American Postcolonial Patterns of Delinquency

Once the children had become special, new Children Only laws were passed. There was an increasing
demand on the state to take responsibility for improving the lives of children and eventually new regulations, such child
labor laws were enacted. In 1916, United States congress passed the Keating-Owen Act, the first piece of child labor
in America. Though it was overturned after 2 years through the case of Hammer V. Dagenhart, it did lay the groundwork
for the passage in 1938 of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Moreover, today, ever state has established its own child
labor laws.
The middle of the nineteenth century also included the child-saving movement. Concerned citizens eventually formed
a social activist group called Child Savers, who believed that: "children were born good and became bad. Juvenile
children were blamed on bad environments. The best way to save the children was to get them out of "bad" homes
and placed in "good ones.
According to Child Savers, parents of juveniles should be sterilized to prevent further members of the "dangerous
class" from being born- Eugenics. It was in the political climate that the legal doctrine of Parens Patriae (parent of the
country) was created and it became a significant influence on the development of juvenile justice which came from the
Feudal Period of England.
 What is Parens Patriae? It is the Latin for "parent of his or her county." In the juvenile justice legal system,
parens patriae is a doctrine that allows the state to step in and serve as a guardian for children, the mentally
ill, the incompetent, the elderly, or disabled persons who are unable to care for themselves (Parens Patriae
in Juvenile Justice: Definition e Doctrine, 2016).
In 1818, a committee report listed juvenile delinquency as a major cause of pauperism, the first public recognition of
the tem juvenile delinquency. In 1899 the Illinois legislature passed a law establishing a Juvenile Court that became
the cornerstone of juvenıle justice throughout the United States. The first juvenile courts functioned as administrative
agencies of the circuit or district courts and were mandated as such by legislative action. The vision of the child savers
and the founders of the juvenile court was then rehabilitative ideal of reforming children instead of punishing them.
Probation, according to the 1899 Illinois Juvenile Court Act, was to have both an investigative and a rehabilitative
function. It was then that the first juvenile court was somewhat established. Hence, laws authorizing separate trials for
children were enacted.
Original Goals of the Juvenile Courts in 1909
 Judge Julian Mack, one of the first judges to preside over the nation's first juvenile court in Cook County,
llinois, described the goals of the juvenile court: The child who must be brought into court should, of course,
be made to know that he is face to face with the power of the state, but he should at the same time, and more
emphatically, be made to feel that he is the object of its care and solicitude. The ordinary trappings of the
courtroom are out of place in such hearings. The judge on a bench, looking down upon the boy standing at
the ba, can never evoke a proper sympathetic spirit. Seated at a desk, with the child at his side, where he
can on occasion put his arm around his shoulder and draw the lad to him, the judge, while losing none of his
judicial dignity, will gain immensely in the effectiveness of his work (Mack, 1909).
In the first quarter of the 20th century, the Progressives further developed the medical model established by the Illinois
Court Act, viewing crime as a disease that could be treated and cured by social intervention.
Another emphasis of reform was concerned with isolating offenders from their normal social environment. It was felt
that such isolation may encourage the development of a delinquent orientation and, thus, further delinquent behavior.
In the late 1960s, a new approach for dealing with delinquency emerged the prevention of crime before youths engage
in delinquent acts (Regoli & Hewit, 1991).
Four D's of Juvenile Justice during the last half of the 20th Century
1. Deinstitutionalization
2. Diversion
3. Due process
4. Decriminalization
Although diversion was heralded by many, it also had some negative aspects. Many youngsters who earlier would
have been simply released were instead being referred to the new system of diversionary programs sprung up. This
process is referred to as net widening. Many of the diversion programs did achieve success.
Three Factors as Earlier Youth Services Programs
1. The police-based nature of the program
2. The use of counselling in a law enforcement setting
3. The skills approach to training and treatment
House of Corrections for Juvenile Delinquents
1. Bridewell. Bridewell was a royal palace built between 1515 and 1520 For Henry VIII. The location, next to the Fleet
River (which was used a sewer), however, was insalubrious. In 1553, it was given to the City
London, and it became both a hospital for vagrants and homeless children and a place of incarceration for petty
criminals, who were punished with whipping and hard labor. It is the first London house of correction: confined both
children and adults considered to be idle and disorderly
(Shoemaker, 2017-2018).
2. Hospice of San Michele (Saint Michael). It was established in 1704 John Howard, a reformer, brought from Rome
to England a model of the first institution for treating juvenile offenders. He was often thought of as the "father of prison
reform" (Regoli & Hewitt, 1991).
3. House of Refuge. It was situated in New York (NY). On May 10, 1825, the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism
of NY became the first group in America to call attention to neglected children between the ages of 10 to 18.
The House of Refuge opened its doors in New York City and became the earliest child-saving institution in the county;
it was the first to house children and adults separately (History of Juvenile Justice, 2007-2013).
By the middle of the 19" century, many states either built reform schools or converted their houses of refuge to reform
schools. The reform schools emphasized formal schooling, but they also retained large workshops and continued the
contract system of labor (Regoli & Hewit, 1991).
4. The Chicago Reform School. This was opened in 1855. The reformers who supported these institutions sought to
protect juvenile offenders by separating them from adult offenders. They also focused on rehabilitation trying to help
young offenders avoid a future life of crime].
5. Massachusetts State Industrial School for Girls. It was the first girl's reformatory established on June 10, 1856
which believe that if these girls needed a strong mothering environment and teaching of morals for them to become
good mothers also. Ilinois and Ohio avoided an urban are setting but yet a rural setting for the girls because it was said
that the city was the root of all evil and social problems and offered too many temptations to unsupervised children
(History Juvenile Justice, 2007-2018),
Significant Cases on Juvenile Justice
1. In re: Winship. It established proof beyond reasonable doubt as the standard for juvenile adjudication proceedings,
eliminating lesser standards such as a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing reasonable proof. It
established that a jury trial is not a required part of due process the adjudication of the youth as delinquent by a juvenile
court.
 Samuel Winship, age 12, was accused of stealing money from a woman's purse in a store. A store employee
stated that Samuel was seen running from the store just before the money was reported missing, but others
in the store disputed that account, noting that the employee was not in a position to see the money actually
being taken.
At the juvenile court hearing, the judge agreed with Winship's attorney that there was some "reasonable
doubt" of Samuel's guilt, but New York juvenile courts (like those in most stales) operated under the civil law
standard of "preponderance of evidence." Winship was adjudicated delinquent and committed to a New York
training school. Winship's attorney appealed the case on the issue of the standard of evidence required in
juvenile court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the standard of evidence for adjudication of delinquency
should be proof beyond reasonable doubt (387 U.S. 358, 90 S.Cl. 1068 [1970]).
2. MeKeiver v. Pennsylvania. The significance of McKeiver is that it is the only one of these first five cases in which
the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that juveniles must receive all the same due process rights as adults in criminal
court.
 Joseph McKeiver, age 16, was charged with robbery and larceny when he and a large group of other juveniles
took 25 cents from three youths. At the hearing, the judge denied his attorney's request for a jury trial, and
McKeiver was adjudicated and placed on probation. McKeiver's attorney appealed the case to the state
Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower court. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which upheld the lower court rulings. The Court argued that juries would not enhance the accuracy of the
adjudication process, and could adversely affect the informal atmosphere of the nonadversarial juvenile court
hearingprocess (403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976 [1971|).
3. Breed v. Jones. It recognized that a juvenile cannot be adjudicated in a juvenile court and then tried for the same
offense in an adult criminal court (double jeopardy).
 Gary Jones, age 17, was charged with armed robbery and appeared in Los Angeles Juvenile court, where
he was adjudicated delinquent. At the disposition hearing, the judge waived Jurisdiction and transferred the
case to criminal court. Jones's attorney then filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the waiver to criminal
court after adjudication in juvenile court violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
court denied the petition on the basis that juvenile adjudication is not a "trial." The case was appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court where the Justices ruled that adjudication is equivalent to a trial, because a juvenile is
found to have violated a criminal statute. Jones's double jeopardy rights had therefore, been violated, and
the Court ruled that double jeopardy applies at the adjudication hearing as soon as any evidence is presented.
A juvenile court waiver hearing must, therefore, lake place before or in place of an adjudication hearing (42/
U.S. 319, 95 S.C 1779 [19751). These. U.S. Supreme Court cases profoundly affected the legal process and
procedures in juvenile courts throughout the United States, Additional procedures and legal forms were
instituted, from the county or state's attorney prosecuting the cases down to the intake probation officer
working with juveniles referred from police departments for delinquent behavior. The overall purposes of the
juvenile court remained the same, but court personnel were now required to inform the youth and their parents
of due process rights. State legislation quickly followed to amend juvenile court procedures in accordance
 with the Supreme Court rulings.
4. Kent v. United States. It provided the procedural requirements for waiver to criminal court as articulated by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
 The first of these cases was Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). Morris Kent first entered the juvenile
court system at the age of 14, following several housebreakings and an attempted purse snatching. Two
years later, his fingerprints were found in the- apartment of a woman who had been robbed and raped. He
was detained and interrogated by police and admitted to the crimes. Kent's mother hired a lawyer, who
arranged for a psychiatric examination of the boy. That examination concluded that Ken Suffered from
"severe psychopathology" and recommended that he be placed in a psychiatric hospital for observation. The
juvenile court judge had authority to "waive jurisdiction" in Kent's case to criminal court, where Kent would
be tried as an adult. Kent's lawyer opposed the waiver and offered to prove that if Kent were given proper
hospital treatment, he would be a candidate for rehabilitation. The juvenile court did not respond to the
motions made by Kent's lawyer and, without a hearing, waived jurisdiction to the criminal court. Kent is
significant because it was the first Supreme Court case to modify the long-standing belief that juveniles did
not require the same due process protections as those of adults, because the intent of the juvenile court was
treatment, not punishment. The majority statement of the justices noted that juveniles may receive the "worst
of both worlds"-"neither the protection accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment
postulated for children" (383 U.S. 541, 86 S. Ci. 1045 [1966]).
5. In Re Gault (1967). It held that juvenile courts must provide the basic procedural protection that the Bill of Rights
guarantee to adults, including timely advance notice of the charges, the right to either retained or appointed counsel,
confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses, self-incrimination, and the right to remain silent. It also
rejected the basic premise of juvenile court actions: that the proceedings are civil in nature and those minors' rights are
adequately protected by the judges acting as substitute parents (Regoli & Hewitt, 1991).
 A 1967 decision by the United States Supreme Court affirmed the necessity of requiring juvenile courts to
respect the due process of law rights of juveniles during their proceedings. The ruling was the result of an
evaluation of Arizona's decision to confine Gerald Francis Gault. Gault (age 15) had been placed in detention
for making an obscene call to a neighbor while under probation. The Arizona juvenile court had decided to
place him in the State Industrial School until he became an adult (age 21) or was "discharged by due process
of law." The Supreme Court decision, delivered by Justice Abe Fortas, emphasized that youth had a right to
receive fair treatment under the law and painted out the following rights of minors:
a. The right to receive notice of charges,
b. The right to obtain legal counsel,
c. The right to confrontation and cross-examination,
d. The privilege against self-incrimination,
e. The right to receive a transcript of the proceedings, and
f. The right to appellate review.
6. Schallv. Martin (1984). The Supreme Court upheld the right of the state to place juveniles in preventive detention.
Preventive detention was perceived as fulfilling a legitimate state interest of protecting society and was juveniles by
detaining those who might be dangerous to society or to themselves (Regoli & Hewitt, 1991).
American Bar Association (1977) Decriminalizing Status Offenses
It endorsed decriminalization of status offenses, urging that juvenile delinquency liability should include only such
conduct as would be designated a crime if committed by an adult. In the 1980s, many training schools and high-security
institutions were built in rural areas or close to small rural towns so the inmates could be trained in agriculture. The
hope was that such training would produce productive citizens.