The doctrine was interpreted to mean that the state had both the right and the obligation to intervene when natural parents failed to adequately discipline and protect children. A critical aspect of the developing juvenile justice system was a focus on the welfare of the child. Delinquent youths were seen as being in need of the benevolent guidance of the court. Rather than merely punishing delinquents for their wrongdoings, juvenile courts sought to turn delinquents into productive citizens through treatment rather than the punitive measures used in adult cases.
By , 32 States had established juvenile courts, and many of those had established probation services. By , all but two States had established the foundations of a juvenile justice system. The statutes that created these courts made the doctrine of parens patriae explicit. The different philosophy of the juvenile courts led to both substantive and procedural differences between adult cases and juvenile cases. Ultimately, most states had systems where those accused of crimes and less than 18 years of age had their cases heard in juvenile courts.
An important difference was that juvenile courts were not adversarial in nature, and prosecutors were not responsible for bringing cases before the court. Juvenile courts tended to handle their own intake. Juvenile courts were prone to consider extralegal factors when deciding how to deal with a particular case. Many juvenile courts had intake procedures that allowed for the informal diversion of youthful offenders where no formal judicial action was taken.
Another major difference between juvenile courts and adult courts was the level of formality. Juvenile proceedings were handled in a much less formal way than adult trials.
Because the court used the best interest of the child standard, many due process protections afforded adult defendants were considered unnecessary. A wide range of dispositions were available for juvenile judges seeking to rehabilitate wayward children. The doctrine of proportionality did not necessarily apply, and delinquent children could receive anything from a verbal warning to being locked up in a secure detention facility.
The duration of these dispositions was very fluid. By the s, many people had become disillusioned with the juvenile courts and their ability to rehabilitate. The treatment options available to juvenile judges never achieved the level of success that the public demanded. The underlying assumptions about the validity of individualized treatment of delinquent youths was not widely challenged, but the application of the philosophy by the juvenile courts was brought into question. These changes, while causing radical changes in police procedure, were also felt by the juvenile justice system.
The justices believed that children should be afforded many of the same constitutional safeguards to their liberty as adult offenders. Accordingly, they made several rulings in a short span of time that protected these rights. A side effect of these procedural protections was the formalization of the juvenile courts. Juvenile courts started to look much more like adult courts than they did at their inception.
Delinquents facing the possibility of confinement were guaranteed the right to an attorney, protection against self-incrimination, and the right to receive notice of the charges. The standard of proof changed from a preponderance of the evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt in juvenile cases. The Supreme Court declined to extend all adult rights to children. They, for example, determined that juveniles had no right to a trial by jury. Congress was not silent on juvenile justice issues during this time.
In the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of , congress recommended that children charged with nonserious status offenses be handled outside the court system.
This was the beginning of a movement toward community based sanctions, deinstitutionalization , and moving juvenile offenders away from adult offenders.
The public perception was that serious juvenile crime was on the rise, and that the juvenile courts were too lenient on offenders. Many states responded to this public outcry for tougher sanctions by passing more punitive laws.
One of the most controversial strategies was the removal of certain classes of offenders from the juvenile system and placing them in the adult system. Others revamped their juvenile courts to operate more like adult courts.
As a result, offenders charged with certain offenses are excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction or face mandatory waiver to criminal court. Prior to this time, waivers to adult courts was possible, but it was relatively rare and done on a case by case basis. Both state and federal prosecutors often use their office as a springboard for higher political office.
Occasionally, an unscrupulous prosecutor will abuse power in the worst way: Acting on the basis of political motives, the prosecutor will engage in political prosecutions by pressing criminal charges against political enemies. A case can be made, for example, that independent counsel Kenneth Starr's conservative politics motivated his investigations of President Clinton's extramarital affairs during the late s.
Judges experience tremendous political pressure. Questionable political influences come into play when judges are faced with the decision of whether or not to impose the death penalty. It isn't a coincidence that elected judges impose the death penalty at higher rates than appointed judges. This difference stems from elected judges' fear of appearing soft on crime.
Refusing to impose the death penalty makes a judge vulnerable to attacks from political opponents who may use the judge's decision against him or her at the next judicial retention election.
Corrections officials also take political considerations into account. Politics can drive a parole board's release decisions. Parole board members are susceptible to influence from the governors who appoint them. Members almost inevitably make release decisions cautiously. If parolees commit crimes, the media, the governor's political rivals, or both may blame the governor.
Serious problems for citizens and the criminal justice system can result from the politicization of criminal justice, a process through which political leaders seize opportunities to use criminal justice issues to enhance their own popularity, electability, or power.
When criminal justice issues become too politicized, politicians are tempted to engage in demagoguery , appealing to people's emotions, passions, and prejudices rather than to people's minds. Political demagoguery is the enemy of clear thinking about solutions to the crime problem.
Politics of stymie. Politics and Reform. About Us. Updated p. What are records? Since , The Marshall Project has been curating some of the best criminal justice reporting from around the web. In these records you will find the most recent and the most authoritative articles on the topics, people and events that are shaping the criminal justice conversation.
The Marshall Project does not endorse the viewpoints or vouch for the accuracy of reports other than its own. Sentencing Reform. Department of Justice. Police Accountability. Mass Incarceration. Are we missing a record? Tell us. Marshall Project Originals. News Inside knows that political debates are always taking place behind the wall, even after the presidential election.
Joe Biden ran on the most progressive criminal justice platform of any major party candidate in generations. So what can he actually do? Unlike many law enforcement unions that endorsed the president, Bureau of Prisons staff argue he's anti-union.
Find out whether voters said yea or nay to legalizing drugs, allowing people on parole to vote and run for office, and more. Our latest survey of the incarcerated reveals sharp political differences between the incarcerated and the general public, as well as a few areas of consensus.
0コメント