To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Responsibility for handling legal matters related to children lies with the Juvenile Court.
One hundred years ago, the Illinois legislature passed the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, which established the first separate juvenile court. However, in this centennial year (1899), ongoing policy debates across the nation create uncertainty over the future of the traditional juvenile court system.
In the early 19th century, minors faced trial alongside adults in criminal courts.
According to common law, children under age 7 were automatically considered not morally responsible for their actions (known as the infancy defense). Those between ages 7 and 14 were presumed to lack criminal responsibility, and prosecutors had to prove a specific juvenile's guilt. Individuals aged 14 and above were regarded as fully accountable for their criminal behavior, just like adults.
Although the law tried to reduce the severity of treating and penalizing children as adults, there were cases where young children received prison sentences or even faced death.
In 1824, New York City established the House of Refuge, which became the first institution dedicated to juveniles.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Moral
4.7 (657)
“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”
Its main objective was to separate delinquent youths in institutions from adult offenders.
Prior to 1900, the United States witnessed the execution of a minimum of 10 children who had committed crimes before reaching the age of 14. Moreover, some children perished while serving time alongside adults. In 1876, records from the Virginia penitentiary revealed the tragic death of a prisoner aged only 10, resulting from accidental scalding in a tub containing boiling coffee.
These incidents deeply disturbed society.
As a result, Americans in the 19th century sought comprehensive reform measures that went beyond merely applying the infancy defense. Their aim was to address the distinctive characteristics exhibited by children and young individuals.
The idea of Juvenile Courts emerged in the early 1900s as a solution to the long-standing problem of trying and imprisoning children with adult criminals. This approach was driven by two factors: recognizing that children should not be held to the same level of legal responsibility as adults due to their immaturity, and acknowledging that punishing children in the same way as adult criminals was morally incorrect. Media coverage highlighting the harsh treatment of children in state penitentiaries further fueled public opposition to this practice. The juvenile court system aimed to protect and rehabilitate young offenders through a less formal approach compared to the separate adult criminal system. However, these early institutions for juvenile delinquents often adopted a strict and punitive approach.
The original juvenile courts were informal civil tribunals, referred to as "delinquents" facing "adjudication" and "disposition," rather than being labeled as criminals or defendants facing trial and sentence. The objective of this system was to safeguard children by removing stigmatizing labels and closing hearings from the public eye. However, it also led to reduced scrutiny of the court's actions and fewer constitutional and legal safeguards in comparison to adult criminal court. As a result, children had no entitlement to legal representation, and there were no prosecutors advocating for the state or public safety.
Previously, a juvenile court judge, often lacking legal training, would collaborate with a social worker to determine the most suitable course of action for a troubled child. In numerous locations, there were no transcripts, formal evidence presentations, cross-examinations of witnesses, or opportunities for appeal. These measures aimed to promptly safeguard endangered children by eliminating procedural and legal barriers. The informal approach to juvenile justice was abolished by the supreme court through several rulings that ultimately granted juveniles equal legal rights as adults, with the exception of a trial by jury due to obvious reasons.
The Supreme Court's Gault decision had an unexpected outcome – it shifted the Juvenile Court's focus from the child to the specifics of their committed crime. Consequently, the court addresses legal matters first, often taking extended periods of time before redirecting attention to the appropriate actions for assisting the child. Unfortunately, this frequently occurs too late, leaving the child without protection. Furthermore, considering that most accused juveniles remain at liberty during the sluggish progression of their cases, society is equally left unprotected.
The focus shift has resulted in a crisis of youth violence. In recent years, juveniles have been committing more major and violent crimes. This has caused public support for a separate justice system for children to decrease. Instead, there is frustration towards the system's inability to effectively handle out-of-control delinquents. Consequently, many jurisdictions are now allocating more resources to closely monitor and incarcerate the most severe juvenile offenders for extended periods.
This has caused a contradictory impact: There are now fewer resources available to address minor, younger offenders, who are the ones that can be most easily rehabilitated and the individuals the juvenile court was originally intended to assist. Instead, these transitional youths are mostly ignored until they commit more serious crimes. Only at that point, when they have become hardened offenders with little chance of reforming, do we allocate time and money towards them. Unfortunately, this is too late for both them and their victims of crime. Numerous states have passed legislation allowing many minors to be prosecuted and sentenced as adults. Although this is presented as a reform, it is actually a return to the practices of the Nineteenth Century, where a criminal was seen as such regardless of their age.
In 1980, all states had implemented juvenile courts for handling cases involving youth criminals. Nevertheless, Hawaii stood alone as the only state that treated all individuals under sixteen as juveniles for fifteen years. Consequently, the future of the juvenile court system is currently uncertain. This institution, originating in America and widely replicated worldwide, is renowned for its efficacy and compassionate approach towards addressing young offenders.
Recognizing and appreciating the vital role of the juvenile court system in promoting fairness for children and families within the legal framework is crucial. It is essential to provide essential assistance and resources to effectively tackle contemporary challenges. Despite handling serious and violent offenders, juvenile courts have effectively decreased juvenile delinquency rates. Studies show that juveniles who are prosecuted in criminal courts and confined in adult prisons exhibit significantly higher reoffending rates compared to those who stay within the juvenile court system. Transferred juveniles are prone to reoffend earlier and more frequently.
Juvenile justice is the area of criminal law that concentrates on individuals who are still considered not accountable for their criminal actions, usually those under 18 years old. Each state has its own rules regarding the minimum age of responsibility for crimes and many have created a separate set of laws for juveniles. The main goal of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate young offenders rather than punish them.
The transfer of juveniles to adult court can occur when the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is waived or relinquished. Courts have generally upheld state statutes that establish juvenile courts and address juvenile delinquency as a legitimate exercise of state police power in protecting the well-being and safety of children. The doctrine of parens patriae grants the state the power to enact laws that safeguard, care for, retain custody over, and provide support for children under its jurisdiction.
The federal government has mainly focused on providing funding and setting standards to address juvenile delinquency. In 1968, Congress passed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act, which was later revised in 1972 and renamed as the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act. The main goal of this act is to assist states and local communities in offering community-based preventive services to youth at risk of engaging in delinquent behavior. It also aims to provide training for professionals working in these fields and offer technical assistance as required.
The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act establishes that juvenile delinquency refers to an act committed by someone under 18 years old, which would be deemed a crime if done by an adult. Additionally, it outlines regulations for state laws regarding procedures and punishments in juvenile court.
Usually, the court handles cases of juvenile offenders caught by the police. However, there are instances where a school official, parent, or guardian brings an issue to the attention of the court. In such cases, a court intake officer assesses the situation to decide whether it should be dismissed, referred for counseling, or sent to juvenile court. The severity of the offense determines if detention might be necessary.
When a case is presented to the juvenile court, a petition is submitted stating the statutes that the child has violated. In most cases involving juveniles, the child admits to the accusations and is referred to a treatment program. However, if the child disputes the allegations, an adjudicatory hearing similar to a criminal trial occurs. During this hearing, legal representation is provided for the child and other rights usually given to defendants are granted. As minors rarely have jury trials, it falls upon the judge to assess evidence and determine whether or not the child has committed the offenses.
If the allegations are not proven, the case is dismissed. However, if they are proven, the judge may rule that the child is either a delinquent or a status offender and another hearing takes place to determine the appropriate sentence or disposition. The most common sentence is probation, which entails obeying specific conduct rules and regularly reporting to a probation officer. In cases involving serious offenders, the court may order them to be placed in a juvenile institution.
Instead of resorting to legal proceedings for juvenile offenders, it may be advantageous to explore alternative approaches in certain situations. For minor offenses, it is advisable to seek assistance from school counselors, mental health clinics, and youth-service agencies. These referrals are typically facilitated through court intake procedures. Nevertheless, for more serious crimes and hazardous conduct, the child should be subjected to criminal court proceedings. This enables the option of imposing prison sentences in cases involving murder, rape, or comparable acts.
Criminal law is concerned with the government's prosecution of individuals who have committed crimes, while civil cases deal with resolving legal disputes between individuals and organizations. In criminal lawsuits, the state is represented by a prosecutor, whereas in civil lawsuits, the victim brings the case forward. Those convicted in criminal cases may receive imprisonment, fines, or both. Conversely, individuals held responsible in civil cases may need to surrender assets or provide financial compensation but are not subjected to incarceration.
A "crime" is the violation of a public law through an act or omission, whether it involves prohibition or command. Although some crimes are based on common law, most crimes in the United States are established by local, state, and federal authorities. Criminal laws vary greatly from state to state. However, there is a Model Penal Code (MPC) that provides a helpful framework for understanding the basic structure of criminal liability.
The categorization of crimes can be split into two groups: felonies and misdemeanors. Felonies encompass serious offenses such as murder or rape, while misdemeanors involve less severe infractions like petty theft or jaywalking. If convicted of a felony, the typical punishment is imprisonment for a year or more; however, for misdemeanors, the punishments are usually less than a year in jail. It's important to note that an act is not considered criminal unless it has been officially defined as such through statute or common law.
In recent times, there has been an increase in Federal crimes that pertain to activities crossing state boundaries or significantly impacting federal operations. To learn more about these crimes, please refer to Title 18.
All criminal statutes can be divided into separate elements. Most crimes, except for strict-liability offenses, have two elements: an act (actus reus) and a mental state (mens rea). To obtain a conviction, prosecutors must establish each element of the offense and convince the jury or judge beyond a reasonable doubt of every crucial fact. Conversely, in civil cases, the plaintiff only has to prove that the defendant is responsible by a preponderance of evidence, meaning more than 50% certainty.
Criminal procedure encompasses the rules governing the process of enforcing substantive criminal law. In the United States, crimes are primarily defined by local and state governments, although the federal government maintains its own criminal code to handle offenses that involve interstate activities or have a significant impact on federal operations.
The process of criminal trials in federal courts is outlined in Title 18. Each state has its own regulations for criminal procedure, but these are limited by constitutional constraints. The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights guarantees fundamental rights such as the right to legal representation, the right to refuse testimony, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the right to a trial by jury. Although state constitutions may provide additional protections, they cannot override federal rights.
The American criminal system operates under an adversarial and accusatorial model, with the goal of achieving justice by balancing the defendant's rights against the state's interests in a speedy and efficient trial. Consequently, the rules set forth by criminal procedure are intended to safeguard the defendant's rights.
The rules of criminal procedure and civil procedure vary because each area has different objectives and outcomes. In criminal cases, the state is responsible for initiating legal action and must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, in civil cases, the plaintiff initiates the lawsuit and only needs to show the defendant's liability by a preponderance of evidence.
Over the past century, significant changes have occurred in both the adult criminal and juvenile justice systems. Despite these changes, there has been a consistent focus among courts, correctional professionals, and policymakers on reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety. Various sentencing, corrections, and diversion practices have been implemented to achieve these objectives and address crime. Presently, officials are exploring alternative approaches or adapting existing practices in order to fulfill their goals.
The Evolution of Juvenile Courts: Social and Historical Context. (2016, Jun 25). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/juvenile-delinquency-in-social-and-historical-context-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
