7 Juvenile Justice ProceduresChapter Learning Objectives.docx

7 Juvenile Justice Procedures
Chapter Learning Objectives
On completion of this chapter, students should be able to do the
following:
Understand and discuss juvenile court procedures
Discuss the rights of juveniles at various stages, from taking
into custody through appeals
Understand requirements for bail, notification, and filing of
petitions
Discuss procedures involved in detaining juveniles
What Would You Do?
It is Friday night and you are in bed. Your 13-year-old daughter
is spending the night with a friend. The two girls told you they
were going to a movie and back to
her friend’s home. Her friend’s older sister, who is 18, is going
to drive them to and from the movie. At approximately 2:15
a.m. you get a phone call. The caller
identifies herself as Lisa Strom, an employee of the Forten
County Detention Center. She says that your daughter has been
taken into custody for curfew violation,
possession of alcohol by a minor, peace disturbance, and
assaulting a police officer. Ms. Strom informs you that your
daughter will be held in detention pending a
review of her case by a juvenile intake officer. This review will
take place within the next 24 hours and you will receive another
phone call once the juvenile intake
officer decides to hold or release the child. She states that you
are allowed to visit your daughter once within the next 24 hours

and informs you that visitation is
allowed between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. that day. The only
question you can think to ask is if your daughter is okay. Ms.
Strom says your daughter is going through
the intake process and is in good health. You hang up the phone
wide awake and wondering what to do next.
What Would You Do?
1. Would your daughter be classified as a status offender or a
delinquent, according to the charges?
2. What would be your next course of action? Would you
contact a lawyer, wait for the phone call from the juvenile
intake officer, visit your daughter during
visiting hours, or do something else?
3. If you were the juvenile intake officer, would you continue to
detain this child or release her to her parents pending court?
Juvenile court acts discuss not only the purposes and scope of
the juvenile justice system but also the procedure the juvenile
courts are to
follow. Proceedings concerning juveniles officially begin with
the filing of a petition alleging that a juvenile is delinquent,
dependent,
neglected, abused, in need of supervision, or in need of
authoritative intervention. Most juvenile court acts, however,
also discuss the unofficial
or diversionary activities available as remedies prior to the
filing of a petition such as a stationhouse adjustment and a
preliminary
conference. A stationhouse adjustment occurs when a police
officer negotiates a settlement with a juvenile, often with his or
her parents,
without taking further official action (a full discussion of
stationhouse adjustments follows in Chapter 8). A preliminary
conference is a

voluntary meeting arranged by a juvenile probation officer with
the victim, the juvenile, and typically the juvenile’s parents or
guardian in an
attempt to negotiate a settlement without taking further official
action. Juvenile court acts clearly indicate those persons who
are eligible to file
a petition. For example, in Illinois any adult person (21 years of
age or over), agency, or association by its representative may
file a petition, or
the court on its own motion may direct the filing through the
state’s attorney of a petition in respect to a minor under the act
(Illinois Compiled
Statutes [ILCS], ch. 705, art. 1, sec. 405/1-3, 2012).
Tennessee’s statute says, “The petition may be made by any
person, including a law
enforcement officer, who has knowledge of the facts alleged or
is informed and believes that they are true” (Tennessee Code
Annotated, § 37-
1-119, 2012).
Although it is true that a petition may be filed by any eligible
person by going directly to the prosecutor (state’s attorney or
district attorney), a
large proportion of petitions are filed following police action or
by social service agencies dealing with minors by either
juvenile court
personnel or prosecuting attorneys. To understand the step-by-
step procedures involved in processing juveniles, we discuss the
typical
sequence of events occurring after the police take a juvenile
into custody. We rely heavily on the procedures given in the
Uniform Juvenile
Court Act and the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, which closely
resemble similar acts in many states. Although a general
discussion of juvenile
justice procedures is given, some states differ with respect to

specific requirements. You should consult the juvenile court act
or code relevant
to your state for exact procedural requirements.
epub://pjfuxuqkpdxhmvhq39bh.vbk/OEBPS/s9781506348988.i1
225.xhtml
Are stationhouse adjustments more common for juveniles of
some ages, races, and gender than others?
©Kevin Beebe/Photo Library/Getty Images
Rights of Juveniles
Regardless of the particular jurisdiction, juveniles in the United
States have been (since the 1967 Gault decision) guaranteed a
number of basic
rights at the adjudicatory stage. Thus, a juvenile who is alleged
to be delinquent has the following rights (In re Gault, 1967):
1. The right to notice of the charges and time to prepare for the
case
2. The right to counsel
3. The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses
4. The right to remain silent in court
As a direct result of the Gault decision, the constitutional
guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment are
applicable to states
through the Fourteenth Amendment and not only apply to
delinquency matters but also have been extended to some cases
involving the need
for supervision or intervention. The question remaining after the
Gault decision concerned the extent to which its mandate
logically extended
to other stages of the juvenile justice process, particularly the

police investigatory process. Both the Gault and Kent decisions
(Kent v. United
States, 1966) have been interpreted to require the application of
the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule to the juvenile
justice
process. The most difficult issue has revolved around the
juvenile’s competency to waive his or her rights under Miranda.
In general, the courts
have relied on a totality of circumstances approach in
determining the validity of the waiver. Circumstances
considered include the age,
competency, and educational level of the juvenile; his or her
ability to understand the nature of the charges; and the methods
used in, and
length of, the interrogation (Davis, 2001, sec. 3.13, pp. 3-86–3-
90).
The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968, sec. 26) provides
that all parties to
juvenile court proceedings are entitled to representation by
counsel. Many jurisdictions currently provide for representation
by counsel in
neglect, abuse, and dependency proceedings, extending the
Gault decision to such cases (Montana Code Annotated, 41-3-
425, 2015; 32A-1-1;
NMSA, 1978). In a neglect and/or abuse case, legal counsel for
the minor may be the state’s attorney, who represents the state
that has a duty to
protect the child. The court may also appoint a guardian ad
litem for a juvenile if the juvenile has no parent or guardian
appearing on his or
her behalf or if the parent’s or guardian’s interests conflict with
those of the juvenile—as is often the case in abuse and neglect
cases. Some
states allow for both the prosecuting attorney and the guardian

ad litem, with the guardian ad litem presenting a separate case
based on
evidence he or she believes to demonstrate the best interest of
the child (Missouri Revised Statutes, 211.462, 2015).
The protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment against
illegal search and seizure extends to juveniles. All courts that
have specifically
considered the issue of the applicability of the Fourth
Amendment to the juvenile justice process have found it to be
applicable, or more
correctly, no court has found it to be inapplicable (Davis, 2001,
3–17; Montana Code Annotated, 41-5-1415, 2015). The Uniform
Juvenile
Court Act (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws, 1968, sec. 27[b]) states that evidence seized
illegally will not be
admitted over objection. Similarly, a valid confession made by a
juvenile out of court is, in the words of the Uniform Juvenile
Court Act,
“insufficient to support an adjudication of delinquency unless it
is corroborated in whole or in part by other evidence.” This
extends some
protection to juveniles not normally accorded to adults. In
addition, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 27[a])
recommends that a party be
entitled to introduce evidence and otherwise be heard in his or
her own behalf and to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
Furthermore, a juvenile
accused of a delinquent act need not be a witness against, or
otherwise incriminate, himself or herself. A majority of juvenile
court acts do not
spell out a detailed code of evidence. However, most do specify
whether the rules permit only competent, material, and relevant
evidence and
whether the rules of evidence that apply in criminal or civil

cases are applicable in juvenile cases. A number of states
provide that the rules of
evidence applicable in criminal cases apply in delinquency
proceedings and that the rules of evidence applicable in civil
cases apply in other
proceedings (i.e., neglect, dependency, and in-need-of-
supervision cases). In Georgia, for example, the standard of
proof in dependency cases
is clear and convincing evidence, whereas in delinquency cases
the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt (Georgia
Criminal and
Traffic Law Manual, 2014, 15-11-180 and 15-11-581).
The Children’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services recommended many years ago that, unless a
child is advised by
counsel, the statements of the child made while in the custody
of the police or probation officers, including statements made
during a
preliminary inquiry, predisposition study, or consent decree,
should not be used against the child prior to the determination
of the petition’s
allegations in a delinquency or in need of
supervision/intervention case or in a criminal proceeding prior
to conviction (Children’s Bureau,
1969, sec. 26). In abuse and neglect cases, however, the courts
have eased restrictions on the admission of statements made in
the totality of
circumstances, witness testimony, and so on (see Chapter 5).
It should be noted that some rights guaranteed to adults are not
guaranteed to juveniles in most jurisdictions. As a result of the
McKeiver
decision (McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971), juveniles are not
generally guaranteed the right to a trial by jury or a public trial.
The U.S. Supreme

Court, in deciding McKeiver, indicated that a jury was not
necessary for fact-finding purposes and left the issue of trial by
jury up to the
individual states. Although the majority of jurisdictions provide
for hearings without juries, some provide for jury trials by
statute (which
specify certain criminal acts that are eligible for jury trials and
when a youth may request a jury trial) or judicial decision
(Colorado Revised
Statutes, 19-2-107, 2002; Massachusetts General Laws
Annotated, ch. 119, sec. 55A, 2016; Montana Code Annotated,
41-5-1502 [1], 2015;
Texas Family Code Annotated, 54.03 [c], 2007; West Virginia
Code Annotated, 49-5-6, 2012). In addition, the McKeiver
decision left open the
question of whether juvenile court proceedings are necessarily
adversarial in nature and left on the states the burden of
establishing that a
66.xhtml
separate justice system for juveniles represents a useful
alternative to criminal processing.
Bail
The issue of bail (release from custody pending trial after
payment of a court-ordered sum) for juveniles is controversial.
Some jurisdictions
permit bail, whereas others do not on the grounds that the
juvenile has not been charged with a crime and, therefore, is not
entitled to bail.
Because of special release provisions for juveniles (to the
custody of parents or a guardian), bail has not been a question
of paramount concern

in terms of litigation. A number of states forbid the use of bail
with respect to juveniles (Hawaii Revised Statutes, 571-32 [h],
2015; Missouri
Revised Statutes, 211.061, 2015), several states authorize
release on bail at the discretion of a judge (Connecticut General
Statutes Annotated,
sec. 46b-133b, 2012; Nebraska Revised Statutes, 43-253 [5],
2012), and some states allow the same right to bail enjoyed by
adults (Colorado
Revised Statutes 19-2-509, 2012; Georgia Code, 15-11-47 (d),
2010).
Finally, most jurisdictions require that official records kept on
juveniles be maintained in separate and confidential files. These
may be opened
only by court order or following stringent guidelines established
by state statutes (Missouri Revised Statutes, 211.321, 2015). As
an example,
Arkansas states very specifically which juvenile records are
open for review, for example:
(1) Adoption records, including any part of a dependency-
neglect record that includes adoption records, shall be closed
and
confidential as provided in the Revised Uniform Adoption Act,
9-9-201 et seq.; (2) Records of delinquency adjudications for
which a
juvenile could have been tried as an adult shall be made
available to prosecuting attorneys for use at sentencing if the
juvenile is
subsequently tried as an adult or to determine if the juvenile
should be tried as an adult; and (3) Records of delinquency
adjudications
for a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for any felony or a Class A
misdemeanor wherein violence or a weapon was involved shall
be

made available to the Arkansas Crime Information Center; and
(b) (1) (A) Records of delinquency adjudications for which a
juvenile
could have been tried as an adult shall be kept for ten (10) years
after the last adjudication of delinquency or the date of a plea of
guilty or nolo contendere or a finding of guilt as an adult.
(Arkansas Code 9-27-309, 2010)
Taking Into Custody
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968) states the
following:
A child may be taken into custody pursuant to an order of the
court under that Act, or pursuant to the laws of arrest; or by a
law
enforcement officer if there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the child is suffering from illness or injury or is in
immediate
danger from his surroundings and that his removal is necessary;
or by a law enforcement officer if there are reasonable grounds
to
believe that the child has run away from his parents or guardian.
(sec. 13)
The broad jurisdictional scope of the juvenile courts generally
provides that any juvenile can be taken into custody (detained)
without a warrant
if the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the juvenile
to be delinquent, in need of supervision, dependent, abused, or
neglected as
defined within that state’s juvenile court act. However, some
states have recognized that removing a juvenile from home
before there has been
any trial is a power to be used on a limited basis. For truancy,
disobedience, and even neglect, the legal process should begin

with a summons
unless there is “imminent danger” involved and unless waiting
for the court’s permission would result in unnecessary and
dangerous delay. In
Illinois, a law enforcement officer may, without a warrant, take
into temporary custody a minor whom the officer, with
reasonable cause,
believes to be delinquent and requiring authoritative
intervention, dependent, abused, or neglected as defined within
that state’s juvenile court
act (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/2-5, 3-4, 4-4, 5-401, 2011). In
addition, the officer may take into custody any juvenile who has
been adjudged a
ward of the court and has escaped from any commitment
ordered by the court. Alabama, for example, states a child can
be taken into custody
“by a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to
believe that the child has run away from a detention, residential,
shelter or other
care facility” (Alabama Code § 12-15-56, 2015). The officer
may also take into custody any juvenile who is found on any
street or in any
public place suffering from any sickness or injury requiring
care, medical treatment, or hospitalization. The Alabama
juvenile code also states
the following:
A series of court decisions and some constitutional amendments
help to protect the rights of juveniles taken into custody.
©John Downing/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
By a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to
believe that the child is suffering from illness or injury or is in

immediate
danger from the child’s surroundings and that the child’s
immediate removal from such surroundings is necessary for the
protection
of the health and safety of such child. (Alabama Code § 12-15-
56, 2015)
The taking into temporary custody under the Uniform Juvenile
Court Act does not constitute an official arrest. Although
statutes in various
states provide that taking into custody is not deemed an arrest,
this is somewhat a legal fiction given that the juvenile is often
held in
involuntary custody. In light of recent court decisions, when
delinquency is the alleged reason for taking into custody, law
enforcement officers
must adhere to appropriate constitutional guidelines. For
categories other than delinquency, the parens patriae concern
for protecting minors
from dangerous surroundings will suffice constitutionally as
reasonable grounds for taking minors into custody when it is not
abused by law
enforcement officers.
Interrogation
While in custody, the juvenile has rights similar to those of an
adult with respect to interrogation. To determine whether a
confession or
statement was given freely and voluntarily, the totality of
circumstances surrounding the giving of the statement is to be
considered. Even prior
to Gault, the U.S. Supreme Court in Haley v. Ohio (1948) and
Gallegos v. Colorado (1969) used the voluntariness test to
determine the
admissibility of statements made by juveniles to the police. If
the police desire to question a juvenile concerning a delinquent

act, the juvenile
should be given the Miranda warning and should be clearly told
that a decision to remain silent will not be taken as an
indication of guilt. This
can be problematic, as seen in In Practice 7.1, when police or
others are not aware of the policies, procedures, and
requirements with regard to
juveniles. Many police administrators, prosecutors, and juvenile
court judges believe that it is best not to question the juvenile
unless his or her
parents or a counselor are present. In Colorado, for example,
“no statement or admission of a child made as a result of
interrogation by law
enforcement officials . . . shall be admissible . . . unless a
parent, guardian, or custodian was present . . . and the child was
advised of his right
to counsel and to remain silent” (Colorado Revised Statutes
Annotated, 19-2-511 [1], 2009). Any confession obtained
without these safeguards
might be considered invalid on grounds that the juvenile did not
understand his or her rights or was frightened. The Uniform
Juvenile Court
Act (sec. 27[b]) contains similar provisions.
In Practice 7.1: Defense: Police Never Read Rights to Teen
Suspect in Mercer Co. Murder
MERCER COUNTY, Ky. (WKYT) - 16-year-old Trenton
Easterling went before a judge inside the Mercer County
Courthouse Monday morning.
Monday’s hearing in the case involved a request to suppress
evidence. Easterling’s defense attorneys called into question if
the Miranda rights were read to Easterling
before he spoke with detectives.
Sgt. Swavey of the Mercer County’s Sheriff’s Office was one of

three officers to take the stand on Monday. He testified that on
April 14th officers visited the school to
speak with students and staff about the death investigation of
Tristan Cole. Easterling was one of those students with which
the police wanted to speak.
159.xhtml#s9781506348988.i1185
His mother, Melissa Easterling, said in court that police called
her to the school. She went on to say she was then asked by
officers to come down with Trenton to the
Police Department for questioning. Trenton was taken to the
police department in a squad car but was not arrested.
Officers say, Trenton, along with his mother and grandfather,
went into a room once arriving at the police department.
Officers also say that Trenton’s mother was asked
to step out of the room so they could explain the Miranda rights
to her. They said she could be present with Trenton while in the
room and stop the interview at any time.
Trenton’s mother agreed to proceed, but after 30 minutes of
questioning, stopped the interview. Police recorded that
interview, but the defense says since Miranda rights
were never read to Trenton specifically, it should not be used in
court.
According to police, officers never read Miranda rights to
Trenton, and no one ever signed a waiver.
We spoke with the father of Tristan who says he was not happy
with what he heard in court:
“I don’t know what to say. I’m not too happy what went by in

court today. I mean somebody did not do their job, and maybe it
will come out good, or maybe it will come
out bad. I mean that was a mistake that was made that shouldn’t
of been made. That’s all I’m going to say,” Cole’s father, Gary
Devine told WKYT.
A judge set a competency hearing for Easterling for December
13th.
Source:Source: Defense: Police never read rights to teen suspect
in Mercer Co. murder (2016).
Juveniles taken into custody may be either detained or released
to the custody of their parents or guardian. Most model juvenile
court acts and
the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 15) dictate that the police
make an “immediate” and “reasonable” attempt to notify the
juvenile’s parents
or guardian of his or her custody. The maximum length of time
considered to be immediate is usually established by statute.
The definition of
reasonable usually includes attempts to phone and/or visit the
residence of the juvenile’s parents, place of employment, and
any other known
“haunts.” In Oregon, as an example, the statute states the
following:
The person taking the youth into custody shall notify the
youth’s parent, guardian or other person responsible for the
youth. The
notice shall inform the parent, guardian or other person of the
action taken and the time and place of the hearing. (Oregon
Juvenile
Code 419C.097, 2015)
Detention Hearing

In the What Would You Do? scenario at the beginning of the
chapter, an intake officer would likely decide to hold or release
the child and
another phone call would be placed to the child’s parent
informing her of the decision. If a juvenile is not released to his
or her parents soon
after being taken into custody, most states require that a
detention hearing (a court hearing to determine whether
detention is required) be
held within a specified period. Sufficient notification must, of
course, be given to all parties concerned before the proceeding.
Section 17 of the
Uniform Juvenile Court Act indicates that if a juvenile is
brought before the court or delivered to a detention or shelter
care facility, the intake
or other authorized officer of the court will immediately begin
an investigation and release the juvenile unless it appears that
further detention
or shelter care is warranted or required. If the juvenile is not
released within 72 hours after being placed in detention, an
informal detention
hearing is held to determine whether further detention is
warranted or required. Reasonable notice of the hearing must be
given to the juvenile
and to the parents or guardian. In addition, notification of the
right to counsel and of the juvenile’s right to remain silent
regarding any
allegations of delinquency or unruly conduct must also be given
by the court to the respondents. States vary with respect to the
criteria used to
determine the need for further detention, but they usually focus
on the need to ensure the protection of society and the juvenile
and on the
possibility of the juvenile fleeing the jurisdiction. For example,
in Illinois, after a minor has been delivered to the place
designated by the court,

the following must occur:
The intake personnel shall immediately investigate the
circumstances of the minor and the facts surrounding his being
taken into
custody. The minor shall be immediately released to the custody
of his parents unless the intake officer finds that further
detention is
a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of
the minor, or of the person or property of another, or that he is
likely
to flee the jurisdiction of the court. (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 5-501
[2], 2011)
Detention can be authorized by the intake officer (generally a
designated juvenile police officer or the juvenile probation
officer) for up to 36
hours, at which time the minor is either released to his or her
parents or brought before the court for a detention hearing.
Failure to file a
petition or to bring the juvenile before the court within 40 hours
will result in a release from detention (ILCS, ch. 705, sec.
405/5-415, 2011).
Some states use 24-hour, 48-hour, and 72-hour standards for
release, filing of the petition, and the detention hearing.
Weekends and holidays do
not typically count in the statutory requirements. In West
Virginia, the juvenile code states,
The referee, judge or magistrate shall hear testimony concerning
the circumstances for taking the juvenile into custody and the
possible need for detention in accordance with section two,
article five-a of this chapter. The sole mandatory issue at the
detention
hearing is whether the juvenile should be detained pending
further court proceedings. The court shall, if the health, safety

and
welfare of the juvenile will not be endangered thereby, release
the juvenile on recognizance to his or her parents, custodians or
an
appropriate agency; however, if warranted, the court may
require bail, except that bail may be denied in any case where
bail could be
denied if the accused were an adult. (West Virginia Code, ch.
49, art. 5, §49-5-8a, 2009)
For a sample temporary custody order, see Figure 7.1.
Figure 7.1 Temporary Custody Hearing Order
159.xhtml#s9781506348988.i1189
A substantial number of juvenile cases are “unofficially
adjusted” by law enforcement personnel at the initial encounters
as well as at the
stationhouse. Among those juveniles who are turned over to the
court’s intake personnel, a substantial number are disposed of at
the intake
stage and at the detention hearings. In many instances, the
intake personnel, the minor and his or her family, and the
injured party are able to
informally adjust the differences or problems that caused the
minor to be taken into custody. This is often encouraged in state
juvenile codes.
This occurs in Tennessee, for example:

Before or after a petition is filed, the probation officer or other
officer of the court designated by it, subject to its direction,
may give
counsel and advice to the parties with a view to an informal
adjustment if it appears: (1) The admitted facts bring the case
within the
jurisdiction of the court; (2) Counsel and advice without an
adjudication would be in the best interest of the public and the
child; and
(3) The child and the child’s parents, guardian or other
custodian consent thereto with knowledge that consent is not
obligatory.
(Tennessee Code Annotated, § 37-1-110, 2012)
Only the most serious cases of delinquency, cases of unruly
behavior, and cases involving serious abuse or neglect result in
processing through
the entire juvenile justice system. There are both legal and
ethical questions about unofficial dispositions at the intake
stage and the assumption
of guilt that often leads to some prescribed treatment program.
Although most practitioners make it clear that participation in
informal
dispositions is voluntary and that following advice or referrals
is not mandatory, there may still be some official pressure
perceived by the
juvenile or the juvenile’s parents that violates the presumption
of innocence.
Detention or Shelter Care
The following takes place in accordance with the Uniform
Juvenile Court Act (National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws,
1968):
A child taken into custody shall not be detained or placed in

shelter care prior to the hearing on the petition unless such
detention is
required to protect the person or property of others or of the
child or because the child may abscond [flee] or be removed
from the
jurisdiction of the court or because he has no parent or guardian
who is able to provide supervision and to return him to the court
when required or an order for detention or shelter care has been
made by the court pursuant to this Act. (sec. 14)
The absence of any of these conditions must result in the child’s
release to his or her parents or guardian with their promise to
bring the child
before the court as requested (sec. 15[1]). Failure to bring the
child before the court will result in the issuance of a warrant
directing that the
child be taken into custody and brought before the court (sec.
15[b]).
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968) requires that the
“person taking a
child into custody, with all reasonable speed and without first
taking the child elsewhere, shall release the child to his parents
or guardian . . .
unless detention or shelter care is warranted or required” (sec.
15[a][1]). This section of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act is
designed to reduce
the number of children in detention by specifying criteria that
would “require and warrant” further detention.
If reasonable cause for detention cannot be established, the
juvenile should be released to his or her parents. In practice,
and according to most
juvenile court acts, the juvenile is taken to a police or juvenile
facility, at which time the parents or guardian are contacted.

However, the
Uniform Juvenile Court Act implies that the juvenile should be
taken immediately to his or her parents or guardian unless
detention appears to
be warranted. This policy spares the juvenile the experience of
being held in the most depressing and intimidating of all
custodial facilities—
the jail or police lockup.
In some states, if the juvenile is not released to his or her
parents or guardian, the juvenile must be taken without
unnecessary delay to the court
or to a place designated by the court to receive juveniles (ILCS,
ch. 705, sec. 405/5-405, 2011; Missouri Revised Statutes,
211.151, 2015). The
Uniform Juvenile Court Act does allow detention in a local jail
if, and only if, a detention home or center for delinquent
children is unavailable
(sec. 16[a][4]). If the juvenile is confined in a jail, detention
must be in a room separate and removed from the rooms for
adults. This required
separation from confined adults is commonly found in statutes
and extends to cell, room, and yard and sometimes even to any
sight or sound.
Hawaii allows for the following standard with regard to
separation of sight and sound in its juvenile court act:
The department of human services through the office of youth
services shall certify police station cellblocks and community
correctional centers that provide sight and sound separation
between children and adults in secure custody. Only cellblocks
and
centers certified under this subsection shall be authorized to
detain juveniles pursuant to section 571-32(d). The office of
youth
services may develop sight and sound separation standards,

issue certifications, monitor and inspect facilities for
compliance, cite
facilities for violations, withdraw certifications, and require
certified facilities to submit such data and information as
requested. In
addition, the office of youth services may monitor and inspect
all cellblocks and centers for compliance with section 571-
32(d).
(Hawaii Revised Statutes, 571-32 [k], 2015)
In all categories other than delinquency, the child is normally
taken to a designated shelter care facility, meaning a
“physically unrestricted
facility,” according to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec.
2[6]). The procedures for contacting the parents or guardian and
the criteria used to
maintain custody in such a facility are the same as for the
delinquent child. Shelter care facilities are generally licensed
by the state and
designated by the juvenile court to receive children who do not
require the physically restrictive surroundings of a jail or
juvenile detention
center (typically, this includes those children believed to be
abused or neglected or status offenders).
Maximum time limits for detention are set forth in the various
juvenile court acts so that a juvenile will not be detained for
lengthy periods
without a review by the courts. In some cases, the issue of bail
may arise (see discussion earlier in this chapter).
Once the juvenile has been taken into custody and either
released to his or her parents or guardian or, with just cause,

placed in a detention
facility, an officer of the court may attempt to settle the case
without a court hearing by arranging for a preliminary
conference.
Preliminary Conference
The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 10) includes a provision
that allows a probation officer or other officer designated by the
court to hold a
preliminary conference so as to give counsel or advice with a
view toward an informal adjustment without filing a petition
(mentioned earlier
in the chapter). This preliminary conference is in order only if
the admitted facts bring the case within the jurisdiction of the
court and if such
an informal adjustment, without an adjudication, is in the best
interests of the public and the child. The conference is to be
held only with the
consent of the juvenile’s parents or guardian. However, such a
conference is not obligatory (sec. 10[a]). As mentioned earlier,
a similar
provision is found in the Tennessee juvenile code as well as the
Illinois Juvenile Court Act, which states the following:
The court may authorize the probation officer to confer in a
preliminary conference with any person seeking to file a
petition . . .
concerning the advisability of filing the petition, with a view to
adjusting suitable cases without the filing of a petition. (ILCS,
ch.
705, sec. 405/5-305, 2011)
If agreement between the parties can be reached at the
preliminary conference, no further official action may be
necessary. If judicial action
seems necessary, the probation officer may recommend the

filing of a petition. However, if the injured party demands that a
petition be filed,
that demand must be satisfied. Although the preliminary
conference or informal adjustment may be of value in diverting
cases that could be
better settled outside of juvenile court, it has been subject to
criticism as a method of engaging in legal coercion without trial
(Tappan, 1949,
pp. 310–311). In general, information or evidence presented at
the preliminary conference is not admissible at any later stage
in the juvenile
court proceedings.
Petition
As indicated earlier, juvenile court proceedings begin with the
filing of a petition naming the juvenile in question and alleging
that this juvenile
is delinquent, dependent, abused, neglected, or a minor in need
of intervention/supervision. A copy of a sample petition is
shown in Figure 7.2.
Although states vary regarding who is eligible to file a petition,
similarities do exist concerning the content of petitions and the
initiation of
follow-through activities as a result of the petition. In some
states, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted by juvenile court
personnel to
determine whether the best interests of the child or the public
will require that a petition be filed. In other states, this inquiry
is accomplished
after the petition has been filed and may result in the petition
being dismissed by the court if the alleged facts are not
supported. Regardless of
whether the inquiry is conducted before or after the filing of a
petition, a common stipulation is one in which a court
authorizes a person to
endorse the petition as being in the best interests of the public

and the child. The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (National
Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 1968) specifies that “a
petition may be made by any person who has knowledge of the
facts alleged or
is informed and believes that they are true” (sec. 20). The act
also states that “the petition shall not be filed unless the court
or designated
person has determined and endorsed upon the petition that the
filing is in the best interest of the child and the public” (sec.
19). It should be
noted that the signing of a petition and the authority to file the
petition may be separate and distinct acts. This has led to some
confusion. Some
states require designated court personnel to sign the petition to
establish some sufficiency of the allegations at the outset.
Figure 7.2 Petition for Adjudication of Wardship
159.xhtml#s9781506348988.i1195
The contents of the petition are governed by statutory
requirements in each juvenile court act. The petition may be
filed on “information and
belief” rather than on verified facts necessary for an
adjudicatory hearing. The petition is generally prefaced with the
words “in the interests
of.” The petition continues by giving the name and age of the
child and frequently giving the names and addresses of the
parents. It typically
indicates whether the minor is currently in detention. Also
included in the petition is the statement of facts that bring the
child within the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court. This particular requirement

has been a troublesome area because questions are often raised
about whether
sufficient facts have been stated and about the specificity of the
charges. According to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec.
21[1]), the petition
must also contain allegations that relate to the child’s need of
treatment or rehabilitation if delinquency or unruly conduct is
alleged. Once the
petition has been filled out, it is filed with the prosecutor, who
then decides whether to prosecute. If the prosecutor decides to
go ahead with the
case, proper notice must be given to all concerned parties.
Notification
In establishing a notification requirement (all interested parties
are given official notice of time, places, and changes), the U.S.
Supreme Court
in Gault set forth two conditions that must be met: (1)
timeliness and (2) adequacy. Although petitions might not need
to meet all the legal
requirements of an indictment, they do need to describe the
alleged misconduct with some particularity so that all parties
involved are clear as
to the nature of the charges involved. Delinquency petitions, for
example, must contain sufficient factual details to inform the
juvenile of the
nature of the offense leading to allegation of delinquency and
must be sufficient to enable the accused to prepare a defense to
the charges.
Once a petition has been filed, the court will issue a summons
to all concerned adult parties informing them of the time, date,
and place of the
adjudicatory hearing and of the right of all parties to counsel. In
addition, many states direct a separate summons to the child
who is over a

certain age and is within a designated category such as
delinquent or unruly child. A copy of the petition will
accompany the summons unless
the summons is served “by publication” (printed in a newspaper
of reasonable circulation). States vary regarding the length of
time required
between the serving of the summons and the actual proceedings.
However, in accordance with the Gault decision, a reasonable
amount of time
should be allowed to provide the parties with sufficient time to
prepare. Unnecessary and long delays should be avoided,
particularly in those
cases where a child is held in detention or shelter care. For
example, Illinois allows at least 3 days before appearance when
the summons is
personally served to the parties, 5 days when notification is by
certified mail, and 10 days when notification is by publication.
If it becomes
necessary to change dates, notice of the new dates must be
given, by certified mail or other reasonable means, to each
respondent served with a
summons (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/5-525, 2011). Further, Texas
law states the following:
If a person to be served with a summons is in this state and can
be found, the summons shall be served upon him personally at
least
two days before the day of the adjudication hearing. If he is in
this state and cannot be found, but his address is known or can
with
reasonable diligence be ascertained, the summons may be
served on him by mailing a copy by registered or certified mail,
return

receipt requested, at least five days before the day of the
hearing. If he is outside this state but he can be found or his
address is
known, or his whereabouts or address can with reasonable
diligence be ascertained, service of the summons may be made
either by
delivering a copy to him personally or mailing a copy to him by
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, at least
five days
before the day of the hearing. (Texas Family Code Annotated,
53.07 [a], 2007)
Illinois law, Texas law, and the Uniform Juvenile Court Act
(sec. 23[a, b]) provisions on service of summons are similar.
The Uniform Juvenile
Court Act allows at least 24 hours before the hearing when the
summons is personally served and 5 days when certified mail or
publication is
used.
Service of the summons may be made by any person authorized
by the court—usually a county sheriff, coroner, or juvenile
probation officer. If
the information received by the court indicates that the juvenile
needs to be placed in detention or shelter care, the court may
endorse on the
summons an order that the child should be taken into immediate
custody and taken to the place of detention or shelter care
designated by the
court.
Following the filing of the petition and proper notification, the
adjudicatory hearing is held. In delinquency cases, this is the
juvenile court’s
equivalent of an adult criminal trial.

Adjudicatory Hearing
The adjudicatory hearing is a fact-finding hearing to determine
whether the allegations in the petition are valid. In delinquency
cases, it is the
rough equivalent of a criminal trial. In cases of dependency,
neglect, or authoritative intervention, the adjudicatory hearing
more closely
resembles a civil trial. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has
extended the legalistic principle of due process to the juvenile
justice system, not
all rights accorded under the Constitution and its amendments
have been incorporated into the juvenile system. For example,
in 1971 the Court
held that juveniles had no constitutional right to a jury trial
because the juvenile proceeding had not yet been held to be a
criminal prosecution
within the meaning and reach of the Sixth Amendment
(McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971). The Court reiterated that the
due process standard of
“fundamental fairness” should be applied to juvenile court
proceedings. However, the Court further stated that it was
unwilling to “remake the
juvenile proceeding into a full adversary process.” As indicated
previously, some states do currently allow trial by jury.
However, most cases
are tried by a juvenile judge. The Uniform Juvenile Court Act
(sec. 24[a]) recommends that hearings be conducted by the court
without a jury.
The Supreme Court was clear in its holding that when the state
undertakes to prove a child delinquent for committing a
criminal act, it must do
so beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship, 1970). The
Uniform Juvenile Court Act not only advocates this standard of
proof for the
delinquency issue but also extends this standard to the unruly
category (sec. 29[b]). Some states have adopted this

recommended standard
(New York Family Court Act, 342.2 [2], 2010; North Dakota
Century Code, 27-20-29 [2], 2007; Texas Family Code
Annotated, 54.03 [f],
2007). The standard applicable to categories such as deprived,
abused or neglected, and dependent is usually the civil standard
of
preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
For example, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29[c])
requires “beyond a
reasonable doubt” to determine delinquency but allows the civil
standard of “clear and convincing evidence” to determine
whether the
adjudicated delinquent is in need of treatment or rehabilitation.
In general, of course, it is more difficult to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable
doubt (no reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge) than to
determine fault based on a preponderance of evidence.
The adjudicatory hearing is generally, but not always, closed to
the public. Because of intense pressures to get tough on juvenile
crime and to
hold the juvenile court more accountable, some states have
authorized open hearings in selected criminal cases (Georgia
Code, 15-11-78, 2010;
Texas Family Code Annotated, 54.08 [a], 2007); however, the
judge can close the court to public access if he or she believes it
is in the best
interest of the child to do so. Colorado, as an example, states
the following:
The general public shall not be excluded from hearings held
under this article unless the court determines that it is in the
best interest
of the juvenile or of the community to exclude the general
public, and, in such event, the court shall admit only such

persons as have
an interest in the case or work of the court, including persons
whom the district attorney, the juvenile, or his or her parents or
guardian wish to be present. (Colorado Revised Statutes, 19-2-
110, 2012)
Although the Sixth Amendment declares that “in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial,”
juvenile court acts prohibit these public hearings on the grounds
that opening such hearings would be detrimental to the child.
Although the
application of the “public trial” concept of the Sixth
Amendment has not been adopted in most juvenile court acts,
other due process provisions
of the amendment have been incorporated into juvenile court
acts as a result of the Gault decision. The Uniform Juvenile
Court Act (sec.
24[d]) states that the general public shall be excluded except for
parties, counsel, witnesses, and other persons requested by a
party and
approved by the court as having an interest in the case or in the
work of the court. Those persons having an interest in the work
of the court
include members of the bar and press who may be admitted on
the condition that they will refrain from divulging any
information that could
identify the child or family involved.
As discussed previously, the due process concept of “speedy
trial” contained in the Sixth Amendment has been incorporated
into juvenile court
acts. Specific time frames are contained in most acts
designating the length of time between custody, detention,
adjudicatory, and disposition
hearings. Requests for delay are entertained by the juvenile

court whenever reasonable and justifiable motions are
submitted. Unfortunately, it
has been common in some jurisdictions for juvenile court judges
to ignore the time limits established by the statute, so a speedy
trial might not
result. Some judges appear to ignore the statutory requirement
of an adjudicatory hearing within 30 days of the time the
petition is filed
(without detention) even when there is no motion for a
continuance by defense counsel (Butts, 1997; Schwartz, Weiner,
& Enosh, 1999).
Although this practice has been overturned in the New York
Court of Appeals (In re George T., 2002), on occasion a
juvenile might not be
brought before the court for an adjudicatory hearing for as long
as 6 months—a clear violation of the statutory requirement. It is
possible, of
course, for defense counsel to move for dismissal or to appeal,
but very seldom are such actions taken. When motions to
dismiss based on
procedural irregularities are made, they are almost routinely
overruled. Once again, the gap between theory and practice
comes to light.
According to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29), after
hearing the evidence on the petition, the court will make and
file its findings about
whether the child is deprived, delinquent, abused, neglected, or
unruly as alleged in the petition. If the evidence does not
support the allegation,
the petition will be dismissed, and the child will be discharged
from any detention or other restrictions. If the court finds that
the allegation is

supported by evidence using the appropriate standard of proof
for that hearing, the court may proceed immediately or hold an
additional
hearing to hear evidence and decide whether the child is in need
of treatment or rehabilitation. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the
finding of delinquency where felonious acts were committed is
sufficient to sustain a finding that the child is in need of
treatment or
rehabilitation. However, even though the court may find that the
child is within the alleged criteria of the petition, it might not
find that the
child is in need of treatment or rehabilitation. The court may
then dismiss the proceeding and discharge the child from any
detention or other
restrictions (sec. 29[a, b]).
It should also be noted that juvenile court judges in many states
may decide prior to or in the early stages of the adjudicatory
hearing to
“continue the case under supervision.” An example of an order
for continuance under supervision is shown in Figure 7.3. This
usually means
that the judge postpones adjudication and specifies a period
during which the judge (through court officers) will observe the
juvenile. If the
juvenile has no further difficulties during the specified period,
the petition will be dismissed. If the juvenile does get into
trouble again, the
judge will proceed with the original adjudicatory hearing.
Continuance under supervision may benefit the juvenile by
allowing him or her to escape adjudication as delinquent. It is
generally used by
juvenile court judges for precisely this purpose. However, if the
juvenile did not commit the alleged delinquent act, he or she

may be unjustly
subjected to court surveillance. If the juvenile’s parents or
counselor object to the procedure and request the judge to
proceed with the
adjudicatory hearing, the judge must, in most jurisdictions,
comply with those wishes.
In the adjudicatory hearing, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act and
the juvenile court acts of many states separate the issues of
establishing
whether the child is within the defined category and whether the
state should exercise wardship or further custody. The
determination of further
custody or wardship is usually made on the basis of what type
of treatment or rehabilitation the court believes is necessary.
Figure 7.3 Continuance Under Supervision Form
159.xhtml#s9781506348988.i1200
The term ward of the court means simply that the court, as an
agency of the state, has found it necessary to exercise its role of
in loco parentis.
The decisions that are normally made by the parents are now
made by a representative of the court, usually the juvenile
probation officer in
consultation with the juvenile court judge. As indicated in the
Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29[c, d]), the determination
for continued
custody for treatment or rehabilitation purposes may be made as
part of the adjudicatory hearing or in a separate hearing. The
court, in
determining wardship, will receive both oral and written
evidence and will use this evidence to the extent of its probative

value even though
such evidence might not have been admissible in the
adjudicatory hearing. The standard of clear and convincing
evidence is recommended by
the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29[c]) in determining
wardship. The Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 29[e]) also
permits a continuance
of hearings for a reasonable period to receive reports and other
evidence bearing on the disposition or the need of treatment or
rehabilitation.
The child may be continued in detention or released from
detention and placed under the supervision of the court during
the period of
continuance. Priority in wardship or dispositional hearings will
always be given to those children who are in detention or have
been removed
from their homes pending a final dispositional order.
To avoid giving a child a record, it has become a common
practice in some jurisdictions for juvenile courts to place a
child under probation
supervision without reaching any formal finding. This practice
may be engaged in without filing any formal petition. Placing
children under
probation supervision should not be confused with continuances
granted by the court to complete investigations for wardship or
disposition
proceedings. Although “unofficial probation or supervision”
may help to divert less serious cases from adjudication and thus
avoid
stigmatizing the child involved, it has been subject to much
criticism as the result of disregarding due process requirements.
Social Background Investigation, Social Summary Report,
Presentence Investigation, or
Predisposition Investigation

After a determination in the adjudicatory hearing that the
allegations in the petition have been established and that
wardship is necessary, a
dispositional hearing is set to determine final disposition of the
case. There are differences among the states as to whether the
dispositional
hearing must be separated from the adjudicatory hearing (ILCS,
ch. 705, sec. 405/2-22 [1], 2011; Texas Family Code Annotated,
54.04 [1],
2007). In some states, the two hearings are separate because
different procedures and rights are involved. For example, in
some states in an
adjudicatory hearing on delinquency, the standard of proof and
the rules of evidence in the nature of criminal proceedings are
applicable;
however, the civil rules of evidence and standard of proof are
applicable to adjudicatory hearings on neglect, dependent,
abuse, and minors
requiring authoritative intervention (in need of supervision)
cases (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/2-18[1], 2011; Iowa Code
Annotated, 232.47 [5],
2009). Yet in the Illinois dispositional hearing for all
categories, all evidence helpful in determining the disposition,
including oral and written
reports, may be admitted and relied on to the extent of its
probative value even though it might not be relevant for the
purposes of the
adjudicatory hearing (ILCS, ch. 705, sec. 405/5-22, 2011).
Similar wording and evidentiary concepts are contained in the
Uniform Juvenile
Court Act’s (sec. 29[d]) references to determination of whether
the adjudicated child requires treatment and rehabilitation and
to the

dispositional stage of the case.
Between the adjudicatory hearing and the dispositional hearing,
the court’s staff members (usually probation officers) are
engaged in obtaining
information useful in aiding the court to determine final
disposition of a case. This information is obtained through
social background
investigations and is premised on the belief that individualized
justice is a major function of the juvenile court. Social
background
investigations, also known as social summary reports or
predisposition investigations in some states, typically include
information about the
child, the child’s parents, school, work, and general peer
relations as well as other environmental factors. This
information is gathered through
interviews with relevant persons in the community and is
compiled in report form to aid the judge in making a
dispositional decision. The
probative value of some information collected is questionable
and can certainly be challenged in the dispositional hearing.
Some juvenile
judges delegate the court’s staff to make recommendations and
to justify the elimination of some options or alternatives from
consideration.
Unfortunately, social background investigations have been used
by some courts prior to the adjudicatory hearings, and this can
result in an
adjudication of delinquency without proving that the accused
juvenile committed the acts of delinquency alleged in the
petition. As a result of
the Kent decision (Kent v. United States, 1966), counsel for the
juvenile has been extended the right to review the contents of
staff social
background investigations used in waiver hearings because

there is no irrefutable presumption of accuracy attached to staff
reports. This
principle has been extended by most juvenile court acts to legal
counsel representing the child in dispositional hearings.
Dispositional Hearing
Whereas the adjudicatory hearing determines whether the
allegations are supported by the evidence, the dispositional
hearing is concerned only
with what alternatives are available to meet the needs of the
juvenile. In fact, some states specify by statute that the rules of
evidence do not
apply during dispositional proceedings (ILCS, 705 sec. 405/2-
22 [1], 2011; Iowa Code Annotated, 232.50 [3], 2009).
Dispositional alternatives
are clearly stated in each state’s juvenile court act, although
states may differ in the dispositional alternatives available to
juveniles in the
separate categories (i.e., delinquency, dependency,
abused/neglected). An option available for the deprived child
might not be available for the
delinquent child. According to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act
(sec. 30), the deprived child may remain with his or her parents,
subject to
conditions imposed by the court, including supervision by the
court. Also according to Section 30, the deprived child may be
temporarily
transferred legally to any of the following:
i. any individual . . . found by the court to be qualified to
receive and care for the child;
ii. an agency or other private organization licensed or otherwise
authorized by the law to receive and provide care for the child;
iii. the Child Welfare Department of the [county] [state] [or
other public agency authorized by law to receive and provide
care for the child];

or
iv. an individual in another state with or without supervision.
For the delinquent child, the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec.
31) states that the court may make any disposition best suited to
the juvenile’s
treatment, rehabilitation, and welfare, including the following:
1. any order authorized by Section 30 for the disposition of a
“deprived child”;
2. probation under the supervision of the probation officer . . .
under conditions and limitations the court prescribes;
3. placing the child in an institution, camp, or other facility for
delinquent children operated under the direction of the court [or
other local
public authority]; or
4. committing the child to [designate the state department to
which commitments of delinquent children are made or, if there
is no
department, the appropriate state institution for delinquent
children].
According to the Uniform Juvenile Court Act (sec. 32), the
unruly child may be disposed of by the court in any authorized
disposition
allowable for the delinquent except commitment to the state
correctional agency. However, if the unruly child is found to be
not amenable to
treatment under the disposition, the court, after another hearing,
may make any disposition otherwise authorized for the
delinquent.
A general trend occurring in juvenile court acts is to refrain

from committing all categories of youth, other than delinquents,
to juvenile
correctional institutions unless the unruly or in-need-of-
supervision child warrants such action after other alternatives
have failed. Commitment
to an institution is generally regarded as a last resort.
Most juvenile court acts also provide for transferring a juvenile
demonstrating mental challenges or mental illness to the
appropriate authority
within the state. A similar section is included in the Uniform
Juvenile Court Act (sec. 35). With the advent of a multiplicity
of community
treatment programs and child guidance centers, many of the
current dispositions contain conditions for attendance at these
centers. Dispositions
of probation or suspended sentence often require compulsory
attendance at a community-based treatment or rehabilitation
program. Violation
of these conditions may result in revocation of probation or a
suspended sentence. This is accomplished through a revocation
hearing. Most
states now specify the maximum amount of time for
confinement of a juvenile. Extensions of the original disposition
generally require another
hearing with all rights accorded in the original dispositional
hearing. The court may, under some circumstances, terminate its
dispositional
order prior to the expiration date if it appears that the purpose
of the order has been accomplished. Juvenile court acts
generally terminate all
orders affecting the juvenile on reaching the age of majority in
those states. This termination results in discharging the juvenile

from further
obligation or control. If the disposition is probation, both the
conditions of probation and its duration are spelled out by the
court. For copies of
dispositional and sentencing court orders, see Figures 7.4 and
7.5.
Figure 7.4 Dispositional Order
159.xhtml#s9781506348988.i1208
159.xhtml#s9781506348988.i1210
Figure 7.5 Sentencing Order
Career Opportunity: Magistrate
Job description: Determine whether probable cause exists when
the police make arrests. Determine whether, and ensure that,
defendants have been properly advised
of their rights. Decide whether to detain defendants. Supervise
preliminary hearings, hold trials, and sentence offenders.
Employment requirements: Must have a law degree and be
admitted to the bar.
Beginning salary: Varies widely depending on jurisdiction.
Benefits also vary widely.
Summary

It is essential that those involved in the juvenile justice network
be completely familiar with the appropriate procedures for
dealing with
juveniles and with the rules governing other members of the
juvenile justice system. This awareness helps to ensure that the
interests of
juveniles will be protected within the guidelines established by
society. Otherwise, juveniles’ rights may be violated,
practitioners may be put
in a position where they cannot take appropriate actions, and
society might not be protected as a result of ignorance of proper
procedures.
For example, a police officer may take a juvenile into custody
for a serious delinquent act (e.g., robbery). The officer may, on
interrogation,
obtain a confession from the juvenile. It may be impossible for
the state’s attorney to prosecute if the police officer failed to
warn the juvenile
of his or her rights according to Miranda, if a reasonable
attempt to contact the juvenile’s parents was not made, if the
juvenile was frightened
into confessing when his or her parents or legal representative
were not present, or if the evidence in the case was obtained
illegally. Of course,
there will be no adjudication by the judge, and rehabilitation or
corrections personnel will have no chance to rehabilitate,
correct, or protect
through detention. In the long run, then, neither the best
interests of society nor those of the juvenile will be served.
Every state has a juvenile court act spelling out appropriate
procedures for dealing with juveniles from the initial
apprehension through final
disposition. In looking at several juvenile court acts, we have
seen that there are many uniformities in these acts as well as

many points of
disagreement. Uniformities are often the result of U.S. Supreme
Court decisions, whereas differences often result from
legislative efforts in the
individual states. It is crucial, therefore, for all juvenile justice
practitioners to become familiar with the juvenile court act
under which they
operate so that the best interests of juveniles, other
practitioners, and society may be served to the maximum extent
possible.
Key Terms
bail 184
clear and convincing evidence 196
continuance under supervision 197
detention 187
detention hearing 187
Fourth Amendment 183
guardian ad litem 183
interrogation 183
notification 195
preliminary conference 182
shelter care 187
Sixth Amendment 183
social background investigations 200
stationhouse adjustment 182
taking into custody 185
totality of circumstances 183
Critical Thinking Questions
1. What are the constitutional rights guaranteed to adults in our
society that are not always guaranteed to juveniles in juvenile
court
proceedings? What is the rationale for depriving juveniles of
these rights?

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of informal
adjustments, unofficial probation, and continuance under
supervision?
3. Discuss the pros and cons of confidentiality of juvenile court
records and of allowing public access to juvenile court.
4. Consider the What Would You Do? scenario at the beginning
of the chapter and answer the following questions:
a. At what point in the process was your daughter when you
received the phone call from the county detention center?
b. Was there an opportunity for your daughter to be released
prior to court? If so, what factors might influence this decision?
Who
would make this decision? What role would you play in this
decision? What about the past behaviors of your daughter?
c. If your daughter proceeded to a detention hearing, what
factors would the judge consider in determining to hold or
release your
daughter?
d. Assuming that a petition is filed, what are the juvenile
court’s obligations with respect to the parties in the
proceedings?
Suggested Readings
32A-1-1 NMSA (1978).
Alabama Code § 12-15-56 (2015).
Arkansas Code § 9-27-309 (2010).
Colorado Revised Statutes, 19-2-110 (1997).

Colorado Revised Statutes, 19-2-509 (2012).
Davis, S. M. (2006). Rights of juveniles: The juvenile justice
system (2nd ed.). Eagan, MN: Thomson/West.
Fagan, J. (2005, September). Adolescents, maturity, and the
law. American Prospect, 16, A5–A7.
Georgia Code, 15-11-47 (d) (2010).
Georgia Code Annotated (2009).
Georgia Criminal and Traffic Law Manual. (2014). Juvenile
Code. Charlottesville, VA: LexisNexis.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, 571-32 (h) (2015).
Illinois Compiled Statutes, ch. 705, sec. 5-501 (2) (2011).
In the matter of George T. (2002). New York Law School Law
Review, 47(2/3). Retrieved from www.nyls.edu
Massachusetts General Laws Annotated, ch. 119, sec. 55A
(2016).
Missouri Revised Statutes, ch. 11, sec. 211.061 (2015).
Montana Code Annotated, 41-3-425 (2015).
Montana Code Annotated, 41-5-1502 (1) (2015).

Myers, W. (2006). Roper v. Simmons: The collision of national
consensus and proportionality review. Journal of Criminal Law
and
Criminology, 96, 947–994.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2005).
Juvenile delinquency guidelines: Improving court practice in
juvenile
delinquency cases. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Nebraska Revised Statutes, 43-253 (5) (2012).
New York Family Court Act, 342.2 (2) (2010).
Oregon Juvenile Code, 419C.097 (2015).
Tennessee Code Annotated, § 37-1-110 (2012).
Tennessee Code Annotated, § 37-1-119 (2012).
Texas Family Code Annotated, 54.03 (c) (2007).
http://www.nyls.edu/
Texas Family Code Annotated (2009).
West Virginia Code Annotated, 49-5-6 (2012).
Sharpen your skills with SAGE edge at
edge.sagepub.com/coxjj9e. SAGE edge for students provides a
personalized approach to help you accomplish your
coursework goals in an easy-to-use learning environment.
You’ll find action plans, mobile-friendly eFlashcards, and
quizzes as well as video and web resources and

links to SAGE journal articles to support and expand on the
concepts presented in this chapter.
http://edge.sagepub.com/coxjj9e
Chapter 4 The Current Juvenile Justice System
The goal of this chapter is to describe how the historical legacy
of juvenile justice has been translated into the modern justice
system practices
that one encounters today. The approach is to describe the
processing of cases through the modern juvenile court system,
comparing and
contrasting these practices with the adult criminal justice
system. Keep in mind that there remains significant variation
among states and
localities. What is presented below is an attempt to capture the
present reality in the largest number of juvenile court
jurisdictions. The National
Center for Juvenile Justice is the preeminent source of more
current information on how legislative changes impact the
structure and process of
the juvenile justice system (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999).
The original scope or jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system
is generally defined in each state by specific statutes. The first
level of this
definition process involves the age of the youth at the time of
arrest or referral to the juvenile justice system. Most states set
the threshold upper
age of juvenile court jurisdiction at 17. The importance of this
upper age is to define the presumptive age at which young
people are tried in
criminal courts as opposed to family or juvenile courts. New

York and North Carolina have a much lower upper limit for
adolescents in
criminal courts at 15 years of age. Twelve other states employ
age 16 as the upper limit of original juvenile court jurisdiction.
However, several
states permit the juvenile court to retain its jurisdiction of cases
already in the system until age 21. Several states actually allow
this continuing
jurisdiction for some youths as old as 25 who are under the
control of the state youth corrections authority (Sickmund &
Puzzanchera, 2014).
Currently, there is a serious reexamination of the traditional age
boundaries of the juvenile court. These policy debates are
influenced by
emerging scientific evidence about the brain development of
adolescents. Since 1975, five states have altered the juvenile
court age boundaries.
Alabama raised the upper age limit from 15 to 16, and then to
17 the next year. Wyoming lowered its upper age limit from 18
to 17, New
Hampshire and Wisconsin lowered their limits to 16, and
Connecticut enacted legislation that gradually raised the age of
jurisdiction from 15
to 17 by 2012.
There is also variability among states in the lower boundary of
the juvenile court's authority—the age below which the child is
deemed too
young to be subject to juvenile court laws. There are sixteen
states that define the youngest age at which children can be
tried in juvenile
courts. Eleven states set this lower age boundary at 10 years
old, whereas another five states use boundaries of age 6 (North
Carolina), age 7
(Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York), and age 8 (Arizona).
Other jurisdictions have no statutorily mandated lower age

threshold,
although the usual practice is to recognize the tradition of the
English Common Law standard of age 7 for the lowest age of
criminal court
jurisdiction (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999).
These general age limits are further refined by state laws
specifying circumstances and legal mechanisms through which
the original
jurisdiction of the juvenile court may revert to the criminal
court or be shared with the criminal court system. The overall
trend in juvenile law
in the past several decades has been to extend these exceptions
and to extend the range of transfer procedures; however, most
recently, a few
states have sought to restrict the transfer of young offenders to
criminal courts or make the standards for the transfers more
stringent. For
example, Illinois enacted tough laws that permitted prosecutors
to automatically send very young adolescents to criminal
processing, but a
recent law proposed by the governor requires that all young
people who were arrested before age 16 are entitled to a
juvenile court hearing to
determine the appropriateness of their transfer to adult criminal
courts. Some would say that the most important development in
contemporary
juvenile court law has been the “blurring of the line” between
the juvenile court and the criminal law system as well as newer
efforts to
redraw these historic lines. There are also suggestions to
consider hybrid systems of “blended sentencing” in which a
youngster can be
simultaneously under the authority of the juvenile court and
criminal laws of the state.

A further complication in understanding the juvenile justice
system is the overlap, in many locales, between the criminal law
system as applied
to minors and the laws governing the protection of dependent,
neglected, and abused children. It is common that children
appearing before the
juvenile court are still under the auspices of child welfare and
protection laws. Judges sometimes use either legal structure or a
combination of
the two systems to fashion remedies in individual cases. Often,
it is the same judge who hears cases in both systems. Moreover,
many states
have established special legal categories such as Children in
Need of Supervision, Persons in Need of Supervision, or Minors
in Need of
Supervision that overlap the traditional categories of dependent
children with behavior that might be considered criminal law
violations in
other states. Most often, these mixed categories are meant to be
used in cases involving behaviors such as truancy, running
away, curfew
violations, underage drinking or smoking, or incorrigibility.
Traditionally, many state laws prohibit the secure confinement
of these
nonoffenders or forbid their confinement with youngsters
charged with criminal law violations. However, these finite
legal categories often
merge together in cases in which the youth is already under
juvenile court control (e.g., under probation supervision or in
some sort of
diversion program). In the world of contemporary juvenile
justice, nothing is simple and consistent.
Before discussing the various components of the juvenile justice
process, it is worth considering how the modern juvenile and
criminal justice

systems differ and converge. Table 4.1, prepared by the federal
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Protection, provides
a convenient
summary of these common and differing aspects of the two
justice systems (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999).
epub://vlmekzam4p733vux5hi8.vbk/OEBPS/s9781506329215.i5
23.xhtml#s9781506329215.i534
At the most basic level, the two systems differ in their core
assumptions. For example, the juvenile justice system assumes
that young people
are capable of positive change. Rehabilitation is considered a
possible and desirable goal. Juvenile justice interventions
assume that youths are
part of families, and attempts are made to involve parents in the
various programs of the system. By contrast, the current
criminal justice
system does not place much emphasis on rehabilitation as a
goal, although many criminal law systems did value
rehabilitation in the past. The
contemporary criminal justice system assumes that general
deterrence is an effective crime control strategy (Zimring &
Hawkins, 1973). This
means that the criminal law assumes that others will be
discouraged from law breaking by knowledge of the severity
and certainty of
punishments meted out to apprehended offenders. Inherent in
the concept of deterrence is the assumption that humans operate
principally
through a process of rational calculations of the benefits of

committing crimes compared to the costs of apprehension and
punishment (Wilson,
1983). The juvenile justice system assumes that in addition to
cost–benefit calculations, young offenders are motivated by a
range of rational
and irrational forces. The reader will recall that this latter
assumption is directly related to the early scientific work
supporting the creation of
the juvenile court (Healy, 1915).
Both the juvenile and the criminal justice systems recognize
protection of the public as a major goal. In each system there is
value placed on
holding offenders accountable for their specific actions. Most
important, since the late 1960s, the juvenile justice system has
mirrored the adult
court system in its attention to the protection of the
constitutional rights of the accused. Both systems are
increasingly interested in advancing
the rights of victims in various aspects of its legal processes.
Legislation establishing the rights of victims in the juvenile
court has trailed
behind the criminal court system, but the 1990s was a period in
which many lawmakers sought to extend rights to victims within
the juvenile
justice system.
The two systems also differ markedly in their approaches to
crime prevention. As noted earlier, the criminal justice system
depends on general
and specific deterrence to prevent future crimes. Prevention
strategies often entail increasing the capacity and willingness of
citizens to report
crimes to the police. This type of public participation is
reflected in programs such as Crime Watch or Crime Stoppers.
Crime Watch programs

often involve organizing neighborhood residents to conduct
informal patrols, pass along information about recent local
crimes, or hold
meetings with police to learn how to better protect one's person
or property. Crime Stoppers is a national program that pays cash
rewards for
information leading to the arrest of criminals. Juvenile crime
prevention programs tend to rely more on educational efforts
(an example is the
Drug Abuse Resistance Education program, in which police
officers enter schools and teach children about the dangers of
drug use) and the
delivery of services including recreational, vocational, and
counseling efforts. The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention funds
prevention programs through a number of grants to states and
localities. Units of state and local governments typically devote
some funding
each year to service-oriented prevention efforts. These services
are designed to reduce certain risk factors that researchers have
linked to the
onset of delinquent behavior in individuals, families, schools,
and communities (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992). Prevention
programs also seek to
increase protective or buffering factors that insulate youngsters
from risk factors. We discuss these approaches to delinquency
prevention in
Chapter 7. There are some more limited educational prevention
efforts in the criminal justice system such as classes for drunk
drivers,
educational programs for domestic violence offenders, or
courses on traffic safety. Participation in these adult prevention
programs is often a
condition of diverting the case from formal court processing or
of reducing penalties.

Law enforcement policies and practices differ between the two
justice systems. Police agencies often assign special units to
handle juvenile
offenders, and there is an expectation that public access to
information about juvenile offenders will be more limited than
for adults. The
overall philosophy of enforcing laws with minors is to divert a
significant number of these cases away from the justice system.
In policy, and
often in practice, the ideal is to handle cases informally,
allowing parents or other community agencies to take the lead.
The ethos of juvenile
justice is to exercise extreme constraint when intervening in the
lives of children. Chapter 3 explains why and how these ideas
became part of
the modern juvenile justice system, and it is true that this
noninterventionist paradigm is regularly questioned and
reexamined.
It is also worth noting that police respond to behaviors by
juveniles that would not engage their attention if committed by
adults. For example,
police enforce truancy laws but do not arrest adults who fail to
attend their classes. Except in times of emergency, adults do not
have to adhere
to curfews, whereas minors may be restricted in the hours when
they can be in public places. Youth curfews may require that the
child be
accompanied by responsible caretakers. Adults are free to
purchase and use highly toxic and addictive substances such as
tobacco and alcohol,
but these commodities are forbidden for juveniles. Minors can
be incarcerated for running away from their homes, whereas
adults are free to
change their living situation without criminal penalty.

Police divert adult offenders from further criminal justice
processing, although the rationale is rarely that there are better
places from which to
get services. Diversion of adult offenders is often based on
police obtaining information from them that can be used to
arrest others. The
exercise of police discretion in adult cases has led to serious
criticism of law enforcement agencies who are alleged to
employ racial, gender, or
social class factors in making their decisions. For example,
police handling of domestic violence incidents has moved
toward mandatory arrest
policies in lieu of allowing the street officers to decide the
appropriate resolution of individual cases. While these
mandatory arrest policies
have been promoted based on research findings (Sherman et al.,
1997), the evidence supporting the efficacy of these approaches
is less than
totally convincing.
More recently, police practices for adults and juveniles have
converged in the theory of problem-solving law enforcement in
which informal
dispute resolution and mediation strategies are encouraged in
lieu of making arrests. For both juveniles and adults, police are
governed by
common constitutional requirements pertaining to the
limitations on powers to stop individuals, rules pertaining to
search and seizure, and
safeguards against self-incrimination. However, the law has
been evolving on how strictly law enforcement must adhere to
constitutional
protections. As noted earlier, the courts in cases such as J.B.D
v. North Carolina (2011) are expanding the legal protections for
detained youth.
The legal rights of juveniles who are detained and questioned in

school settings is still a subject of intense debate. One major
issue remains that
08.xhtml
24.xhtml
the violations of rights for adult defendants may lead to the
exclusion of crucial evidence; for juveniles, they may be
processed by the juvenile
court and confined for “their own protection” without definite
evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
As one moves further along in the process, the juvenile and
adult systems begin to diverge. In the adult system, it is the
prosecutor who decides
if a person who is arrested by the police is brought into the
criminal justice system. Typically, there is a preliminary
hearing in which the
prosecutor presents the charges to a judge, the defendant enters
a plea of guilty or not guilty, and either bail is set or the
defendant is remanded
to jail. Later in the process, usually after a variety of
evidentiary motions are considered (such as the inclusion of
evidence, the face validity of
the charges, or other procedural matters), the prosecutor decides
either to bring the case forward or to drop it. In many
jurisdictions, a panel of
citizens known as a grand jury will hear the prosecutor's
preliminary evidence and will decide if the criminal case should
be brought forward.
Prosecutors have the discretion to either drop the case or defer
prosecution, usually in situations in which the defendant agrees
to enter some

treatment or counseling program. Failure to complete this
agreement often results in the original charges being filed.
The juvenile justice system usually employs an intake unit to
evaluate whether a case should be brought forward. Although it
is increasingly
common for prosecutors to participate in the intake process, it
is most often accomplished by staff of the juvenile probation
department. The
sufficiency of legal evidence is a strong consideration, but the
primary emphasis of the juvenile intake process is problem
solving—how best to
rectify the youth's misconduct with a minimum of court
intervention. The juvenile court almost always is governed by
the principle of utilizing
the least restrictive alternative consistent with protecting public
safety. The intake process is also guided by a search for ways to
protect the
child from adverse community, family, or peer influences. It is
sometimes the case that the child welfare or mental health
systems may provide
more appropriate responses to the child's behavior than the
juvenile justice system.
In the juvenile court, the decision is made whether to file a
petition to declare the child a ward of the court. This decision is
guided by both
legal and social service considerations. The child and his or her
attorney may contest the petition, but they do not typically enter
a plea of guilt
or innocence. In most locales, a juvenile court judge will decide
whether it is in society's or the child's best interests to proceed
with a formal
hearing on the petition. In smaller jurisdictions, this hearing is
conducted by a lower court judge or magistrate. Unlike the
criminal justice

system, there is no automatic right to bail for juveniles. Youths
who are not released to their guardians are confined in juvenile
detention
facilities. The juvenile court is permitted broad latitude to
detain youngsters for society's protection (similar to the adult
system) or for the
protection of the child. Whereas there are very strict
constitutional limitations on preventive pretrial detention for
adults, the U.S. Supreme
Court has approved a much wider set of detention criteria for
minors (Schall v. Martin, 1984).
It is at the adjudication stage that the two justice systems are
most different. Juvenile court hearings are not viewed as
criminal law
proceedings; they are quasi-civil hearings. If the facts of an
alleged petition are sustained by the court, the petition is
sustained and the youth is
declared to be a ward of the juvenile court. In the criminal law
system, the offender is found guilty of a very specific set of
criminal offenses; in
the juvenile court, the petition relates to a general pattern of
behavior or family circumstances. Criminal court hearings must
be open to the
public, whereas juvenile courts operate primarily on a
confidential basis. Adults charged with criminal offenses are
entitled to a jury of their
peers, but there is no legally recognized right to jury trials in
the juvenile court system. There has been a trend toward
opening up juvenile
court hearings to the public. As of 2010, there were 18 states
permitting public attendance in hearings, with some rare
exceptions for protection
of the child. There are another 20 states that permit public
access for a limited set of cases. For example, the proceedings
might be open in

felony cases involving older youth and those with prior court
involvement (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). There also is
variation among the
states on whether juveniles can be fingerprinted, whether
criminal records are sealed from public view, or if schools must
be notified of a
student's involvement with law enforcement or the courts. In the
1990s, many states moved to reduce the privacy and
confidentiality of juvenile
court records and proceedings. In the past several years, there
have been discussions to roll back some of these “get tough
laws” and to give
court-processed young people a second chance.
Both the criminal and juvenile justice systems require a
standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and persons in
each court have rights to
be represented by attorneys, to confront their accusers, and to
not testify against themselves. The right to appeal is available
in both systems.
Both court systems are beginning to introduce specialized
sections of their courts that focus on particular offenses such as
drug courts, gun
courts, and reentry courts.
During the dispositional phase of juvenile court hearings, there
is great weight placed on in-depth social, psychological, and
individual factors.
Dispositions are, by design, to be individualized. Juvenile
courts may even direct their dispositional orders to other
individuals such as the
youth's guardians. Juvenile courts employ a broad range of
dispositional options—orders to make restitution or to perform
community service,
as well as a wide range of residential placements. Juvenile
courts often impose curfews or require regular attendance in

school. Parents and
youths may be ordered to attend counseling sessions. There are
more creative dispositions sometimes utilized in criminal courts
but on a far
more limited basis.
Sentencing in criminal courts generally relies more on a limited
set of legal factors such as the gravity of the current offense and
the prior
record of the offender. Criminal court sentences are very often
rigidly determined by state laws, whereas juvenile court
dispositions are far
more open ended—the youth is declared under the juvenile
court's supervision based on regular reviews of his or her
progress up to the
statutory age maximum jurisdiction of the court. Neither the
criminal nor juvenile court system may impose sanctions that
are deemed cruel or
unusual.
Virtually every state has laws that define the circumstances in
which youth may be processed in criminal courts and eligible
for adult court
sanctions. There are various legal means by which this can
happen. Most states define a court-supervised process that
permits juvenile court
judges to waive their jurisdiction and transfer a child to the
criminal court. This process is often referred to as a
“certification,” “fitness,” or
“remand.” Some states even permit a “reverse waiver,” allowing
the criminal courts to return a defendant to the juvenile court.
Other states
have specific laws that define the ages and offenses that create

the presumption that a young person will be tried in a criminal
or juvenile
judicial venue. These state laws are frequently changed as
elected officials express their sense of public outrage over well-
publicized crime
committed by young people. Other jurisdictions permit
prosecutors to “direct file” youthful defendants to criminal
courts without the
requirement for judicial review. Many states require that young
people who have ever been tried as adults must always be sent
to criminal
courts. There are also hybrid systems in which either adult or
juvenile courts may sentence young people as both adults and
juveniles. This
practice is known as blended sentencing. These hybrid systems
offer the benefits of the child protection aspects of the juvenile
court laws but
can impose harsher criminal penalties if the young person
commits a new offense or violates the requirements of the less
severe sanction. At
present, there is no consistent data or easily available statistics
across states on the utilization of these widely varying
approaches to juvenile
lawbreaking. For example, it has been observed that young
people of color are far more likely to be more harshly punished
in both the juvenile
and adult justice systems, but it is currently impossible to
adjudicate this claim at an aggregate level of states or local
jurisdictions.
The vast majority of transfers are the result of mandatory
statutes and not judicial waiver hearings. Laws governing the
upper age of the
juvenile court may be responsible for as many as 137,000 youth
processed in criminal courts (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014).

The hysteria over the superpredator myth led to a significant
expansion of the mandatory laws and other methods of trying
more youngsters as
if they were adults. These new approaches rarely considered the
mental and emotional condition of the youth but were usually
determined by
the chronological age of the child and the perceived gravity of
the alleged offense. As noted earlier, the jurisprudence about
age of maturity and
criminal responsibility is being actively reviewed and
reconsidered by many state legislatures and courts (Zimring,
2005).
The borderline between the adult and juvenile justice systems is
even more complex. Most offenses are resolved via plea
bargains or
discretionary decisions made by police, prosecutors, or
probation staff. These deliberations are not made in public
settings. In fact, we do not
really know how many young people are punished via the
criminal justice system without a fully transparent legal
process.
The Flow of Cases Through the Juvenile Justice System
Figure 4.1: The Stages of Delinquency Case Processing in the
Juvenile Justice System (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999, p. 98)
shows a typical
flow of cases through the juvenile justice system.
Figure 4.1 The Stages of Delinquency Case Processing in the
Juvenile Justice System
23.xhtml#s9781506329215.i573

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
It cannot be repeated often enough that there are many state
variations that alter how this process operates across the nation.
Let's examine this
case flow using data from the National Center for Juvenile
Justice (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999).
Law enforcement agencies are the primary source of referrals
into the juvenile justice system. Approximately 86% of cases
come from police
agencies; the remaining 14% are referred by schools, social
service agencies, or parents. In the case of minor assaults, there
are a larger number
of referrals coming from schools, probably a reflection of
campus fights among students.
Police agencies have a range of policies on handling juvenile
arrests. Some departments operate their own special programs
that are designed
to divert youngsters from further court processing. There are
police agencies that work diligently to return back to their
parents those juveniles
that are stopped for minor offenses. Other law enforcement
agencies take virtually every youth into custody, relying on the
probation
department to sort out the next steps. A recent development in
police handling of juveniles is community/juvenile assessment
centers—places
at which the police drop off youngsters in instances in which an
arrest is not mandatory. An assessment center consists of staff
who are
multidisciplinary and knowledgeable about community-based
treatment options. The primary goal of an assessment center is
to perform a

treatment assessment for the youth and to quickly move that
youngster into more appropriate community services. Police
appreciate the
assessment center concept because they can drop off the
youngsters with responsible adults, it saves them paperwork,
and the patrol officers
can more quickly return to service.
Because police decisions to arrest or release juveniles are not
subject to a great deal of external scrutiny, it is difficult to
accurately describe
how these decisions are actually made. There is much
speculation that race and social class factors unfairly bias law
enforcement decisions.
Statistics are very hard to collect on such low-visibility
decision making. Anecdotal evidence suggests that police are
more likely to return
youths to their homes if their parents are at home (or reachable
by telephone) and if the parents are regarded as reputable by the
officers. It is
easy to see how class and racial considerations might impact the
judgment of a law enforcement officer, particularly one who
does not know
much about the youngster or his or her community. One of the
goals of community policing is to better connect police officers
with the
residents of the areas that they patrol, setting up the possibility
of better decision making as to whether a young person should
be arrested.
Researchers have suggested that the demeanor of the youth may
play a large factor in whether a formal arrest will be made
(Piliavin & Briar,
1964). A belligerent and verbally abusive youth is far more
likely to be taken into custody. Moreover, some have observed
that teenagers who

simply assert their constitutional rights are more likely to be
treated in a more formal and harsh manner. The factor of
demeanor is sometimes
used as a rationale for why it appears that minority youths seem
to be arrested in higher proportions than their white
counterparts (Piliavin &
Briar, 1964). But it should be considered that race differences
are pivotal in the way in which different people interpret the
behavior of others.
A youth who averts his or her eyes from the arresting officer
may be showing deferential behavior, although this might be
interpreted as a sign
of disrespect. Because demeanor is so subjective and situational
in its interpretation, it is difficult to comprehend how ethnic,
racial, gender, or
class differences could not influence this communication
process.
There has also been a rising trend in the past 10 years for more
youth to be referred to the juvenile justice system by schools.
School
suspensions and expulsions have more than doubled since the
1970s. Many of these young people are also under probation
supervision and so
the school actions may trigger additional sanctions that will be
imposed by the juvenile court. Some youth advocates have
expressed concern
that school policies are creating a “school to jail pipeline”
(Nelson & Lind, 2015). The rise in expulsions and suspensions
followed the
popularity of “zero tolerance” policies that dictate swift and
very negative responses to youth who violate school rules.
These zero tolerance
policies were marketed as an effective method to keep drugs and
guns off of educational campuses. However, there is growing
evidence that

mandatory suspensions and expulsions are being utilized against
students who appear to challenge the authority of teachers. The
research is
growing that youth of color are vastly disproportionate among
those who are harshly punished by school officials. Youth with
learning
disabilities are more likely to be sanctioned for school behavior.
The impacted students are not necessarily accorded protection
of their rights,
nor are their parents even notified in advance of actions that
kick these youth out of schools. Students who are expelled or
suspended lose
school credits and have a higher likelihood of not graduating
(Nelson & Lind, 2015). There are even temporary detentions in
schools for some
allegedly disruptive young people. The frequency, duration, and
nature of these school detentions are rarely subject to public
accountability and
oversight.
Equally alarming has been the large growth in police who are
stationed in schools. From 1997 to 2007, there was an increase
of School
Resource Officers (SROs) by one third. These officers might be
municipal or county law enforcement personnel, employees of
the school
district, or even private security guards. The qualifications and
training of SROs is not standardized or consistent. Almost
92,000 students were
arrested in schools during the 2011 to 2012 academic year
(Nelson & Lind, 2015).
While the presence of police in schools was justified as a way
to protect students from violence, particularly in the aftermath
of mass school
shootings, most of the arrests were for low-level offenses. For

7 Juvenile Justice ProceduresChapter Learning Objectives.docx

7 Juvenile Justice ProceduresChapter Learning Objectives.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 7 Juvenile Justice ProceduresChapter Learning Objectives.docx

Similar to 7 Juvenile Justice ProceduresChapter Learning Objectives.docx (11)

More from sleeperharwell

More from sleeperharwell (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

7 Juvenile Justice ProceduresChapter Learning Objectives.docx