Week 2 Flashcards
Where did we get 7 years old as a standard?
Blame the Romans
In NY, not the standard; except arson - as low as 7 years old
England - common law
- Children treated like adults; can be given the death penalty
1500s criminal justice system
reeves, shires, and chancellors
Middle Ages - English common law
Age 7 was used to separate infants from those older children who were accountable to the law for their actions
Originally from Roman law; English adapted it
shires
counties
were organized to carry out the will of the king
reeves
chief law enforcement officer
- each shire/county had one
shire + reeve
‘sheriff’
chief law enforcement officer in most US counties
chancellors
acted on the kings behalf and dispensed justice according to his wishes
- held court and settled disputes
chancery courts or courts of equity
Courts conducted by chancellors
banishment
was used as a way of punishing more serious offenders
- banished from region; could not obtain food or water
transportation
Some offenders were transported to pacific islands; owned by the British and converted into penal colonies; many died there
death penalty old times
common for petty crimes
1600s criminal justice
british workhouses and poor laws
Imprisoned people who were in debt, paid off their debt in workhouses
Essentially the first jail
- Not for crimes against other people; just for people poor
- No separation of age and gender; as young as 7
indentured servitude and exploration of British practices
To get labor force to the new land; promise 7 years of your life working for a passage to the new world
Entered voluntarily into contractual agreements with various merchants and businessmen to work for them for extended periods of up to seven years
late 1700s and early 1800s view on children
children still viewed as adults by society and the law
Around the Industrial Revolution, city populations exploded, and rates of child poverty, abuse, and neglect were high
- Upper Class benefitting the most; high society
Parents of poor immigrant families were working, and youth were unsupervised
Society for Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents
advocated for alternative institutions for “wayward” and “vagrant” youth (ie. poor kids, majority Irish immigrants)
Charity started to become more formal; more organized; imposing their own social values on the people they are trying to help
houses of refuge
Institutions largely devoted to managing status offenders, such as runaways or incorrigible children
In 1825, New York House of Refuge established; many others followed
If boys were found doing petty crimes, they would be put in these homes and given basic education and “treatment” to “correct” their behaviors
- White boys
Teaching “religion” and “morals”
- Whose? Theirs.
Youth committed for indefinite periods, no due process rights
How was this legal?
- Ex Parte Crouse (1839)
Ex Parte Crouse (1839)
established the doctrine of parens patriae
CASE:
- Father sued the city/state because they incarcerated his daughter who committed a crime and put her in a house of refuge and never told him
- Kept her for an indeterminate amount of time
- He claimed he had rights as a parent; he owned her
Courts decided - doctrine of parens patriae
- State takes over as the parental figure
- Country father
- Claimed you have rights of a parent but they are not universal; if you fail as a parent, they have the right to take your child and do a “better” job
pushing back on parens patriae
People ex. Rel. O’Connell v. Turner (1870)
Common law vs case law
Illinois State Supreme Court case re: The Chicago Reform School
Question:
Does the state (or city in this case) have the authority to hold (imprison) a youth in a “reform school” who is “‘destitute of proper parental care, and growing up in mendicancy, ignorance, idleness or vice’,” but who may have committed no crime. . .”
Can they keep a child who did no legal crime in reform school just because they are disrespectful?
Do we have the right to put people away just because they make us uncomfortable?
Answer:
No. The court reinforced a parent’s right to care for their children and limited the State’s power to interfere with this right except in cases of “gross misconduct or almost total unfitness of the parent
Children as Defendants: Juvenile Courts
In 1889, the first separate Juvenile Court was officially established in Illinois
- Viewed children as distinct from adults, in need of care, protection and rehabilitation
- Goal to provide an intervention focused on the child’s needs rather than conduct
- Operated under parens patriae
- BUT youth were not entitled to any of the protections that adults receive in criminal court (e.g., right to attorney, right to fair trial)
Children not seen as fully responsible for their behavior
- Conduct was seen as a result of their life circumstances and parents’ failure to instill proper values
Court process was informal, with no no procedural rules or limits on case length or length of commitment
What about Black and Brown youth?
Many black youth were still enslaved in the South when Houses of Refuge were opened
Even after Emancipation Proclamation, children of newly freed slaves could be forced into apprenticeships by slave holders until adulthood
Blacks arrested and imprisoned for crimes that were not applicable to Whites, allowing for “convict leasing”
Houses of Refuge were intended to provide both care and education; Black and Latinx youth were initially excluded from this
Even after Houses opened for Black youth, conditions were worse than those for White children
Latinex youth labeled as “feeble-minded” and received discriminatory treatment by juvenile courts
1960s and 70s
Critics of the system began to question the lack of procedural protections for youth in juvenile delinquency cases
- Judges had no restrictions on how they handled cases
- Youth could be held for indeterminate amounts of time
Some argued that the system was merely a way to oppress and control poor, marginalized populations
There was also research showing that the juvenile justice system was not effective
In the 1960s and 70s, several US Supreme Courts cases led to an increase in the procedural protections for youth in delinquency cases
- The first of these cases was Kent v. United States (1966):
Question: whether it was constitutional for thee juvenile court to transfer a youth to adult court without a hearing or other protections
Answer: No. juveniles are entitled to a hearing with an attorney prior to being waived from juvenile court to adult court, and the court must state the reasons for that transform (for waiver)
In re Gault (1967) importance
In re Gault (1967) was a VERY important case in juvenile law. Because of this case, juveniles now have the right to:
- Notice of the charges against them
- An attorney
- Confront and cross-examine witnesses
- Privilege against self-incrimination (e.g., right to “plead the 5th”)
- Prior to this case, youth in delinquency cases were not guaranteed any of those rights
In re Gault (1967) CASE
“Gerald (“Jerry”) Gault was a 15 year-old accused of making an obscene telephone call to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook, on June 8, 1964. After Mrs. Cook filed a complaint, Gault and a friend, Ronald Lewis, were arrested and taken to the Children’s Detention Home. Gault was on probation when he was arrested, after being in the company of another boy who had stolen a wallet from a woman’s purse.
At this hearing, the probation officers filed a report listing the charge as lewd phone calls. An adult charged with the same crime would have received a maximum sentence of a $50 fine and two months in jail. The report was not disclosed to Gault or his parents. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge committed Gault to juvenile detention for six years, until he turned 21.
Gault’s parents filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by both the Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona Supreme Court. The Gaults next sought relief in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court agreed to hear the case to determine the procedural due process rights of a juvenile criminal defendant.”
After In re Gault (1967
the Supreme Court extended several other protections to youth in juvenile cases (these protections were already granted to adults):
The standard of proof = beyond a reasonable doubt (In re Winship, 1970)
The privilege against double jeopardy
Youth charged with crimes still do NOT have a guaranteed right to a jury trial or bail in Family Court
double jeopardy
after being found innocent, they cannot be tried again for the same crime (Breed v. Jones, 1975)
shift back to the punishment model
pendulum - swinging back and forth
1978, NY was the first state to increase punishment for youth as a result of the Willie Bosket case
Additional rights awarded to youth + increase juvenile crime in 1980s/early 1990s and studies showing that treatments were not working = move to a more punitive model
In 1995, the juvenile “superpredator” myth fueled this fire
Every state modified or implemented new transfer/waiver laws to make it easier for youth to be tried in adult court
More recent protections
Sentencing
- Juvenile death penalty was legal in the US until 2005
- Roper v. Simmons (2005): Supreme Court found that death penalty for minors is a violation of 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment
Mandatory life without parole is no longer allowed for minors
- Graham v. Florida (2009)
- Miller v. Alabama (2012)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016)
- Jones v. Mississippi (2021)
Shifting Back to Rehabilitation?
Increase in the number and use of alternative to incarceration programs over the last two decades
Missouri Model
New York Juvenile Justice System
- More alternatives to incarceration in NY
- Reduction in use of secure detention for youth
- Focus on keeping youth closer to their communities if they are placed away from home
- Raise the Age initiative
18th century jails
Established after workhouses
Bridewell Workhouse
- London
workhouses
Early penal facilities designed to use prison labor for profit by private interests; operated in shires in mid-sixteenth century and later
poor laws
Laws targeted debits who owed creditors, and for those unable to pay their debts, sanctions were imposed
imprisoned them, typically for life unless someone could pay them for them
Hospital of Saint Michael
Youth housed were not ill
Assigned various tasks and trained to perform semiskilled and skilled labor
- Useful tools that would enable them to find employment more easily after their release
- Housed in individual cells
Child Savers Movement
Organized effort during early 1800s to provide assistance, including food and shelter, to wayward youth (children roaming the streets while their parents were at work; family couldn’t afford care)
reform schools
Different types of secure residential institutions designed to both punish and rehabilitate youthful offenders; operated much like prisons as total institutions
People ex rel. O’Connell v. Turner
A youth, Daniel O’Connell, was declared vagrant and in need of supervision and committed to the Chicago Reform School for an unspecified period
His parents challenged this court action, claiming that his confinement for vagrancy was unjust and untenable
The court reasoned that state interested would be better served if commitments of juveniles to reform schools were limited to those committing more serious criminal offenses rather than those who were victims of poverty
Further held that it was unconstitutional for youth who had not been convicted of criminal conduct or afforded legal due process to be confused in the Chicago Reform School
Jane Adams
Established and operated Hull House, a settlement home used largely by children from immigrant families in the Chicago area
Act to Regulate the Treatment and Control of Dependent, Neglected, and Delinquent Children → Illinois Juvenile Court Act
Provided for limited courts of record, where notes might be taken by judges or their assistants, ot reflect judicial actions against juveniles
Children’s tribunals - civil tribunals
Informal mechanisms were used to adjudicate and punish children charged with crimes, and they were entirely independent from the system of criminal courts for adults
Compulsory School Act
Education law
Primarily targeted at truants; also encompassed juveniles who wandered the streets during school hours without any obvious business or occupation
Youth were termed as juvenile disorderly offenders
Sweatshops
Children were put to work for low wages in factories named this
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)
A compilation of arrests for different offenses according to several time intervals
Index offenses
Considered to be the most serious crimes
Misdemeanor
A violation of criminal laws that is punishable by an incarcerative term of less than one year in city or county jails
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCV)
Conducted annually
A random survey of approximately 90,00 dwellings and about 160,000 persons aged 12 and over measures crime convicted against specific victims interviewed and not necessarily reported to law environment officers
Victimization
A basic measure of the occurrence of a crime and is a specific criminal act that affects a single victim
Incident
A specific criminal act that may involve one or more victims
Cleared by arrest
Meaning that someone has been arrested and charged with a particular crime
National Juvenile Court Data Archive
Compendium of national statistical information and databases about juvenile delinquency
At risk youth
Those who suffer from one or more disadvantages, such as lower socioeconomic status, dysfunctional family conditions, low self esteem, etc
Pittsburgh Youth Study
Longitudinal investigation of 1,517 inner city boys between 1986 and 1996; studied factors involved in what caused delinquency among some youth and why others did not become delinquent
Career escalation
Moving as a juvenile offender to progressively more serious offenses as new offenses are committed
