Juvenile Justice Systems and Procedures

Early Juvenile Court System

• No juvenile justice system existed approximately 200 years ago
• Children as young as seven years old could be held criminally responsible and incarcerated with adult inmates, and even executed for committing crimes
• Prosecution of a child required proof that the child possessed "judgment or discernment"
• A child was considered an adult with full discernment and responsibility at 14 years of age
• The "State" or government did not interfere in the parent/child relationship
• Children were considered property of their parents with no prohibition on harsh, abusive, or torturous discipline and treatment

Development of Juvenile Courts

• The first Juvenile Court was developed in Cook County, Illinois in 1899
• Missouri followed with the development of a Juvenile Court system in 1903
• The purpose of early Juvenile Courts was not to prescribe guilt or punishment but to act in the place of parents and rehabilitate wayward youth
• The initial courts were informal, and many hearings were held privately in the Judge's chambers
• The Judge served more as a "father figure" than a legal jurist

Concept of "Parens Patriae" or "Parent of the Country"

• The concept of "parens patriae" is the legal doctrine that serves as the basis for intervention into the parent/child relationship
• Parens Patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation" and is rooted in English common law
• The doctrine generally holds that when parents are found to be incompetent or incapable of performing their parental responsibilities — the State can intervene to act in the interests of a child

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

• Kent v. United States (1966): The first Supreme Court case to modify the long-standing belief that juveniles did not require the same due process protections as adults
• In re Gault (1967): Juveniles have the right to notice and counsel, to cross-examine witnesses, and to protection against self-incrimination
• In re Winship (1970): The standard of evidence for adjudication of delinquency should be "proof beyond reasonable doubt"
• McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971): Trial by jury is not a constitutional requirement for juveniles; a state may establish a system for trial by jury but the Court maintained that juvenile cases should not become adversarial and should ideally remain informal and protective in nature
• Breed v. Jones (1975): An adjudication in Juvenile Court, in which a juvenile is found to have violated a criminal statute, is equivalent to a trial in criminal court
• Fare v. Michael C. (1979): The right to speak to an attorney is not the right to speak with anyone of the person's choosing but to speak with an attorney
• Schall v. Martin (1984): Pretrial detention of a juvenile is constitutional if there is probable cause to believe that the juvenile committed a crime and if the detention is necessary to protect the juvenile or the community### Martin v. State
• Martin was held in secure juvenile detention pending adjudication due to a "serious risk" of committing another crime if released.
• Martin's attorney filed a habeas corpus action, challenging the fundamental fairness of preventive detention.
• The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the preventive detention statute.
• The Court stated that preventive detention serves a legitimate State objective in protecting both the juvenile and society from pretrial crime.
• The Court found that there were enough procedures in place to protect juveniles from wrongful deprivation of liberty.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

• A 14-year-old juvenile female was discovered smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom, violating a school rule.
• The Vice Principal searched the juvenile's purse, finding a pack of cigarettes, drug paraphernalia, and other evidence.
• The juvenile was charged in Juvenile Court and was adjudicated to be delinquent.
• The United States Supreme Court held that students in public schools have a constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
• The Court stated that school officials have a responsibility to maintain the discipline necessary for education.
• The search conducted by the Vice Principal was deemed reasonable by the United States Supreme Court.

Roper v. Simmons

• Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death in 1993 for a kidnapping and murder that occurred as part of a burglary.
• The United States Supreme Court ruled that executing a person less than eighteen years of age was unconstitutional.
• The Court relied on scientific knowledge and sociological research to substantiate that adolescent brain development and environmental circumstances are substantial factors to be considered.
• The decision drew a clear line as to what is considered to be the age of majority at eighteen years of age.

Missouri Juvenile Court System

• The statutorily defined purpose of the Missouri Juvenile Court system is to facilitate the care, protection, and discipline of children.
• The Juvenile Court is to provide care, guidance, and control that conduces to the child's welfare and the best interests of the State.
• The Juvenile Court is to ensure that when a child is removed from a parent, care equivalent to what should have been provided by the parent is secured for the child.

Rehabilitative Approach

• The Missouri Juvenile Justice system operates with a belief system based on rehabilitation, with a view toward the young offender as a developing person.
• The system aims to influence the juvenile to adopt a non-offending, productive life style.

Guiding Principles for Case Management Activities

• Offender accountability: Juvenile offenders should be held accountable for their actions in a timely and appropriate manner.
• Restoring the victim: Juvenile offenders should be guided to restore the victim as part of the juvenile justice process.
• Competency development: Juvenile offenders should develop basic competencies such as anger management, educational achievement, and vocational skills.
• Strength-based services: Many juvenile offenders have experienced significant failure and are often disengaged from society.