Introduction
The history of juvenile justice in both the 19th and 20th centuries is rife with sobering accounts of juveniles confined to various institutions where they were subjected to punitive treatment rather than rehabilitation (Bartol and Bartol, 2004 p.378). Nevertheless, almost all types of juvenile violent and property crimes have been declining each year since the mid-1990s. Most legislators, agency administrators, practitioners, and students are unaware of the latest model juvenile offender treatment and prevention programs and of the growing research evidence of their success in sharply reducing recividism (Roberts, 2004 p.6). The study discusses justice system in the United States, development of juvenile justice in court, development of juvenile probation, history of aftercare and juvenile confinement, house of justice and reformatory school, the cottage system, police, juvenile courts and correction departments, philosophies and strategies on correcting juveniles, and lastly, the models involved in juvenile management.
Juvenile Justice and Probation Development in the United States
The American model for the juvenile courts, and more broadly, the juvenile justice system, was created in Chicago in 1899. Just as the discipline of sociology emerged out of a period of massive economic and related social changes in Europe, the juvenile justice system was created during the transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy , and from a rural to an increasingly urban society in the U.S.A (Jensen and Jepsen, 2006 p.83). Several million juveniles commit delinquent acts each year. Violent and property crimes committed by juveniles are one of the major social and public health problems in American society. Newspapers and other media saturate us with graphic depictions of individual youths and gangs committing violence in the schools, in the streets, in parking lots, and in the home. The reality is that although almost 2.4 million juvenile arrests were reported by the Federal Bureau of Inspections (FBI) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in 2000, the approximate number of juvenile delinquent acts could be between 13 and 15 million annually because many crimes committed by juveniles go unreported or undetected, or no arrest is made (Roberts, 2004 p.6). The period from 1880 to 1920, referred to as the Progressive Era by historians, was a time of major change in the United States. The pace of industrialization, urbanization, and immigration quickened during this period, and the diversification of the population continued. The stream of Irish and German immigrants trailed off at the end of 19th century, but they were replaced by Italians, Russians, Jews, Greeks, and other immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe (Elrod, 1999 p.110). The juvenile court movement quickly spread across the United States. In its early form, it provided youths with quasi-legal, quasi-therapeutic, personalized justice. The court was paternalistic, not adversarial in nature (Siegel and Senna, p.551). In the United States, juvenile probation developed as part of the wave of social reform characterizing the latter half of the 19th century. Massachusetts took the first step, and under an act passed in 1869, an agent of the state board of charities was authorized to appear in criminal trials involving juveniles, to find them suitable homes, and to visit them periodically. These services were soon broadened, so that by 1890 probation had become a mandatory part of the court structure (Welsh and Siegel, 2004 p.339).
Juvenile History: Aftercare, Confinement, Cottage System
and Reformatory School
During the past decade, there has been a move to increase the success of aftercare by targeting youth most in need. Specifically, the IAP model is designed to provide increased contact and service delivery to youth who are assessed as high risk (McShane and Williams, p.6). Aftercare, or parole, refers to the release of juveniles from correctional facilities and the support and supervisory services and practices accompanying the youth’s reintegration into the community. The increased concern about serious and violent juvenile offending, the high recidividm rate, and less than ideal treatment and rehabilitative practices and results in institutionalized settings, has contributed in the formulation of juvenile aftercare procedures (Flowers, 2002 p.174).
Prisons and jails play a big part in punishment today; short of capital punishment, confinement is the most serious sanction utilized by American courts. Colonial America borrowed its judicial practices from England, where houses of confinement, or goals, were used for short-term detention of law violators awaiting trial. Today, confinement is the primary punishment of American society. It is almost the only sanction used to punish serious and repeating offenders. The evolution of U.S prisons and jails has followed the shifting social forces at work in the country, yet the primary focus of confinement has remained a custodial function (Carlson and Garrette, 1999 p.6).
The Reformatory School Act of 1854, the reformatory school became the model apparatus for compulsory juridical confinement, and by 1866, there were some 50 reformatory schools. Organization of the New York House of Refuge is the first juvenile reformatory in the United States, and first juvenile institution in the United States. The reformatory schools provide fostering, probation, aftercare for juvenile justice systems (Muncie, 2002 p.154).
The period of House of refuge occurred during the late 1770s and early 1800s, wherein the United States was in a period of extensive disorder, stemming from the rise of cities and the decline of the rural way of life. There was an increased concern about what to do with the growing number of juveniles who were abandoned, were running the streets, or had run afoul community norms. New York started the first house of refuge for female adolescents in 1823 and for male adolescents in 1825. Reformers agreed by the 1850s that houses of refuge were not dealing adequately with juvenile crime. Many of these houses had grown unwidely in size, and order and discipline had disappeared from most. In addition, juveniles were still being confined with adults in filthy and dangerous jails and prisons. A movement began in the final decades of the 19th century to develop an alternative system for youth in trouble (Shoemaker, 1996 p.302).
Unlike Houses of Refuge, most reform schools were located in rural districts rather than cities. This represented the implementation of the cottage system, or cottage plan, in which reformers designed rural reformatories as compounds with separate structures and dormitories. The belief was that residents who worked in industrial schools in the countryside would absorb wholesome rural values and virtues and thereby grown into responsible and productive adults. Juveniles were housed in dormitory-style cottages with no more than a few dozen residents per cottage (Martin, 2005 p.235). The cottage system involved dividing the youths into units of 40 or fewer, each with its own cottage and schedule. Although, work was sometimes performed within the cottages, the use of large congregate workshops continued. The model for the system was derived from the practice of European correctional officials. Many rural institutions used the cottage system, as it was well suited to agricultural production. In addition, the cottage system gave managers the opportunity to segregate children according to age, sex, race, school and behavioral pattern (Krisberg, 2005 p.34; Martin, 2005 p.235).
Justice Agencies and Functions: Police, Juvenile and Correction Departments
Examinations of the juvenile justice process usually begin with the police. The police do play a critical role in juvenile justice; in fact, they are the primary gatekeepers of the formal juvenile justice process. The public is also involved, however, because police contact with juveniles is typically the result of a citizen complaint or request for assistance. The multi-agency teams are typically staffed by representatives of health agencies, schools, social service agencies, health department, universities, and neighborhood associations, and these groups focus on prevention by identifying family and community problems that negatively affect youths and lead to delinquent behavior (Preston and Ryder, 2005 p.168).
The diverse legal avenue in which juvenile justice is able to develop differs sharply from a tightly coupled system view. In the simple and too often summary presentation of juvenile justice, an image of a tightly coupled system is presented with a singular set of goals and means of accomplishing them (White, 2001 p.357). Police agencies have a range of policies on handling juvenile arrests. Some departments operate their own special programs that are designed to divert youngsters from further court processing. There are police agencies that work diligently to return back to their parents those juveniles that are stopped for minor offenses (Krisberg, 2005 p.81). Law enforcement agencies are the primary source of referrals into the juvenile justice system. Approximately 86% of cases come from police agencies, while the remaining 14% are referred by schools, social service agencies, or parents themselves (Krisberg, 2005 p.82). The juvenile court is the symbol and focus of juvenile justice wherein juvenile court proceeding was modeled on an informal conference rather than on a trial, which has adversary overtones. Not only the judge but the gatekeepers of the court-those who sat at the reception desk or staffed the detention center-were to be chosen from people sympathetic and sensitive to children. The early rhetoric of juvenile justice emphasizes the difference in the atmosphere top be created in juvenile court as contrasted to the criminal court (Rosenheim, 2002 p.342).
Philosophies and Strategies on Correcting Juveniles
Various models have been introduced in order to provide philosophical and strategical conceptualities in correcting juvenile delinquencies. The models that have been utilized in juvenile correction managements are treatment model, justice model, crime control model, and balanced and restorative model. The treatment model required juvenile courts to make individually tailored decisions based on perceptions of each offender’s degree of culpability (Krisberg, 2005 p.81; Preston and Ryder, 2005 p.168). Since culpability refers to the extent to which a person can be considered blameworthy of deserving of punishment for a given behavior, the evaluation of culpability is ultimately a moral decision that relies on one’s notion of justice (Preston and Ryder, 2005 p.168). Treatment model is insular in several respects, which grounds individualistic assumptions about delinquent behavior, and intervention techniques that focus almost exclusively on the offender (Muncie, 2002 p.154).
In a restorative justice model, the focus expands to the victim and community. The community and the victim become two of the juvenile justice system’s legitimate clients. In a protective-restorative justice model, the focus on community incorporates the long-term goal of community safety. As such, new roles and standards for public safety agencies are considered (Gordon and Walgrave, 2001 p.199). A priority for juvenile justice practice aimed at enhancing public safety in the balanced and restorative model is to collaborate with and assist other community agencies. The Balanced and Restorative Justice Model (BARJ) incorporates three objectives for handling delinquents: (1) holding them accountable for their behavior (punishment), (2) ensuring community safety (crime control), and (3) providing interventions to help youth develop better skills and behaviors (treatment or competency development). As with the models presented, the main target involved is to properly rehabilitate the juvenile and help them to learn through their mistakes (Gordon and Walgrave, 2001 p.199).
Summary and Conclusions
Juvenile justice has undergone several developments and rich histories, which has been molded in the course of time. The juvenile justice system was created during the transition from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy, and from a rural to an increasingly urban society in the U.S.A. Various aftercare, parole systems, and confinement have been introduced during the course development of juvenile justice, which basically evolved from the traditional conceptualities of traditional correctional procedures to the present interventions. Difference models involving treatment model, justice model, crime control model, and balanced and restorative model have been utilized in juvenile deviancy management.
Reference
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2004). Introduction to Forensic Psychology. Sage Publications Inc.
Carlson, P. M., & Garrett, J. (1999). Prison and Jail Administration: Practice and Theory. Jones and Bartlett Publishing.
Elrod, P. (1999). Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical, and Legal Perspective. Jones and Bartlett Publishing.
Flowers, R. B. (2002). Kids Who Commit Adult Crimes: Serious Criminality by Juvenile Offenders. Haworth Press.
Jensen, E. L., & Jepsen, J. (2006). Juvenile Law Violators, Human Rights, and the Development of New Juvenile Justice System. Hart Publishing.
Krisberg, B. (2005). Juvenile Justice: Redeeming Our Childre. Sage Publications Inc.
Martin, G. (2005). Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems. Sage Publications Inc.
McShane, M. D., & Williams, F. P. (2003). Encyclopedia of Juvenile Justice. Sage Publications Inc.
Muncie, J. (2002). Youth Justice: Critical Readings. SAGE.
Prestorn, E. R., & Scott, R. (2005). Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical, and Legal Perspective. Jones and Bartlett Publishing.
Roberts, A. R. (2004). Juvenile Justice Sourcebook: Past, Present, and Future. Oxford University Press.
Rosenheim, S. (2002). A Century of Juvenile Justice. University of Chicago Press.
Shoemaker, D. J. (1996). International Handbook on Juvenile Justice. Greenwood Press.
Siegel, L. J., & Senna, J. J. (2004). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Thomson Wadsworth.
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2004). Juvenile Delinquency: The Core. Thomson Wadsworth.
White, S. O. (2001). Handbook of Youth and Justice. Springer.
