Juvenile Justice CHAPTER 1 Juvenile Justice in Historical Perspective 1 Juvenile Justice Historically A Hammarabi s Code 2270 BC Discussed runaways children who disowned parents and sons who cursed fathers Roman and Canon law made distinction between juveniles and adults based on age of responsibility Age of responsibility Talmud specified conditions under which immaturity was considered in imposing punishment No corporal punishment prior to puberty Females 12 Males 13 No capital punishment under 20 Muslim Children under 17 exempt from death penalty B Canon Law Roman Law Twelve Tables 5th century BC Children criminally responsible for violations of law Some punishments less severe for children Children incapable of speech spared under Roman law later al children under 7 Infans Proximus infantia Proximus pubertati Infantia fixed at 7 exempt from criminal liability Legal age of puberty boys 14 Girls 12 Based on understanding of right and wrong C Common Law Late 11th and 12th centuries Law based on custom use Most significant Under 7 incapable of forming criminal intent Between 7 14 not subject to criminal sanctions unless demonstrated they formed criminal intent understood consequences of actions and could distinguish from right and wrong D Mens Rea guilty mind ex not only did an adult take life of another human without justification but also intended to take the life Based on the criminal intent E Chancery Courts 15th century Under guidance of king s chancellor created to consider petitions for those in need of special aid or intervention and to grant relief Women children because of divorce death of spouse or F Parens Patriae abandonment parent of the country King exercised this right to act in loco parentis in the place of parents to provide services for women and children King assumed responsibility for those under his rule to provide parental care for children without parents assist women Includes removing children from home if necessary 2 Development in America A Separation of Juvenile from Adults 1825 Society for Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency advocated separating them Caused concern among reformers fearing criminal information could be passed to juveniles from adults Concern that brutality directed by adults toward juveniles Few juveniles benefited from imprisonment Many appealed to jurors to escape punishment Responded emotionally and sympathetically overlooked B Pauperism 1818 NYC juvenile delinquency had first public recognition 1824 1828 development of institutions for juveniles Oriented toward education and treatment not punishment Still had whippings silence loss of rewards Strict regiments strong work ethic C In Loco Parentis Institutional custodians acted as parental substitutes NY House of Refuge 1825 could bind out wards as apprentices with consent of child Consent may not have been voluntary alternatives not D House of Refuge pleasant By mid 1800s declared great success Misfits turned into productive hardworking members of society Disputed claims by 1850 declared failures when it came to rehabilitating delinquents Simonsen and Gordon In 1849 NYC police chief warned that numbers of vicious and vagrant youth were increasing and something must be done America moved from time of house of refuge into time of preventative agencies and reform schools E First Juvenile Courts Reform Schools Chicago Reform School Act 1855 followed in 1879 by industrial schools for dependent children Not unanimously approved 1870 Illinois Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the commitment of a child to Chicago Reform School restraint on liberty without proof of crime conviction of offense 1888 Illinois Industrial School Act held to be unconstitutional previously ruled state had right under parens patriae to divest a child of liberty if no other lawful protector was around Little evidence that rehab was being properly accomplished Picotta Concluded that although sometimes inmates benefited and reformatories were not complete failures the evidence showed that the state was not a benevolent parent Failure of reform schools increased interest in legality of proceedings allowing juveniles to be in these institutions 19th century challenges concerning legality of failure to provide due process for youthful offenders Day due process required before incarceration Say unnecessary to have due process because purpose was treatment not punishment Child savers movement those who exhibited a genuine concern for the welfare of children stressed value of rehab and prevention through education and training 1870s separate trials in several states for juveniles 1899 Cook County Illinois first juvenile family court appeared Delinquent child had ceased to be a criminal and has status of child in need of care protection and discipline directed toward rehab Growth of women s suffrage campaign against child labor fight for 8 hour work day Children considered as persons with less fully developed morality and cognition Emphasis on legal rights declined emphasis on how why juvenile came into crime how to treat rehabilitate juvenile main focus Focus on offender not offense Court to act in best interest of children in noncriminal proceedings Basic philosophy in first court reinforce right of state to act in loco parentis if child was neglected dependent or otherwise in need of supervision intervention 1917 juvenile court legislation passed in all but 3 states 1932 about 600 juvenile courts in US 1945 all states passed legislation for individual juvenile courts Juvenile courts exercised considerable discretion moved further from legality corrections and punishment toward prevention treatment rehab Opposed by some felt informality was abused and legality 3 Era of Socialized Juvenile Justice Progressive Era 1900 1918 lost 4 Case Law A Holmes 1955 B Kent 1961 Because juvenile courts are not criminal courts constitutional rights guaranteed to accused adults do not apply to juveniles 16 year old charged with rape and robbery Confessed and judge waived case to criminal court for full investigation Found guilty sentenced to 30 90 years in prison Lawyer argued Kent was denied rights because he was a juvenile Court ruled this was invalid and that he was entitled to hearing including essentials of due process fair treatment required by 14th Judge should have provided reasons for waiver Less legal protection than adults less treatment rehab than promised C Gault 1964 15 year old accused of obscene phone call Sentenced to