SOC
chuckwamg94
JuvenileCourt-1.pptHistory and Development of the Juvenile Court
Issues of Due Process
Issues of Legislative Changes
Organization and Operation of the Court
Somebody Else’s Children
- Award-winning California reporters Hubner and Wolfson were given unusual access to the confidential proceedings of family court in their hometown of San Jose, Calif.
- The raw, unmediated portrait of the machinery of juvenile justice, which includes the voices of the families and children as well as of service providers, reveals how intricate and interconnected the problems are in Juvenile Justice.
Hubner and Wolfson
- In the courtroom of a juvenile judge, we view the day-to-day routine of welfare, delinquency and child-placement hearings.
- The authors make the point that the press usually ignores the system until a crisis erupts.
- Their aim is to follow children and their families through shelters, courts and foster homes to see how the system really works.
Goal of the Book
- The thrust of ‘Somebody Else’s Children’ is a push for more government programs for juveniles and a plea for personal commitment through volunteering that is --"to make somebody else's children all our children."
- Are the author’s successful?
- What are your main ‘take aways’?
A Few Thoughts
- While the book is a bit dated – methamphetamines and opioids have overtaken crack cocaine as a drug of choice for most child welfare families, and timelines for reunfiication have shrunk in different jurisdictions.
- Further, many counties at least, has greatly improved how it does sexual abuse forensic interviews and support for sexual abuse victims.
Development of Juvenile Law and Procedure
- Not constitutionally guaranteed
- Supreme Court’s approach
- Before 1960s
- Due process arrives
- First juvenile court
Early Juvenile Law
- Philosophy of juvenile court
- Saving or punishing the child?
- 1899-1964—NO Supreme Court cases that deal with Juvenile offenders
- Change in philosophy in the supreme court because of consistent application of Parens Patriae
Development of Juvenile Law and Procedure
- Not constitutionally guaranteed
- Supreme Court’s approach
- Before 1960s
- Due process arrives
- First juvenile court
Functions of the Juvenile Court
Elements Involved in Pretrial
Intake
- Sources of referrals
- Do we hold them?
- Bail
- Do we charge her?
Intake
- Refers to the screening of cases by the juvenile court system
- Done by intake officers who are often probation officers
- Intake results in one of the following:
- send youth home with no further action
- divert youth to a social service agency
- petition to juvenile court and release until court date
- petition to court and hold in detention
- waive (transfer) case to adult court
Juveniles at
intake hearing
*
Photo taken from Senna and Siegel Juvenile Delinquency, 7th edition
The Petition
- If a child is not diverted or waived, he/she will be petitioned to juvenile court
- The petition is the formal legal complaint that initiates judicial action
- A petition can be brought by:
- a police officer
- social service agency
- family member or guardian
- If child admits to allegations, hearing is scheduled to initiate a treatment plan
- If child does not admit to facts of petition:
- hearing is scheduled to hear the facts
- predisposition report is prepared
- parents are notified of hearing date
Kent v. US (1966)
- The first ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that closely examined the operation of the juvenile courts was Kent v. United States (1966).
- Waiver and due process
- Only waiver hearings
- The court held that due process protections were necessary when juveniles were transferred to criminal court.
Major Juvenile Justice Court Cases
In re Gault: juvenile court proceedings must possess the
elements of basic fundamental fairness; juveniles have
the right:
- to a proper hearing
- to advance notification of that hearing and its purpose
- to be present at the hearing
- to confront/cross examine the accuser
- to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing
- to present evidence
- against self-incrimination
- to a formal ruling based on information presented in court
- to an appeal
The Legal Reform Years:
In re Gault (1967)
In the landmark case, In re Gault (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court gave juveniles a number of due process protections:
The right against self-incrimination
A right to adequate notice of charges against them
A right to confront and to cross-examine their accusers
continued…
In re Gault (1967)
- Due process at adjudicatory hearing?
- YES—rights
- Notice of charges
- Right to counsel
- Confront and cross-examine
- 5th Amendment right
- MOST IMPORTANT U.S. Supreme Court case on juvenile procedure
The Legal Reform Years:
The Juvenile Court After Gault
The court’s ruling in Gault and other cases not only increased procedural formality in juvenile court cases, but also shifted the traditional focus from the “whole child” to the child’s act.
From there, it was a short step to offense-based sentencing and punitive orientation.
The Legal Reform Years:
The Juvenile Court After Gault
Juvenile court procedures are still characterized by an informality that most people would find unacceptable if it were applied to adults in criminal court.
Adjudication
- Arraignment
- What are his rights?
- Plea bargaining
- Adjudication hearing
Adjudication Continued
- This is the hearing stage; counterpart to adult trial
- Rules of procedure, while more informal, are similar to that of adult trial
- Very little research on this process in the juvenile court
Disposition Stage
- Predisposition report
- Hearing
- Separate from adjudication
- Options
- Suspend judgment
- Probation
- Incarceration
Disposition
- This is the sentencing stage
- More comprehensive than in adult court; involves the development of an overall treatment plan for juvenile
- Little formal procedure established for this stage
- Disposition is based on a predispositional report
Types of Dispositions
Informal consent decree
Probation
Home detention
Court-ordered school attendance
Financial restitution
Fines
Community Service
Outpatient psychotherapy
Drug and Alcohol Treatment
Commitment to secure treatment
Residential community program
Foster home placement
Principles of Disposition
- Disposition is based on principle of least detrimental alternative
- this is another way of saying “what is in the best interest of the child”
- Recently, the interests of the community have been a major factor in dispositions
- Major controversy in dispositions is the indeterminate vs. determinate sentences
- Washington’s Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1977
- requires adjudicated juveniles aged 8-17 to spend some time in an institution
Factors that effect police decision making in the context of juveniles
- Seriousness of the offense
- Prior record
- Demeanor
- Social class
- Basic demographics:
- Age
- Race
- Gender
Appeals
- Appeal is not a constitutionally guaranteed right for juveniles, but most states provide for appeals by statute
- Two types of appeal:
- Direct
- involves directly appealing decision to an appellate court to review all of the facts
- may involve a trial de novo--a complete retrial of the original case
- Collateral--uses legal “writs” to challenge lower court decision
- Writ of Habeus Corpus
- Writ of Certiorari
In re Winship (1970)
- In re Winship
- Beyond a reasonable doubt applies
- Until the court’s ruling In re Winship (1970), the standard of proof typically employed at the adjudication stage of the juvenile justice process was a preponderance of evidence.
- In Winship, the court held that charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt where there is a possibility that a youth could be confined in a locked facility.
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971)
- McKeiver v. Pennsylvania
- No right to a jury trial
- Not all legal and due process rights are given to children and youth
- There are unique characteristics and societal or community interests
Waiver of Rights
- Fare v. Michael C.
- Facts
- Heresay
- Totality of the circumstances
- Right to attorney
- Notification of parents
- Presence of parents
Waiver of Rights (cont’d)
- Valid waiver depends on:
- Education
- Age
- Knowledge of charge
- Knowledge of system
- Consult with family
- Method and length of interrogation
Adult/Juvenile Comparison
| ADULTS | JUVENILES | |
| Comprehension of Miranda rights | 23%--inadequate understanding | 55%--inadequate understanding |
| Understanding the Words | 37%--did not understand words | 63%--did not understand words |
| Right to Counsel | 15%--did not understand right | 45%--did not understand right |
| Knowing Extent of Rights | -- | 62%--thought punished if silent |
Changing Beliefs
- Get tough policy
- Waiver to adult court
- Blended sentences
- Death penalty
Transfer to Adult Court
- All states now have a provision to transfer juveniles to adult courts when deemed appropriate
- Three models for adult transfer. They are not mutually exclusive:
- Concurrent jurisdiction--prosecutor is given total discretion
- Excluded offenses--statutorily identifies certain offenses as transferrable
- Judicial Waiver--the court (not prosecutor) waives jurisdiction
Pros and Cons of Adult Transfer
Some suggest that repeat, hardened offenders are beyond rehabilitation anyway
Need threat of tough punishment to deter them
Can you think of any other pros?
Opponents claim that that only half-hearted attempts have been made at rehabilitation
Claim that the transfer is a copout and admission of failure
Can you think of any other cons?
Waiver to Adult Court
- 1985-1994—waivers increased 71%
- Since 1994 has declined
- Still rare— <1% of all juvenile cases
- Same penalties as adults
Reasons for Waiver
- Removes juveniles charged with heinous, violent crimes
- Removes chronic offenders
- Greater penalties
Judicial Waiver
- Prosecutor files petition to waive
- Kent v. US
- Juvenile’s rights
- Factors the court will consider
Legislative Waiver
- Bypasses juvenile court altogether
- Types
- Statutory exclusion
- “Once an adult, always an adult”
Prosecutorial Waiver
- Prosecutor can file charges in either juvenile or adult court
- No waiver hearing
Ohio System of Waiver
- General rule—if < 16, not criminally responsible for conduct
- Juvenile delinquent
- > 7 but < 16
- Commits act that would be crime if committed by adult
Ohio System of Waiver
- Exceptions (felonies only)
- Called juvenile offender
- 13—only Murder 2nd
- 14 & 15 year olds—criminally responsible for following offenses
- Murder 2nd, Kidnapping 1st, Manslaughter 1st
- Arson 1st, Rape and sodomy 1st
- Robbery 1st and 2nd
- Criminal possession of loaded firearm on school grounds
Trends in Waiver Law
- Lowering age can be tried as adult
- More offenses that can be tried in adult court
- Legislative and prosecutorial waiver statutes increasing
Send to Adult Prisons for Serious Property Crimes
| STRONGLY AGREE | 6% |
| SOMEWHAT AGREE | 9% |
| NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE | 2% |
| SOMEWHAT DISAGREE | 22% |
| STRONGLY DISAGREE | 61% |
Send to Adult Prisons for Selling Large Amount of Drugs
| STRONGLY AGREE | 14% |
| SOMEWHAT AGREE | 17% |
| NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE | 2% |
| SOMEWHAT DISAGREE | 22% |
| STRONGLY DISAGREE | 46% |
Send to Adult Prisons for Serious Violent Crimes
| STRONGLY AGREE | 23% |
| SOMEWHAT AGREE | 21% |
| NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE | 3% |
| SOMEWHAT DISAGREE | 22% |
| STRONGLY DISAGREE | 34% |
Blended Sentencing
- Traditional setup
- Keep in juvenile court and get juvenile sanctions OR
- Waive to adult court and get adult penalties
- Blended sentencing
- Serious and violent juvenile offenders
- Juvenile or adult sanctions regardless of where case is processed
Diversion
- Refers to screening children from the court without judicial determination
- Also referred to as:
- nonjudicial adjustment
- informal disposition
- adjustment
- Can be employed by police departments or courts
- Encourages the child to participate in a specific program or activity with implied threat of further prosecution
Pros and Cons of Diversion
Helps juvenile justice system run smoothly
Allows for reallocation of resources to other programs
Costs less than institutionalization
Helps children avoid being stigmatized
Results in “widening the net”
Many children who would have before simply sent home are now formally in the system
Detention
- Refers to the holding of children in secure facilities until trial
- Pretrial detention normally used only when:
- child might be inclined to run away before trial
- child might be inclined to commit another serious crime
- child is a violator from another jurisdiction
- Alternatives to detention
- send the child home (most common pre-trial procedure)
- send to shelter care--less restrictive, normally for status offenders
- send to foster care--normally for abused and neglected children
Trends in Detention
- Increases in detention are increasing despite decreases in delinquency
- Reasons include:
- rise in serious crime
- increased link between drug use and delinquency
- younger children becoming involved in serious crimes
Problems With and Recommended Changes for Detention
Seen by some as incarceration without a trial
Due to discretion in who is and is not detained, there tends to be racial and class discrimination
May have a strong negative effect on child due to lack of rehabilitative services
Some jurisdictions still detain children in adult facilities
Some suggest prohibiting detention altogether
Should be reserved for juveniles representing a major threat to community
Should be some rehabilitative services provided
Organizational Structure of the Juvenile Court
Three Organizational Models
Juvenile Court Organized as Part of a Lower Court
- Most common of all structures
- Might be part of
- District Court
- City Court
- Recorders Court
- Because lower courts tend to have lower prestige, juvenile courts in these jurisdictions also suffer in importance
Juvenile Court Organized as Part of a Higher Court
- The higher court is typically a circuit court or superior court
- These are also courts that hear adult criminal cases
- Juvenile court generally has more stature in these jurisdictions
Juvenile Court Organized as an Independent Court System
- Typically, the independent court system is devoted to family court matters
- Some states organize this way on a state-wide basis; others, such as Alabama, allow separate jurisdictions to do so.
- Advantages of separate court:
- Can better serve sparsely populated areas
- Permits judicial personnel to deal exclusively with juvenile (and family) matters
- More effective in obtaining legislative funding
- Provides more consistency in dealing with family matters
- Major disadvantages is that restructuring costs can be substantial
Actors in the Juvenile Court
Actors in the Juvenile Court:
The Judge
- Functions
- Rule on pretrial motions
- Make decisions on continued detention
- Rule on plea bargaining agreements
- Handle all adjudications
- Hold dispositional hearings and make dispositions
- Handle appeals
- Coordinate and gather information from various agencies
- Provide leadership in developing youth services
- Selection of juvenile court judges--several methods
- Governor appointment
- Partisan or non-partisan elections
- State legislature appointments
- Missouri plan
Actors in the Juvenile Court:
The Prosecutor
- Variously called: district attorney, county attorney, state attorney.
- Until 1960’s the prosecutor was not part of juvenile court
- Functions
- investigate possible violations of law
- work with police, intake officer and probation officer in ascertaining facts of a case
- authorize, review and prepare petitions
- provide input on detention
- represent state’s interest in all decisions by the court
- enter into plea bargaining agreements with DA
Actors in the Juvenile Court:
The Defense Attorney
- This office is also a creation of the 1960’s Supreme Court decisions
- Role is similar to defense attorney in adult court
- An additional role is guardian ad litem.
- Public defenders are available to juveniles as to adult defendants
- Effectiveness of defense attorneys in juvenile court has been questioned
Death Penalty
- Thomas Graunger—1642 for bestiality
- 366 juvenile executions
- Supreme Court cases
- Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988)
- Stanford v. Kentucky (1989)
- Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Death Penalty
- How many executions between 1973 and 2005?
- How long were they on death row?
- What were their genders?
- Which state had 1/3 of juveniles on death row?
Studies of Death Row Juveniles
- All had head injuries as children
- 10% had serious psychiatric problems
- 10% were psychotic and had been since childhood
- Almost all with below average IQs
- 25% had been brutally abused as a child either physically or sexually
- 33% were heavy drug abusers
Juvenile Justice Reforms
- Eliminate the entire juvenile justice sub-system and try kids in adult court:
- Abolish status offenses
- Abolish juvenile court
- Abolish the parens patriae orientation
- Adopt the Blended Sentencing model
- Transform juvenile prisons into education and training centers with an employment focus
- Increased socio-economic opportunity structures
Juvenile Justice Conclusions
- Ultimate answers lie outside the justice system (religion, schools, families)
- Justice systems are designed to buy time, not to serve as the foundations of a society:
- more is being asked of the justice system than it
was designed to do, and it is swaying under that
weight
- the justice system, which is so poorly designed,
functions as well as it does due to the diligence
and dedication of the professionals who fill its ranks
Ave. Number of Detainees on Any Given
Day: 1975, 1995
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
19751995
Ave. daily
detainees
Juvenile Detainees for Delinquent and
Status Offenses, 1988-1992
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
19881992
Delinquent
Offenses
Status
Offenses
