Juvenile Justice

An Introduction to Process, Practice, and Research

James Burfeind, Dawn Jeglum Bartusch, Dusten R. Hollist

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138843219
• eBook ISBN: 9781317550914
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

This book provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking introduction to the juvenile justice system in the United States. It begins by tracing the historical origins of the legal concept of juvenile delinquency and the institutional responses that developed, and analyzes the problem of delinquency, including its patterns, correlates, and causes. With this essential foundation, the greater part of the book examines the full range of efforts to respond to delinquency through both informal and formal mechanisms of juvenile justice. Core coverage includes:

• The history and transformation of juvenile justice,
• The nature and causes of delinquency,
• Policing juveniles,
• Juvenile court processes,
• Juvenile probation and community-based corrections,
• Residential placement and aftercare programs,
• Delinquency prevention,
• Linking systems of care.

This book is designed as a core text for courses on juvenile justice. Each chapter begins with a compelling case study and learning objectives that draw attention to the topics discussed. Each chapter ends with one or two readings that introduce readers to the literature on juvenile justice. In addition, "critical thinking questions" invite analysis of the material covered in the chapter.

A companion website offers an array of resources for students and instructors. For students, this includes chapter overviews, flashcards of key terms, and useful website links. The instructor site is password protected and offers a complete set of PowerPoint slides and an extensive test bank for each chapter—all prepared by the authors.

Part I
Introduction to juvenile justice

Chapter 1
The Study of Juvenile Justice

Chapter Topics

• A separate system of justice for juveniles
• Juvenile justice reform
• Juvenile justice process, practice, and research
• Exploring the literature on juvenile justice: Chapter readings

Chapter Learning Objectives

After completing this chapter, students should be able to:

• Convey an initial understanding of the separate and distinctive system of justice that has developed for juveniles in the United States.
• Demonstrate an initial understanding of the series of reforms, beginning in the 1960s, that redefined the legal concept of juvenile delinquency and significantly transformed juvenile justice philosophy, policy, and practice.
• Understand the book’s organization and content.
• Develop skills for effective and efficient reading of scholarly work on juvenile justice.

Chapter Contents

Case in point: Intake discretion and the rehabilitative emphasis of juvenile justice

A separate system of justice for juveniles

Juvenile justice reform

Juvenile justice process, practice, and research

Exploring the literature on juvenile justice: Chapter readings

Summary and conclusions

Critical-thinking questions

Suggested reading

Glossary of key terms

Useful websites

References

Case in Point

Intake Discretion and the Rehabilitative Emphasis of Juvenile Justice

Steve Jones is Chief Probation Officer (CPO) of Johnson County Youth Court Services. In this capacity, he screens cases that are referred to the juvenile court, determining whether cases should be dismissed, diverted to a community social service agency, dealt with informally by the juvenile court, or petitioned into youth court for formal court action. The “intake” decision is highly discretionary because few laws define or regulate this process. The primary considerations have to do with what is best for the youth, his or her family, and the community.

One Monday morning in early November, CPO Jones received an offense report of a youth who was taken into custody and placed in detention over the weekend by the local city police department for underage drinking, public drunkenness, and disorderly conduct. He recognized the name immediately: Clay Rogers—a 16-year-old youth who had been on probation with Court Services the previous year for two consecutive six-month terms, each for burglary. The first burglary was not petitioned into youth court, but dealt with through informal probation, which was based on an agreement (technically called a “consent adjustment without petition”) between the youth, his parents, and a probation officer. The informal probation included rules of probation (“conditions”) and participation in agreed-upon social services for Clay and his family. The second burglary occurred near the end of the informal probation period. This time, CPO Jones decided that Clay needed to be held accountable, so he recommended that the County Attorney’s Office petition the juvenile into youth court for formal court action. At the arraignment hearing, the petition was read and Clay admitted to the charge of burglary. The judge continued the court case for disposition so that a probation officer could conduct an investigation and write a predisposition report. Based on the report’s recommendation, the youth court judge determined that Clay was a “delinquent youth” and placed him on six months of formal probation with more restrictive conditions, restitution, and community service.

Now, with the allegations of new offenses specified in the police report, CPO Jones had a discretionary dilemma. Should he suspend a formal referral to the youth court in an effort to pressure Clay to follow his probation expectations more closely—a motivation for compliance? Should he submit a revocation report to the youth court, describing how Clay had violated the condition of probation that required him to follow all local, state, and federal laws? Revocation would result in a disposition that provided a graduated sanction for the new offenses. Or should he recommend that the County Attorney’s Office petition Clay into youth court for a new offense, which would result in an entirely new formal adjudication process? Beyond these alternative methods of handling Clay’s most recent referral, the third-round intake decision presents CPO Jones with some fundamental questions regarding the appropriate role of juvenile courts and the philosophy of justice that should be pursued, especially when dealing with a repeat offender. Should a juvenile be held fully responsible for his/her actions? Should the juvenile court maintain its rehabilitative focus with a repeat offender? Even more broadly: Should juveniles be dealt with differently from adults by a separate justice system?

Before the establishment of the first juvenile court, legal systems in the United States dealt with young people who violated the criminal law much as they did adult offenders (Feld 2014). Beginning in the 1800s, reformers established institutions designed to deal with juvenile offenders differently than adults. These reformers embraced a view of young people as immature, dependent, and at-risk for problem behaviors due to negative environmental influences (Bishop and Feld 2012). At the end of the 1800s, a separate system of justice was created for juveniles, first in Chicago, and shortly thereafter all across the United States. By 1925, every state but two had established a juvenile justice system (Platt 1977).

The legal concept of “juvenile delinquency” emerged within the context of the legislation that established each state’s juvenile justice system. With some variation in wording, youth court acts defined juvenile delinquency as actions that violate the law, committed by a person under the legal age of majority. Early youth court acts established the legal age of majority as 16 years old, but over time, 18 years of age became the most common age of majority.

Each state operates its own juvenile justice system but these are “systems” in only a limited sense because the authority to respond “officially” to delinquency is spread broadly across the different levels and branches of government. Juvenile law enforcement, for example, is an executive branch responsibility carried out predominately by local police departments (municipal police departments and county sheriffs’ departments). Youth courts, on the other hand, are judicial units that most often operate within state district or county courts, which are part of a state court system. In addition, groups and institutions that are not part of justice systems also respond to the problem behaviors of children and teens through prevention and early intervention efforts. Public and private schools, for instance, usually try to deal with disruptive behaviors in the classroom through teacher and student training programs.

A Separate System of Justice for Juveniles

The juvenile justice systems that developed across the United States in the early 1900s adopted a legal structure, philosophy, and process that separated them from adult criminal justice systems and made them distinct. The Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899, which established the first juvenile court in Chicago, provided for an entirely separate system of juvenile justice, complete with law enforcement, judicial, and correctional components. The Act specified the use of a “special courtroom” and separate personnel and records (NCJFCJ 1998; Platt 1977).

The juvenile justice systems that spread across the country were envisioned as child welfare systems, rather than as judicial systems, and their prevailing goal was to protect, nurture, reform, and regulate dependent, neglected, and delinquent children (Feld 1999). These new juvenile justice systems were designed deliberately to remove juveniles from adult criminal justice systems and to create a special rehabilitative approach for delinquent, dependent, and neglected youth. As such, early juvenile justice systems had broad jurisdiction over almost all juvenile matters. Furthermore, juvenile justice proceedings were typically informal and family-like, with personnel exercising extensive discretion in handling juvenile cases. Softer, more rehabilitative, legal terminology was and still is customarily used in the juvenile justice process in order to avoid reference to the harsh, adversarial process of the criminal justice system. For example, police officers “take youth into custody” instead of arresting them, youth are “petitioned” into juvenile court rather than “indicted” into criminal court; juvenile court proceedings are called “hearings” instead of trials, and delinquent youth are given a disposition rather than a sentence.

Juvenile Justice Reform

Traditional juvenile justice systems were drawn into question beginning in the 1960s, resulting in a series of reforms that redefined the legal concept of juvenile delinquency and significantly transformed juvenile justice philosophy, policy, and practice. In a wide-ranging critique of juvenile justice in the late 1990s, juvenile justice scholar Barry Feld (1999) examined four areas of change that were evident in the reforms at that time: (1) an increased emphasis on procedural due process with little actual gain in due process rights; (2) a shift in legal philosophy from the rehabilitative ideal to punishment and criminal responsibility, especially for serious, violent juvenile offenders; (3) reforms to divert, deinstitutionalize, and decriminalize status offenders (the “soft end” of the juvenile court), thereby sending them to a “hidden,” private sector treatment system of social control, administered by mental health and chemical dependency service providers; and (4) the transfer of serious juvenile offenders (the “hard end” of the juvenile court) to adult criminal court jurisdiction. As a result of these sweeping changes, the structure and process of contemporary juvenile justice systems have come to resemble those of adult criminal justice systems, and the philosophy of juvenile justice has shifted decisively from an emphasis on rehabilitation to punishment and accountability, thereby adopting a “get tough on juvenile crime” approach.

As we will discuss further in later chapters, contemporary juvenile justice reform is driven by research, especially research in two primary areas: adolescent development and evidence-based practice. A growing body of research on adolescent development has questioned the punitive posture of many contemporary juvenile justice systems across the United States, as expressed in get-tough policies and practices. This research shows that adolescents are not developmentally mature, and they are therefore less able to regulate their behavior and make decisions that require future orientation. Because of these findings, a return to rehabilitation in juvenile justice is warranted. Contemporary juvenile justice reform is also being driven by

What’s Ahead in Juvenile Justice: An Introduction to Process, Practice, and Research?

• Chapter 1: The study of juvenile justice provides an overview to the perspective and approach taken in this book.
• Chapter 2: Origins and transformation of juvenile justice traces the historical origins and recent transformations of the legal concept of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice in the United States.
• Chapter 3: Juvenile justice law, structure, and process describes contemporary juvenile justice in terms of the statutory laws that form its foundation and the distinctive structures and processes that characterize it.
• Chapter 4: Data on delinquency and juvenile justice presents the three major sources of data on delinquency and juvenile justice: “official” records maintained by law enforcement agencies and courts, surveys of individuals who have been victims of crime, and surveys of individuals who self-report involvement in offending.
• Chapter 5: The nature of delinquency examines the extent of delinquent offenses and the social correlates of offending (age, gender, race, ethnicity, and social class).
• Chapter 6: Causes of delinquency presents an inventory of the key concepts and contexts of delinquency that have been offered in theory and supported through research.
• Chapter 7: Cops and kids: Policing juveniles describes the structure and role of juvenile policing, with an emphasis on changes in law enforcement tactics and due process.
• Chapter 8: Preliminary procedures of juvenile courts: Detention, transfer to crimi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS IN BRIEF
• CONTENTS
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Visual tour
• About the authors
• Acknowledgements
• PART I Introduction to juvenile justice
• PART II Understanding the problem of delinquency
• PART III Juvenile justice process
• PART IV Partnerships in juvenile justice
• Index