History Overtakes the Juvenile Justice System

Abstract

Many of juvenile justice's problems can be traced to the 19th century when parens patriae programs and facilities were established with little attention to their influence upon one another. As newer programs for status offenders were begun, older centers received mainly hardened delinquents, and their policies became more punitive. Without guidance or understanding whole systems grew punitive. A solution to this criminalizing of juvenile justice might entail a state-level department devoted to the treatment of delinquents in the community or in custodial facilities, and small facilities limited to 15-20 beds each, focusing on narrow segments of the delinquent population.

Examining the predictors of juvenile probation officers' rehabilitation orientation

“…Juvenile probation, much like the juvenile court, operated under the doctrine of parens patriae or the "state as parent" philosophy (Ferdinand, 1991;Sanborn, 2001;Thomas & Bilchik, 1985). Consistent with this focus, the duties of probation officers included educating, offering treatment, and teaching skills to offenders (Small & Torres, 2001) with a clear emphasis on providing youth with the resources and services needed to improve their behavior and lives (Butts & Mears, 2001).…”

Juvenile Courts and Competency to Stand Trial

“…The body of evidence that supports maintaining a separate juvenile court primarily follows three arguments: age does impact decision‐making and hence, culpability (Ghetti and Redlich 2001; Graham v. Florida (2010) ; Lynott and Logue 1993; Roper v. Simmons (2005) ; Scott and Grisso 1998; Zimring 1981); juvenile court sanctions are better able to reduce recidivism than the criminal court, which supports the notion that juveniles are amenable to treatment (Fagan 2002), and; the juvenile court enhances future prospects for youths’ economic participation in society by reducing the labeling effects of convictions given in adult criminal court (Fagan 2002; Ferdinand 1991; Gaarder et al. 2004).…”

Assessing the Legitimacy of Competence to Stand Trial in Juvenile Court

“…Therefore, the body of evidence that supports maintaining a separate juvenile court follows these premises: age does impact decision-making and thus, culpability (Ghetti & Redlich, 2001;Lynott & Logue, 1993;Scott & Grisso, 1998;Zimring, 1981); juvenile court sanctions are better able to reduce recidivism than the adult criminal court, which supports the notion that juveniles are amenable to treatment (Fagan, 2002), and the juvenile court enhances future prospects for youths' economic participation in society by reducing the labeling effects of convictions given in adult criminal court (Fagan, 2002;Ferdinand, 1991;Gaarder, Rodriguez, & Zatz, 2004).…”