The Current System: Structure and Operations

  • Francis X. Hartmann

Abstract

A century of social innovation has produced a complex juvenile justice system. At its center are the juvenile court and youth corrections agencies. Farther out, but still within the boundaries of the system, are juvenile detention programs, halfway houses, probation agencies, and the police. Nearer the edges of the system are such things as youth guidance centers, family counseling programs, welfare agencies, youth athletic leagues, foster parents, and perhaps the family itself. All of these institutions can be seen as parts of the juvenile justice system for two reasons.

Keywords

Mold Assure Expense Sonal Stake 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Charles P. Smith, T. Edwin Black, and Fred R. Campbell, Inconsistent Labeling, Vol. 1, Process Description and Summary (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1979).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    On the body of law that is administered through the juvenile court, see Barbara Flicker, “A short history of jurisdiction over juvenile and family matters,” in volume 2 of this series.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    For a discussion of the differences between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft concepts of social solidarity see Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, Vol. 2 (New York: Free Press, 1968), pp. 686–694.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Kenneth Keniston and the Carnegie Council on Children, All Our Children: The American Family Under Pressure (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1977), chap. 9.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    See Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House, 1961) on the cohesiveness of modest urban communities.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Edward C. Banfield, The Unheavenly City Revisited (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    This is generally true for public bureaucracies. For a discussion of the impact on policing see Mark H. Moore and George L. Kelling, “To serve and protect,” The Public Interest, No. 70 (1983), pp. 49–65.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, pp. 686–694.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Donald J. Black, “The social organization of arrest,” Stanford Law Review 23 (June 1971), pp. 1087–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 13.
    Edwin T. Black and Charles P. Smith, A Preliminary National Assessment of the Numbers and Characteristics of Juveniles Processed in the Juvenile Justice System (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1981).Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    George Kelling, “Caught in a crossfire of concepts: Correction and the dilemmas of social work,” Crime and Delinquency 14(1) (Jan. 1968), pp. 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 15.
    See for example New York State’s mandatory PINS diversion legislation, chap. 813, Laws of New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    Philip J. Cook and John H. Laub, “Trends in child abuse and juvenile delinquency,” p. 111, in volume 2 of this series; Howard N. Snyder, John L. Hutzler, and Terrence A. Finnegan, Delinquency in the United States, 1982 (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1985), p. 2.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    J. S. Fuerst and Roy Petty, “Due process—How much is enough?,” The Public Interest, No. 79 (Spring 1985), pp. 96–100.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    See generally American Jurisprudence, 2nd. ed., Vol. 26, Judges, Sec. 13–20 (Rochester, NY: Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1967), pp. 104–109.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    Julian W. Mack, “The juvenile court,” Harvard Law Review 23 (1909), pp. 104–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 20.
    Philip J. Cook and John H. Laub, “Trends in child abuse and juvenile delinquency,” in volume 2 of this series.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    Peter W. Greenwood, Allan Abrahamse, and Franklin Zimring, Factors Affecting Sentence Severity for Young Adult Offenders (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1984).Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    Seventy-seven percent of delinquency and status offense referrals in U.S. juvenile courts in 1982 were made by police. See Howard N. Snyder, John L. Hutzler, and Terrence A. Finnegan, Delinquency in the United States 1982 (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1985), draft, p. 3.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    Eighty-six percent of intake referrals for status offenses in California in 1976 were made by police. See Charles P. Smith, David J. Berkman, Warren M. Fraser, and John Sutton, A Preliminary National Assessment of the Status Offender and the Juvenile Justice System: Role Conflicts, Constraints, and Information Gaps (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1980), p. 74.Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    Herman Goldstein, Policing a Free Society (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1977).Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    James Q. Wilson, Varieties of Police Behavior (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968).Google Scholar
  23. 25a.
    See also James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, “Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety,” in Atlantic Monthly 249(3) (Mar. 1982), pp. 29–38.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    Goldstein, Policing a Free Society. Google Scholar
  25. 27.
  26. 29.
    Smith et al., A Preliminary National Assessment of the Status Offender, p. 85.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    This can sometimes result in violence. See Paul Mones, “The relationship between child abuse and parricide: An overview,” in Eli H. Newberger and Richard Bourne, Eds., Unhappy Families: Clinical and Research Perspectives on Family Violence (Littleton, MA: PSG, 1985).Google Scholar
  28. 31.
    Douglas J. Besharov, “Unfounded allegations—A new child abuse problem,” The Public Interest, No. 83 (1986), pp. 18–33.Google Scholar
  29. 32.
  30. 33.
    Greenwood et al., Factors Affecting Sentence Severity. Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    See Zimring’s discussion of Wald’s view of family autonomy, Franklin E. Zimring, The Changing Legal World of Adolescence (New York: Free Press, 1982), chap. 4Google Scholar
  32. 34a.
    and Michael S. Wald, “State intervention on behalf of ‘neglected’ children: A search for realistic standards,” in Margaret K. Rosenheim, Ed., Pursuing Justice for the Child (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  33. 37.
    Janet Fink, “Determining the future child: Actors on the juvenile court stage,” in volume 2 of this series.Google Scholar
  34. 38.
  35. 39.
    James Wootton articulated well this view in the Executive Session. (See Preface to this volume.)Google Scholar
  36. 40.
    See note 11.Google Scholar
  37. 41.
    We are indebted to George L. Kelling for relating his observations of juvenile court proceedings in Hennepin County, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  38. 42.
    Fink, “Determining the future child,” pp. 284–291, also W. Vaughn Stapleton and Lee E. Teitelbaum, In Defense of Youth (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972).Google Scholar
  39. 43.
    See generally American Jurisprudence, 2nd ed., Vol. 29, Evidence, Sec. 339–351, pp. 388–401.Google Scholar
  40. 44.
    Concerning the appropriateness of an individual’s background in making sentencing determinations for adults, the Supreme Court found in Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247 (1949), for example, that criminal sentences should be based “on the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics.” In Pennsylvania v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51, 55 (1937), the Court reasoned that “for the determination of sentences, justice generally requires consideration of more than the particular acts by which the crime was committed and that there be taken into account the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender.”Google Scholar
  41. 45.
    Robert Jordan and William Warren, Bankruptcy (Mineloa, NY: Foundation Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  42. 46.
    Howard N. Snyder, John L. Hutzler, and Terrence A. Finnegan, Delinquency in the United States, 1982 (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1985).Google Scholar
  43. 47.
    Anne Larason Schneider and Donna D. Schram, An Assessment of Juvenile Justice System Reform in Washington State, Vol. 10, Executive Summary (Eugene, OR: Institute of Policy Analysis, 1983).Google Scholar
  44. 47a.
    For discussion in adult setting see Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, and Daniel Nagin, Eds., Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1978).Google Scholar
  45. 48.
    In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).Google Scholar
  46. 49.
    Edward M. Murphy, “Managing risk in juvenile corrections,” in volume 2 of this series. Also see John M. Pettibone, Robert G. Swisher, Kurt H. Weiland, Christine E. Wolf, and Joseph L. White, Services to Children in Juvenile Courts: The Judicial-Executive Controversy (Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems, 1981).Google Scholar
  47. 50.
    Pettibone et al., Services to Children. Google Scholar
  48. 51.
    Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, Susan E. Martin, and Michael H. Tonry, Eds., Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform, Summary Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983)Google Scholar
  49. 51a.
    and Leslie T. Wilkins, The Principles of Guidelines for Sentencing: Methodological and Philosophical Issues in Their Development (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981).Google Scholar
  50. 52.
    Michael Sherman and Gordon Hawkins, Imprisonment in America: Choosing the Future (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)Google Scholar
  51. 52a.
    and National Institute of Justice, NIJ Reports lSNI (July 1984).Google Scholar
  52. 53.
    Pettibone et al., Services to Children. Google Scholar
  53. 54.
    “[T]he average number of residents in public juvenile facilities in the United States was slightly over 50,000” in 1982, higher than the figure in both 1977 and 1979, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Children in Custody: Advance Report on the 1982 Census of Public Juvenile Facilities (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).Google Scholar
  54. 55.
    For example, the New York State Juvenile Offender Act (chap. 478, Laws of 1978) severely restricted the discretion of the state Division for Youth regarding the length of stay and security level of juvenile offender placements.Google Scholar
  55. 56.
    Richard W. Barnum, “Concepts of responsibility: Development, failures and responses,” in volume 2 of this series.Google Scholar
  56. 57.
    For a critique of the best interests of the child standard in the context of foster care placement see Robert H. Mnookin, “Foster care—In whose best interest?,” Harvard Educational Review 43(4) (Nov. 1973), pp. 599–638.Google Scholar
  57. 58.
    Institute of Judicial Administration-American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Standards Relating to Dispositions (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1980), pp. 34–38.Google Scholar
  58. 59.
    Zimring J, The Changing Legal World of Adolescence, chap. 5.Google Scholar
  59. 60.
    Charles E. Silberman, Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice (New York: Random House, 1978).Google Scholar
  60. 61.
    Anne Rankin Mahoney, “The effect of labeling upon youths in the juvenile justice system: A review of the evidence,” Law and Society Review 8(4) (Summer 1974), pp. 583–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 62.
    The view expressed in Edwin M. Schur, Radical Non-intervention: Rethink-ing the Delinquency Problem (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973), reflects the idea that society should define away much of the problem of delinquency by accepting a wider array of appropriate youthful behaviors.Google Scholar
  62. 62a.
    Often writers, notably Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1954), argue for a natural, self-regulating propensity of humans to develop properly.Google Scholar
  63. 62b.
    For a more contemporary treatment see Emmy E. Werner and Ruth S. Smith, Vulnerable But Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982).Google Scholar
  64. 63.
    Schneider and Schram, Juvenile Justice System Reform in Washington State, Vol. 10.Google Scholar
  65. 64.
    Black and Smith reported that of 508,910 juvenile case dispositions made by the courts nationally in 1977, 49% were to probation; 13% to training schools and secure facilities; 6% to camp or ranch; and the remainder to foster home, group home, social service agency, or other miscellaneous categories. Black and Smith, A Preliminary National Assessment. Google Scholar
  66. 65.
    J. David Hawkins, R. F. Catalano, G. Jones, and D. Fine, “Delinquency prevention through parent training: Results and issues from work in progress,” and Brigitte Berger, “Multiproblem families and the community,” both in volume 3 of this series. See also Kenniston, All Our Children, chap. 9.Google Scholar
  67. 66.
    Noreen Blonein from California made this point in Executive Session meetings. (See Preface to this volume.)Google Scholar
  68. 67.
    George L. Kelling, “The end of the nightstick,” in volume 2 of this series.Google Scholar
  69. 68.
    Peter W. Greenwood and Franklin E. Zimring, One More Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1985).Google Scholar
  70. 69.
    A comparison of the cases of Jerome Miller and John Boone in Massachusetts is quite instructive. See Jerome Miller and the Department of Youth Services (A), (B), and (B: Sequel), John F. Kennedy School of Government, Case Program Distribution Office, Harvard University, C14–76–101.0, C14–76–102.0, and C14–76–102.1 (1976), and Massachusetts Department of Corrections (I), (II), and (III), John F. Kennedy School of Government, Case Program Distribution Office, Harvard University, C14–77–165.0, C14–77–166.0, and C14–77–167.0 (1977).Google Scholar
  71. 70.
    Edward M. Murphy, “Managing risk in juvenile corrections,” in volume 2 of this series.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis X. Hartmann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations