A History of the Juvenile Justice System in the United States

The juvenile justice system was created in the late 1800s and was designed to punish youth offenders (History of America’s juvenile justice system, 2008). The early juvenile court system had distinctive procedures, namely : a) Diminished criminal responsibility of juveniles, explained as a lack of their physical and mental maturity, which brought a presumption about them and a belief that they were not capable of committing a crime; b) A child welfare approach, which was based on the assertion of needs by analyzing the social background of the offender, rather than determining guilt or innocence; and c) Informal or family-like procedures, which discarded the rules of criminal procedure and brought about the rehabilitative ideal.

The main purpose of this ideal was to exchange trials for hearings (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011). All these procedures were based on the parens patriae doctrine, which described government’s duty to be concerned with the welfare of certain social groups, mainly orphan children (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011).

However, five major court cases in the history of the juvenile justice system diminished the rehabilitative ideal and parens patriae of the traditional juvenile court.

Kent v. United States (1966): Moris Kent, age 16, while on probation, was charged with robbery and rape (History of America’s JJS, 2008). The juvenile court judge gave the case a judicial waiver after making a full investigation and rejecting his attorney’s request for a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011). After Kent was found guilty in criminal court on six counts and sentenced to 30 to 90 years in prison, his attorney filed the official writ to justify offender’s confinement (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011). Eventually, after the rejection of appeal, Kent’s attorney appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it ruled for a hearing on the motion of waiver with attorney’s representation and access to all records involved (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011). The denial of basic procedural rights and absence of a full investigation were confirmed by the Supreme Court (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011).

In re Gault (1967): Gerald Gault, age 15, allegedly made “obscene” remarks to an adult neighbor and, after an adjudication hearing, was committed to a training school (History of America’s JJS, 2008). Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the issue on the request of justification of the youth’s confinement by his attorney, and stated that the following rights should be duly respected: the right to notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the right to question witnesses, and the right to protect against self-incrimination (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011). The court’s rejection of the parens patriae doctrine reinforced the conclusion that there had been a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment due to the lack of due process (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011).

In re Winship (1970), Samuel Winship, aged 12, was committed to a training school after allegedly stealing $112 from a woman’s purse in a store (History of America’s JJS, 2008). Winship was deemed a delinquent youth after the court ruled based on the “preponderance of evidence” (burden of proof), rather than the adult criminal law standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011). After reviewing the case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the lower courts’ arguments and required the juvenile courts to operate on the same standards as adult courts. This was deemed essential for due process and fair treatment (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011).

McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971): Joseph McKeiver, aged 16, along with 20 to 30 other youths, allegedly stole 25 cents from three youths and was subsequently placed on probation after a jury trial was denied at the adjudicatory hearing (History of America’s JJS, 2008). The U.S. Supreme Court identified a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and procedural requirements at the juvenile court’s fact-finding stage (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011).

Breed v. Jones (1975): Gary Jones, aged 17, was charged with one count of robbery and faced charges for two additional robberies. His case was given a jurisdiction waiver to the criminal court (History of America’s JJS, 2008). After the juvenile court rejected the legal petition, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed a double violation of the Fifth Amendment clause and stated that the waiver could not occur after jeopardy was attached to the case (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011).

In addition, these cases shaped the procedures of the juvenile courts, making them more akin to criminal courts. However, the due process revolution recognized the need for a separate system and distinct approach to juvenile crime (Burfiend & Bartusch, 2011).

Did you like this example?

283

12