Chapter Eight

Handling the Juvenile Delinquent

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1.      To trace the development of today’s juvenile justice system.

2.      To know the stages of juvenile justice processing, and the options for handling the juvenile at each stage.

3.      To be aware of the juvenile’s legal rights, and procedures for protecting these rights, at each stage of processing.

4.      To be aware of recent changes in juvenile law and in the operation of the police and court agencies.

5.      To understand the debate about the appropriate role of the juvenile court and the law in responding to status offenders.

6.      To be aware of discrimination in police and court decision making.

7.      To be aware of key dilemmas facing police and court personnel, including social workers who work within the system of who accept referrals from employees of the system.

CHAPTER OUTLINE:

·        Several different occupational groups are involved in the processing of juvenile offenders.

·        In this chapter, we examine their philosophy, their duties, and the processes they use, individually and jointly, when handling the delinquent.

Origin and Development of the Juvenile Court

·        The legal basis for the juvenile court can be traced back to the concept of parents patriae, meaning “the parent of the country.”

·        A further legal basis of the juvenile court derived from the presumed innocence of children under seven years of age.

·        Other developments heralded the advent of the juvenile court such as establishment of special institutions for children, probation for adult and juvenile offenders, and the influence of Jean Jacques Racques Rousseau and Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi.

·        There is some disagreement concerning who actually established the first juvenile court.

·        The first comprehensive juvenile court act is considered to be the bill passed by the Illinois legislature called “An Act to Regulate the Treatment and Control of Dependent, Neglected, and Delinquent Children.”

·        Only one court was established in Cook County.

·        The professed objective of the juvenile proceeding was not to contest a criminal charge but to determine what could be accomplished in the best interests of the child.

·        Initially, juvenile courts across the country developed differently, nevertheless, the Illinois act was copied more or less accurately in several of its major features.

·        The juvenile court in the essential form established in 1899 remained operant and free of serious challenge until 1966.

·        In the sixties there was a dramatic rise in juvenile crime and the philosophy and procedures culminated in various U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which threatened to alter radically the nature of the handling of juveniles in the future.

·        In Kent vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that when juveniles are being transferred into the adult system, they must be given fundamental due process protection.

·        In In re Winship, the Supreme Court ruled that due process required the juvenile courts to follow the criminal court standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” as opposed to the civil court standard of “preponderance of the evidence” in establishing guilt.

·        The majority of Supreme Court rulings do not fully reject the idea of parents patriae but require the extension of due process along with the principle of parents patriae.

·        In McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court ruled that the concept of due process as applied to juvenile court proceedings does not include the right to trial by jury.

·        In Breed v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that a juvenile cannot be adjudicated delinquent then subsequently waived to the adult system.

·        In Schall v. Martin, the Court again decided that juveniles did not have the same protections as adults for they could be denied bail and held for the protection of themselves and society.

A Trend Towards Punitive Juvenile Justice

·        Since the 1980’s, there has been a growing trend emphasizing law and order rather than the traditional emphasis on rehabilitation.

·        This increasing punitiveness was reflected in the 1990’s through various laws passed by state legislatures; generally there have been five areas of recent change: transfer provisions, sentencing authority, confidentiality, victim’s rights, and correctional programming.

·        Treating juveniles more like adults has also been reflected in the purpose clauses of many states’ juvenile codes; these purpose clauses use restorative justice language.

·        The most extreme example of the shift toward treating juveniles more like adults is found in cases that have been waived to adult court and for which the juvenile has been sentenced to death.

·        In Thompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that immaturity remains a potential mitigating factor in sentencing decisions involving the death penalty.

Debates Over Handling Status Offenders

·        In some jurisdictions, status offenses are handled through usual juvenile court procedures, but in others the petitions and proceedings are separate for youth designated as Persons or Children in Need of Supervision (PINS or CHINS).

·        In 1974, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act specified that states’ receipt of federal funds for delinquency programs was dependent on reform in the handling of status offenses; specifically status offenders were to be removed from institutions.

·        Opponents of the removal of status offenses from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court claim that such action produces a situation in which no agency would be empowered to detain a runaway child, for instance, against his or her will.

·        The current difficulty of the courts is the unwillingness of the community to provide alternatives to detention for their juvenile offenders.

The Result of Changes in Juvenile Laws and Procedures

·        Holden and Kapler summarized the progress of states and their efforts on deinstitutionalizing status offenders (DSO); many states and territories are in compliance with the DSO mandate.

·        Schneider assessed the effect of diverse legal changes in the state of Washington; the success of the Washington reforms are mixed and, in some cases, uncertain.

The Police and the Juvenile

·        The police are the first major component in the justice system to deal with the juvenile delinquent; current statistics show that a large percentage of arrests, including a significant number of those for serious offenses, involve juveniles.

·        In previous times, since police officers lived in their districts and knew local residents, they could work with juveniles in a different manner.  Increased urbanization, however, brought increasing caseloads which led to the routinization and impersonalization of police functions.  This and other matters led to the formation of the specialized juvenile unit.

·        The juvenile unit varies in size depending on the type of police department and the size and nature of the community.

·        Although the juvenile officer’s responsibilities depend to a great extent on the size of the department, some features of such work are common to most departments.

·        The police have a great deal of discretionary power.  Police officers arrest approximately 100 out of 1000 of all juveniles they come into contact with; Timothy Crowe argued that the police are more a part of the community rather than the juvenile justice system.

·        Many factors determine whether a youth is to be processed or not and whether he or she may eventually end up in the formal juvenile justice system.

Detaining and Taking into Custody

·        In most states the law of arrest is the same for juveniles and adults, and thus an officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspected juvenile has committed an offense; mere suspicion is not in itself probable cause, but absolute certainty is not required either.

·        After the juvenile has been taken into custody, certain procedural rights and safeguards must be considered (e.g., Escobedo v. Illinois; Miranda v. Arizona).

·        In most states, the officer who takes the child into custody is also responsible for notifying the child’s parents.

·        In People v. Lara, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the legal competence of a juvenile to waive her or his rights should be determined by the “totality of the circumstances doctrine.”

·        In Fare v. Michael C. and California v. Prysock, the Supreme Court supported the actions of the police in following due process procedures to protect the rights of juveniles.

·        After parents have been notified, the juvenile still has the same constitutional right as an adult-the right to contact an attorney or have any one of his or her choosing presenting during an interview.

Search and Seizure

·        The law governing search and seizure is essentially the same for both adults and juveniles.

·        The one area of controversy that pertains to adolescents but not to adults is the right of school officials to search students and their belongings on school property.

·        In People v. Overton, the trial court ruled that despite the defect in the original warrant, the police could obtain evidence from the lockers because the administrator gave permission for their search, and the lockers were the property of the school.

·        In New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Supreme Court ruled that school officials do not need “probable cause” to conduct a search, just reasonable groups to believe the student has broken a school rule or the law.

Fingerprinting, Photographing, Lineups, and Keeping Records

·        Fingerprinting and photographing juveniles, as well as keeping records, are sources of controversy; the controversy about records revolves around the question of who is to see them and what data should be recorded.

·        If a juvenile is requested to appear in a lineup, a counsel is entitled to be present as a result of the decision of U.S. v. Wade.

·        Many persons object to photographing, fingerprint, and keeping records on juveniles because it is too akin to adult criminal proceedings.

Disposition of Offenders Taken into Custody

·        The decision whether to take a juvenile into custody will be based on the police officer’s investigation, which will include the circumstances surrounding the offense, the offense itself, and an assessment of the youngster’s family situation.

·        The U.S. Supreme Court has not decided many cases relevant to the disposition of offenders taken into custody so it is only state legislation and case law that govern pretrial process.

·        One U.S. Supreme Court decision that has bearing on the pretrial release concerns preventive detention; in Schall v. Martin, the Court found that it was legal for a child to be detained for the protection of self and others.

The Juvenile Court-Intake and Processing

·        Most juvenile courts are part of the circuit, district, superior, county, common pleas, probate, or municipal courts; the jurisdiction generally includes delinquency, neglect, and dependency cases; however, adoption, appointment of guardians for minors, determination of custody, and termination of parental rights are also included in juvenile court jurisdiction.

·        The juvenile court can receive funding from both the state and local jurisdiction.

·        There are considerable variations in the philosophy, structure, and procedures of juvenile courts across the country.

·        Even though the juvenile court’s original intent was to rehabilitate rather than punish, a lack of resources, lack of cooperation, and lack of insight have often turned it into a second-rate agency for processing juveniles.

The Intake Division of the Juvenile Court

·        The procedure of the juvenile court begins with a petition against the child, which usually originates with a law enforcement agency.

·        The intake or initial screening is usually performed by an intake unit, controlled and supervised by the juvenile court, which consists of one or more probation officers.

·        The intake worker reviews the case and the circumstances, verifies the facts, and usually prepares a brief social history of the court; the case often goes no further than this, and the determination is made to dismiss and release the child, to admonish and dismiss, or possibly to require informal probation supervision by one of the probation officers.

·        The intake and screening process is an important aspect of the juvenile justice system; when used properly it can effectively curtail or interrupt much delinquent behavior before it becomes serious.

Juvenile Court Processing Beyond Intake

·        If the intake unit has placed the child on informal probation, but the child is having difficult and it is deemed necessary that further action be taken, the probation officer can initiate the petition.

·        The petition, which states the circumstances of the child’s situation, precedes the preliminary hearing, which takes place in the presence of a judge.

Adjudication Hearing

·        At the adjudication hearing, which is considered a part of the preliminary hearing, the youth is questioned about the offense, the circumstances, and the facts that have been presented.

·        If there is a finding of delinquency (or neglect, and so on), a new court date is set for the disposition hearing.

Disposition Hearing

·        The major requirement is that the youngster meets with the probation officer regularly for a specific period of time.

·        The length of probation can range from a few months to a few years.

·        If the probationer abides by the rules set by the court and satisfactorily completes the requirements, probation is terminated; if the youth is not successful on probation and becomes involved in recurring difficulties, another plan may be made.

·        In some states the court has jurisdiction over aftercare services, while in other states they are the responsibility of such organizations as the Department of Youth Services or Social Services.

·        There is a current move to allow the transfer of juveniles to criminal court; transfer provisions can be grouped into three general categories: judicial waiver, concurrent jurisdiction, and statutory exclusion.

·        In 23 states, there is no minimum age for juveniles to be transferred to criminal court.

·        The transfer of juveniles through prosecutorial decisions has been particularly controversial for standards are often vague and prosecutors are typically more oriented toward punishment than the juvenile court’s original objective rehabilitation.

Bias in Decision Making

·        In response to the striking overrepresentation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system, many people have raised the possibility that there is bias in the decision-making process.

·        At one or more of the decision points, minority and/or lower-class youth are more likely than others to be treated harshly than majority youth with similar offenses.

·        Based on research funded by OJJDP, about two-thirds of the studies found harder treatment of racial minorities at some decision-making point; in some cases, race had an influence in just selected jurisdictions of the state, and in others it had an influence because the jurisdictions with larger minority populations responded more harshly to juveniles than did other jurisdictions.

·        Based on a study of 50,000 juvenile cases in Florida, youth who are at the adjudication stage have already gone through a recommendation for formal process that treats blacks more harshly than whites.  The problem is compounded at the adjudication stage where black minor offenders are more often designated as delinquent then are white minor offenders with similar records.

·        Combined with the restorative justice trend, discriminatory treatment can place minority youth at a very high risk for the serious consequences of adult processing.

·        Curran also shed light on the nature of bias against females.  He identified three periods in the development of the Philadelphia Court system; during the phase of conservatism fewer girls are diverted from the formal court process.

·        Adler’s study revealed that, generally, diversion programs have tended to draw more female than male minor offenders into the system from those youths who normally would not have been involved at all.

·        There is a reverse bias against boys in the area of detention decisions; boys are additionally more likely to be arrested for serious offenses than girls are.

CLASSROOM DISCUSSION:

1.      How would the various stages of juvenile justice system processing be different if the courts did not adhere to the idea of parents patriae?

2.      Based on the research information in Chapter 2, is there justification for special handling of status offender cases?  For each stage of processing, how should status offenders be handled?

3.      What beliefs about children, and the differences between boys and girls, are the basis of juvenile law and of police and court procedures.

4.      What are the dilemmas facing police and court personnel, including social workers, as they try to provide individual treatment to each child and to protect each child’s legal rights?

5.      Some people have argued that since the juvenile court is moving towards a more punitive justice approach, it should be abolished.  The criminal court can take age into account as a mitigating factor just as well as the juvenile court, and the criminal court provides better protection of the offender’s rights.  Develop a list of points in support and not in support of this position.