twenty percent
are dependency and neglect
cases, and about 5 percent involve special proceedings, such as
adoption. The system,
then, deals with both criminal and noncriminal cases. Often
juveniles who have done
nothing wrong are categorized, either officially or in the public
mind, as delinquents. In some
states little effort is made in detention facilities or in social

service agencies to separate the
classes of juveniles prior to their judicial hearings.
Checkpoint
10. What are the jurisdictional criteria for the juvenile court?
Stop and Analyze: Why do most state laws use 18 as the age of
majority? Is there
something special that occurs at age 18 that indicates a shift
from “juvenile” to
“adult”? Would you use a specific age, or design some other
basis for deciding
whether to try an older teen as a juvenile or adult? Why?
Apply-It
5. Fourteen-year-old Jeffrey appears in juvenile court for a
status offense. As
such, he will most likely be designated a .
a. delinquent
b. dependent child
c. neglected child
d. person in need of supervision
6. Thirteen-year-old Donald is accused in juvenile court of
committing arson and
several other acts that, if carried out by an adult, would be
criminal. As such,
he will most likely be designated as a .
a. delinquent

b. dependent child
c. neglected child
d. person in need of supervision
17-4 The Juvenile Justice Process
Underlying the juvenile justice system is the philosophy that
police, judges, and correctional
officials should focus primarily on the interests of the child.
Prevention of delinquency is the
system’s justification for intervening in the lives of juveniles
who are involved in either status
or criminal offenses.
In theory at least, juvenile proceedings are to be conducted in a
non-adversarial
environment. The juvenile court is to be a place where the
judge, social workers, clinicians,
and probation officers work together to diagnose the child’s
situation and select a treatment
program to attack that problem.
Juvenile justice is a bureaucracy based on an ideology of social
work. It is staffed primarily
by people who think of themselves as members of the helping
professions. Not even the
recent emphasis on crime control and punishment has removed
the treatment philosophy
from most juvenile justice arenas. However, political pressures
and limits on resources may

stymie the implementation of this philosophy by focusing on the
punishment of offenders
rather than the prevention of delinquency, even though the
public is more willing to pay for
prevention programs and rehabilitation than incarceration (T.
Baker et al., 2016).
Like the adult system, juvenile justice functions within a
context of exchange relationships
between officials of various government and private agencies
that influence decisions. The
juvenile court must deal not only with children and their
parents, but also with patrol officers,
probation officers, welfare officials, social workers,
psychologists, and the heads of
treatment institutions—all of whom have their own goals,
perceptions of delinquency, and
concepts of treatment.
Figure 17.4 outlines the sequence of steps that are taken from
the point of police
investigation through to correctional disposition, which have
not changed drastically in many
years. As you examine this figure, compare the procedures with
those of the criminal justice
system for adults. Note the various options available to decision
makers and the extensive
discretion that they may exercise.
Figure 17.4
The Juvenile Justice System
Decision makers have more options for the disposition of
juvenile offenders,
compared with options in the criminal justice system for adults.

javascript://
Source: National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals, Report of the Task Force on
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Washington, DC:
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,
1976).
17-4a Police Interface
Many police departments, especially those in cities, have
special juvenile units. The juvenile
officer is often selected and trained to relate to youths, knows
much about relevant legal
issues, and is sensitive to the special needs of young offenders.
This officer also serves as
an important link between the police and other community
institutions, such as schools and
other organizations serving young people. Some communities
hire school resource officers
(SROs), who provide counseling and a security presence in
school buildings. There is
debate about whether SROs actually reduce crime in schools,
and some research indicates
that the opposite is actually true. Schools with police officers
report more crime than those
without. Researchers suggest that the presence of police officers
may actually criminalize
behaviors that were previously considered to be social,
academic, or psychological
problems (Na and Gottfredson, 2013).

Most complaints against juveniles are brought by the police,
although an injured party,
school officials, and even the parents can initiate them as well.
The police must make three
major decisions with regard to the processing of juveniles:
1. Whether to take the child into custody
2. Whether to request that the child be detained following
apprehension
3. Whether to refer the child to court
The police exercise enormous discretion in these decisions.
They do extensive screening
and make informal assessments in the street and at the station
house. In communities and
neighborhoods where the police have developed close
relationships with the residents or
where policy dictates, the police may deal with violations by
giving warnings to the juveniles
and notifying their parents. Figure 17.5 shows the disposition of
juveniles taken into police
custody.
Figure 17.5
Disposition of Juveniles Taken into Police Custody
The police have discretion in the disposition of juvenile arrest
cases. What factors
can influence how a case is disposed?
javascript://

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime
Reports 2015 (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 2016), Table 68.
Initial decisions about what to do with a suspected offender are
influenced by such factors
as the predominant attitude of the community; the officer’s
attitude toward the juvenile, the
juvenile’s family, the offense, and the court; and the officer’s
conception of his or her own
role. The disposition of juvenile cases at the arrest stage also
relies on the seriousness of
the offense, the minor’s prior record, and his or her demeanor.
To summarize, several key
factors influence how the police dispose of a case of juvenile
delinquency:
1. The seriousness of the offense
2. The willingness of the parents to cooperate and to discipline
the child
3. The child’s behavioral history as reflected in school and
police records
4. The extent to which the child and the parents insist on a
formal court hearing
5. The local political and social norms concerning dispositions
in such cases
6. The officer’s beliefs and attitudes
In dealing with juveniles, police often confront issues
concerning the Miranda warnings and
the Mapp unreasonable search and seizure rulings. Although the

language of these
decisions is not explicit, most jurisdictions now provide the
Miranda protections. But
questions remain as to the ability of juveniles to waive these
rights. In 1979, the Supreme
Court ruled in Fare v. Michael C. (1979) (By examining the
totality of circumstances, trial
court judges must evaluate the voluntariness of juveniles’
waiving their rights to an attorney
and to protections against self-incrimination.) that a child may
waive his or her rights to an
attorney and to protections against self-incrimination. But the
Court said that juvenile court
judges must evaluate the totality of circumstances under which
the minor made these
decisions, to ensure that they were voluntary. The Court later
specified that police must take
the offender’s age into account when deciding whether a minor
is officially in the custody of
the police, stating that “children will often feel bound to submit
to police questioning when an
adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave” (J. D.
B. v. North Carolina, 2011).
javascript://
(1)
(2)
On the issue of unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited
by the Fourth Amendment,
the Court has not been as forthcoming. State courts interpreted
Gault to extend these
provisions, but in 1985 the Supreme Court ruled in New Jersey

v. T. L. O. (1985) (School
officials may search a student if they have a reasonable
suspicion that the search will
produce evidence that a school rule or a criminal law has been
violated.) that school officials
can search students and their lockers. The justices recognized
that children do have Fourth
Amendment rights, yet a search could be viewed as reasonable
if
it is based on a suspicion of lawbreaking and
it is required to maintain order, safety, and discipline in the
school.
Faced with problems of drug use and students carrying weapons
in the public schools,
administrators have taken steps to enforce rules so as to
increase security. This has led to
conflicts concerning the right to privacy versus school safety. In
1995, the Supreme Court
said certain students, such as athletes, could be subject to
random drug testing. The case,
Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) (To ensure a safe
learning environment, school
officials may require random drug testing of students involved
in extracurricular school
sports teams.) , concerned a seventh grader’s parents who
refused to sign a urinalysis
consent form. As a result their son, James Acton, was kept off
of the football team. The
court ruled that the testing was constitutional in the interest of
ensuring a safe learning
environment even though the student had not exhibited
suspicious behavior. The Supreme
Court later expanded school officials’ authority to impose drug

testing by permitting schools
to require students to submit to random drug testing in order to
participate in non-sports
extracurricular activities, such as band and choir (Board of
Education v. Earls, 2002). The
Supreme Court has not approved mandatory drug testing of all
students in a public school. It
has simply permitted schools to develop and apply testing
policies to students as a condition
of participation in extracurricular activities. In addition, the
Court has also recognized limits
on school officials’ authority to conduct searches. In Safford
Unified School District v.
Redding (2009), the Court ruled that public school officials
cannot conduct a strip search of
a student to look for drugs. In this case, the search was based on
inaccurate information
reported to school authorities by another student.
Although young people commit many serious crimes, the
juvenile function of police work is
concerned largely with order maintenance. In most incidents of
this sort, the law is
ambiguous, and blame cannot easily be assigned. Many offenses
committed by juveniles
that involve physical or monetary damage are minor infractions:
breaking windows, hanging
around the business district, disturbing the peace, public sexual
behavior, and shoplifting.
Here the function of the investigating officer is not so much to
solve crimes as to handle the
often legally uncertain complaints involving juveniles. The
officer seeks both to satisfy the
complainant and to keep the youth from future trouble. Given
this emphasis on settling
cases within the community—instead of strictly enforcing the

law—the police power to arrest
is a weapon that can be used to deter juveniles from criminal
activity and to encourage them
to conform to the law.
javascript://
javascript://
17-4b Intake Screening at the Court
The juvenile court processing of delinquency cases begins with
a referral in the form of a
petition, not with an arrest warrant as in the adult system. When
a petition is filed, an intake
hearing is held, over which a hearing officer presides. During
this stage, the officer
determines whether the alleged facts are sufficient for the
juvenile court to take jurisdiction
or whether some other action would be in the child’s best
interest.
Nationally, 45 percent of all referrals are disposed of at this
stage, without formal processing
by a judge. Diversion (The process of screening children out of
the juvenile justice system
without a decision by the court.) is the process of screening
children out of the system
without a decision by the court, thereby limiting their
involvement in the formal juvenile
justice system. In approximately 40 percent of these cases, the
charges are dismissed;
another 23 percent are diverted to an informal probation, and
the remaining 37 percent are

placed in a mental health facility, other treatment facility, or are
assigned to serve some
agreed-on alternative sanction in the community (Hockenberry
and Puzzanchera, 2015).
javascript://
17-4c Pretrial Procedures
When a decision is made to refer the case to the court (54
percent of cases), the court holds
an initial hearing. Here, the juveniles are informed of their
rights and told that if a plea is
given it must be voluntary.
If the juvenile is to be detained pending trial, most states
require a detention hearing (A
hearing by the juvenile court to determine if a juvenile is to be
detained or released prior to
adjudication.) , which determines if the youth is to be released
to a parent or guardian or to
be held in a detention facility until adjudication. Some children
are detained to keep them
from committing other crimes while awaiting trial. Others are
held to protect them from the
possibility of harm from gang members or parents. Still others
are held because if released
they will likely not appear in court as required. Nationally,
about 21 percent of all
delinquency cases involve detention between referral to the
juvenile court and disposition of
the case (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015).
The conditions in many detention facilities are poor; abuse is
often reported. In some rural

areas, juveniles continue to be detained in adult jails even
though the federal government
has pressed states to hold youths in separate facilities. In 2003,
the city of Baltimore,
Maryland, unveiled a new juvenile-detention facility, meant to
expedite juvenile cases and
centralize services to delinquent youth. The new facility was
later termed a “monstrosity,”
with poor lines of sight (meaning officers cannot easily observe
and supervise the juvenile
detainees), overcrowding, and increasing rates of violence
within its walls (Bykowicz, 2008).
A 2010 evaluation determined that the high rates of violence in
the facility had begun to
decrease (Dedel, 2010), with greater reductions in violence
from 2010 to 2012 (Moroney,
2014). Baltimore currently holds juveniles charged as adults in
the same facility as adult
offenders, which has been a source of controversy as well. In
2013, officials determined that
this facility was controlled by gang members, and that guards
had been sneaking in
contraband (Toobin, 2014). The U.S. Department of Justice has
faulted the center for
mistreatment of juvenile detainees, several of whom were kept
in solitary confinement for up
to 143 days (Fenton, 2015). When experts recommended that a
separate jail be constructed
for juveniles being tried as adults, the state of Maryland decided
to build a facility for juvenile
offenders as part of the Baltimore City Detention Center
reconstruction (Duncan, 2013). Yet,
the governor ultimately simply closed the aging center without
completing construction on
any new facility.

Based on the belief that detaining youth accelerates their
delinquent behaviors, some
jurisdictions have attempted to stem the tide of rising numbers
of juveniles in detention. In
San Francisco, California, the Detention Diversion Advocacy
Program (DDAP) attempts to
keep high-risk youth out of detention by identifying the specific
needs of each youth,
particularly if those needs are focused on substance abuse,
educational difficulties, or gang
javascript://
involvement. DDAP staff use an intensive case-management
strategy, and meet with the
youth three times per day in the first week, gradually reducing
these meetings to three times
per week. Staff attempt to provide mentorship and create
support systems for at-risk youth
(Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2017).
Civic Engagement
Your Role in the System
Imagine that you were a juror in the case of
11-year-old Nathaniel Abraham who shot
and killed a man—someone that he did not
know—who was walking into a convenience
store. Apparently, he had come into
possession of a gun and was simply
interested in trying it out. Make a list of
arguments favoring and opposing convicting

him as an adult defendant. How do you think
you would vote during the jury’s
deliberations? Then read about studies
showing that teens’ brains are not fully
developed. How, if at all, should a jury use
such information?
1.
Question:
“Which statement do you agree
with more?
Putting youth under the age of 18,
who are charged with or convicted of
crimes, in adult jails and prisons
17-4d Transfer (Waiver) to Adult Court
In 1997, an 11-year-old boy named
Nathaniel Abraham shot and killed a
man outside a convenience store in
Pontiac, Michigan. At the time, Michigan
law specified no minimum age for
transfer of a juvenile to adult court.
Nathaniel’s case was waived to adult
court and he stood trial for the homicide.
The jury, however, refused to convict
him of the crime of homicide in the first
degree, which would have necessitated
incarceration in an adult prison. Instead,
they found him guilty of second-degree
homicide, allowing the judge to use his

discretion to place Nathaniel in a
juvenile facility. Nathaniel’s case
attracted national attention, because it
highlighted the difficulty of deciding
what to do with children and teens who
commit offenses as serious as those
committed by the most violent adult
offenders. As you read “Civic Engagement: Your Role in the
System,” consider how you
might react if you were a juror in regular criminal court
considering the case of a youthful
defendant.
One of the first decisions to be made
after a juvenile is referred is whether a
case should be transferred to the
criminal (adult) justice system. In 45
states, juvenile court judges may waive
their jurisdiction. This means that after
considering the seriousness of the
charge, the age of the juvenile, and the
prospects of rehabilitation, the judge
can transfer the case to adult court. In
29 states, certain violent crimes such as
murder, rape, and armed robbery are
excluded by law from the jurisdiction of
javascript://
2.
makes them MORE likely to commit
future crimes than if they were
placed in a youth facility.

Putting youth under the age of 18,
who are charged with or convicted of
crimes, in adult jails and prisons
makes them LESS likely to commit
future crimes than if they were
placed in a youth facility
Source: GBA Strategies, “Campaign for Youth Justice:
Youth Justice System Survey,” October 11, 2011 (
www.gbastrategies.com).
the juvenile courts. In 1970, only 3
states allowed prosecutors the authority
to decide whether to file in adult or
juvenile court. Today, 15 states give
prosecutors the authority to do so
(Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy,
Practice and Statistics [JJGPS], 2017).
Critics question whether prosecutors will
“make better informed and more
appropriate ‘criminal adulthood’
decisions than would judges in an
adversarial waiver hearing” (Feld, 2004:
599). See “What Americans Think” for a
look at public attitudes about
transferring juveniles to the adult court.
A “tougher” approach to juvenile crime
took hold in the 1970s, which led to an
increase in the number of cases
transferred to adult court. Several states expanded their ability
to transfer juveniles by
excluding certain crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction, or
lowering their minimum age for
transfer to adult court. Several states specify no minimum age
for certain offenses (note the

number of states in Figure 17.3 that can waive a juvenile
regardless of his or her age).
Although the laws regarding waiver have not changed much in
recent years, there is
evidence that it is being used less frequently and for more-
serious offenses. Waived cases
represent less than 1 percent (about 4,000) of delinquency
cases, and the likelihood of
waiver varies by offense, offender age, and offender race. In all,
violent offenders make up
the majority of those transferred to adult court (50 percent),
followed by property offenders
(31 percent), drug offenders (12 percent), and public order
offenders (7 percent)
(Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2015). In addition, African
American youths are more likely
to be waived than are white youths, although this is partially
due to differences in offending
patterns and the gap between African American and white youth
is growing smaller
(Puzzanchera and Addie, 2014). A study of 40 large urban
counties found that nearly two-
thirds of juvenile felony defendants in adult court were charged
with violent crime, compared
with one-quarter of adult defendants (Rainville and Smith,
2003).
One result of the decreased use of waiver is that fewer juveniles
are being sent to adult
state prisons. In 1995, almost 6,500 juvenile offenders were
sent to adult prison; by 2009,
that number had dropped to just under 3,000—a decrease of 57
percent (Sickmund and
Puzzanchera, 2014). Supporters of waiving juveniles to adult
court argue that serious crime

deserves serious punishment. Critics of the policies claim that
waiver subverts the intent of
the juvenile justice system, and exposes juvenile offenders to
harsh conditions in adult
prisons—where they are vulnerable to physical and sexual
victimization (DeJong and
Merrill, 2000). Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons is also
costly for states (Lahey, 2016).
http://www.gbastrategies.com/
javascript://
javascript://
Juveniles waived to adult court may be more likely to recidivate
compared to those
incarcerated in facilities designed for juveniles. Read about
efforts to study this issue in
“Evidence-Based Practice and Policy.”
Evidence-Based Practice and Policy
Juvenile Waiver to Adult Court
The movement to utilize waiver to adult court in the 1990s was
based on a “get
tough” policy on crime, rather than on evidence from criminal
justice research.
Attempts to determine whether waiving juveniles to adult court
is effective have
resulted in mixed findings. While some studies indicate that the
use of waiver
increases reoffending among those individuals, others find no
effect of waiver
policies on future criminality. Experts point out, however, that
there are two different

aspects of “effective” that must be studied: If waiving juveniles
to adult court has a
deterrent effect, is it a general deterrent or a specific deterrent?
Chapter 12 reviews these two forms of deterrence, in which a
punishment has either
a general effect (on the society as a whole) or a specific effect
(on the offender
against which it is levied). In theory, if juvenile offenders are
aware of the potential
harsh punishment that awaits them in adult court, they may
refrain from engaging in
delinquency altogether. Studies of this type of deterrence have
indicated that waiver
does not provide a general deterrent effect, perhaps due to the
fact that juveniles
may be less “future oriented” than adults, or that juveniles must
be aware of the
possibility that waiver to adult court exists for their behavior to
be modified.
Evaluations focused on specific deterrence, however, examine
the offending
behavior of juveniles who have been waived compared with
juveniles who have not.
Most studies find that transferring juveniles to adult court does
not have a specific
deterrent effect and may even increase the likelihood of
recidivism. In fact, the use
of waiver may be too much of a “one size fits all” attempt to
reduce juvenile crime,
when the majority of research on the issue suggests that
successful programs
depend on individual needs assessment—assuming that a broad
policy will work for
every juvenile offender is faulty. It may be that the use of

waiver to adult court skips
over important intermediate sanctions that can provide
assistance and support to at-
risk youth, and that the juvenile court is the most appropriate
place for these cases
to be tried. States that provide options called “blended
sentencing” allow both
juvenile and adult sanctions to be used, and these are worthy of
additional study.
Implementing New Practices
In light of the foregoing research evidence, what practices
would you recommend
for using, modifying, or not using the waiver process for
juveniles? Write a memo
describing your analysis and conclusions about the best practice
and policy.
javascript://
javascript://
Sources: D. L. Myers,. “Juvenile Transfer to Adult Court:
Ongoing Search for Scientific Support,”
Criminology and Public Policy, 15(3): 927–38 (2017); R. E.
Redding, “One Size Does Not Fit All: The
Deterrent Effect of Transferring Juveniles to Criminal Court,”
Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3): 939–48
(2017); S. N. Zane, B. C. Walsh, and D. P. Mears, “Juvenile
Transfer and the Specific Deterrence
Hypothesis,” Criminology and Public Policy, 15(3): 901–25

(2017).
17-4e Adjudication
Juvenile courts deal with around 975,000 delinquency cases
each year (Hockenberry and
Puzzanchera, 2017. Adjudication is the trial stage of the
juvenile justice process. If the child
has not admitted to the charges and the case has not been
transferred to the adult court, an
adjudication hearing is held to determine the facts in the case
and, if appropriate, label the
juvenile as “delinquent.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Gault and other due process
rulings mandated changes
that have altered the philosophy and actions of the juvenile
court. Contemporary juvenile
proceedings are more formal than those of the past, although
still more informal than adult
courts. The parents and child must receive copies of petitions
with specific charges; counsel
may be present, and free counsel can be appointed if the
juvenile cannot pay; witnesses
can be cross-examined; and a transcript of the proceedings must
be kept.
As with other Supreme Court decisions, local practice may
differ sharply from the
procedures spelled out in the high court’s rulings. Juveniles and
their parents often waive
their rights in response to suggestions from the judge or
probation officer. The lower social
status of the offender’s parents, the intimidating atmosphere of

the court, and judicial hints
that the outcome will be more favorable if a lawyer is not
present are reasons the
procedures outlined in Gault might not be followed. The litany
of “getting treatment,” “doing
what’s right for the child,” and “working out a just solution”
may sound enticing, especially to
people who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of formal legal
procedures. In practice, then,
juveniles still lack many of the protections given to adult
offenders. Some of the differences
between the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems are
listed in Table 17.3.
Table 17.3
The Adult and Juvenile Criminal Justice Systems
Compare the basic elements of the adult and juvenile systems.
To what extent does
a juvenile have the same rights as an adult? Are the different
decision-making
processes necessary because a juvenile is involved?
Adult System Juvenile System
javascript://
Philosophical
assumptions
Decisions made as result of
adversarial system in context of

due process rights
Decisions made as result of
inquiry into needs of juvenile
within context of some due
process elements
Jurisdiction Violations of criminal law Violations of criminal
law, status
offenses, neglect, dependency
Primary
sanctioning goals
Retribution, deterrence,
rehabilitation
Retribution, rehabilitation
Official discretion Widespread Widespread
Entrance Official action of arrest,
summons, or citation
Official action, plus referral by
school, parents, other
Role of prosecuting
and defense
attorneys
Required and formalized Sometimes required; less
structured; poor role definition
Adjudication Procedural rules of evidence in
public jury trial

Less formal structure to rules of
evidence and conduct of trial; no
right to public trial or jury in most
states
Treatment
programs
Run primarily by public agencies Broad use of private and
public
agencies
Terminology Arrest Referral
Preliminary hearing Intake
Prosecution Adjudication
Sentencing Disposition
Parole Aftercare
APPLICATION OF BILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS
Fourth:
Unreasonable
searches and
seizures
Applicable Applicable

Fifth: Double
jeopardy
Applicable Applicable (re: waiver to adult
court)
Self-incrimination Applicable (Miranda warnings) Applicable
Sixth: Right to
counsel
Applicable Applicable
Public trial Applicable Applicable in less than half of
states
Trial by jury Applicable Applicable in less than half of
states
Fourteenth: Right to
treatment
Not applicable Applicable
During the final decades of the twentieth century, the police and
courts followed
crime control policies in reacting to juvenile crime. Many
legislators favor severe
sentences for juveniles who commit serious crimes. Can the
threat of a long prison
sentence deter juveniles from committing crimes?
AP Images/Sue Ogrocki

The increased concern about crime has given prosecuting
attorneys a more prominent part
in the system. In keeping with the traditional child-saver
philosophy, prosecuting attorneys
rarely appeared in juvenile court prior to the Gault decision.
Now that a defense attorney is
present, the state often uses legal counsel as well. In many
jurisdictions, prosecutors are
assigned to deal specifically with juvenile cases. Their
functions are to advise the intake
officer, administer diversion programs, negotiate pleas, and act
as an advocate during
judicial proceedings.
Juvenile proceedings and court records have traditionally
remained closed to the public to
protect the child’s privacy and potential for rehabilitation.
Thus, judges in the adult courts
usually do not have access to juvenile records. This means that
people who have already
served time on juvenile probation or in juvenile institutions may
be erroneously perceived as
first-time offenders when they are processed for crimes as
adults. Some people argue that
adult courts should have access to juvenile records and that
juvenile offenders should be
treated more severely than adults to deter them from future
illegal activity. Most research
indicates, however, that harsh punishments only increase future
crime.
The concept of restorative justice is applied to juveniles in
some settings. Teen
courts, for example, deal with less serious offenses, often
before formal charges
have been brought. Teens are judged by their peers, and

typically the sentences
include restitution, letters of apology, and community service.
Is this an effective
way to deal with youthful offenders?
The Washington Post/Getty Images
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
17-4f Disposition
If the court makes a finding of delinquency, the judge will
schedule a dispositional hearing to
decide what action should be taken. Typically, before passing
sentence the judge receives a
predispositional report prepared by a probation officer. Similar
to a presentence report, it
serves to assist the judge in deciding on a disposition that is in
the best interests of the child
and is consistent with the treatment plan developed by the
probation officer.
The court finds most juveniles to be delinquent at trial, because
the intake and pretrial
processes normally filter out cases in which a law violation
cannot be proved. Besides

dismissal, four other choices are available:
probation,
intermediate sanctions,
custodial care, and
community treatment.
Juvenile court advocates have traditionally believed that
rehabilitation is the only goal of the
sanction imposed on young people. For most of the twentieth
century, judges sentenced
juveniles to indeterminate sentences so that correctional
administrators could decide when
release was appropriate. As in the adult criminal justice system,
indeterminate sentences
and unbridled discretion in juvenile justice have faced attack
during the last three decades.
Several states have tightened the sentencing discretion of
judges, especially with regard to
serious offenses. Washington State, for example, has adopted a
determinate sentencing
law for juveniles. In other states, a youth can be transferred
more readily than before to the
adult court for adjudication and sentencing. Jurisdictions such
as the District of Columbia,
Colorado, Florida, and Virginia have passed laws requiring
mandatory sentences for certain
offenses committed by juveniles.
17-4g Corrections

Many aspects of juvenile corrections resemble those of adult
corrections. Both systems, for
example, mix rehabilitative and retributive sanctions. However,
juvenile corrections differs in
many respects from the adult system. Some of the differences
flow from the parens patriae
concept and the youthful, seemingly innocent people with whom
the system deals. At times,
the differences show up in formal operational policies, such as
contracting for residential
treatment. At other times, the differences appear only in the
style and culture of an
operation, as they do in juvenile probation.
One predominant aim of juvenile corrections is to avoid
unnecessary incarceration. When
children are removed from their homes, they are inevitably
damaged emotionally, even
when the home life is harsh and abusive, because they are
forced to abandon the only
environment they know. Further, placing children in institutions
has labeling effects; the
children may perceive themselves as bad because they have
received punitive treatment,
and children who see themselves as “bad” may behave that way.
Finally, treatment is
believed to be more effective when the child is living in a
normal, supportive home
environment. For these reasons, noninstitutional forms of
corrections are seen as highly
desirable in juvenile justice and have proliferated in recent
years.
Probation
In 64 percent of adjudicated cases, the juvenile delinquent is

placed on probation and
released to the custody of a parent or guardian (Hockenberry
and Puzzanchera, 2015).
Often the judge orders that the delinquent undergo some form of
education or counseling.
The delinquent can also be required to pay a fine or make
restitution while on probation.
Juvenile probation operates in much the same way that adult
probation does, and
sometimes the same agency carries it out. In two respects,
however, juvenile probation can
differ markedly from adult probation. First, juvenile probation
officers have smaller
caseloads. Second, the juvenile probation officer is often
infused with the sense that the
offender is worthwhile and can change and that the job is
valuable and enjoyable. Such
attitudes make for greater creativity than adult probation
officers usually exhibit. For
example, a young offender can be paired with a “big brother” or
“big sister” from the
community.
Intermediate Sanctions
Although probation and commitment to an institution are the
system’s two main dispositional
options, intermediate sanctions served in the community
account for 12 percent of
adjudicated juvenile cases (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera,
2015). Judges have wide
discretion to warn, to fine, to arrange for restitution, to order
community service, to refer a

Question:
Respondents’ views on the best
punishment for juveniles
adjudicated guilty of “homicide”
and “assisted homicide.”
Homicide: Which of the following
punishments should an adolescent convicted
of committing a homicide receive?
The feature, What
Americans Think, asks
respondents’ views on the
best punishment for
juveniles adjudicated guilty
of homicide and assisted
homicide. For homicide,
respondents were asked
which of the following
punishments should an
adolescent convicted of
committing a homicide
receive? Answers and
percentages are as
follows. Incarceration,
released after 21 years of
age, 13.2%. Juvenile
prison with the possibility
of parole, 66.5%. Adult
prison or no parole,
20.3%.

Assisted Homicide: Which of the following
punishments should an adolescent convicted
of assisting a homicide receive?
For assisted homicide,
which of the following
punishments should an
adolescent convicted of
assisting in a homicide
receive? Answers and
percentages are as
follows. Incarceration,
released after 21 years of
age, 28.7%. Juvenile
prison with possibility of
parole, 58.4%. Adult
prison or no parole,
12.9%.
Source: Terrence T. Allen, Ellen Trzcinski, and Sheryl
Pimlott Kubiak, “Public Attitudes toward Juveniles Who
Commit Crimes: The Relationship between
Assessments of Adolescent Development and Attitudes
toward Severity of Punishment,” Crime & Delinquency
58 (2012): 88.
juvenile for treatment at either a public or a private community
agency, or to withhold
judgment.
Judges sometimes suspend judgment—that is, continue a case
without a finding—when
they wish to put a youth under supervision but are reluctant to
apply the label “delinquent.”
The judge holds off on giving a definitive judgment but can
give one, should a youth

misbehave while under the informal supervision of a probation
officer or parents.
Custodial Care
Of those juveniles declared delinquent,
24 percent are placed in public or
private facilities. The placement rate of
juveniles over time has decreased from
about 1 in 3 adjudicated juveniles in
1985, to about 1 in 4 juveniles in 2013
(Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2015).
The national incarceration rate is 173
per 100,000 for juveniles aged 10 to 18
—this includes juveniles held both prior
to trial and as a sentence of
incarceration. Like the adult
incarceration rate, these rates vary
widely among the states, with the
highest rate in the District of Columbia
(560) and the lowest in Vermont (46). In
2013, African American youth were
more likely to be detained and
eventually incarcerated than white youth
—overall, the placement rate for African
American youth was 166 per 100,000
juveniles, as compared to 29 per
100,000 for white youth (Hockenberry,
2016). See “What Americans Think” for
a picture of public attitudes toward
prisons for juveniles.
javascript://
Detention inside a juvenile facility can be an intimidating

experience for many
youths. They may be threatened, bullied, or assaulted by older
or larger teens. The
physical condition of the facilities and the limited nature of
programs may contribute
to the difficult experience of living there. Are taxpayers willing
to pay for the
personnel and facilities necessary to provide a good
environment for implementing
effective treatment programs for juvenile offenders?
Detention inside a juvenile facility can be an intimidating
experience for many youths.
They may be threatened, bullied, or assaulted by older or larger
teens. The physical
condition of the facilities and the limited nature of programs
may contribute to the
difficult experience of living there. Are taxpayers willing to pay
for the personnel and
facilities necessary to provide a good environment for
implementing effective treatment
programs for juvenile offenders?
AP Images/The Columbus Dispatch/Tom Dodge
Policy makers are concerned that a larger percentage of African
American juveniles are
incarcerated compared to white juveniles. For example, a 2003
study estimated that about
33 percent of black males born in 2001 would spend time
incarcerated eventually, compared
to 6 percent of white males (Bonczar, 2003). Another study
(Figure 17.6) found that the
disproportionate confinement of minority juveniles stems from
discretionary decisions at
early stages of the process. Thus, if more African American

Scholarly Paper Rubric (100 Points Possible) Students.docx

Scholarly Paper Rubric (100 Points Possible) Students.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from kenjordan97598

More from kenjordan97598 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Scholarly Paper Rubric (100 Points Possible) Students.docx