ENT OF M JU U.S. Department of Justice T S R T A I P C E E D B O J Office of Justice Programs C S F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention JUSTICE 1999 National DECEMBER 1999 Report Series Juvenile Justice: Juvenile Justice Bulletin A Century of Change As the amenable to intervention. At its best, the juvenile Shay Bilchik, Administrator Nation court balances rehabilitation and treatment with moves into appropriate sanctions—including incarceration, the 21st when necessary. century, the reduction The Illinois statute also gave the court jurisdiction of juvenile over dependent, neglected, and delinquent children. crime, vio- This understanding of the link between child victim- lence, and ization, family disorder, and the potential for child victimization victims to become offenders without early and constitutes one of effective intervention continues to be an important the most crucial chal- part of the juvenile court philosophy. lenges of the new mil- lennium. To meet that This Bulletin provides a thorough, easily understood challenge, reliable informa- description of the development of the juvenile justice tion is essential. Juvenile Offend- system in the United States. It also uses the most ers and Victims: 1999 National current data available to look at where we are headed, Report offers a comprehensive and it examines the recent trend of transferring certain overview of these pervasive problems juvenile cases to adult criminal court. and the response of the juvenile justice system. The National Report brings Contrary to what some people believe, today’s U.S. together statistics from a variety of sources juvenile justice system is not an “easy out” that gives on a wide array of topics, presenting the a meaningless slap on the wrist to violent youth. Nor information in clear, nontechnical text is it a breeding ground for gangs, drugs, and adult enhanced by more than 350 easy-to-read crime. Instead, the juvenile justice system provides tables, graphs, and maps. youthful offenders and their victims with a compre- hensive, yet balanced approach to justice. Probation, This Bulletin series is designed to give readers treatment, and restitution are widely used. For most quick, focused access to some of the most critical juveniles who enter the system, this approach works: findings from the wealth of data in the National Report. 54 percent of males and 73 percent of females never Each Bulletin in the series highlights selected themes return to juvenile court on a new referral. at the forefront of juvenile justice policymaking and extracts relevant National Report sections (including Certainly, there are areas in the juvenile justice system selected graphs and tables). that need improvement. For example, the system needs to prepare to handle more female offenders and Administrator’s Message offenders under the age of 13, two groups whose numbers are increasing. Still, the roots of the juvenile In 1899, when the first proceeding of a juvenile court justice system remain strong and need to be supported convened in Chicago, it is unlikely that those in the by all those committed to improving the lives of our courtroom were aware of the momentous impact of children. At OJJDP, we intend to continue our efforts their actions. Yet, that beginning provided the foun- to strengthen the juvenile justice system and achieve dation for how our Nation deals with juvenile offenders. the goals for which the juvenile court was first A century ago, the focus of the juvenile justice system established. was on the juvenile offender—rather than the offense— and that remains largely true today. The juvenile court system is based on the principle that youth are Shay Bilchik developmentally different from adults and more Administrator The juvenile justice system was founded on the concept of rehabilitation through individualized justice Early in U.S. history, children reform movements. These earlier re- Juvenile courts flourished for the who broke the law were treated form movements changed the per- first half of the 20th century the same as adult criminals ception of children from one of mini- ature adults to one of persons with By 1910, 32 States had established Throughout the late 18th century, less than fully developed moral and juvenile courts and/or probation “infants” below the age of reason cognitive capacities. services. By 1925, all but two States (traditionally age 7) were presumed had followed suit. Rather than to be incapable of criminal intent As early as 1825, the Society for the merely punishing delinquents for and were, therefore, exempt from Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency their crimes, juvenile courts sought prosecution and punishment. Chil- was advocating the separation of ju- to turn delinquents into productive dren as young as 7, however, could venile and adult offenders. Soon, fa- citizens—through treatment. stand trial in criminal court for of- cilities exclusively for juveniles fenses committed and, if found were established in most major cit- The mission to help children in guilty, could be sentenced to prison ies. By mid-century, these privately trouble was stated clearly in the or even to death. operated youth “prisons” were un- laws that established juvenile der criticism for various abuses. courts. This benevolent mission led The 19th-century movement that Many States then took on the re- to procedural and substantive dif- led to the establishment of the juve- sponsibility of operating juvenile ferences between the juvenile and nile court in the U.S. had its roots in facilities. criminal justice systems. 16th-century European educational The first juvenile court in this During the next 50 years, most juve- country was established in Cook nile courts had exclusive original County, Illinois, in 1899 jurisdiction over all youth under age John Augustus—planting the 18 who were charged with violating seeds of juvenile probation Illinois passed the Juvenile Court criminal laws. Only if the juvenile (1847) Act of 1899, which established the court waived its jurisdiction in a Nation’s first juvenile court. The case could a child be transferred to “I bailed nineteen boys, from 7 to 15 British doctrine of parens patriae criminal court and tried as an adult. years of age, and in bailing them it Transfer decisions were made on a was understood, and agreed by the (the State as parent) was the ratio- nale for the right of the State to in- case-by-case basis using a “best court, that their cases should be interests of the child and public” continued from term to term for sev- tervene in the lives of children in a standard, and were thus within the eral months, as a season of proba- manner different from the way it in- realm of individualized justice. tion; thus each month at the calling tervenes in the lives of adults. The of the docket, I would appear in doctrine was interpreted to mean court, make my report, and thus the that, because children were not of The focus on offenders and not cases would pass on for 5 or 6 full legal capacity, the State had the offenses, on rehabilitation and months. At the expiration of this inherent power and responsibility not punishment, had substantial term, twelve of the boys were to provide protection for children procedural impact brought into court at one time, and whose natural parents were not pro- the scene formed a striking and viding appropriate care or supervi- Unlike the criminal justice system, highly pleasing contrast with their sion. A key element was the focus appearance when first arraigned. where district attorneys select on the welfare of the child. Thus, cases for trial, the juvenile court The judge expressed much plea- the delinquent child was also seen sure as well as surprise at their ap- controlled its own intake. And un- as in need of the court’s benevolent pearance, and remarked, that the like criminal prosecutors, juvenile intervention. object of law had been accom- court intake considered extra-legal plished and expressed his cordial as well as legal factors in deciding approval of my plan to save and how to handle cases. Juvenile court reform.” intake also had discretion to handle cases informally, bypassing judicial action. 2 1999 National Report Series As public confidence in the Some juvenile codes emphasize prevention and treatment goals, treatment model waned, due some stress punishment, but most seek a balanced approach process protections were There is much variation in the way equivalent to that which they introduced State statutes define the purposes of should have given him.” their juvenile courts. Some declare ■ In several other States, the pur- In the 1950’s and 1960’s, many came their goals in exhaustive detail, even pose clause is based on the lan- to question the ability of the juve- listing specific programs and sen- guage contained in the Legislative nile court to succeed in rehabilitat- tencing options; others mention only Guide for Drafting Family and Ju- ing delinquent youth. The treatment broad aims. Most States seek to pro- venile Court Acts, a publication is- tect the interests of the child, the fam- techniques available to juvenile jus- sued in the late 1960’s. The Guide tice professionals never reached the ily, the community, or a combination declares four purposes: (a) “to desired levels of effectiveness. Al- of the three. Nearly all States also in- provide for the care, protection, though the goal of rehabilitation clude protections of the child’s consti- and wholesome mental and tutional and statutory rights. Many physical development of children” through individualized justice—the States have amended their purpose involved with the juvenile court; basic philosophy of the juvenile jus- clauses, reflecting philosophical shifts (b) “to remove from children com- tice system—was not in question, or changes in emphasis in the overall mitting delinquent acts the conse- professionals were concerned about approach to juvenile delinquency.