The Juvenile Justice System
The Juvenile Justice System is a network of agencies, institutions, organizations, and personnel that processes juvenile offenders. These include law enforcement personnel such as policemen and women, the prosecution and court of law, people who deal with the correction of the juvenile offenders, probation officers, people who offer parole services as well as private and public institutions that provide service programs for the youth in society. Juvenile offenders are children between the age of seven and seventeen years who have violated any state or local laws or ordinances. There are two types of juvenile offenders per the juvenile justice system: delinquents and status offenders. Status offenders are juveniles who have committed status offenses (acts that, when committed by adults are not considered crimes), and delinquents are juveniles who have committed acts that are considered crimes if adults engage in them. Examples of status offenses include curfew violations, truancy, and runaway behaviors.
The juvenile justice system of the early days worked under the philosophy of Parens Patriae, which meant that the state was actively involved in childrearing as much as the child’s parents were. The state had a responsibility to ensure that the children were brought up by the law. It also ensured that children moved away from criminality. Working under the philosophy of Parens Patriae, Juvenile courts’ main aim was to rehabilitate children who committed offenses rather than to punish them. This philosophy worked well, but with time, the need for the youths to be held responsible for their actions became necessary, so there was a movement dubbed the “Get-Tough Movement” that gave harsher and stricter ways to deal with juveniles.
In the 1960s, when the Juvenile Justice systems began, Juveniles were treated just the same as adult offenders without protection and rights accorded to adults unless the Juvenile Judges granted them these rights. Determination of these cases was informal, individualized, and there were no consistent guidelines on how each case was handled. The offender’s personality and social characteristics were taken into account, and there was no confidentiality in the handling of matters which saw a lot of Judge persuasion by the prosecution, probation officers, and witnesses. There was also a hands-off doctrine that ensured that the U.S. supreme court did not intervene in the Juvenile court cases.
From the mid-1960s to the 1990s, there was gradual granting of rights to the Juvenile offenders by the U.S. Supreme court. The procedures in the courts became formal, and this reduced discretion and individualized decisions. This move by the Supreme court was vital in protecting the youth from being abused by the Juvenile system. Several cases led to the Bureaucratization of Juvenile courts. There was a compromise between social welfare and law enforcement. Juvenile courts were required to have a hierarchy of authority, were subject to a certain level of competency, were required to enforce all the abstract rules with impartiality, and were required to have task specialization. Different forces acting in the juvenile courts were required to have impersonal social relationships. Personalities and social characteristics of the offender are not considered, and instead, the nature and seriousness of the offense committed are considered. Juveniles are made accountable for their actions through rational and just judgment rather than individualized treatment. This new system became justice-oriented, and this served to ease the panic and frustrations3 of the public after the explosion of youth gangs, gun violence, violent crimes, and drug wars.
Differences Between Juvenile and Adult Courts
There are several differences between juvenile courts and adult courts. Juvenile courts are used to process juvenile offenders, but adult courts are used to process adults who have committed crimes. The adjudication of judges in a juvenile court does not result in the young offender having a criminal record. Still, in adult courts, once the adult is found guilty, a criminal file is opened. Another significant difference is that juveniles are not entitled to have a trial by jury unless under extraordinary circumstances, but adults have a right to trial by jury. Juveniles have the option to engage defense attorneys, but adults are obligated to have defense attorneys when they appear in court. Transcripts of juvenile courts are only made if required by law, whereas adult courts are courts of record, and transcripts are necessary. Penalties of juvenile offenders are limited, but criminal court penalties are unlimited, and they may range from a sentence without parole to life sentences. In a criminal court, guilt is determined through standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while in juvenile courts, a preponderance of the evidence is used to ascertain guilt. In general, adult criminal courts are harsher, stricter, and offer long-term consequences to those found guilty.
In re Gault (1967)
It is one of the three unusual cases of juvenile right cases. Gerald Francis Gault (15-year-old) and his friend Ronald Lewis were taken into custody by a sheriff of Gila county Arizona after a neighbor of the Gaults, Mrs. Cook filed a verbal complaint that Gault had called her and made some indecent remarks (In re Gault, 1967). At the time of his arrest, Gault was on probation for being in the company of a friend who had stolen a wallet from a lady’s purse. Gault’s parents were not aware of his arrest until later in the evening when they found out and went to the Children’s detention Home he was being held at. The probation officer, Mr. Flaggs, informed the parents that his hearing would take place the next day at 3 pm. Mr. Flaggs filed a petition with no factual basis for the trial, and Gault’s parents were not given a copy of the petition before the hearing. On the day of the trial, Mrs. cooks, the complainant was not present, no transcript of the proceedings was made, and no one was sworn at the hearing. The testimony used was that of officer Flaggs, who talked of Gault’s behavior and his prior juvenile records. Another hearing was held on 15th June, and Mrs. Cooks was also not present. When asked about it, the judge insisted that there was no need for Mrs. Cooks to be present at the hearing. At the end of the trial, Gault was committed to Arizona State Industrial School as a delinquent until he attained the age of 21 years (6 years imprisonment). Another hearing was held on 17th August to challenge the judge’s decision on the length of confinement. The judge claimed that the sentence was earned because Gault had “disturbed the peace” and was habitually involved in immoral matters. It was made about an earlier incident where Gault had been accused of stealing a baseball glove and had denied the act. The judge also said that Gault had testified about making funny and silly calls some months ago. Appeals in the Arizona state courts seemed futile, so the Gaults went to the supreme court. The supreme court reversed the Arizona Court’s decision and was surprised at how badly and unprofessionally the case was handled (In re Gault, 1967).
Several issues about Gault’s case stood out. Gault was not given the option to have legal counsel or an attorney, and he was not able to cross-examine his complainant, Mrs. Cooks. There was no transcript of the court proceedings, and his sentence was partly determined by his testimony to making silly and funny calls. Gault’s parents were not notified when he was taken into custody, and they were not told of the petition filed before the hearing. In the beginning, the reason for Gault’s arrest was the indecent remarks he made towards Mrs. Cooks, an offense that, when presented in the adult court, would have earned the offender $50 fine and no more than 60 days in jail. Instead, Gault was committed to six years in the correctional facility. The outcome of Gault’s case was primarily influenced by the prosecution, Officer Flaggs, who focused on the Gault’s juvenile record rather than the matter at hand. Through this case, some due process rights were established by the supreme court. These rights were: Right to notification of charges and the notification of parents or guardians, right to counsel, right to confront and cross-examine accusers and witnesses, right against self-incrimination, right to the transcript of court proceedings, and right to review of finding of guilt (Dorsen, 1967).
Waivers
Juvenile cases are transferred to adult courts in a process called waiving. Several factors are determined in the instance that a minor case is waived into the adult court. Many states consider youths of the age of 13 and above to be eligible for a waiver based on the seriousness of the crime committed, the length of the offender’s criminal record. Whether or not the process of rehabilitation of this offender has worked in the past is also another consideration. Most cases are waived on request by the prosecution, but the prosecution needs to present substantial probable cause for the waiver (Greenwood, 2011). The judges then decide on whether or not to waive the case based on the juvenile’s background, their court record, and the offender’s level of cooperation in the juvenile court. Gault’s case was not waived to the adult court because the offenses for which Gault was taken into custody for are not considered serious crimes.