The Juvenile Justice System
How to Treat Juveniles
The Juvenile system has been (and is) inconsistent
juveniles have been wards of the state for their protection, our protection, and for no reason whatsoever
We still hold juveniles to a higher standard, for their protection, ours, and just because
Status offenses
Media has impacted treatment of juveniles
Central park 5 being called a “wolf pack”
Super predators, juvenile gangs, crack cocaine epidemic → increase in harsh treatment of juveniles (2.2 million arrested in late 2000s, juveniles treated as adults)
“Types” of Juvenile Crime
Status Offenses
an activity that is considered a crime only because of the offender’s age (under 18). If the offender were over 18 (an adult), the offense would not be considered a crime
Running away
Ungovernability (incorrigibility)
Truancy
Underage Drinking
Curfew
Underage Possession of Tobacco
Criminal Offenses
Any offenses defined by jurisdiction (penal code) as being illegal. Basically all other criminal offenses
The juvenile System Addresses Many Needs
Dependent children
Committed no offense; may be without family support
the family can just not provide for the kids
Only in the Juvenile Justice system
Delinquent Children
Committed an act that would be considered criminal if committed by an adult
Neglected Children
May have a family but are not receiving proper care
The lack of care might be criminal (drug abuse, criminal neglect
Only In Juvenile Justice System
Reunification with the family is the goal of the system
If there is incredible criminal neglect, parental rights can be terminated
Up until that point, reunification can be
Transfer to Adult Courts
Statutory Exclusion
places a youth under the original jurisdiction of the adult criminal court
Concurrent jurisdiction
Places a youth under the original jurisdiction of both the juvenile and adult courts
At 18, they have a review, and they determine what is best for the juvenile
Waiver to adult court (juvenile court no longer has jurisdiction)
Discretionary
Available in some states prior to 1920
Discretion to waive made on a case by case basis
Up to prosecutor on how they will try the case
Mandatory
Direct assignment to adult court for certain offenses
The legislature says that for this type of crime, the case is immediately transferred to adult courts
PA had the Fisher Bill
Waver can go both ways
adult court sends a case to juvenile court
Waving to adult court would bring a harsher sentence (for a harsher crime)
Adult court treats juveniles more lenient
Age of Original Jurisdiction
Age of Original Jurisdiction - the oldest age at which a juvenile court has jurisdiction over an offender
Age is determined at the time of the offense
In PA it is 17
Pretty arbitrary. Why is 18 not an adult? Why not 17?
Can’t vote, cant rent a car, can’t go to a casino
Lowest age of Jurisdiction
Only 16 states have set a minimum age for jurisdiction over juveniles who commit offenses
North Carolina has set the age at 6
In PA the age is 10
Actions of children below the minimum age are not considered criminal acts
Where the system came from
What is the founding principle of our Juvenile system?
Care of those who can’t care for themselves
1602 Elizabethan England and Poor Laws
Government can take charge of delinquent children and place them in supervised facilities
Concept of parents patriae first established: Literally “parents of the nation”
That someone should provide care for people who don’t get care. That someone is the government
At what point does the care become complete? Is the Gov the appropriate entity to decide that “the child has been cared for”? The gov is not that efficient
1772 and Eyre v Shaftsbury
Guardianship, subjects, the King, and Strengthened concept of PP
“Every loyal subject is taken to be within the Kings protection, for which reason, that idiots and lunatics, who are unable to take care of themselves, are provided for by the King and pater patriae, and there is the same reason to extend the care to infants”
Kids were just seen as small adults, but this creates a shift, indicating that there is something different in their mental capacity
So Parents of the Nation?
Doctrine allows the court to act in Lieu of parents who are unwilling or unable to support their child
Calls for the government to take responsibility for the welfare of the child
Temporary
What does temporary mean?
A government’s legal obligation and right to protect juveniles
In Loco Parentis allows the government to legally act as/replace the parents
Juveniles and CJ in 1800s US
The US is slow to implement changes for Juveniles
our CJ system is still an Infant
Changes comes in 1825 NYC
First House of Refuge built
A training school where kids who broke the law were sent
Boston followed in 1826, by 1860, sixteen others had opened
Houses of refuge were seen as an alternative to housing juveniles with adults
prior to this, children as young as 5 - 7 could be housed with adults in correctional facilities
Houses of refuge seen as a training home for untrained youth… sound like fun? NO
Generally the system remains invested in houses of refuge until about 1899
Although, criticisms remained in the get go
Another way to deal with the kids would be to send them to the country and live with a farm family to work
He'll learn skills and discipline
Kids do become a burden on the families
Legal separations expand “kids are different than adults, and they should be treated differently”
1869, Massachusetts started with “visiting agent” for each juvenile. A court advocate that helps the kid when they are in court
Talk about their home life, etc. Focus on helping the kid
1870, Massachusetts, kids were separated from the adults courts. Adult court is open to the public, Juvenile court is closed to the public. Kids were tried on a different day, but in the same courthouse as adults
For juvenile’s protection
Child Savers
A group of affluent, progressive Chicago women
Lucy Flower, Julia Lathrop, and Jane Addams
Presented Idea of separate court at annual charity conference (1898)
“what we should have, in our system of Criminal Justice, is an entirely separate system of courts for children, in large cities, who commit offenses which could be criminal in adults” (Fredrick Wines, secretary of board of charities)
Called for a bill to be introduces, in conjunction with Chicago Bar Association to treat juvenile delinquents better
Lathrop, Flower and other activist for the court to end poverty and crime
Fits perfectly with parens patriae in that neglected or impoverished children that had little parenting could be protected by the state
Fed clothed, educated, housed
Houses of Refuge
Finally, A New Court
7-3-1899 the newly established juvenile court in Cook Country, Illinois heard its first case
Judge Richard Tuthill heard the case of an 11 year old Henry Campbell (larceny)
The judge was a former adult court judge
Maintained emphasis that punishment should not be the goal, rather rehabilitation and treatments
Any concerns yet (when do they determine that the kid is cared for, or is it based only on age)
Think of the policy of PP and Effectiveness/evals
60 Years of Bliss
Juvenile Court remains mostly unchanged and unchallenged for more than 60 years… until…
1966 and Morris Kent
Kent v United States (1966)
Kent, 16, broke into an apartment, stole the victims wallet, and raped her
Kent was known to D.C Police due to previous purse snatching (he was still on probation at the time of the burglary)
Juvenile court waived original jurisdiction due to Kent’s age, no hearing held in Juvenile court, no “full investigation”
Kent was found Guilty and sentenced to 30 to 90 years
SCOTUS first challenges PP
Found juveniles should not receive less due process just because the juvenile court was founded on the principle of their best interest
In Kent, the court waived case to adult court with no investigation as required by Juvenile Court Act
thus Kent did not receive a hearing, access to counsel, or access to prior record prior to waiver
Essentials of Kent: Juveniles must have the essentials of due process
Changes are Coming
In Re Gault (1967)
Jerry Gault is a 15 year old when he makes an obscene phone call to a neighbor (Mrs. Cook) in 1964. He asked “how are your cherries”
At the time Gault was on probation
Mrs. Cook calls the police, who arrest Gault (and a friend) and detain them in children’s home
No Notice to Gault’s parents, limited notice of hearing (the next day), petition to the court not shared with Gault, initial hearing was informal (along the lines of original intent of the court… remember the best interests of the juvenile are in mind)
All normal for the juvenile court … because a juvenile court is for the juvenile’s interest
No courtroom recording
Second hearing was also informal… basically came down to conflicting reports of what exactly was said with limited information for Gault, who did not have a change to cross examine or present defense witness (in fact Mrs. Cook did not attend any hearings)
Jerry Gault is found guilty of making a lewd phone call and sentenced to juvenile detention for six years (Until he turns 21)
As an adult, with a similar charge, would have faced a $50 fine and a maximum 2 months in jail
SOCUTS and Gault
SCOTUS noted that there is reason to have separate court and treat juveniles and adults separately but…
Juvenile court simply has too much power and essentially unlimited discretion
which allows for the denial of due process rights like:
notice of charges
right to counsel
Right to confrontation and cross-examination
Privilege against self-incrimination
Right to a transcript of proceedings
All rights Gault would have had if he were 18 and under jurisdiction of adult court… but he was 15 at the time of incident
SCOTUS, in effect, shoots down idea of PP… Juvenile court may have the best interests in mind but the Constitution guarantees protections which outweigh any discretion as to what are best interests
In Re Gault ends P.P.
SCOTUS changing capital punishment
Should Offenders, who were juvenile at the time of their crime, face capital punishment?
Don’t worry if your on the fence, SCOTUS was too for 32 years
Eddings V Oklahoma: SCOTUS ruled age should be a mitigating factor when deciding capital punishment cases for Juvenile offenders (consider the defendant being a kid in their favor)
Monty Eddings was 16 when he shot and killed Oklahoma highway patrolman Larry Crabtree
Thompson v Oklahoma: SCOTUS ruled 16 is the minimum age for capital punishment
William Thompson was 15 when he and his 3 friends shot, stabbed, slice and discarded the body of Thompson’s former brother in law
While a heinous crime, SCOTUS ruled death penalty for juveniles under 16 is unconstitutional
Reasoning was that there are a lot of things a juvenile under 16 cannot do such a vote, marry without consent, and purchase alcohol and thus juveniles of the same age (under 16) should also not be eligible for the death penalty
The court essentially placed an age limit where juveniles were “adult enough” to face the death penalty
Stanford v Kentucky: SCOTUS considers the fate of Kevin Stanford who was 17 years old when he is convicted of murder, Sodomy, Robbery and the receipt of stolen property
Older than Thompson by one year… is that adult enough to face execution?
SCOTUS rules that yes, 17 is adult enough due to disparities in what age is adult enough. SCOTUS ruled under Thompson, 16 isn’t adult enough, but not willing to definitively say 17 us and thus decision of capital punishment for 17-year-olds should be left to the states
It is constitutional though
In Re Stanford: SCOTUS refuses to hear any further issues of age and capital punishment
basically, we are happy with our past decisions and are thus happy with where we are at
What do you think of reasoning and idea of 16 not being adult enough and 17 being adult enough?
In Thompson the court noted 16 year old can not do a lot of things and thus should not face capital punishment
is there a difference
Roper V Simmons (2005): SCOTUS again considers what age is adult enough to receive the death penalty
Christopher Simmons is 17, in 1993, when he conspires to burglarize and murder Shirley Crook
He also brags about the killing
SCOTUS rules that it is unconstitutional
SCOTUS decision in Roper
Justice Kennedy suggested that:
Juveniles are inherently immature and lack a sense of responsibility
Juveniles (under 18) are more susceptible to peer influences, especially negative peer influences
Juvenile personality traits are not as well formed as adult personality traits (especially foresight)
For these reasons, the court decides to not execute juveniles
Justice Kennedy utilizes testimony from leading juvenile cognitive development experts
Cognitive maturation does not reach completion until early 20s
Juvenile mind is underdeveloped; we do not put mentally ill individuals to death due to underdeveloped mind
One More Step
Life without the possibility of patrol (mandatory sentence) Is a capital punishment
Miller v Alabama (2012): SCOTUS considers life w/o patrol for juveniles
Cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson
Both are 14 at the time of the incidents, both faced mandatory life sentences for their crimes
Justice Kagan delivered the court’s opinion noting that due to the specific issues noted in Roper juveniles should also not face mandatory life sentences
Juveniles are inherently different than adults
Same cognitive research noted in Roper
Mandatory life eliminates discretion to consider mitigating factors… a hallmark of juveniles court
Montgomery v Louisianaia (2016): Miller Ruling is applied retroactively to prisoners who were sentenced when kids
Court cases to know for exam
Kent v US
In Re Gault
Roper V Simmons
Miller v Alabama
Montgomery v Louisiana
Thompson