Need help? We are here

Some of the historical events that have had an impact on the contemporary juvenile justice network in the United States, I can say starting off has to be the age differential for punishment. What I mean by that is, while reading some of the historical events I came across this portion; “there were no corporal punishment prior to puberty, which was considered to be the age of 12 years for females and 13 years for males. No capital punishment was to be imposed for those under 20 years of age, and that children under the age of 17 years were typically exempt from the death penalty (Bernard,1992)”.
Another historical event that had such an impact would be dealing with Chancery courts, under the guidance of the king’s chancellor, were created to consider petitions of those who were in need of special aid or intervention, such as women and children left in need of protection and aid by reason of divorce, death of a spouse, or abandonment, and to grant relief to such persons. Through the chancery courts, the king exercised the right of parens patriae (“parent of the country”) by enabling these courts to act in loco parentis (“in the place of parents”) to provide necessary services for the benefit of women and children (Bynum & Thompson, 1992).
Basically, stating that, “the king, as ruler of his country, was to assume responsibility for all of those under his rule, to provide parental care for children who had no parents, and to assist women who required aid for any of the reasons just mentioned. Although chancery courts did not normally deal with youthful offenders, they did deal with dependent or neglected children, as do juvenile courts in the United States today”.
My opinion on both are pretty much upside down, because these juveniles are getting more and more out of hand and I feel as if they are doing so not just because lack of attention from home, parents etc. they come up with but just foolishness knowing that they won’t necessarily get punished for it. But times have changed are going to continue to change just because of that. I was reading on the case Roper v. Simmons. This case was very interesting to me because teens are still committing these types of crimes, which I call pre-meditated. I wouldn’t want my love one away from me, but committing such crime, consequences are needed to be set in place. Now as far as the time served giving that would be difficult for me to decide, only because you may NEVER know what a person is committing the crime for. They can tell you one thing and mean another. Long term effects will result in continuous increase in prison population, after while the juvenile courts/jail will no longer be needed because it’s a continuous thing with the crimes being done. Juveniles stealing cars, robbing and killing-the EXACT thing they see us adults doing and seeing the punishments being given and thinking oh that’s nothing I can serve that. It’s like it’s a trend now.
n 1818, a New York City committee on pauperism gave the term juvenile delinquency its first public recognition by referring to it as a major cause of pauperism. As a result of this increasing recognition of the problem of delinquency, several institutions for juveniles were established between 1824 and 1828. These institutions were oriented toward education and treatment rather than punishment, although whippings, long periods of silence, and loss of rewards were used to punish the uncooperative. Also, strict regimentation and a strong work ethic philosophy were common (Cox, 2007).

The period between 1899 and 1967 has been referred to as the era of socialized juvenile justice in the United States. During this era, children considered not as miniature adults but rather a person with less than fully developed morality and cognition. Emphasis on the legal rights of the juvenile declined, and emphasis on determining how and why the juvenile came to the attention of the authorities and how best to treat and rehabilitate the juvenile became primary. The focus was clearly on offenders rather than the offenses they committed (Anderson, 1998).

The failure of the houses of refuge and early reform schools brought more interest in the welfare of troubled youth who were abandoned, orphaned, or forced to work under intolerable conditions. In the latter half of the 19th century, following the Civil War period, humanitarian concerns were directed toward troubled children and their treatment (Cox, 2007).
A pivotal point in the development of the juvenile justice system in America was what became known as the
child-saving movement. The child savers were a group of reformers that included philanthropists, professionals, and middle-class citizens who expressed concerns about the welfare of children. They pushed for state intervention to save at-risk children through shelter care and educational programs. The result of this child-delinquent behavior threatened the moral fabric of society and must be controlled. If parents could not or would not control and properly supervise their children, then the government should intervene. They pushed for legislation that would give the court jurisdiction over incorrigible children, runaways, and those who committed crimes.

Following the federal statutory guidelines and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, the pendulum began to swing toward law and order in the 1980s (Cox, 2007).
In response to public perceptions that serious juvenile crime was increasing and that the system was too lenient with offenders, many state legislators responded by passing more punitive laws. Some laws removed juvenile offenders charged with violent crimes from the juvenile system, while other laws required the juvenile justice system to be more like the criminal justice system, and to treat more serious juvenile offenders as criminals but in the juvenile court. The result has been to exclude offenders charged with certain offenses from juvenile court jurisdiction or to have them face mandatory or automatic waiver to criminal court. In some states, concurrent jurisdiction provisions give prosecutors the discretion to file certain juvenile cases directly in criminal court rather than in juvenile court. The trend continued through the1990s as state legislatures continued to pass more punitive laws to deal more harshly with juvenile crime (Jlc, 2020).

The lack of formal process and constitutional due process in the juvenile justice system, and potential for substantial deprivations of children’s liberty through extensive periods of incarceration even in juvenile facilities, came to light in the landmark case 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision In re Gault. In Gault, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Constitution requires that youth charged with delinquency in juvenile court have many of the same due process rights guaranteed to adults accused of crimes, including the right to an attorney and the right to confront witnesses against them (Jlc, 2020).
Following Gault, the Supreme Court extended additional constitutional rights to youth, including the right to have the charges against them proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the right against double jeopardy. In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that youth were not entitled to jury trials in juvenile court, but several states have judicially or legislatively elected to provide youth a right to a jury trial (Anderson, 1998).