Addressing Racial Disproportionality and Disparities in Human Services by Rowena Fong

Author:Rowena Fong
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: SOC025000, Social Science/Social Work, SOC031000, Social Science/Discrimination & Race Relations
Publisher: Columbia University Press
Published: 2014-11-11T00:00:00+00:00

Disproportionality and Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System and the Courts

HENRIKA MCCOY AND ELIZABETH BOWEN

DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM AND THE ETHNIC MINORITY POPULATIONS IN THE SYSTEM

Creation of the Court

THE FIRST JUVENILE COURT was established in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006), with the philosophy of parens patriae, “the state must care for those who cannot take care of themselves” (Campbell, 1991, p. 769). That philosophy enabled the state to take on a parental role for children who had not reached the age of full legal capacity (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Prior to that, juveniles who committed crimes were handled in the criminal (adult) justice system where they were allowed to plead “infancy” as their defense (Gardner, 1997). By 1945, juvenile courts had been established in every federal and state jurisdiction, as well as most European nations (Gardner, 1997). Those courts had a goal of rehabilitation, and juveniles were considered malleable children who were neither fully responsible for their actions nor fit to be punished (Gardner, 1997).

However, in 1967, with the Supreme Court case, In re Gault, there was a clear movement away from parens patriae (Feld, 1993). In 1968, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Control Act of 1968 was created, which recommended that status offenses be handled outside of the juvenile court (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). It was followed by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA), which required the deinstitutionalization of all status offenders and the discharge of all juveniles detained in jails and adult lockdown facilities (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).

During the 1980s, there was a change and juveniles were increasingly being seen in criminal (adult) court; the juvenile court was gradually transforming into a mirror of the criminal court, and the discretion of juvenile court judges was reduced. Finally, by 1997, most states had made changes in sentencing authority, transfer provisions, victim’s rights, correctional programming, and in confidentiality provisions (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Currently, all states have upper age limits for juvenile court jurisdiction (e.g., 15, 16, or 17 depending on the state), although there are instances where juveniles who are younger than the upper age limit can be transferred to criminal court (Adams & Addie, 2011). Ultimately, current sentencing practices are based on a juvenile’s prior criminal record and their current offense versus the original approach of prioritizing what is in the juvenile’s best interest (Feld, 1993).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.