FIRST ARTICLE

For many the details of our criminal justice system are unknown and the details of our
juvenile justice system may go without even thinking about.However, it is important as a
citizen to know and understand social institutions, in order to know and understand
social institutions, you must first know the history. Today I'm going to tell you about how
the juvenile justice justice system began
America’s criminal justice system has never treated all citizens equal.
To understand how we got here, we need to look at the evolution of the juvenile justice
system.
History of Juvenile Justice System
Back before the American Revolution, the colonies followed the Common Law of
England when it came it came to criminal justice. This means that children were held
accountable as adults. In 1646, Puritans in Massachusetts enacted a statue called “the
stubborn child law”, this made child disobedience a capital offense allowing a death
penalty an option, but then things started to change.
In the 19th century, the idea emerged that children should be taken care of by the state.
This notion ultimately empowered the state to serve as a guardian.
In 1825 the New York House of Refuge opened for juveniles only, they were called
delinquents that distinguish them from criminals. Reformers stress that delinquents
could be reformed and if properly supported they wouldn't turn into lifelong criminals.
In 1899 Chicago reformers also known as child savers, many of them disenfranchised
women decided to fight for the defenseless.
One reformer Lucy Flower had been an orphan herself, the reformer or child savers
push for the creation of the first-ever juvenile court. This wasn't like a regular court.
There was no jury. The judge didn't look down from a bench, but sat at a desk.
Julian Mack one of the first such judges said, “A kid should be made to feel that he is
the object of its care and solicitude.” This court was the first of its kind, anywhere in the
world. Kids didn't get prison time but instead were put in institutions or programs like
parents the court tried to steer kids toward becoming responsible adults. Within 25
years most states started to think the same thing juvenile courts popped up everywhere
even in another country. But for children of color, things were different. They were
sometimes banned from houses of refuge or juvenile detention centers and when
convicted, they were more likely to be placed in adult prisons.
Under Jim Crow laws, some cities like Memphis established separate juvenile courts for
kids of color. A police officer not a judge presided over this court.
 After World War II, Americans seemed to relish the concepts of liberty and justice. The
civil rights movement was well underway, activists began to realize that while juvenile
courts were designed to be less punitive, they didn't provide the constitutional rights
enjoyed by adults.
In 1967, for instance, a 15 year-old named Gerald was accused of making an indecent
phone call to a neighbor. Gerald was arrested without anyone informing his parents, no
record was made of his appearance before a judge or the neighbor who complained.
Gerald was committed to a state school until he was 21. An adult with the same charge
might have received the $50 fine and two months incarceration. Gerald's parents
brought his case to the Supreme Court in 1967 that August, the body ruled that
juveniles were entitled to due process .
In the I970’s, America started rethinking its criminal justice system prime had spiked
including juvenile crime.
The 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was amended to include
provisions that allowed states to try kids as adults for violent crimes and weapon
violations.
In 1978, New York City passed the Juvenile Offender Act, a law that made it possible to
try kids as young as 13 and adult court for murder charges, and as young as 14 for
other violent crimes like assault and robbery. That law caused states across the country
to reinterpret who could enter the prison system as an adult. They were afraid that a
new breed of super predators would sweep over the nation.
Today, America incarcerates more juveniles than any country in the world every day 53
thousand children are locked up. That's more than a sold-out crowd at a major league
baseball game, nearly 60% of these children are black or Latin. Today certain rights like
the sixth amendment and the right to a speedy trial or a trial by jury remains only
applicable to adults. Advocates have succeeded in getting almost all state to raise the
age at which you are considered an adult to a teen, but if you commit certain severe
crimes you can still be tried as an adult in the adult court and serve adult time.
SECOND ARTICLE
In 1968, the passing of The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act
designed to help prevent juveniles from becoming criminals as apposed to punishing
them once they did.
In the years since more focus has been placed on punishment rather than
prevention. But even by the mid 70’s, people still believed in rehabilitation rather than
just giving up on juvenile criminals.
Juvenile crime rose between the late 1980’s and mid-1990’s, hit peak in 1994
and then began to gradually decline. In response to fear that juvenile crime would
continue to rise at the rate seen between 1987 and 1994, legislatures enacted “get
tough on crime” laws.

In 2008, Juvenile Justice in America had reached a crucial point where more and
more kids of all ages were now being considered and treated as adults in our courts.
The office of Juvenile justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) February 2000
“Juvenile Justice Bulletin”, acknowledged that the threat of juvenile violence and
delinquency was grossly exaggerated in the 1990’s; however, the fear experienced at
the time resulted in significant changes to the United State’s approach to juvenile crime.

THIRD ARTICLE
***Philippines
In 2006, the Philippines passed a landmark Law called the juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act (R.A 9344). It aims to hold Children in conflict with the law accountable using child
sensitive procedures.
Before enacting the law, children as young as 9 years old were put behind bars. There
were 1,976 children imprisoned every year from 2000-2005.Children were mixed with
adults while undergoing trial. They had to survive congested jails, eat sustainable foods,
and be educated by adult inmates. After the law was enacted in 2006, the minimum age
of criminal liability was moved up from 9 to 15 years old. The number of children behind
bars dramatically decreased to 400 every year.
As of today, we are a long way from properly implementing the current law.
Amending it, by once again lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15
years old to 9 years old can only put the child further risks to a lifetime criminality,
injustice and misery.
FOURTH ARTICLE
In the Second Edition of the Book titled “The Cycle of Juvenile Justice”, the late Thomas
J Bernard and Megan Kurleychek, assert that there is a cyclical pattern in juvenile
justice, where the same sequence of policies has been repeated over three times in the
last 200 years. In fact, the authors, argue that future policy changes regarding juvenile
justice can be predicted by closely examining this cycle. The authors also argue that the
behaviors that we describe as juvenile delinquency today first appeared in the United
States in Western Europe around 1800 and persists to this day. They attribute juvenile
delinquency to urbanization, industrialization, and the breakdown of traditional social
controls. The authors contend that since 1800, there are numerous aspects of juvenile
delinquency which have stayed the same. For example, they assert that young males
have always committed more crime than members of other groups, while the overall
incidence and rate of crime may change. What remains constant is that young people
especially young males are disproportionately involved in crime. In their book, Bernard
and Kurleychek also point out that their special laws only juveniles are required to obey.
These laws are typically referred to as status offenses.
Status offenses have been around for over 200 years. Examples of status offenses
according to the authors includes truancy, running away from one's parents, underage
drinking and refusing to obey one's parents the authors contend the juveniles are still
required to obey special laws, even in those states which have decriminalized status
offenses. They assert that status offenders may be redefined as criminal offenders so
that they might be processed through the juvenile courts. The authors argue that there
have been separate laws for juveniles for centuries and attempts to change these laws
have only resulted in new laws or new approaches to control certain types of behaviors
in juveniles.
Bernard and Kurlychek also maintained, that for the last 200 years juveniles for the
most part is often punished less severely than adults. They traced this back to the Code
of Hammurabi which was written over 4000 years ago. Here, juveniles were treated
more leniently than adults. Also, they examine Roman law with the Twelve Tables,
where there was absolute immunity from punishment for children below a certain age.
Today according to the authors and most states within the U.S., young offenders below
the age of 18 are sent to the juvenile court, nevertheless there are states which have
lowered the maximum age for juvenile court jurisdiction.
For example, in New York and in North Carolina, if a juvenile is over 15 years old, he or
she will be tried in an adult court. Also, it is important to point out, that even if a juvenile
commits a crime if the offense is serious enough, or if he or she has committed multiple
offenses, the juvenile can be waived to an adult court. And in some states, certain
offenses which are very serious such as murder may automatically be waived to an
adult court. In these cases, the defense attorney will then try to get the case transferred
back to the juvenile court.
There are also other aspects of juvenile delinquency which have remained unchanged
for the last 200 years. The author's assert that older people tend to believe that the
current group of young people commit more frequent in more serious crimes, than
juveniles in the past. They refer to this phenomenon as the myth of the good old days.
The authors assert that whether juvenile crime is high or low, many people tend to
believe that it is worse than before. Therefore, people always tend to believe that we are
right in the middle of or on the verge of a juvenile crime wave regardless of what the
actual reality might be.
Bernard and Kurleychek also argue that many people blame juvenile justice policies for
the supposed juvenile crime wave, as either being too lenient or too harsh. This
explains both the creation of the first juvenile institution as well as the development of
the juvenile justice system. For example, prior to 1825, there was no juvenile institution,
instead, there were only adult facilities to send juvenile offenders too. So naturally,
judges, juries and prosecutors wanted to avoid sending juvenile offenders to adult
institutions. As a result, many juveniles got off scot-free. People were very critical of this
which eventually led to the creation of the first juvenile institution in New York City in
1825. The first juvenile court in Chicago also emerged in a very similar manner. It was
established in 1899 because the adult courts were believed to be too lenient with
juveniles, as a result of the creation of the juvenile court system, more youths were
subjected to the control and supervision of the adult court system.
It is worth mentioning again that the authors attribute juvenile delinquency to the
transition from agricultural societies to modern industrial societies. And the United
States and in Western Europe, the transition occurred at about the same time in the
early 1800s. Interestingly, when other nations made a similar transition, juvenile
delinquency also occurred. For example, as countries in Africa Asia and Latin America
underwent modernization during the latter part of the 20th century, they too confronted
the problem of juvenile delinquency. Again, this is a phenomenon which no country
really experienced as a traditional agricultural society.
Population growth coupled with urbanization put juvenile offenders into close contact
with potential victims, and immigration created culture conflicts which also led to crime.
Industrialization increase the number of movable goods which led to a significant spike
in property crimes.
In the United States, the juvenile justice system was created to capture young
underprivileged people to shape and mold these individuals into productive people, so
that they would not steal the property from the wealthy members of society. The authors
argue that universities and colleges were used to mold young people from the middle
and upper-class segments of society, while the juvenile justice system on the other
hand was used to mold young people from the lower classes who were deemed to be
the most dangerous.
 The First Juvenile institution was created in 1825 in New York, by powerful Protestant
middle-aged men who had grown up in quiet and orderly small towns, as America made
its transformation from a rural to an urban society. These men believed the young
immigrant youths were creating havoc in the cities, when youths were caught
committing crimes, they also noticed that judges and juries often refused to convict
them, and it would entail sending a young person to the penitentiary. So as a result,
youthful offenders often got off scot-free. These wealthy Protestant men decided to
build a juvenile institution which was focused on reform rather than punishment.
When this facility was built, it even took in juveniles who had not yet committed any
crime. Most of these juveniles were committed to this House of Refuge until they were
21 years of age. Again, virtually all of the juveniles who resided within this institution
were immigrants. The children of Irish Catholics soon came to dominate the population
inside the house refuge. Eventually, there was no more room inside this institution, so
youths were sent to work on farms, in the newly settled states such as Ohio, Indiana
and Illinois. These young immigrants were essentially indentured servants until they
turned 21. They were taken from their families and either confined in a facility or placed
in homes which were hundreds of miles away, and they were made to work for their
keep. The natural parents of these youths were not typically told of their children's
whereabouts.
In their book, Bernard and Kurleychek point to an 1838 Pennsylvania Supreme Court
case which they refer to as, the case of Mary Ann Kraus. In this case, a girl was sent to
a Philadelphia House of Refuge even though she had not committed a crime. Her father
argued that the state had no right to confine his daughter. However, the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court rejected the father's arguments and ruled that it was legal to help Mary
Ann, because of the state's role as parens patria this is the Latin phrase which means
parents of the country. The court held that the state had an obligation to take over as
this child's parent, and because she was not being published punished, this child was
not entitled to any due process protections. This case essentially affirmed that children
could be held in houses of refuge until their 21st birthday even if they had not committed
an actual crime.
In 1868 ,30 years later the Illinois State Supreme Court ruled that a young juvenile who
had committed no crime, could not be held in a reform school. The court concluded that
the juvenile whose name was David O'Connell was being punished rather than help.
The court held that it was illegal to send poor children to reform schools, unless, they
had committed a felony offense. It was not long after this decision that reformers went
looking for a new basis to control poor immigrant children. Reformers always sought to
expand state power rather than limit it. So after the O'Connell decisions declared that it
was illegal to confine juveniles who had not committed a crime in houses of refuge,
social reformers created the first juvenile court.
The juvenile court which had civil rather than criminal jurisdiction would be used as a
tool to control children who were deemed to be among the dangerous class that
threatened the status go.
Barnard and Kurleychek argue that while the first juvenile institution had been founded
by man, the first juvenile court was largely the result of the work of women These
women were the wives and daughters of prominent Chicago politicians and
businessmen. These women went to the City Council and state legislatures and lobbied
for major policy changes in the handling of juveniles. After the O'Connell decision, these
reformers wanted to find a way to control poor immigrant juveniles, even those who had
not yet committed a crime. These reformers were able to accomplish their objective by
removing children from the jurisdiction of the adult criminal court, and establishing a
juvenile court which was not criminal in nature, rather, the juvenile court was a social
welfare agency and children who had needs of any kind could be brought into the
juvenile court.
After the first juvenile court was established, the law provided court workers with
virtually unlimited power over poor children. Because the juvenile court was a civil court
rather than a criminal one, young people brought within its jurisdiction did not enjoy due
process protections. The juvenile court returned to handling juvenile offenders as it had
handled them before the O'Connell decision. It established a new basis for the old
practice of sending poor children to rural institutions for their own good, even if these
children had not committed an actual crime, as long as the caseworker thought, it was
in the best interests of the child, it was once again no longer necessary for that child to
have committed an actual criminal offense. The few do prostate guards that had been
provided to juveniles under the O'connell decision were wiped out by the establishment
of the new juvenile court. This pattern would go uncontested for the next 70 years. It
was not until the mid-1960’s that the US Supreme Court would make key rulings which
would provide juveniles with important due process safeguards
FIFTH ARTICLE
Juvenile Justice System History
The juvenile court system addresses court cases that involve individuals under the age
of eighteen-years-old. The system is over one-hundred years old, and the origins will be
discussed here.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the law drew a divide between juveniles and
adults. This line was typically drawn where the offender could determine the
wrongfulness of his actions.
Children under the age of seven were determined to be infants, who could not know that
their acts were wrong and therefore could not be found guilty of a felony. A felony is a
criminal action that is punishable by prison time.
Children over the age of fourteen-years-old were determined to be capable of
understanding the wrongfulness of their acts and were treated like adults. Children in
the range of seven to fourteen were not so easily classified. Therefore, if they seemed
to understand that their acts were wrong, then they could be treated as adults. If
children in this zone did not seem to understand, then they were treated as infants.
Later in the nineteenth century, the treatment of juveniles began to change. Reformers
believed that there needed to be special facilities to deal with troubled juveniles who
found themselves in trouble with the law. Therefore, Chicago and New York became the
first two cities in the United States to house juvenile offenders separate from adult
offenders. Then, in 1899, Cook County, Illinois, opened the first juvenile court.
The theory of the juvenile court was to rehabilitate juvenile offenders not punish them.
The doctrine of parens patriae, meaning parent of the country, became the guiding light
to allow the state to serve as the guardian of juveniles with physical, legal or mental
disabilities. The courts followed the 'best interests of the child' in determining what
would help the juvenile become a productive member of society. In some cases, this
meant removing the juvenile from the home and placing him in an institution in order to
rehabilitate him in the most effective way possible.