Juvenille Corrections

On average, about 1,400 juveniles under the age of 18 are arrested for murder, 4,600 for rape, and 64,000 for aggravated assault. Many of these cases make the local and national news. (Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2006). A juvenile is an individual who falls within a specified age range, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Although is varies from state to state, the most common age of a juvenile is 17 (Taylor, Fritsch, & Caeti, 2002). Only Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina have a maximum juvenile court jurisdiction age of 15. Individuals who fall outside of the age range of the juvenile court's jurisdiction are processed through the adult criminal justice system.

Compared to the criminal justice system, the juvenile justice system has similar concepts with different terms (Taylor et. al, 2002). A juvenile is detained when he or she is taken into the custody of law enforcement, as opposed to being arrested. If the juvenile justice system chooses to charge and indict the juvenile, he or she is referred to the court and then held on petition. Their trail is known as an adjudication hearing. During this time, the juvenile is known as the respondent, instead of the defendant. If the prosecution gains a conviction, the juvenile is adjudicated. The sentencing hearing and sentence is known as a disposition hearing and a disposition. The prison is called either a training school or an institution. The parole period is known as aftercare.

Though history, every generation of juveniles who broke the law were faced with different circumstances. In the United States, five periods outline the American juvenile justice system. Each period is a reflection of society's influence toward the treatment of juveniles as social, intellectual, and political views have changed (Clear et. al, 2006). In 1646, which was the start of the Puritan Period (1646-1824), the Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law was passed. Due to this law, the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony believed that children were evil, and that their parents were responsible for disciplining them. Any juvenile who did not obey their parents were dealt with by the law. The Puritans also believed that through hard work, religion, and education, a person could get closer to God. These ideals served as the foundation of early institutions in the juvenile justice system (Taylor et. al, 2002).

In 1825, during the Refuge Period (1824-1899), reformers advocated for the creation of institutions where delinquent, abused, and neglected children could go to learn good work habits, live in a disciplined and healthy environment, and develop quality character. The first institution, the House of Refuge, opened in 1825 in New York. Founders of the institution believed that by incarcerating juveniles there, the juveniles would be protected from their weak and immoral parents, the crimes associated with street life, and their own wicked temptations (Taylor et. al, 2002). By 1850, almost every large city had opened such institutions. Inmates at these institutions were trained in job skills, provided with religious instruction, and held accountable with strict but sympathetic discipline (Clear et. al, 2006).

In 1899, during the Juvenile Court Period (1899-1960), the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899 established a separate justice system to manage cases that involved juveniles. The Act led to the development of the first juvenile court system, which was established in Chicago, Illinois in 1899 (Taylor et. al, 2002). Under the Act, the juvenile court system was given full jurisdiction over all delinquent, dependant, and neglected juveniles. Separate courtrooms, different procedures, and segregated record systems were also established just for cases involving juveniles. The "parens patriae" concept tasked the juvenile court to serve the role of guardian over all juveniles brought into their system. For decisions that would affect the fate of the juvenile, the juvenile court would take into consideration the "best interest" of the juvenile, as opposed to just their guilt or innocence (Clear et. al, 2006).

In the 1960s, during the Juvenile Rights Period (1960-1980), the American Civil Liberties Union rallied to protect the rights of juveniles within the justice system (Clear et. al, 2006). Decisions made by the United States (US) Supreme Court in four different cases have become landmarks in the development of due process within the juvenile justice system (Taylor et. al, 2002).

In 1959, 14-year-old Morris Kent was detained by the District of Columbia juvenile justice system for several burglaries and robberies, and then placed on probation. Two years later, while still on probation, he was detained for burglary, robbery, and rape. The juvenile court decided to that Kent should be waived to adult court for criminal proceedings and was convicted. However, the juvenile court did not conduct any hearings for the decision, consult with Kent, his parents, or his lawyer, nor provide any justification for the waiver. Because of these factors, Kent appealed the waiver and the conviction. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided that, since Kent was not afforded any due-process rights, the procedure leading to the waiver and the waiver itself was invalid. In Kent v. United States, the decision was very vague, but did become the first case to rule that juveniles facing waiver to adult court are entitled to basic due-process rights (Taylor et. al, 2002).

In 1964, 15-year-old Gerald Francis Gault was detained by the Sheriff of Gila County, Arizona for making an obscene phone call to a woman. However, the Arizona juvenile justice system afforded virtually no due-process procedures at all. Gault was given no notice of his court hearings, no notification that his counsel would be present at the meetings, no opportunities to challenge to complaint the woman had made against him, and no protection against self-incrimination (Hall, 1999). The case initiated research, which found that juveniles were not being rehabilitated by the juvenile justice system (Taylor et. al, 2002). As a result, the US Supreme Court decided that due-process rights were needed to protect juveniles, as well as assist in their rehabilitation. With In re Gault, the Court ruled that juveniles would be entitled to due process rights, which included the right to notice of charges, right to counsel, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and right to remain silent (Hall, 1999).

Although due process procedures were established, the court proceedings in the juvenile justice system were considered more civil that criminal. Because of these concepts, the standard of proof in juvenile courts was preponderance of evidence, as opposed to the criminal court's standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (Hall, 1999). In 1970, 12-year-old Samuel