The Evolution of Juvenile Justice Chapter 1 1

The Evolution of Juvenile Justice Chapter 1 1

Introduction CA juvenile justice system evolved from English common law heritage Other Codes had laws relating to juveniles 2270 B. C. Babylonian Code of Hammurabi Byzantine Codes of Justinian Old Testament 2

Introduction These early laws regulated what might be considered criminal conduct: • Theft • Burglary 3

Early Law – Regulations Social conduct was also regulated Relationships with adults Obedience Education Hard work Respect for elders A good moral life 4

Early Law – Regulations Punishments were severe Designed to correct the child for his or her own good Some included death Others were abusive No protection from abuse Juvenile rights have evolved today to include many adult rights sometimes they have more rights 5

Age of Responsibility Juvenile system was erected on three conceptual pillars The first is the age of responsibility or minimum age of responsibility At what age is a juvenile considered eligible for entry into the juvenile justice system or responsible for his or her conduct? Answer: It all depends upon: 1) What the offense is 2) In what state the juvenile commits the offense 6

Age of Responsibility States vary on their legal definition of adulthood for purposes of criminal prosecution It is usually between the ages of 1618 years 7

Age of Responsibility 23 states have no lower age of responsibility In 1999, an 11 -year old Michigan boy became the youngest person to be prosecuted in criminal court In 2000, a 13 -year old Philadelphia, PA girl was prosecuted as an adult for a murder she allegedly committed when she was 11 -years old 8

Age of Responsibility Many states have a minimum age under which an individual is considered too young to enter the juvenile system 6 - NC 7 – MD, MA, NY 8 – AZ, CA 10 – AR, CO, KS, LA, MN, MS, PA, SD, TX, VT, WI 9

Age of Responsibility All states have laws regarding the fitness of a juvenile to be transferred to adult court, in other words: ◦ If the juvenile may be found unfit to remain within the juvenile system and then be transferred to adult court to stand trial Between 1992 -1997, 47 states made it easier to transfer juveniles to adult court 10

Age of Responsibility 1995 – CA lowered the age from 16 to 14 for certain offenses 2000 – Prop 21 was passed and addressed the Gang Violence and Juvenile Prevention Crime Act of 1998 This Act substantially changed the nature of juvenile procedures for minors 14 years or older Dealt with certain felonies – 602 b WIC (See later chapters) 11

The English Experience Under English common law: Children ages 7 and under were not responsible or accountable for their acts Entered the system as dependent or neglected children 12

The English Experience Children ages 14 and older were held accountable like adults Included corporal or capital punishment Included penal colony sanctions 13

The English Experience Children ages 8 -13 were brought before the Court for the sole purpose of determining responsibility Was the youth capable of forming intent? Did he or she know right from wrong Could they appreciate the consequences of his or her act? Those found responsible were treated as adults 14

The English Experience Two concepts joined the issue of age of responsibility Parens patriae Loco parentis 15

The English Experience Parens patriae Latin phrase “King is the father of the country” Implies the responsibility of the State King is responsible for the welfare of his subjects Particularly those who cannot care for themselves 16

The English Experience Application of this concept emerged in the 12 th century King’s Chancery Court was created in London Court heard petitions for aid and relief for those in need 17

The English Experience Primarily for those children who had no one to support them These were dependent and neglected children Those under 14 could become apprentices under a master in some trade Or were sent to homes to work as servants 18

The English Experience Regardless of where they were sent they were expected to be: Industrious Obedient Some ran away Others disobeyed 19

The English Experience The State helped one category of juveniles: The dependent Created a second category, the “status” offender Included the: Runaway Incorrigible 20

The English Experience A special court was created: King’s Chamberlain Court Second philosophy of loco parentis came into play Latin term This implies the authority of the King “To stand in place of the parent” 21

The English Experience King (state) could step in and become the legal parent State had the responsibility and authority to define the problem and the solution 22

The English Experience Chamberlain’s Court became the forerunner of our present (modern day) juvenile court Established under the: ◦ Protective umbrella of parens patriae ◦ Authority of loco parentis 23

The English Experience Hearings were private and confidential Due process was never considered an issue Purpose was to settle the unruly child down Teach him some habits of industry for his or her own good 24

The English Experience These courts increased during the late 1500 s and early 1600 s due to a series of “Poor Laws” enacted Increasing numbers of children were roaming the streets of London Many became beggars Many were in gangs or involved in stealing Parents would not or could not control them 25

The English Experience “Poor Laws” expanded King’s authority to intervene in the family This authority helped in deciding which juveniles needed removal and placement in apprenticeships or to work in private homes 26

The English Experience Age of jurisdiction for the incorrigible or wayward child was extended to 18 Those with a 2 nd or 3 rd offense: Hanged Transported to Penal Colony Jailed in congregate cells in London’s Newgate Prison 27

The English Experience During the early 1800 s Hundreds of young boys and girls were thrown together in prison with adult prisoners Focus began to change on separating juveniles from adults 1850 the Borstel (reform school) System was developed and commonly used in England 28

The English Experience Many children were placed in stocks and whipped by their parents for misconduct Many “stout and healthy” juveniles were committed to the Marine Society Founded in 1756 by Jonas Hanway and Sir John Fielding In 1758 – Sir John Fielding also founded the House of Refuge for Orphan Girls 29

The English Experience 1788 – a private institution was founded by Robert Young to house: ◦ Dependent and neglected children ◦ Status offenders Purpose was to “educate and instruct them in some useful trade or occupation” 30

The English Experience Reform efforts grew in the 1800 s Focused on the separation of juveniles from adult offenders in facilities They could receive: ◦ Education ◦ Training ◦ Treatment 31

The American Experience We accepted three common law principles 1. Parens patriae 2. Loco parentis 3. The age of responsibility 32

The American Experience Youths under 8 were incapable of forming intent Children 14+ were fully responsible Children 8 -13 were given responsibility hearings If a jury found an accused juvenile guilty and capable of “discerning between good and evil” the minor would receive an adult sentence 33

The American Experience The adult sentence included: • Corporal punishment • Capital punishment 34

The American Experience Delinquency was not as widespread as in England Fortunately, for those found guilty, most were found not responsible by juries sympathetic to children 35

The American Experience So-called wayward children were removed from parents Placed with master craftsmen or indentured servants until: • 18 – Boys • 21 – Girls 36

The American Experience By the 1800 s many of the larger cities were experiencing a delinquency problem NY Commission was appointed to study the problem Though many youth were released as not responsible, they continued their delinquent ways 37

The American Experience The NY Commission reported: Juveniles who were locked up learned more and better ways to commit crimes Those left unpunished, were encouraged to re-offend NY Commission’s Report recommended separate facilities for juveniles 38

The American Experience 1824 – 1 st House of Refuge opened in New York 1826 – Boston 1828 – Philadelphia Purposes of the houses of refuge were threefold: 39

The American Experience 1) Separate juveniles from the adult offender 2) Protect juveniles from evil influences 3) Educate, train, and treat the juvenile instead of punishing them 40

The American Experience Original intent of the reform was well meaning Wording was lost in the application “Softness” was lost – all cases Most juveniles experienced: • Hard work • Severe discipline • Brutal corporal punishment 41

The American Experience Whether the offense was for: • Stealing • Running away from placement • Leading an immoral life 42

The American Experience 1838 - Right to remove a child from the home was challenged in an Ohio case Mary Ann Crouse was taken away from her parent’s custody and committed to a refuge for being a “wayward girl” Father filed a Writ of Habeus Corpus Claimed his daughter was deprived 43

The American Experience Court ruled against the father Upheld the right of the State to become the substitute parent The juvenile hearing followed civil procedures The Court was acting on behalf of the minor, not against her The Court would provide all the protections needed for the child 44

The American Experience By the mid-1800 s the House of Refuge concept had been adopted by most states • Established as state reformatories 1870 s and 1880 s – economy faltered • States could not adequately fund these facilities Industries were brought in on a contract basis • Factories – shoes, clothing, and shirt factories were established 45

The American Experience Juveniles were contracted out as indentured servants They were leased to: • Households • Shippers • Whalers Apprenticed in trade 46

The American Experience In many cases an institution would send representatives out to take orders from: ◦ Households ◦ Stores ◦ Farms Juveniles were escorted out to the various jobs 47

The American Experience The original “protective reform” concept was transferred into the philosophical custody of “hard work” Many social reformers were concerned these schools replaced one form of punishment with another equally as bad and legally unfair 48

Reform Begins Reformers pushed for other alternatives not as punitive Among these was probation John Augustus is considered the “Father of Probation” Since 1841, he had used probation successfully in Boston (See page 6 for his journal) 49

Reform Begins Augustus’ efforts set the tone for reform for the next twenty years 1890 – Through the local court, the PA Children’s Society started to receive children in foster homes NY Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children followed suit MA welfare agencies did the same 50

Reform Begins 1899 – Illinois 1 st Juvenile Court Act passed – took almost 8 years to pass Court model used today Separate juvenile court was created • Civil in nature • Confidential • W/O the due process ( came later) • Juveniles did not have constitutional protections as the result of the early juvenile courts and appellate cases. • Preponderance of the evidence was 51

Reform Begins Parens patriae and loco parentis became statutory law Petitions were filed on behalf of the minor Separate detention and institutional facilities for juveniles Probation staff was there to supervise the minor in his or her home 52

Reform Begins 1910 – 32 states had: • Juvenile courts • Juvenile systems • Probation services 1925 – all but 2 states had followed suit 53

The California System CA behind in dealing with juvenile social problems When it did evolve, it assumed the: • British Common Law model • Chicago Model 1870 s – Juveniles up to age 21 accused of crimes were tried as adults • Criminal or status offenses • If convicted sent to adult facilities – prison 54

The California System Between 1850 -1860 • 300 boys were sent to San Quentin • Some as young as 12 • For their “own good” Boys were committed to the San Francisco Industrial School 55

The California System 1876 appellate case Confirmed the concepts of parens patriae and loco parentis Ah Peen case – 16 year-old Chinese boy was found delinquent and committed to the SF Industrial School for: • “…leading an idle and dissolute life” 56

The California System Case was appealed under the issue of minor deprived his freedom without due process Court disagreed: • Constitutional issues not relevant in this case involving a minor • The action did not amount to criminal prosecution • “…purpose of this case was not about punishment, but reformation and training…” 57

The California System The Court further stated: • “…having been abandoned by his parents, the State as parens patriae has succeeded to his control and stands in loco parentis” • The restraint…is in its nature and purpose the same…as parents, guardians and others…” 58

The California System The CA precedent was set • Juvenile proceedings were civil in nature Any actions taken on behalf of a minor were legal 59

A Reform School System Develops San Francisco Industrial School (SFIS) was established in 1859 by the Legislature ◦ 48 boys and girls ◦ Ages 13 -18 60

A Reform School System Develops State Reform School of Marysville was opened in 1860 Closed in 1868 – due to low numbers • 28 boys committed there were transferred to the San Francisco Industrial School • State agreed to pay $15/mo for each juvenile 1868 – Girls in the San Francisco Industrial School were transferred to 61

A Reform School System Develops 1875 – The ship Jamestown was transferred from the Navy to SF harbor Acted as a supplement for the SFIS for boys as a place of commitment Boys were given training ◦ Seamanship and navigation ◦ After 6 months they became eligible for employment on merchant marine ships 62

A Reform School System Develops Jamestown program only lasted 4 years Ship was given back to the Navy due to mismanagement Complaints that the ship was really a training ship for young criminals 63

A Reform School System Develops Need for placement facilities for juveniles continued 1890 – state established a state reform school system 1891 – Whittier State Reformatory opened for: • Boys and girls • 300 youths 1892 – SFIS closed 64

A Reform School System Develops 1895 – Preston School of Industry opened Older boys 1907 – all youths under 18 transferred from San Quentin to reform schools 1913 – Girls and boys separated • Girls were transferred to the Ventura School 65

Juvenile Court and Probation Services 20 th century brought a call for reform – an alternative for juveniles to the adult court system 1903 – separate juvenile court and probation system started ◦ Tacked on to the Penal Code at the last moment Adult age set at 16; changed to 18 (1909) 66

Juvenile Court and Probation Services Probation officer role was authoritarian in nature under the control of the superior court system (1903 -4) Local judges staffed and administered probation services 1905 – Law required judges to set up probation committees to help select probation officers 67

Juvenile Court & Probation Services Law also required: • County detention facilities be established • Written probation court reports • Procedures be established for commitment to state reform schools (Whittier and Preston) Jurisdiction of juvenile matters was given to the superior court of the county 68

Juvenile Court & Probation Services Some confusion still existed over the exact court procedures required for dependant and delinquent cases Conflict existed between reform groups and local judges Compromise resulted in the Juvenile Court Law of 1915 which detailed procedures until 1961 69

Juvenile Court & Probation Services Until 1929 – juvenile probation officers established in all but three counties Disparities existed from county to county on how juveniles were treated Reform efforts came and went for many years 70

Juvenile Court & Probation Services 1957 – Karl Holton of the CYA convinced Governor Knight to appoint a juvenile justice commission to study the problems (reform the juvenile system) After much politics, in 1961 Governor Brown signed into law revolutionary CA juvenile procedures 71

A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law The 1961 law signed by Governor Brown was the first time in CA that standardized juvenile procedures were codified (WIC) for: Police Courts Corrections (Probation) 72

A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law Descriptions of behavior by which the police and courts could exercise jurisdiction were narrowed Distinctions were made between 601 s (status offenders) and 602 s (real delinquents) 73

601 WIC: Under the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC), a 601 is defined as a status offender. • A juvenile whose behavior might be against the law, but is not really delinquent or criminal as we know it 602 WIC: Under the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC), a 602 is defined as a juvenile delinquent A juvenile whose behavior is against the law and is criminal if committed by an adult 74

A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law 600 s (dependant/neglected cases) were redefined; they later became 300 s in 1976 They could no longer be mixed or housed with 601 s and 602 s in juvenile hall 75

A Revolution in Juvenile Court Law Court procedures were made more realistic New standards for probation and parole – roles and responsibilities were defined Intake powers and procedures were standardized between counties Procedures were included to reduce court commitments of status offenders to the CYA 76