DOCSLIB.ORG

Juveniles' Race and Police Relations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Juveniles' Race and Police Relations Goshe/ Western Criminology Review 14(1), 39-50 (2013) Online citation: Goshe, Sonya. 2013. "Malleable Mandates: Liberal Ideology and the Politics of Protection and Punishment in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.” Western Criminology Review 14(1): 39-50. (http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v14n1/Goshe.pdf). Malleable Mandates: Liberal Ideology and the Politics of Protection and Punishment in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Sonya Goshe University of California, Irvine Abstract: While the notion that youth warrant special protection has a lengthy and controversial history in juvenile justice dating back to the child saving movement, little research has examined how the idea has played out politically in law- making bodies at the federal level. Further, there is limited attention to how the core ideological foundation of our legal system may have paved the way for politically reshaping the notion of protection in a punitive direction in recent legislative efforts. In this paper, I explore the shifting political meanings of “protection” and “punishment” contained in the evolution of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) and propose that their malleability partially stems from overlooked ideological forces in the liberal legal model including a weak, individualized version of public duty and variable understandings of youth autonomy and culpability. Together the underlying liberal dynamics engender an ideological affinity between protection and punishment that permitted their rhetorical vulnerability and political distortion. Keywords: law-making, legal liberalism, ideological affinity, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, politics, protection, punishment, youth justice INTRODUCTION delinquency, drug abuse and educational drop-out (U.S. Department of Health and Human Service 2006). In the United States, rhetoric surrounding children The mismatch between rhetoric and reality has caused pervades the popular media. If one casually surfs the web, some scholars, like Martha Minow (1987), to argue that watches television, or listens to the radio, children figure children are “quite beside the point” and suffer from prominently as a subject of concern, a reason to hope, and “societal neglect” in policy making efforts. Given their a lucrative target for advertisers. As a country, we profess relative developmental, economic and legal dependence, to care about kids. Yet, despite our proliferate rhetoric, children lack the “voice” to effectively marshal legal and children and adolescents are the hardest hit by serious political resources, and subsequently find their needs social problems confronting our society. Under times of subsumed to other, more powerful interests. Yet, budgetary crunch, social programs receive “first cut” thousands of youth are processed through the juvenile leaving youth most exposed under the vagaries of the courts each year in dependency and delinquency cases, and market economy. Even during good times, budgets for most states have multiple mechanisms that permit the social services have to fight for survival. Children’s transfer of youth to adult court (Griffin et al. 2011; vulnerability in American social policy comes at a price. Kupchik 2006). It seems that while children do appear At least one in five children lives in poverty (U.S. Census “beside the point” in some important senses, they are Bureau 2011). Each year millions of youth fall victim to certainly the subject of societal concern and social control, abuse, neglect, and serious violence (U.S. Government and debates about how best to handle youth in trouble with Accounting Office 2011) and suffer from its toxic fallout the law have a long, contested history (Blomberg and facing increased risks of delinquency, especially violent 39 Liberal Ideology and Politics in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Lucken 2000; Getis 2000; Platt 1977, 2002; Ryerson 1978; strapped local juvenile justice systems. Beyond serving as Schlossman 1977). a funding source, the Act performs both practical and At the political level, critical criminologist and symbolic functions for the states as well. On a practical historian Thomas Bernard (1992) has argued that the level, the law limits what the states can “do” with juveniles policy debates in youth justice proceed in fairly predictable in their care if they desire access to federal resources. In “cycles” that vacillate between an emphasis on the case of the original formulation of the JJDPA, states rehabilitation and an emphasis on punishment. He argues were forced to do a better job of “protecting” youth by that myths about the seriousness and frequency of juvenile diverting them away from the system initially, separating delinquency as well as faulty perceptions of being “too them from adults when contact was unavoidable and hard” or “too soft” on juvenile crime propel the policy deinstitutionalizing youth charged with status offenses like debate and drive the swings between rehabilitation and truancy and running away. On a symbolic level, federal punishment over time. Bernard’s characterization law enshrines certain values into the infrastructure of identifies an important vacillation in our models of youth juvenile justice, providing a tool for advocates interested in policy, and points to some of the reasons that empirical shaping social policy, and a basic philosophy that can realities of juvenile justice seem incapable of penetrating guide future efforts at change. hegemonic understandings about youth, crime and government interventions at the level of policy-making. Yet, the model also begs some larger questions about METHODS whether the problem is somehow partly intrinsic to the The material for this project derives from a legislative political process itself (McCorkell 1987), and perhaps to analysis of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency the dynamic tensions at work in our understanding of Prevention Act from its inception, pre-1974, to its most juvenile justice that are produced by a legal system recent authorization in 2002. In addition to the text of the founded on Lockean principles of maximum individual laws themselves, congressional debate, committee and freedom and minimal government intervention, subcommittee hearing transcripts, and official committee particularly in the zone of privacy surrounding family life reports were reviewed. The documents not only trace the (McCorkell 1987; Minow 1987; Ryan 1987). change in language from pre-1972 to the present, they also In this article, I propose that the “individualized” illustrate the types of evidence presented in the debate and version of public duty in the liberal legal model which the rhetorical framing of that evidence, which provides a subordinates collective social issues to the primacy of glimpse into the legislative manipulation that is often individual freedom creates an “ideological affinity” missed in much policy research focused on the back end of between the meanings of protection and punishment that reforms. While it cannot tell the whole story, federal have facilitated their malleability and interchangeability lawmaking represents a crucial site to examine how over time. Further, tensions springing from contradictory ideology and values about youth are channeled into the understandings of youth autonomy and culpability in the policy process and impact states’ ability to receive federal liberal legal model also promoted the punitive re-shaping resources. of protection that occurred in the most recent re- It is important to acknowledge that the changes to the authorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency JJDPA developed within a complex legislative process Prevention Act (42 USC §5601; §5602; §5633). where multiple versions of legislation, debate and hearings While the impacts of policy reforms have been studied related to the JJDPA were proposed before the final extensively, the front end process of law-making has version became law. In order to examine how federal received comparably little critical attention (Ismaili 2006; lawmakers construed protection and punishment in the Jones and Newburn 2002; Solomon 1981; Cullen and JJDPA, understanding both the official legislative history Wright 2002). Yet, exploring how legislation conceives of contained in the committee reports, and the more “messy” and drives particular models of justice for youth permits legislative process found in years of debate, drafting critical criminologists to understand and theorize about legislation and hearing testimony are necessary. Clearly, how changes in justice come about, and how to intervene the entire lawmaking process for the Act will not be more effectively at this level. reflected in this analysis. Much of lawmaking that The JJDPA is one such law that merits critical happens behind closed doors, in the hallways, and on the consideration. Heralded as a victory for progressive youth phone with lobbyists, or in the field with constituents will justice advocates with its controversial passage in 1974 not be revealed here. Also, all the potential “voices” of the (Schwartz 1989), the JJDPA supplies funding for all states juvenile justice system are not included. Most notably in compliance with its four core mandates that dictate how absent include the voices of children and their parents. states handle youth in their care. Even though much of Yet, the focus of this study is on how federal lawmakers the work of juvenile justice takes place at the local level, rationalized key changes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zero Tolerance and Exclusionary School Discipline Policies Harm Students and Contribute to the Cradle to Prison Pipeline ® the Problem: Pushing Students out of School
    ISSUE BRIEF November 2012 Zero Tolerance and Exclusionary School Discipline Policies Harm Students and Contribute to the Cradle to Prison Pipeline ® The Problem: Pushing Students Out of School ut-of-school suspensions and expulsions—discipl ine Opractices that exclude children from school—have increased dramatically in the United States since the 1970s. This increase is largely due to schools’ overre - liance on “zero tolerance” policies. The Dignity in Schools Campaign describes zero tolerance as “a school discipline policy or practice that results in an automatic disciplinary consequence such as in-school or out-of-school suspension, expulsion, or involuntary school transfer for any student who commits one or more listed offenses. A school discipline policy may be a zero tolerance policy even if administrators have some discretion to modify the consequence on a case-by-case basis.” 1 Zero tolerance policies impose automatic and harsh discipline for a wide range of student infractions, s s i L including non-violent disruptive behavior, truancy, e v e dress code violations, and insubordination. Even when t S © o school policies don’t impose automatic suspensions for t o h behavior, the culture of overzealous exclusion from P school that is fostered by the zero tolerance mindset school year involved weapons or drugs, while 64% of has created a situation in which children are being suspensions were for “disobedient or disruptive behavi or,” removed from school for increasingly minor behavior truancy, or “intimidation.” 3 These policies are a issues. An October 2011 report from the National Edu - problem for all children, regardless of background or cation Policy Center found that only 5% of suspensions home-life.
    [Show full text]
  • Resilience Matters: Examining the School to Prison Pipeline Through the Lens of School
    Glenn Justice Policy Journal, Spring, 2019 Resilience Matters: Examining the School to Prison Pipeline through the Lens of School- Based Problem Behaviors Jonathan W. Glenn1 Justice Policy Journal Volume 16, Number 1 (Spring, 2019) © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2019 www.cjcj.org/jpj Abstract The school-to-prison pipeline is an expansive issue that impacts the educational and criminal justice systems in the United States. Traditionally, research has linked the prevalence of the pipeline to factors based within school systems. These systemic factors include the use of zero tolerance policies, exclusionary disciplinary practices, and the presence of school resource officers. The present study aims to explore the impact of school-based problem behaviors as a catalyst to the school- to-prison pipeline. A sample of 112 mental health professionals (MPHs) who specialize in working with youth at-risk for justice system involvement were surveyed to assess their perceptions of three theoretical predictors of problem behaviors including parental efficacy, child impulsivity, and child resilience. Results indicate that respondents perceive that child resilience predicts problem behaviors above and beyond any other theoretical predictor. The implications of this finding as well as recommendations are discussed. 1 North Carolina Central University Corresponding Author: Jonathan W. Glenn, [email protected] Resilience Matters 1 Introduction The school-to-prison pipeline refers to the process by which students are funneled from the school system into the juvenile or adult criminal justice system (Winn & Behizadeh, 2011). The pipeline has been an issue for over 20 years, plaguing the education and criminal justice systems in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Sociology of Juvenile Punishment: Treating Juvenile Offenders As Adults
    THE POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY OF JUVENILE PUNISHMENT: TREATING JUVENILE OFFENDERS AS ADULTS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jason T. Carmichael, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2006 Dissertation Committee Approved by Professor David Jacobs, Adviser Professor J. Craig Jenkins Professor Zhenchao Qian __________________________________ Adviser Graduate Program in Sociology ABSTRACT Numerous studies have investigated the determinants of formal social control employed by the state to control its citizens. Only a small number have used explanations derive from conflict theory and political sociology. I follow this research tradition by hypothesizing that the threat produced by racial and ethnic minorities leads to increases in the demand for formal control mechanisms including more punitive responses to juvenile crime through adult sanctioning. I also consider broader political arguments that link the variation in punitive outcomes to differences in political arraignments across jurisdictions. While the punishment of juvenile offenders has increasingly become an issue of major concern to the public, there are few studies that test the governments coercive response to this particular type of offending. This dissertation addresses this issue by examining the treatment of juvenile offenders in the adult criminal system. First, I use pooled time- series negative binomial regression to analyze raw counts of juveniles admitted to adult prisons. Second, I use multivariate regression to predict the length of sentence that violent juvenile offenders receive in adult criminal courts. Finally, I use zero-inflated negative binomial regression to analyze the probability that states used the death penalty against juvenile when this practice was still constitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • Children and Crime: in the Moment
    This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Haines, Kevin, Case, Stephen, Smith, Roger, Laidler, Karen, Nathan, Hughes, Webster, Colin, Goddard, Tim, Deakin, Jo, Johns, Diana, Richards, Kelly, & Grey, Patricia (2020) Children and Crime: In the Moment. Youth Justice. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/199890/ c 2020 The Author(s) This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected] License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420923762 Kevin Haines1, Stephen Case2, Roger Smith3, Karen Joe Laidler4, Nathan Hughes5, Colin Webster6, Tim Goddard7, Jo Deakin8, Diana Johns9, Kelly Richards10, Patricia Gray11 1 Professor of Criminology, University of Trinidad and Tobago.
    [Show full text]
  • ARE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES WORTH IT? the High Cost of Zero Tolerance for Students, Families, and Society’S Pocketbook
    ARE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES WORTH IT? The high cost of zero tolerance for students, families, and society’s pocketbook ASHLEY BARNETT GAUDIANO I. Introduction Varsity high school athletes Graham Dennis and Casey Edsall were suspended for bringing a penknife and a lighter to school, tools used by the young men to repair their lacrosse sticks. Dennis was taken away in handcuffs and charged with possession of a deadly weapon in the juvenile justice system.1 Nick Stuban, a 15-year-old “model student,” was suspended for purchasing a capsule of a legal substance known as JWH-018, a synthetic compound with a marijuana-like effect.2 Stuban took his life two months later. Bronson Clark, 6 years old, was suspended for crying in class and disrupting the educational process.3 In South Carolina, a 10- year old was suspended after his pencil sharpener broke and a teacher found the razor blade inside it.4 Ethan Gray, a 1st grader, was found with a butter knife in his bag and was suspended under the schools zero tolerance polices for weapons.5 What these children all have in common is that they have come in contact with the unfortunate ramifications of today’s system of zero tolerance policies. They all have been suspended or expelled under policies that are void of discretion and fail to take into account purpose, intent, age, or maturity. All of these children, and millions more, will have the notation of “suspension” or “expulsion” on their academic records and many of them will have juvenile or adult criminal records too.
    [Show full text]
  • Turning Bad Girls Into Ladies: Female Juvenile Delinquency In
    TURNING BAD GIRLS INTO LADIES: FEMALE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN TEXAS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of Texas State University-San Marcos in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of ARTS by Allison Leigh Hughes, B.A. San Marcos, Texas May 2012 TURNING BAD GIRLS INTO LADIES: FEMALE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN TEXAS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY Committee Members Approved: Mary C. Brennan, Chair Jessica Pliley Dwight D. Watson Approved: J. Michael Willoughby Dean of the Graduate College COPYRIGHT by Allison Leigh Hughes 2012 FAIR USE AND AUTHOR’S PERMISSION STATEMENT Fair Use This work is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law 94-553, section 107). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed. Duplication Permission As the copyright holder of this work I, Allison Leigh Hughes, authorize duplication of this work, in whole or in part, for educational or scholarly purposes only. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank first, my family, who has demonstrated unwavering support for my education. My mother is one of the hardest working people I know, and it is her work ethic that keeps me motivated. My father never let me forget the importance of remaining positive and has, on a number of occasions, discussed, reviewed, and edited my work no matter the time of day. My siblings, despite the physical distance between us, have always supported my education.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and Related Matters
    Order Code RL30822 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Juvenile Delinquents and Federal Criminal Law: The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and Related Matters Updated October 25, 2004 Charles Doyle Senior Specialist American Law Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Juvenile Delinquents and Federal Criminal Law: The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act and Related Matters Summary Juvenile offenders of federal criminal law are primarily the responsibility of state juvenile court authorities. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act permits federal delinquency proceedings where state courts cannot or will not accept jurisdiction. In the more serious of these cases, the juvenile offender may be transferred for trial as an adult in federal court. The Act applies to those charged before the age of 21 with a breach of federal criminal law occurring before they reached the age of 18. Given the law enforcement predominance of state officials and the fact that a violation of federal law will ordinarily support the assertion of state juvenile court jurisdiction, most such offenders never come in contact with federal authorities. Many of those who do are returned to state officials to be processed through the state court system. The United States Attorney, however, may elect federal proceedings if the state courts are unwilling or unable to assume jurisdiction, or the state has no adequate treatment plans, or the juvenile is charged with a crime of violence or with drug trafficking. A juvenile may be transferred for trial as adult only at his or her insistence or pursuant to a court transfer of a juvenile, 15 years of age or older, charged with drug trafficking or a crime of violence.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Detention Reduce Recidivism of Youth? an Outcome Evaluation
    CAN DETENTION REDUCE RECIDIVISM OF YOUTH? AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF A JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By Tia Simanovic In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major Department: Criminal Justice and Political Science May 2017 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School Title CAN DETENTION REDUCE RECIDIVISM OF YOUTH? AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF A JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER By Tia Simanovic The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Andrew J. Myer, PhD Chair Amy J. Stichman, PhD James E. Deal, PhD Approved: May 12, 2017 Jeffrey Bumgarner, PhD Date Department Chair ABSTRACT This study is an outcome evaluation of a secure unit of one juvenile detention center in the Midwest. The primary purpose of this study was to elucidate the relationship between a secure detention placement and recidivism on a sample of Midwest juvenile offenders. Besides the examination of recidivism of the total sample, this study examined differences between two subsamples of the institutionalized juveniles, those in a treatment program and those in detention only. The importance of demographics, prior admissions, length of stay, frequency of institutional misconduct, and exposure to treatment was examined. Results suggest a significant negative relationship between the age at admission and recidivism, and a positive one between prior admissions and recidivism. Length of stay, institutional misconduct, and treatment did not reach significance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Juvenile Court for Youth & Parents in North Carolina
    A Guide to Juvenile Court for Youth & Parents in North Carolina YOUTH JUSTICE NORTH CAROLINA Jason Langberg & Patricia Robinson ABOUT YOUTH JUSTICE NORTH CAROLINA YOUTH JUSTICE NORTH CAROLINA (YJNC) is an organization of law and policy experts, practitioners, and advocates committed to ensuring fair, supportive, and effective public education and juvenile justice systems in North Carolina. Beginning in January 2015, YJNC will operate as a project of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. For more information and an electronic version of this guide, visit www.youthjusticenc.org. CREDITS YJNC thanks the following individuals for their valuable input: § Tamar Birckhead—Associate Professor of Law; Co-Director, UNC Youth Justice Clinic § Barbara Fedders—Clinical Associate Progressor of Law; Co-Director, UNC Youth Justice Clinic § Drew Kukorowski—Attorney, Council for Children’s Rights § Kellie Mannette—Juvenile Defense Attorney, Law Office of Kellie Mannette § Hon. Marcia Morey—Chief District Court Judge, 14th Judicial District § Peggy Nicholson—Staff Attorney, Advocates for Children’s Services of Legal Aid of NC § LaToya Powell—Assistant Professor of Public Law and Government, UNC School of Government § Mary Stansell—Juvenile Chief, District 10 Public Defender § Eric Zogry—Juvenile Defender, Office of the Juvenile Defender, Office of Indigent Defense Services Some material in this guide was adapted from the Youth Guide to the Juvenile Court System with permission of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. PLEASE NOTE § Laws, policies, and practices change. This guide is current as of November 2014. § This guide is not intended to cover every detail of your issue or case, nor is it a substitute for legal advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure: Implications for Marriage and Relationship Education
    Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure: Implications for Marriage and Relationship Education Research Brief By Curt Alfrey, J.D. Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure: Implications for Marriage and Relationship Education Background Juvenile delinquency is of perpetual concern in the United States. In 2007, law enforcement agencies reported 2.18 million arrests of juveniles (persons under age 18). There are two types of delinquency offenses. The first type of offense is a behavior that would be a criminal law violation for an adult. The other offense is called a “status” offense. Status offenses are delinquent actions that do not apply to adults, like running away and truancy. They make up only 5 percent of the offenses of juveniles in custody (Puzzanchera, 2009), The other 95 provided by the juvenile justice system. Juvenile percent of juveniles in custody at any point in time delinquent behavior is believed to be under- (excluding those in adult prisons) are held for criminal represented due to the limited methods of collecting delinquency offenses. juvenile crime data. Juvenile arrests accounted for 16 percent of all violent crime arrests (i.e. murder, The types of crimes committed by juveniles are rape, assault) and 26 percent of all property crime compiled through self-reporting or from reports arrests (i.e. burglary, theft, arson) (Puzzanchera, 2009). Other crimes for which juveniles are arrested include simple assault, vandalism, gambling, Juvenile delinquent behavior is disorderly conduct, weapons possession, illicit drug/ believed to be under-represented liquor violation (including DUI) and prostitution. It due to the limited methods of is important to note that a number of misdemeanor collecting juvenile crime data.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Intervention and Preventing Juvenile Delinquency Nancy
    Early Intervention and Preventing Juvenile Delinquency Nancy Harmon Arkansas Highway Police School of Law Enforcement Supervision Session XLV November 11, 2015 Early Intervention and Preventing Juvenile Delinquency Can society prevent juveniles from becoming involved in delinquency and criminal behavior? The juvenile justice system is normally involved in a juvenile’s life once the juvenile has committed an act of delinquency or a crime. The juvenile justice system has made progress over the last decade with the quality and quantity of services it provides to juveniles, parents, and society (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The juvenile justice system is experiencing the lowest youth crime rates in 20 years (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2011). A common perception in the last few years was that the rate and proportion of young juveniles (under age 13) entering the juvenile justice system had increased. (Law Enforcement and Juvenile Crime, 2014). This statement is not true. In 1980, there were an estimated 1,259 arrests of persons ages 10-12 for every 100,000 persons in this age group in the U.S. population. By 2010, this arrest rate had fallen to 784, a decline of 38%. In 1980, 9.4% of all juvenile arrests were of persons under age 13; in 2010, this percentage had decreased to 6.6%. While there has been progress made in the juvenile justice system, this progress does not mean that the system has reached its goal or potential. One of the goals of the juvenile justice system should be to develop a way to prevent juveniles from becoming a part of the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Delinquency and Sanctions
    Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. Distribution of this reproduction without consent is not permitted. Institute of Judicial Administration American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Standards STANDARDS RELATING TO Juvenile Delinquency and Sanctions Recommended by the IJA-ABA JOINT COMMISSION ON JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS Hon. Irving R. Kaufman, Chairman Approved by the HOUSE OF DELEGATES, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, 1980 William S. White and Margaret K. Rosenheim, Chairman ofDrafting Committee I John M. Junker, Reporter Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. Distribution of this reproduction without consent is not permitted. DRAFTING COMMITTEE I-INTERVENTION IN THE LIVES OF CHILDREN Hon. William S. White, Co-chairman Leon S. Kaplan Margaret K. Rosenheim, Co-chairman Richard W. Kobetz John A. Adams Charles Lawrence Margaret A. Burnham Louis Maglio Thomas Carmichael Theresa M. Melchionne Harold Cohen Evelyn Moore Robert Coles Patrick T. Murphy Marian Wright Edelman Monrad G. Paulsen Jean Fairfax Kenneth Polk Mathea Falco Hillary Rodham Benjamin Finley Nicomedes Sanchez Marvin A. Freeman Mark Shedd Patricia Gish Mary Anne Stewart Thomas Gish Povl W. Toussieng Joyce Hens Green Rena Uviller Richard Hongisto Kenton Williams David W. Hornbeck Arthur Zitrin Edmond D. Jones This document was prepared for the Juvenile Justice Standards Project of the Institute of Judicial Administration and the American Bar Association. The project is supported by grants prepared under Grant Numbers 71-NI-99-0014; 72-NI-99-0032; 74-NI-99-0043; and 75-NI-99-0101 from the National Institute of Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, and 76-JN-99-0018; 78-JN-AX-0002; and 79-JN-AX-0025 from the National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S.
    [Show full text]