What is the basis of the distinction between juveniles and adults, in determining jurisdiction of the juvenile courts? "Age of responsibility" considered in holding juveniles accountable.

Roman law--three classes of offenders by age.

Common law: children under 7, children 7 to 14, children over 14.

The English chancery courts of the 1400s: to protect those needing state intervention. Dealing with orphans, neglected or dependent children: "parens patriae" and "in loco parentis." 

English common law and American colonial law had no distinct policies or separate facilities based on age. Informal adjustments and local practices; apprenticeships and removal from parents were legally sanctioned for paupers.
 

Early 1800s social reformers in the United States: private citizens promoting public intervention in the lives of poor unfortunate children. Houses of Refuge in New York (1824) and Boston (1826).
 

The Child Saving Movement distributing many orphans and lost children during the 1800s. Juvenile training schools (or reform schools) established in mid-1800s to give vocational skills to unemployed teenagers; national meeting in New York in 1857--17 institutions with 20,000 juveniles. No real distinctions in the types of behavior for which one might be sent to training school--criminals, non-criminals, orphans, runaways, neglected children.
 

Legal foundations of American juvenile justice:

1. Poor Laws of the 1600s, expanding control over begging and vagrants.

2. Common law criminal offenses.

3. Social welfare concerns dealing with inappropriate behavior by children, the contemporary "status offenses."
 

The first Juvenile Court--Cook County, Illinois, 1899, established through the efforts of local reformers, many of them women.
 

Juvenile court was established was established as a civil court, informal, closed and intended to rehabilitate children who needed help. Really intended to deal more with neglected children, status offenders and petty criminals; all states continued to send juvenile felons into the adult courts at first. Gradual expansion of the powers of the juvenile court with a separate set of staff--juvenile officers, judges, probation officers, detention staff, corrections officials.
 

Developments in juvenile justice since the 1960s (according to James O. Finckenauer):

Due process--applying adult standards of fair trial to juvenile criminal proceedings.

Deinstitutionalization--reducing the number of juveniles in confinement, especially status offenders.

Diversion--putting deserving juveniles into alternative programs instead of sending them to court.

Decriminalization--taking status offenders out of secure criminal facilities and in court dealing with them in the same category as neglected and dependent children.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Noncriminal Youths

Status Offenders

Dependent and Neglected Children
 

Irresponsible Offenders

Naive Offenders

Emotionally Disturbed Children
 

Situational Offenders

Property Offenders

Violent Offenders
 

Drug and Alcohol Users

Social and Recreational Users

Drug Addicts
 

Chronic Offenders

Prostitutes

Street Gang Members
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Classical Theory: People commit crime when they perceive that the benefits of law violation outweigh the threat and pain of punishment. (Cesare Beccaria)
 

Biological Theory: People commit crime because of genetic, biochemical or neurological deficiencies. (Cesare Lombroso)
 

Psychological Theories:

Psychoanalytic: People commit crime because of personality imbalances developed in early childhood. (Sigmund Freud)

Social learning: People commit crime when they model their behavior after others they see being rewarded for the same acts. (Albert Bandura)
 

Sociological Theories:

Social Structure (generally focused on lower classes):

Cultural deviance: Citizens who obey the street rules of lower-class life find themselves in conflict with the dominant culture. (Walter Miller)

Strain theory: People who adopt the goals of society but lack the means to attain them seek alternatives such as crime. (Robert Merton)

Delinquent gang theory: Status frustration of lower-class boys, created by their failure to achieve middle-class status, causes them to join gangs. (Albert Cohen)

Opportunity theory: Blockage of conventional opportunities causes lower-class youths to join criminal, conflict, or retreatist gangs. (Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin)

Relative deprivation: Crime occurs when the wealthy and poor live in close proximity to one another.

Social disorganization: The conflicts and problems of urban social life and communities control the crime rate.

Social Process (generally focused on individuals learning behavior).

Differential association: People learn to commit crime by adopting antisocial (criminal) definitions of acceptable behavior. (Edwin Sutherland)

Neutralization theory: Youths learn ways of neutralizing moral restraints and periodically drift in and out of criminal behavior patterns. (David Matza and Gresham Sykes)

Social bond theory (control theory): A person's bond to society prevents him/her from violating social rules. If the bond weakens, the person is free to commit crime. (Travis Hirschi)

Social Conflict Theory: People commit crime when the law, controlled by the rich and powerful, defines their behavior as illegal. The powerful make the rules to protect their privileged positions and excuse their own immoral behavior. (Gresham Sykes)
 

Other Theories:

Routine activities theory: Crime is a function of the availability of the victim, the presence of the offender, and the absence of an effective guardian. (Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson)

Sociobiology: Crime is a function of genetic predisposition combined with environmental conditions to influence learned behavior. (Edward Wilson)

Social ecology: Urban crime grew out of social conditions that could be mapped by zones; patterns of behavior depended on neighborhood conditions. (Clifford Shaw and Robert McKay)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

All in the Family?

By the 1950s, the behavioral sciences--sociology, psychology and anthropology--had swung far from the biological point of view. The dominant ideology held that all behavior was learned and that environmental factors played the largest part in determining behavior. Against this view, the biologists began to take a new tack. They set aside the search for specific biological elements that might be related to criminality. Instead, researchers tried merely to show that behavior and personality do have biological and hereditary bases, even though we may not know the specific genetic factors involved.

Researchers who take this approach look at degrees of similarity. If there is a genetic factor in crime, then the greater the biological similarity between two people, the greater will be their similarity in crime. For example, people in the same family are more similar biologically to each other than they are to non-family members. So we might look at the criminal records of brother. If one brother has a criminal record, will the other brother have one also? Of course, you can immediately see the problem here. Even if the brothers are similar, the causes for that similarity could just as easily be environmental as hereditary. They inherited similar genetic material, but they probably also grew up in the same environment. How can we know which was causing the similarity?
 
 
 
 
 

Twins--Fraternal and Identical

There are two general research strategies for untangling the strands of environment and heredity. The first method studies twins. Twins, as you may know, can be created in two different ways. In some cases, two separate eggs are fertilized at the same time. These are called dizygotic (DZ) or fraternal twins, and genetically they are no more similar than two separate eggs fertilized at different times; that is, fraternal twins are no more similar genetically than ordinary brothers and sisters. They share about half their genes. However, in some cases, a single fertilized egg divides into two embryos. These embryos develop into identical or monozygotic (MZ) twins. They share all the same genetic material. That is why identical twins are always the same sex, while fraternal twins may be of opposite sexes.

Researchers, therefore, have looked at the degree of similarity (called

"concordance") between twins of each type. Generally, they find greater similarities of crime between identical twins than between fraternal twins. For example, a Danish study of 3,500 sets of twins found that the concordance for MZ twins was more than twice that for DZ twins. If one MX twin had a criminal record, the other twin had a record 52 percent of the time. For DZ twins, the figure was only 22 percent. It is unlikely that MZ twins grow up in a more similar environment that DZ twins do. So the stronger similarity must come from the greater genetic similarity. Of course, other factors must play a part,since even among MZ identical twins, only about half the pairs were concordant in regard to criminality (or getting caught at criminality).
 
 
 

Fathers and Sons

The second strategy has been to look at the criminal similarity of fathers and sons. After all, if there is a genetic component to crime, then it will be transmitted from parent to child along with other genetic material. Here again, we face the problem of untangling heredity from environment. If we find that sons resemble their fathers in criminality, the cause might be some genetically transmitted traits. But the cause might also be a variety of social factors. Kids might pick up their fathers' ways through imitation. Or fathers who are more criminal also may be very ineffective parents. How then can we know to what extent the similarity is biological and to what extent it is social?

One way of separating heredity and environment is to have two separate fathers, one for heredity and one for environment, and then see which one the son most resembles. Of course, we cannot deliberately perform such an experiment. But, as you may already have realized, something very close to this experimental design already exists: adoption. All we need to do is find out the criminality of the adoptive parents, the biological parents, and the son. The table below shows the results of one such study, completed by Sarnoff Mednick and Jan Volavka in 1980.
 

Are biological parents criminal?

Are adoptive parents criminal? NoYes

No 13.5% (of 2,492) 20.0% (of 1,226)

Yes 14.7% (of 204) 24.5% (of 143)
 

*In this study, "criminal" meant having one or more misdemeanor or felony convictions. Criminal adoptive parents were more likely to have had only one conviction. Criminal biological parents often had two or more.
 

Look at just the left-hand column--children born to non-criminal parents. Does raising the child in a criminal home make a difference? Only very slightly--13.5 percent raised by non-criminals turned out criminal; only a slightly higher percentage (14.7 percent) of those raised by criminal parents became criminal. In the right-hand column (children born to criminal parents) the effect of raising the adoptee with criminal parents makes a somewhat greater difference (24.5 percent vs. 20.0 percent).

Now look at the table the other way. Look at just the top row--boys raised by non-criminal parents. Does the criminality of the biological parents make a difference? Yes, it does. It raises the percentage of offenders from 13.5 percent to 20.0 percent. And for boys raised by criminal adoptive parents, the effect of biology appears even larger--24.5 percent criminal among those born to criminal parents; only 14.7 percent criminal among those born to non-criminal parents. 
 
 
 

Adapted from Jay Livingston, Crime and Criminology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Juvenile courts established in all states between 1899 and 1945.

Deliberately different terminology and procedures, intended to promote rehabilitation rather than punishment:

Adult CourtJuvenile Court

complaint/information petition

arrest and booking intake

jail detention

bail release to parental custody

trial hearing

conviction adjudication

sentencing disposition

probation probation

prison training school

parole after care
 

Uniform Juvenile Court Act (UJCA) adopted by American Bar Association in 1968. The UJCA defines a "child" as under 18, or in some cases an under 21 year old could be sent down from adult court. Waiver of jurisdiction (transfer) to adult criminal court possible for 16 and 17 year olds. Not adopted in the states, but used as a model in some. UJCA: "delinquency" a crime, specifically, not vaguely defined inappropriate behavior. 
 

Conflict between the "due process" model, guaranteeing legal protections, and the "rehabilitation" model, providing proper treatment. UJCA says an adjudicated delinquent is in need of "treatment or rehabilitation."
 

Some critics call the juvenile court process "schizophrenic," meaning it can't decide its purpose or the proper track. Before the late 1960s, the juvenile said to receive the worst of both worlds: no legal protections, no rehabilitation.
 

UJCA uses the term "unruly child" to apply to status offenders, truants, runaways or incorrigibles. Most states call them "in need of supervision," as Children in Need of Supervision (or now Families in Need of Services) in Louisiana.
 

UJCA sets another category of "deprived, neglect, or dependent children," called "children in need of care" in Louisiana:

deprived--without proper parental care or control

neglected--injury, abuse, sex offense, injurious environment

dependent--parental disability or failure of care

Distinction between neglect and dependent one of parental fault.
 

There is no minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction over juveniles in 39 states; maximum age varies by state.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Art. 100. Short title; citation of Code

This Code shall be known as the Louisiana Children's Code and may be officially cited: Ch.C.
 

Art. 101. Preamble 

The people of Louisiana recognize the family as the most fundamental unit of human society; that preserving families is essential to a free society; that the relationship between parent and child is preeminent in establishing and maintaining the well-being of the child; that parents have the responsibility for providing the basic necessities of life as well and love and affection to their children; that parents have the paramount right to raise their children in accordance with their own values and traditions; that parents should make the decisions regarding where and with whom the child shall reside, the education, moral, ethical, and religious training of the child, the medical, psychiatric, surgical, and preventive health care of the child, and the discipline of the child; that children owe to their parents respect, obedience, and affection; that the role of the state in the family is limited and should only be asserted when there is a serious threat to the family, the parents, or the child; and that extraordinary procedures established by law are meant to be used only when required by necessity and then with due respect for the rights of the parent, the children, and the institution of the family.
 

Art. 116. Definitions

(Excerpted)

(3) "Child" means a person who has not attained the age of seventeen years, except as it is specially defined by a Title of this Code.

(5) "Felony" means an offense that may be punished by death or by imprisonment at hard labor.

(15) "Misdemeanor" means an offense other than a felony, and includes the violation of an ordinance providing a penal sanction.
 

Art. 302. Juvenile jurisdiction of courts

Juvenile jurisdiction shall be exercised as follows:

(1) Special juvenile courts created by law for Caddo, Orleans, Jefferson, and East Baton Rouge Parishes shall have exclusive original juvenile jurisdiction, and any other jurisdiction conferred by the statute creating them, in the parish or parishes for which they are created. Judges of these courts shall exercise their juvenile jurisdiction according to the provisions of this Code.

(2) District courts, except where a separate juvenile court with exclusive original juvenile jurisdiction is established by law, shall have original juvenile jurisdiction for the parish or parishes within their district.

(3) Parish courts, except where a separate juvenile court with exclusive original juvenile jurisdiction is established by law, shall have original juvenile jurisdiction for their parish. This jurisdiction shall be concurrent with that of the district court.

(4) City courts, except where a separate juvenile court with exclusive original juvenile jurisdiction is established by law, shall have original juvenile jurisdiction for their territorial jurisdiction. This jurisdiction shall be concurrent with that of the district court.
 

Art. 424. Court-appointed special advocates (CASA)

(Excerpted)

A. The judge of the court exercising juvenile jurisdiction is authorized to appoint one or more court-appointed special advocates, hereinafter referred to as "CASA volunteer," to assist the court in fulfilling its duties and responsibilities to children brought into court. The CASA volunteer shall have as his special duty and responsibility the advocacy of the best interests of the child involved in the juvenile proceeding in which he is appointed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Title VI. CHILD IN NEED OF CARE

Art. 606. Grounds; child in need of care

A. Allegations that a child is in need of care must assert one or more of the following grounds:

(1) The child is the victim of abuse.

(2) The child is a victim of neglect.

(3) The child is without necessary food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, or supervision because of the disappearance or prolonged absence of his parent or when, for any other reason, the child is placed at substantial risk of imminent harm because of the continuing absence of the parent.

(4) As a result of a criminal prosecution, the parent has been convicted of a crime against the child who is the subject of this proceeding, or against another child of the parent, and the parent is now unable to retain custody or control of the child's welfare is otherwise endangered if left within the parent's custody or control.

B. A child whose parent is unable to provide basic support, supervision, treatment, or services due to inadequate financial resources shall not, for that reason alone, be determined to be a child in need of care.
 

Title VII. FAMILIES IN NEED OF SERVICES

Art. 726. Purpose

The purpose of this Title is to define self-destructive behaviors by the child and conduct by other family members which contribute to the child's harm and which warrant court intervention in the family's life so that appropriate services to remedy the family's dysfunction can be secured; to secure the effectiveness of the court's intervention by explicitly confirming its duty to obtain the cooperation and coordination of all public institutions or agencies having responsibility to supply services to any member of the family referred to the court; to establish a family service plan binding upon all family members and the appropriate service provides; and to protect the integrity of the family by authorizing adjudication and the imposition of a dispositional judgment requiring participation in a plan of services only after all available voluntary alternatives have been exhausted.
 

Art. 730. Grounds

A. Allegations that a family is in need of services must assert one or more of the following grounds:

(1) That a child is truant or has wilfully and repeated violated lawful school rules.

(2) That a child is ungovernable.

(3) That a child is a runaway.

(4) That a child has repeatedly possessed or consumed intoxicating beverages, or that he has misrepresented or deceived his age for the purpose of purchasing or receiving such beverages from any person, or has repeatedly loitered around any place where such beverages are the principal commodities sold or handled.

(5) That a child has committed an offense applicable only to children.

(6) That a child under ten years of age has committed any act which if committed by an adult would be a crime under any federal, state, or local law.

(7) That a caretaker has caused, encouraged, or contributed to the child's behaviors enumerated in this Article or to the commission of delinquent acts as defined in Title VIII.
 

Title VIII. DELINQUENCY

Art. 801. Purpose

The purpose of this Title is to accord due process to each child who is accused of having committed a delinquent act and to insure that he shall receive, preferably in his own home, the care, guidance, and control that will be conducive to his welfare and the best interests of the state and that in those instances when he is removed from the control of his parents, the court shall secure for him care as nearly as possible equivalent to that which the parents should have given him.
 

Art. 804. Definitions

(Excerpted)

As used in this Title:

(1) "Child" means any person under the age of twenty-one, including an emancipated minor, who commits a delinquent act before attaining seventeen years of age.

(3) "Delinquent act" means an act committed by a child of ten years of age of older which if committed by an adult is designated an offense under the statutes or ordinances of this state, or of another state if the act occurred in another state, or under federal law, except traffic violations. It includes a direct contempt of court committed by a child.
 

Art. 819. Continued custody hearing; time limitations

If a child is not released to the care of his parents, a hearing shall be held by the court within seventy-two hours of the child's entry into the juvenile detention center or shelter care facility. If the hearing is not held, the child shall be released unless the hearing is continued at the request of the child.
 

Art. 823. Right to bail or other security for release

(Excerpted)

A. Except as provided for in Paragraph C of this Article, upon application by the child, parent, guardian, or legal custodian, a child shall have a right to bail for release from custody prior to adjudication by the deposit of a bond or other security as determined by the court and upon agreeing to any other reasonable conditions found necessary to insure appearance of the child for adjudication.
 

Art. 839. Availability of an informal adjustment agreement

A. Prior to the filing of a petition, the court or district attorney may authorize an informal adjustment agreement.

B. After the filing of a petition but before the attachment of jeopardy pursuant to Article 811, the court may authorize the district attorney or probation officer to effect an informal adjustment agreement if the child has no objection.

The court may dismiss the petition or allow the petition to remain pending during the period of informal adjustment.
 

Art. 840. Form of agreement

A. An informal adjustment agreement shall set forth in writing the terms and conditions of the child's supervision during the terms specified in the agreement. It shall be signed by the district attorney or the probation officer and by the child and his parents.

C. The period of informal adjustment shall not exceed six months without approval of the court. The court may extend the agreement for an additional period not to exceed six months.
 

Art. 844. Form of petition

A. The petition shall contain a caption setting forth the name of the court and the title of the action. The petition shall be entitled, "The State of Louisiana in the Interest of ......"

B. Allegations of fact shall be simple, concise, and direct and shall be set forth in numbered paragraphs. As far as practicable each paragraph shall be limited to a single set of circumstances.

C. The petition shall be verified. Allegations of fact may be made on information and belief.

D. Failure to comply with formal requirements of this Article shall not be grounds for dismissal of a petition or invalidation of the proceedings unless it results in substantial prejudice. 
 

Art. 855. Advice of rights at appearance to answer

A. When the child appears to answer the petition, the court shall first determine that the child is capable of understanding statements about his rights under this Code.

B. If the child is capable, the court shall then advise the child of the following items in terms understandable to the child:

1) The nature of this delinquency proceeding.

2) The nature of the allegations of the petition.

3) His right to an adjudication hearing.

4) His right to be represented by an attorney, his right to have counsel appointed as provided in Article 809 and his right in certain circumstances authorized by Article 810 to waive counsel.

5) His privilege against self-incrimination.

6) The range of responses authorized under Article 856.

7) The possible consequences of his admission that the allegations are true, including the maximum and minimal dispositions which the court might impose pursuant to Articles 897 through 900.
 

Art. 856. Answer to petition

A. After the child has been advised pursuant to Article 855, the court shall inquire how the child responds. The child may: 

1) Deny the allegations of the petition, in which case the court shall set the matter for an adjudication hearing.

2) Deny the allegations of the petition and contest the request for adjudication due to insanity as defined in this Title, in which case the court shall not adjudicate the child without a hearing, at which time the child has the burden of establishing this defense.

3) Admit the allegations of the petition,in which case the court shall further inquire to determine whether there is a factual basis for adjudication. If so, the court may then adjudicate the child delinquent.

4) With the court's permission, enter a response of nolo contendere. If, in its discretion, the court accepts such response,the court shall further inquire to determine whether there is a factual basis for adjudication, and it may then adjudicate the child delinquent. 
 

B. A child shall plead when called upon to answer. If he stands mute, refuses to plead, or pleads evasively, a denial of the petition shall be entered of record.
 

Art. 882. Adjudication by the court

The adjudication hearing shall be held before the court without a jury.
 

Art. 883. Burden of proof

In order for the court to adjudicate a child delinquent, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child committed a delinquent act alleged in the petition.
 

Art. 884. Adjudication order

A. Following the adjudication hearing, the court shall immediately declare whether the evidence warrants an adjudication that the child is delinquent. In exceptional circumstances, the court may take the matter under advisement.

B. If the evidence warrants such an adjudication, the court may find that the family is in need of services according to Title VII.

C. If the court finds that the evidence does not warrant any requested or authorized adjudication, it shall dismiss the petition.
 

Art. 892. Disposition hearing; time

Prior to entering a judgment of disposition, the court shall conduct a disposition hearing. The disposition hearing may be conducted immediately after the adjudication and shall be conducted within thirty days after the adjudication. Such period may be extended for good cause.
 

Art. 893. Disposition hearing; evidence

(Excerpted)

A. At the disposition hearing, unless the child waives the presentation, the court shall hear evidence as to whether the child is in need of treatment or rehabilitation and shall make and file its findings.

B. All evidence helpful in determining the proper disposition, including oral and written reports, the report of the predisposition investigation, any reports of mental evaluation, and all other evidence offered by the child or the state may be received by the court and relied upon to the extent of its probative value even though not admissible at the adjudication hearing.

C. Counsel for the state and for the child shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and to examine and controvert written reports so received and to cross-examine individuals preparing the reports or other witnesses who give testimony at the hearing. Sources of confidential information need not be disclosed.
 

Art. 896. Deferred dispositional agreement

(Excerpted)

A. At any time after the entry of an adjudication order, the court may, on motion of the district attorney or of counsel for the child, suspend further proceedings and place the child on supervised or unsupervised probation, with or without any of the conditions authorized by Article 897(B)(1) or Article 899(B)(1).

B. The child and his parent must consent to this special type of disposition. If the child has waived counsel, the court must advise the child and his parent concerning the consequences of a deferred dispositional agreement and of the child's right to have a disposition imposed by the court in accordance with Articles 897 through 900.

D. A deferred dispositional agreement shall remain in force for six months unless the child is discharged sooner by the court. Upon application of the district attorney or by any agency supervising the child made before the expiration of the six-month period, a deferred dispositional agreement order may be extended by the court for an additional period not to exceed six months. 
 

Art. 901. Disposition guidelines; generally

A. In considering dispositional options, the court shall not remove a child from the custody of his parents unless his welfare or the safety and protection of the public cannot, in the opinion of the court, be adequately safeguarded without such removal.

B. The court should impose the least restrictive disposition authorized by Articles 897 through 900 of this Title which the court finds is consistent with the circumstances of the case, the needs of the child, and the best interest of society.

C. Commitment of the child to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections may be appropriate if any of the following exist:

(1) There is an undue risk that during the period of a suspended commitment or probation the child will commit another crime.

(2) The child is in need of correctional treatment or a custodial environment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment.

(3) A lesser disposition will deprecate the seriousness of the child's delinquent act.

D. The following grounds, while not controlling the discretion of the court, shall be accorded weight in its determination of suspension of the disposition or probation: 

(1) The child's delinquent conduct neither caused nor threatened serious harm.

(2) The child did not contemplate that his delinquent conduct would cause or threaten serious harm.

(3) The child acted under strong provocation.

(4) There were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the child's delinquent conduct, though failing to establish a defense.

(5) The victim of the child's delinquent conduct induced or facilitated its commission.

(6) The child or his family has compensated or will compensate the victim of his delinquent conduct for the damage or injury that the victim sustained.

(7) The child has no history of prior delinquency or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the commission of the instant delinquent act.

(8) The child's delinquent conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur.

(9) The character and attitudes of the child indicate that he is unlikely to commit another delinquent act or crime.

(10) The child is particularly likely to respond affirmatively to probationary treatment.

(11) The commitment of the child would entail excessive hardship to himself or his family.
 

Art. 902. Presence at disposition

All parties shall be present when the court enters a judgment of disposition. Witnesses need not be present. 

Art. 903. Judgment of disposition

A. Before entering a judgment of disposition, the court shall orally inform the child and shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing the particular disposition chosen.

B. The court shall enter into the record a written judgment of disposition specifying all of the following:

(1) The offense for which the child has been adjudicated a delinquent.

(2) The nature of the disposition.

(3) The agency, institution, or person to whom the child is assigned.

(4) The conditions of probation, if applicable.

(5) Any other applicable terms and conditions regarding the disposition.

(6) The maximum duration of the disposition and, if committed to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the maximum term of the commitment.

C. An extract of the minutes of court specifying the information required by Paragraph B of this Article and signed by the court shall be considered a written judgment of disposition.

D. The date of entry of the judgment of disposition shall be recorded on the judgment.

E. Upon request, a copy of the judgment of disposition shall be furnished to the parent. 

Art. 905. Progress reports to court

A. Any institution or agency to which a child is assigned, upon request, shall provide the court any information concerning the condition, supervision, treatment, or rehabilitation program of the child.

B. Any institution, agency, or person to which a child is assigned shall, not less than once every six months, report in writing the whereabouts and condition of the child to the judge who rendered the judgment of disposition.
 

Art. 908. Care and treatment by Department of Public Safety and Corrections

(Excerpted)

A. Except as provided in Article 906, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall have sole authority over the placement, care, treatment, or any other considerations deemed necessary from the resources that are available for children judicially committed to the department.

B. When care and treatment are to be provided by the department, either through facilities and programs operated by it or through contractual arrangements or through purchase of service arrangements for which the department provides funding, the child shall be committed to the department rather than to a particular institution or facility.

Art. 1509 Penalties (Contempt of court--direct or constructive)

(Excerpted)

B. When any child is adjudged guilty of direct contempt of court or when an adjudicated child is adjudged guilty of constructive contempt of court for repeated disobedience of the court's judgment or disposition, the court may commit the child to a juvenile detention center or other suitable facility for not more than fifteen days, including time spent in detention for the contempt prior to the contempt hearing. However, no child committed under this provision shall be physically housed in the same dormitory, room, or area used to house children adjudicated delinquent.
 

Art. 1525 Scope of jurisdiction (Misdemeanor prosecution of adults) (Excerpted)

The juvenile court shall have jurisdiction to try any adult who is charged with any of the following misdemeanors:

(1) Interference with the custody of a child.

(2) Criminal abandonment.

(3) Unlawful sales to minors.

(4) Unlawful purchase of alcoholic beverages for minors.

(8) Illegal use of controlled dangerous substances in the presence of children.

(9) Sale of poisonous reptiles to minors.

(10) Contributing to the delinquency of juveniles.

(12) Tattooing minors. 

(13) Child desertion.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The courtroom work group of the juvenile court. Traditional importance of the judge and the police officer, but some changes in recent years. Key figures:

The Juvenile Court Judge. In theory the most powerful figure in the juvenile court. Originally intended as a wise, all powerful Solomon, supposed to serve as a "father figure" for wayward youths.

Intervening as a father might, without following legal rules.

Decline of the parenal or paternalistic juvenile court judge over

the last 20 years, trend toward more of a legalistic or law-giver role. Most juvenile court judges part-time; protected from scrutiny by the closed door. "Adults would never stand for the way some juvenile court judges operate."

The Police Juvenile Officer. The confidant and legal advisor of the judge. Maintains the criminal records (separate files) and knows about the delinquent and his friends. The judge's best source of information. "What should I do with him?"

The Prosecutor. Usually a part-time Assistant DA or Assistant City Attorney who specializes in juvenile cases. Works with the police in reviewing juvenile arrests; screening cases for evidence and worth as in adult courts. More power as plea bargaining becomes institutionalized in the juvenile courts; prosecutor really determines what constitutes an acceptable plea.

Defense Counsel. Early on a very limited role in the juvenile court. As a civil proceeding, no defense attorney needed (or allowed in some courts). Much more impact since the due process ruling in Gault in 1967. Counsel either indigent defenders or private. Mostly indigent

defenders in urban courts.

The Juvenile Probation Officer. The judge's assistant in making dispositions. A long-established role in many progressive juvenile courts: centering on social background investigations and then supervising the juvenile on probation. Working closely with the juvenile court judge; usually a much closer relationship than in the adult criminal court.
 

The juvenile court hearing: who else may be present, either ordinarily

or in specific cases? Parent or guardian, witnesses, social workers, school board officials, child protection investigators.
 

The working relationship of the juvenile court work group: adversary or bureaucratic, legalistic or cooperative?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

INTAKE PROCEDURES
 

Intake essentially means a preliminary screening process "to determine whether the court should take action and if so what action, or whether the matter should be referred elsewhere.'' Larger courts usually handle the intake function through a specialized intake unit; probation officers or other officers of the court screen incoming cases in smaller courts.
 

Intake procedures follow complaints to authorities against children. Juvenile law varies from state to state as to who is permitted to sign such a complaint. Typically, most complaints are filed by the police, although they may be initiated and signed by an alleged victim or by the parents of the youth. In some states, parents, victims, probation staff, social service staff, neighbors, or anyone else may go directly to the court to file a complaint. Complaints also may be brought by school officials and truant officers.
 

After the complaint is received by the intake officer, he or she must first decide whether the court has statutory jurisdiction. If the statutory guides are unclear, the intake officer should seek the advice of the prosecuting attorney. Once legal jurisdiction is established, the second step is to conduct a preliminary interview and investigation to determine whether the case should be adjudicated nonjudically or petitioned to the court. This evaluation procedure varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, principally because so many juvenile courts have failed to provide written guidelines. Therefore, the intake officer usually has broad and largely unregulated discretion in making the intake decision.

OPTIONS FOR THE DISPOSAL OF CASES

The intake unit, especially in larger urban courts, may have up to five options for the disposal of cases: 

(1) outright dismissal of the complaint, 

(2) informal adjustment (chiefly, diversion to a nonjudicial agency), 

(3) informal probation, 

(4) consent decree, and 

(5) filing of a petition.

Outright dismissal of the complaint takes place when legal jurisdiction does not exist or the case is so weak that the intake officer questions the feasibility of petitioning the youth to the juvenile court. 

Informal adjustment means that the intake officer requires restitution from the youth, warns him or her, and then dismisses the case or diverts the youth to a social agency, such as a youth services bureau. The diversion agency supervises such referrals and generally reports to the intake unit on their progress; status offenders and juveniles with minor offenses typically are dealt with under this option.
 

Informal probation, which has been under increased criticism since the 1970s, involves the casual supervision of a youth by a volunteer or probation officer, who reserves judgment on the need for filing a petition until the intake officer (or other designated person) sees how the youth fares during the informal probation period. The National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals supports the continued use of informal probation, but the President's Task Force on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime and the U.S. Children's Bureau have advocated abolishing informal probation because it violates the legal rights of juveniles.

A consent decree, defined as "a formal agreement between the child and the court in which the child is placed under the court's supervision without a formal finding of delinquency," provides an intermediate step between informal handling and probation. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals recommended that this decree be enforced for a period of no longer than six months; that its use not result in the removal

of the child from his or her family; and that its use be based on sufficient evidence. The consent decree is used less frequently than the other options open to the intake officer at the present time. The consent decree, it should be noted, comes after the petition but before the adjudication hearing.

If none of these options is satisfactory, the intake unit can choose to file a petition. The National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections' examination of seven juvenile courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Wisconsin found that the only relationship existing between type of offense and intake decision was that offenses against persons were more likely to be referred to the court than other offenses.

Unfortunately, the broad discretionary power given intake workers has often been abused. Charles W. Thomas and Christopher M. Sieverdes, studying 346 cases that appeared in juvenile court intake in a small court in the southeastern United States between 1966 and 1969, found that "the seriousness of the most recent offense was clearly shown to be the best predictor of case disposition." But they then made a telling statement: "[T]hese findings lead us to conclude that both legal and extralegal factors are being taken into consideration in the determination of whether to refer a given case for a formal hearing in the juvenile court." These extralegal factors, of course, may be a youth's race, sex, social class, or demeanor. Duran Bell Jr. and Kevin Lang's study of intake in Los Angeles County revealed the importance of extralegal factors, especially cooperative behavior in reducing the length of detention and the effect of age in increasing the length of detention. Furthermore, Terence Thornberry found in his examination of 3,475 boys apprehended by Philadelphia police during the period from 1965 to 1973 that African-American youths and those from impoverished census tracts--even when the seriousness of the offense and of prior offenses were held constant--were dealt with more severely by intake workers than others.
 

Research is needed to determine which approach to intake will mean the greatest services to youth and the least misuse of discretion. But until a systematic examination of the intake process is done, the principles of doing the least harm to the youth as possible and of fairness should guide the intake screening process.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Prevention and diversion programs: trying to stop delinquent behavior before it gets into the formal juvenile justice system.

Influence on policies and programs of the President's Crime Commission (1967) and the National Advisory Commission on CJUS Standards and Goals

(1973): prevention, minimizing contact, narrowing defintions, avoiding stigma, community alternatives.
 

Prevention programs: how focused, provided by whom?

General programs aimed at preventing delinquency in society.

Programs aimed at lower class youth or predelinquents: job training, employment opportunities, Head Start.

Programs aimed at delinquents, to keep them from returning to the system.
 

Prevention: change social institutions, change certain members of society, or change policies and definitions that govern the relation-

ship of institutions and people. Edwin Schur's proposal for "radical

non-intervention;" encouraging society to tolerate the widest possible 

range of behaviors and attitudes, changing the rules to redefine 

delinquency and "leaving kids alone wherever possible."
 

Who bears the burden of leading the changes to be made: social institutions or the juvenile justice system? Cox and Conrad emphasize the broader role of social institutions.
 

Police role in delinquency prevention:

traditional involvement in youth sports, scouting and recreational activities.

more recent role in support of schools, as counselors and teachers in prevention programs. DARE.

youth service bureaus. Social service alternative to juvenile court, dealing with referrals from schools, police and other agencies.

Counselling, recreation, referral, substance abuse, youth advocacy.

Criticized as an extralegal practice; no better than the pre-Gault 

juvenile court.
 

Diversion: the more accepted legal alternative to juvenile court.

Usually a pre-trial program that screens out minor offenders, especially with substance abuse, family or school problems that are easily targeted. Complete pre-trial program successfully, over a period of months, and original charges are dropped. Reduces labelling and formal processing. Criticized for "widening the net;" bringing in minor offenders who would probably not have been dealt with by the formal court anyway. Also criticized for not having that much of an effect on their subjects: delinquent behavior and social maladjustment unaffected. Local example: Teen Court.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Types of Sanctions:

Nominal-in name only. Warnings and restrictions.

Conditional-rules to follow. Left free in community. Custodial-in secure or non-secure residency.
 

Turning from secure custody (especially for non-delinquents) since 1974 (influence of JJDP Act) and from the idea of sending juveniles to institutions for rehabilitation ("the away sysdrome"). Declining use of custody until recently. "Gone about as far as we can go," short of closing down institutions, as Massachusetts did in the early 1970s.
 

Common dispositions today:

probation--in accord with the therapeutic philosophy of the juvenile courts.

foster homes--temporary or long-term removal from families.

group home--short-term non-secure residential facility.

New options:

house arrest, electronic monitoring, halfway houses, intensive probation and parole.

Institutions as prisons for young adults: smaller, more rehab, longer-term and more secure.
 

Diversion: the more accepted legal alternative to juvenile court. Conditional or unconditional. Usually a pre-trial program that screens out minor offenders, especially with substance abuse, family or school problems that are easily targeted. Complete pre-trial program success-fully, over a period of time, and original charges are dropped. Reduces labelling and formal processing. Criticized for "widening the net," bringing in minor offenders who would probably not have been dealt with by the formal court anyway. Proliferation of new social agencies providing various services to juveniles, especially involving testing, evaluation and counselling. Local example: CASA or Teen Court. Other examples: Youth Service Bureaus, Youth at Risk, See Our Side (juvenile aversion), and the Juvenile Diversion Program in New Orleans. 
 

Probation: a conditional sentence, for a specifed period, requiring a level of supervision. Levels: minimal, standard or regular, intensive.

About 20,000 JPOs in U.S. in 1990; intake on 1.5 million juveniles, pre-disposition reports on 600,000, over 500,000 juveniles on probation.

Recommended caseload of 35 or less, though caseload is often a meaningless term. Different styles of probation officers: enforcer, counselor, broker. High turnover rates, because of stress, failure and burnout. Probation recidivism: from 30% to 70% depending on clientele and how strictly rules are enforced. Offenders keep reoffending, what matters is whether they are caught and what is done with them when they are.