Juvenile justice consists of a series of stages found within police departments, juvenile courts, and juvenile corrections agencies where decisions are made about how to respond to youths who have engaged in, or who are alleged to have engaged in, illegal behavior. Although the decision-making stages that make up juvenile justice are often called the “juvenile justice system,” the extent to which juvenile justice decision making represents a systematic response to juvenile offending is a matter of debate. Although there is some degree of coordination between police, juvenile courts, and juvenile corrections agencies, juvenile justice also involves considerable conflict between individual decision makers over differing ideas about why youths engage in delinquent behavior and what should be done about it (Elrod and Ryder 2005). Nevertheless, juvenile justice does have some distinct features that differentiate it from the adult justice process. These features consist of an historic concern with rehabilitation, serving the best interests of children, and procedural informality, and they continue to influence juvenile justice decision making today.
The Development of the Juvenile Court and Juvenile Justice
The development of a separate justice process for minors is an historically recent development. It was not until 1899 that the first juvenile court was established in Cook County, Illinois, although specialized correctional institutions for youths began to appear in the United States in the mid-1820s. Although children were often treated like adults when they broke the law and were placed in adult jails and prisons prior to the establishment of the juvenile court, in other cases youths were spared the harshest punishments because of their age. Indeed, a primary impetus for the development of the juvenile court was a desire on the part of those concerned with children’s issues in the late 1800s (often called the “child savers”) to reform and control the many wayward and criminal poor children who populated the country’s growing urban areas. The perceived need to control and help youths who made up what was seen by many as an expanding “dangerous class” of persons posing a threat to domestic tranquility, changing ideas about childhood, the belief that it was possible to reform wayward children into productive members of society, and a concern that adult courts often failed to control problem children all contributed to the development of the first juvenile courts during the first quarter of the twentieth century.
It is worth noting that the new juvenile courts were civil or chancery courts and not criminal courts concerned with punishment. To reform and control problem youths, juvenile courts were given jurisdiction over a broad range of behaviors. These behaviors consisted of criminal or what in many jurisdictions are referred to as delinquent offenses. These included offenses that are also illegal for adults (for example, robbery, theft, arson) as well as status offenses, or offenses that are only illegal for minors (for example, running away from home, truancy, incorrigibility). Also, juvenile court was presided over by a special judge in a closed courtroom and used probation officers to provide services and exercise control over youths.
The legal doctrine that served as the basis of the court was parenspatriae, which essentially means the state acting as parent or protector of children. Because the juvenile court was seen as the protector of children, informality rather than due process was emphasized. This meant that in early courts youths often had no legal representation, children and their parents were not advised of rights, and records of hearings were not kept. In many instances children were helped by early juvenile courts; in other instances children and their families were harmed by courts that provided them few if any due process protections.
The informality that characterized the early juvenile courts began to receive the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1960s and 1970s. In a series of important cases beginning with Kent v. United States (1966), the Supreme Court scrutinized the informal nature of juvenile courts and mandated increased due process protections for youths, particularly those at risk of institutional placement. Perhaps the most important of these cases, In re Gault (1967), was illustrative of the potential harm that could be inflicted by juvenile courts that had broad discretionary power to punish children but afforded clients few due process protections. The case involved a fifteen-year-old male, Gerald Gault, who was taken into custody and detained on the verbal complaint of a neighbor who alleged that he and another boy had made an obscene phone call to her residence. After two court hearings that were not recorded, where there was little advance warning of the hearings and the charges were not specified (Gerald was charged simply with being a delinquent), where Gerald was not afforded legal representation and the complainant was not present so that Gerald could challenge her allegations, the juvenile court judge sentenced Gerald to the state industrial school for boys until he was twenty-one unless he was released earlier by the court. In effect, Gerald received a sentence of up to six years for an offense that could have resulted in a maximum sentence of two months in jail and a $50 fine had he been an adult. The majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court chided the juvenile court for its lack of due process and required juvenile courts to provide youths with the following due process rights where juveniles were at risk of institutional placement: (1) the right to reasonable notice of charges, (2) the right to counsel, (3) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and (4) the right against self-incrimination.
In a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court case, In re Winship (1970), the Court ruled that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was required in juvenile cases. However, in the following year an opinion in still another case involving juvenile court practice, McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971), the Court indicated that juveniles were not entitled to jury trials because juries were unnecessary in deciding the facts of a case and they might go too far in taking away from the unique aspects of the juvenile court. Collectively, these cases were important because they extended due process protections to juveniles and changed in important ways the operation of juvenile courts. However, while these cases have had a significant influence on juvenile court practice, the courts continue to employ an informality that is not found in criminal courts. The fact that juveniles have been given many, but not all, of the due process protections afforded adults does not mean that these due process protections are understood by youths and their parents or made available to youths. For example, research indicates that juveniles may not have a clear understanding of the meaning and significance of police interrogations and Miranda warnings (Robin 1982; Holtz 1987). Furthermore, there is other evidence that many youths lack counsel in juvenile court hearings or that available counsel is inadequate (Puritz et al. 1995).
Contemporary Juvenile Justice
Three types of agencies comprise the juvenile justice process: police, courts, and corrections. Although police are the gatekeepers of the formal juvenile justice process, juvenile justice processing typically begins with citizens who come into contact with youths who are believed to be involved in delinquent or problem behaviors. Citizens exercise discretion and make decisions to handle problems themselves, ignore them, ask parents to get involved, or contact the police. Once the police are involved, they also exercise considerable discretion, though police decisions about how to respond to youths are influenced by a variety of factors. The most important of these factors is the seriousness of the offense. As offense seriousness increases, so does the likelihood of arrest, but it is important to note that most police-juvenile encounters do not involve serious offenses. In these instances, a variety of other factors have been found to influence police decision making, including departmental policies and culture (more legalistic departments are more likely to formally process juvenile suspects), the wishes of complainants (police are sensitive to citizens’ demands that they make arrests), demeanor (youths who are hostile to the police or unusually difficult are more likely to be taken into custody), race and social class (in some jurisdictions there is evidence that blacks or lower socioeconomic status individuals are more likely to be arrested), and gender (research indicates that females are more likely to be formally processed for status offenses than males) (Elrod and Ryder 2005).
Two things are clear regarding police interactions with juveniles. First, police arrest a large number of youths each year. In 2002, police arrested some 1.6 million persons under eighteen years of age. Second, when police take youths into custody, they are more likely to formally process juveniles today than in the past. For example, in 1972 only 52% of the juveniles taken into police custody were referred to juvenile court. However, by 2002, almost 73% were referred to juvenile court by the police (McGuire and Pastore 2005).
Contemporary law enforcement agencies employ a variety of strategies and programs in response to youths’ delinquent behavior. As noted earlier, police exercise considerable discretion in their handling of juvenile cases. Options open to the police include warnings, requesting that parents or guardians take appropriate actions, referring cases to diversion programs (some of which are operated by police departments), or making referrals to juvenile court. Larger police departments often have specialized juvenile or gang units that deal with more serious types of delinquent behavior or deal with youths involved in gang activity.
Although law enforcement agencies have an important responsibility to deal with youths who engage in illegal behavior, many are also involved in a variety of activities designed to prevent or deter delinquency. Many departments assign school resource officers (SROs) to schools where they may engage in a variety of prevention activities within schools and the surrounding communities. Also, many law enforcement agencies staff programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.). These programs are led by police officers who facilitate activities intended to help students develop the necessary skills to avoid experimentation with tobacco and other drugs, including alcohol, or to lessen the likelihood that youths will become involved in gangs and delinquent behavior. Unfortunately, evaluations of these programs completed to date have not shown them to be completely effective (Esbensen and Osgood 1999;
Rosenbaum 1994). In addition, other police agencies have implemented youth-oriented community policing programs in their jurisdiction. These programs are designed to provide coordinated responses to youth and family problems that may involve the police, social service agencies, health departments, schools, and other agencies.
When police take formal action in delinquent cases, officers complete the necessary paperwork and forward it to the intake department. Juvenile court intake can be located in the prosecuting or district attorney’s office, a juvenile probation department, or within the juvenile court itself depending on the state. Regardless of where it is located, the primary mission of intake is to make decisions about how cases should be handled. Intake personnel also exercise discretion. Like police officers, discretion on the part of intake personnel is bounded by court guidelines. In the case of intake, these guidelines typically specify the types of cases that must be formally processed. Nevertheless, court guidelines usually allow intake personnel considerable discretion in deciding how cases should be handled. Options available to intake staff may include a warning and dismissal of the case, referral to a diversion program, a request for the detention of the juvenile, or authorization of a petition for formal court action. A petition is a legal document that specifies the charges against the juvenile and requests that a formal court hearing take place. In 2000, approximately 58% of all cases handled by juvenile courts resulted in a formal hearing (Stahl, Finnegan, and Kang 2003).
In most cases, juveniles taken into custody (arrested) by the police are released to their parents pending further court action. However, in some instances police request that the juvenile be detained. Depending on the jurisdiction, juveniles may be detained in a juvenile detention facility or an adult jail. In recent years there has been an effort to remove youths from adult jails. The placement of juveniles in adult jails often creates significant problems for jail administrators who must ensure that there is sight and sound separation of adult and juvenile prisoners. Adult jails typically lack the staff and programming necessary to meet adolescents’ needs, there have been many instances of abuse of juveniles in adult jails, and juveniles are at much greater risk of self-destructive behaviors in jail settings than in juvenile detention facilities (Memory 1989; Schwartz 1989).
Regardless of where juveniles are detained, state laws require juvenile courts to hold detention hearings within a specified time, usually twenty-four to seventy-two hours. The purpose of the detention hearing is to determine if there is probable cause to hold the youth, to decide the appropriateness of filing a petition requesting formal court action, and to consider the youth’s placement pending formal court action if the petition is filed.
In addition to intake screening, typically several pretrial events occur prior to formal juvenile court action. In many courts preliminary hearings or arraignments are common. At these hearings the charges are reviewed, the parties are advised of their due process rights, a plea may be entered, and a date for the adjudication (trial stage of the juvenile justice process) may be set. Also, plea bargaining and preadjudication conferences are common in juvenile courts. In many instances the parties are encouraged to come to a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter before the court, and it is not uncommon for agreements to be reached that allow youths to avoid adjudication where they receive a formal delinquency record. In 2000, for example, only 38% of the youths processed in juvenile courts were actually adjudicated (Stahl, Finnegan, and Kang 2003).
One special type of case screening involves the transfer of juveniles to adult court for trial. Each state and the District of Columbia have some mechanism (commonly called waiver transfer, certification, or remand) by which certain juveniles, sometimes as young as thirteen years of age, can be tried as adults. Although the options vary from state to state, there are three types of waiver mechanisms: (1) judicial waiver, where a hearing is held in juvenile court to consider waiver; (2) prosecutorial waiver, where the prosecuting attorney decides to file the case in adult or juvenile court; and (3) legislative waiver, or statutory exclusion, which requires certain cases to be tried in criminal court. In each of these three instances, before a juvenile can be waived, he or she must meet certain age and offense criteria. For example, state law may require that a youth be at least thirteen years of age and charged with a class A felony.
The adjudication is a critical hearing in the juvenile court because it represents the fact-finding or trial stage of the juvenile justice process. It is the point at which the youth comes under the continuing jurisdiction of the state and receives a formal delinquency record. In most instances, adjudications are not contested hearings. Those cases that are contested proceed much like trials in criminal court, and in some states juveniles have a right to a jury trial, though these are rare even in states that allow youths this right. If the juvenile is adjudicated, it is common for the hearing officer (for example, judge, referee, master, or commissioner) to enter temporary orders pending the disposition.
The disposition is the juvenile court equivalent to sentencing in criminal court. Prior to the disposition it is common for a presentence or predisposition investigation to be completed by a probation officer. This report will often contain a social history of the youth and may include information on the youth’s family background, school performance and behavior, neighborhood conditions and peer associations, delinquency history, and the results of psychological tests, substance use assessments, and other information felt to be pertinent to the case. The predisposition report also contains recommendations regarding the appropriate disposition in the case— recommendations that are usually followed by the court. At this stage of the juvenile justice process, the court puts in place a plan for responding to the youth’s illegal behavior that can include a variety of rules and expectations that both youths and parents are obligated to follow.
The most common disposition rendered by juvenile courts is probation, the disposition given in approximately 70% of all adjudications in 2000 (Stahl, Finnegan, and Kang 2003). Probation is a type of community-based corrections option that consists of the supervised release of a youth into the community under the supervision of the court. However, the actual practice of probation varies considerably across and within jurisdictions. As a result, probation may entail regular contacts with probation officers or infrequent contacts. It also may mean that youths and their families receive a number of services from probation staff or as a result of the efforts of probation officers, or that they receive little assistance. Many jurisdictions have developed intensive probation programs in recent years as well as house arrest programs, day treatment programs, and evening or day reporting centers that are designed, in part, to ensure more regular supervision of some juvenile offenders. In addition, probation is often combined with other community-based programs such as substance abuse treatment, restitution and community service, outdoor experiential programs, and group or foster home placement.
Another option that may be exercised by juvenile courts is institutional or residential placement. In 2000, almost 24% of youths who were adjudicated were placed in some type of out-of-home placement at disposition (Stahl, Finnegan, and Kang 2003). These placements can consist of a variety of residential settings (although the options available to courts will vary across jurisdictions), including detention centers, boot camps, substance abuse treatment programs, state training schools or youth development centers, farms, ranches, and mental health placements. Some of these placements are privately operated programs while others are publicly operated, and some are long-term programs while others are short term.
Although a wide variety of community and institutional corrections programs are available for youths across the country, juvenile corrections continues to face a number of serious problems such as disproportionate minority confinement (DMC), a lack of quality programming and resident abuse in some institutions, and a failure to adequately monitor and assess the extent to which programs are meeting their stated goals and objectives. Nevertheless, effective prevention, community-based, and institutional programs do exist, including programs for serious juvenile offenders. These programs prevent youths from engaging in initial acts of delinquency and prevent recidivism among youths who have already begun delinquent careers (Howell 2003).
