01-Lawrence-45539.qxd 2/16/2008 12:39 PM Page 19 SECTION I HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE JUVENILE COURT AND JUSTICE PROCESS SECTION HIGHLIGHTS Historical Overview of Juvenile Justice The Origins of American Juvenile Justice Houses of Refuge and Legal Doctrines The “Child-Saving” Movement The First Juvenile Court The U.S. Supreme Court on Juvenile Justice Juvenile Versus Criminal Court: Legal and Procedural Distinctions Federal and State Legislative Changes 19 01-Lawrence-45539.qxd 2/16/2008 12:39 PM Page 20 20 JUVENILE JUSTICE he American juvenile justice system has developed over the past century with a number of differences that distinguish it from the adult criminal justice process. T Juvenile justice advocates supported the differences on diminished youthful offender accountability and legal understanding, and youths’ greater amenability to treatment. The first juvenile court was established in Chicago, Illinois, in 1899; yet a century later there is still con- siderable debate over the goals and the legal procedures for dealing with juvenile offenders. The question of whether juvenile offenders should be tried and sentenced differently than adult offenders elicits strongly held opinions from citizens, policy makers, and professionals. The juvenile justice system was established on the principle of individualized justice and focused on rehabilitation of youthful offenders. While due process protections were consid- ered important, they were considered secondary in importance given the court’s emphasis on care, treatment, and rehabilitation for juveniles. It was believed that youths could be held responsible for their unlawful behavior and society could be protected through an informal justice system that focused on treatment and “the best interests of the child.” This approach is still appropriate and effective for the majority of juvenile offenders whose crimes range from status offenses, to property offenses, to drug offenses. The juvenile justice system has come under increasing scrutiny, however, as a growing number of juveniles are involved in violent crimes, especially school violence, gang-related violence, and assaults with weapons resulting in fatalities and serious injuries. Despite the fact that juveniles are involved in a proportion- ately small number of murders each year, violent crime committed by juveniles elicits wide- spread media coverage. The public and political/legislative response to juvenile violence has been to demand more accountability and punishment, resembling that of the criminal justice system. One century after the development of the first juvenile court, the system faces a mul- titude of challenges and questions. y Historical Overview of Juvenile Justice Laws and legal procedures relating to juvenile offenders have a long history, dating back thou- sands of years. The Code of Hammurabi some 4,000 years ago (2270 B.C.) included reference to runaways, children who disobeyed their parents, and sons who cursed their fathers. Roman civil law and canon (church) law 2,000 years ago distinguished between juveniles and adults based upon the idea of “age of responsibility.” In early Jewish law, the Talmud set forth condi- tions under which immaturity was to be considered in imposing punishment. Moslem law also called for leniency in punishing youthful offenders, and children under the age of 17 were to be exempt from the death penalty (Bernard, 1992). Under fifth-century Roman law, children under the age of 7 were classified as infants and not held criminally responsible. Youth approaching the age of puberty who knew the difference between right and wrong were held accountable. The legal age of puberty (age 14 for boys and 12 for girls) was the age at which youth were assumed to know the difference between right and wrong and were held criminally accountable. Anglo-Saxon common law that dates back to the 11th and 12th centuries in England was influenced by Roman civil law and canon law. This has particular significance for American juvenile justice because it has its roots in English common law. The Chancery courts in 15th- century England were created to consider petitions of those in need of aid or intervention, generally women and children who were in need of assistance because of abandonment, 01-Lawrence-45539.qxd 2/16/2008 12:39 PM Page 21 Section I History and Development of the Juvenile Court and Justice Process 21 divorce, or death of a spouse. Through these courts the king could exercise the right of parens patriae (“parent of the country”), and the courts acted in loco parentis (“in place of the parents”) to provide services in assistance to needy women and children. The principle of parens patriae later became a basis for the juvenile court in America. The doctrine gives the court authority over juveniles in need of guidance and protection, and the state may then act in loco parentis (in place of the parents) to provide guidance and make decisions concerning the best interests of the child. y The Origins of American Juvenile Justice The separate system of justice for juveniles has developed just over the past 100 years. Following the tradition of English law, children who broke the law in 18th-century America were treated much the same as adult criminals. Parents were responsible for controlling their children, and parental discipline was very strict and punishments were harsh. Youth who committed crimes were treated much the same as adult criminal offenders. The law made no distinction based on the age of the offender, and there was no legal term of delinquent. The American judicial pro- cedures in the 19th century continued to follow those of England, subjecting children to the same punishments as adult criminals. Some punishments were very severe. Youth who commit- ted serious offenses could be subjected to prison sentences, whipping, and even the death penalty. During the 19th century, criminal codes applied to all persons, adults and children alike. No provisions were made to account for the age of offenders. Originally there were no separate laws or courts, and no special facilities for the care of children who were in trouble with the law. A number of developments during the 19th century paved the way for a separate system of justice for juveniles. An increase in the birthrate and the influx of immigrants to America brought a new wave of growth to American cities. With this growth came an increase in the numbers of dependent and destitute children. Urban youth and children of immigrants were thought to be more prone to deviant and immoral behavior than other youth. Early reform- ers who were members of the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism expressed dissatisfac- tion with the practice of placing children in adult jails and workhouses. They called for institutions that would instruct delinquent youth in proper discipline and moral behavior (Mennel, 1973). y Houses of Refuge and Legal Doctrines The doctrine of parens patriae provided the basis for official intervention in the lives of way- ward youth. Parents were expected to supervise and control their children, but when it became apparent that parents were not properly controlling and disciplining their children, the State was given the authority to take over that responsibility. The Society for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents in New York advocated for the separation of juvenile and adult offend- ers (Krisberg, 2005, p. 27), and in 1825 the New York House of Refuge was established to take in dependent, neglected, and delinquent youths. Other houses of refuge in Boston and Philadelphia were soon established, and these were followed shortly thereafter by reform schools for vagrant and delinquent juveniles. State reform schools opened in Massachusetts in 1847, in New York in 1853, in Ohio in 1857; and the first State Industrial School for Girls was opened in Massachusetts in 1856 (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1976, p. 65). 01-Lawrence-45539.qxd 2/16/2008 12:39 PM Page 22 22 JUVENILE JUSTICE ▲ Photo I-1 Police officers take a young boy into custody in the late 19th century. (© Bettmann/CORBIS) The doctrine of parens patriae was first tested in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of Ex parte Crouse in 1838. The father of Mary Ann Crouse argued that his daughter was illegally incarcerated without a trial. The Court denied his claim, stating that the Bill of Rights did not apply to juveniles. The Court stated that when parents are found to be “incompetent” in their parental duties, the state has the right to intervene and provide their child with guidance and supervision. The Crouse ruling was based on what the Court believed was the best interests of the child and the entire community, with the assumed intentions that the state could provide the proper education and training for the child. As states intervened in more juvenile cases, especially ones involving minor misbehavior, the concept of parens patriae would later meet more legal challenges. The early juvenile reform schools were intended for education and treatment, not for pun- ishment, but hard work, strict regimentation, and whippings were common. Discriminatory treatment against African Americans, Mexican Americans, American Indians, and poor whites remained a problem in the schools. Sexual abuse and physical attacks by peers (and sometimes staff members) also were problems. Institutional abuses against incarcerated juveniles came under increasing criticism by the last half of the 1800s. The practice of taking custody of troubled 01-Lawrence-45539.qxd 2/16/2008 12:39 PM Page 23 Section I History and Development of the Juvenile Court and Justice Process 23 youths under the concept of parens patriae led many by the mid-1800s to question whether most youths benefited from the practice. There is evidence that the State is not in fact an effective or benevolent parent, and that there was a significant disparity between the promise and the practice of parens patriae.