7.6: Juvenile Justice

The juvenile justice system has two main responsibilities: to oversee cases involving (1) juvenile delinquency (criminal law violations and status offenses) and (2) dependency, neglect, and child abuse. Due to the loose definitions of parens patrea and the court’s attempt to act in the best interest of the child, after World War II, the juvenile court was criticized for disregarding due process.

Due process refers to the procedural rights established in the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. It includes rights such as the right to legal counsel, right to call witnesses, and right to be notified of charges (which will be revisited in In re Gault). The original juvenile court did not implement due process rights because it was intervening in the lives of youth for their own good, not in such a formalized adult way where they would need constitutional protections. However, because of the abuse of power, this changed in later decades.

Beginning in the 1960s, four areas drastically changed in the juvenile court:

1. the juvenile due process revolution from 1966 to 1975
2. the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974
3. a growing emphasis on punishment and accountability in the 1980s and 1990s
4. contemporary juvenile justice reform that is driven by evidence-based practices and empirical research on adolescent development, which in turn leads us back to rehabilitation

Due Process in the Juvenille Court

The juvenile court was created with rehabilitation and individualized treatment in mind. However, between 1966 and 1975, the court became more formalized and started “adultifying” the process. Landmark cases for establishing due process rights in the juvenile justice system include Kent v. United States (1966); In re Gault (1967); In re Winship (1970); Breed v. Jones (1975).

The juvenile justice process involves nine major decision points: (1) arrest, (2) referral to court, (3) diversion, (4) secure detention, (5) judicial waiver to adult criminal court, (6) case petitioning, (7) delinquency finding/adjudication, (8) probation, and (9) residential placement, including confinement in a secure correctional facility (see Juvenile Justice Process flow chart).

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): The Juvenile Justice Process

Many cases are first referred to the juvenile justice system through contact with police. Probation officers, school officials, or parents usually refer to the remaining cases. The most common offenses referred to court are property offenses (roughly 92%), followed by person offenses (89.5%), drugs (88.2%), and general delinquency charges (81.6%). Other referrals come from schools, families, social workers, or probation officers.

At the intake stage, probation officers or attorneys determine whether or not the case needs the attention of the juvenile court or if it can be handled informally, such as diversion to probation or a drug treatment program. If the case progresses to court, the authorities need to determine if the youth can be released to a parent/guardian or if the youth needs to be held in a secure detention center. When determining this, the court needs to assess the risk the youth poses to society and if the youth poses a flight risk. In some cases, the parent cannot be located or, if located, refuses to take custody of the youth. In these cases, the juvenile is remanded to custody. The decision to detain or release the juvenile will be made by the judge at a detention hearing.

If the case is handled in court, the county attorney needs to file a petition. When the youth has a formal hearing, it is called an adjudication rather than a trial in adult court. The adjudication of youth as delinquent can result in either dismissal of the charges or confinement at a secure institution. In most juvenile cases, the least restrictive option is usually sought, so the youth is usually put on probation or some sort of community treatment. Formal processing is less common than informal processing involving diversion or community-based programming.

Chapter 7 illustrated how competing models of justice reflect different priorities regarding fairness and efficiency. Chapter 8 applies those principles directly to one of the most consequential decisions in the justice process: how offenders are punished. This chapter examines sentencing structures, punishment philosophies, and the consequences of incarceration for individuals and communities.