NCJ Number
67689
Date Published
1977
Length
0 pages
Annotation
THIS CASSETTE TAPE PRESENTS THE MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS STIPULATED IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE STANDARDS WHICH HAVE ESTABLISHED CHANGES IN THE METHODS OF THE JUVENILE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
Abstract
THESE STANDARDS ESTABLISH JUVENILE, FAMILY, AND SURROGATE COURTS AS SPECIAL DIVISIONS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGHEST TRIAL COURT SYSTEM IN EACH STATE. THEY ALSO PROHIBIT THE USE OF REFEREES FOR JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, WHILE PERMITTING PLEA BARGAINING ON CHARGES ONLY AND NOT ON DISPOSITIONS. THE STANDARDS RESTRICT THE JUVENILE COURT'S JURISDICTION BY ELIMINATING FROM THE SYSTEM NONVIOLENT AND VICTIMLESS CRIMES, STATUS OFFENSES, AND CASES IN WHICH IMPRISONMENT WOULD NOT BE AN APPLICABLE PENALTY IF THE DEFENDANT WERE AN ADULT. INSTEAD, THE STANDARDS ENCOURAGE SOCIAL SERVICES PROVISION TO RESOLVE INTRAFAMILY CONFLICTS AND VOLUNTARY SOCIAL INTERVENTION FOR JUVENILES ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES SUCH AS ALCOHOL OR MARIJUANA ABUSE AND GAMBLING. INSTITUTIONAL CONFINEMENT IS PROHIBITED FOR CHILDREN UNDER AGE 12, WHILE JUVENILE COURT JURISDICTION IS EXTENDED FROM MINIMUM AGE 10 TO MAXIMUM AGE 18. THE STANDARDS SEEK TO ELIMINATE JUDICIAL DISCRETION BY URGING LEGISLATIVELY PRESCRIBED MAXIMUM SENTENCES WHICH ARE DETERMINATE. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE MANDATORY SENTENCING BECAUSE JUDGES DO HAVE DISCRETION TO GIVE INCARCERATION, CUSTODIAL, OR NONCUSTODIAL SANCTION. THESE OPTIONS INCLUDE JUDGES' DISCRETION TO GRANT A 5 PERCENT REDUCTION FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR AFTER COURT REVIEW, NOMINAL OR CONDITIONAL DISPOSITIONS, AND INTERMITTENT OR CONTINUOUS INCARCERATIONS. JUDGES MUST GIVE VALID AND WRITTEN REASONS FOR THEIR DECISION OF CUSTODIAL OR INCARCERATION SANCTION. THE STANDARDS ASK FOR THE RELEASE FROM ADULT JAILS OF THE APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF INCARCERATED JUVENILES WHO HAVE NOT COMMITTED VIOLENT CRIMES, WHILE ALSO ASKING THAT ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH SIDES BE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. OPPOSITION TO THE STANDARDS SEES AN END TO INDIVIDUALIZED JUSTICE, REDUCED JUDICIAL POWER, LACK OF HELP FOR STATUS OFFENDERS, NO SOCIAL HISTORY REVIEWS FOR DISPOSITIONAL DECISIONMAKING, AND WEAKENED DETERRENT EFFECTS THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF PLEA BARGAINS. OPPOSITION ALSO OBJECTED TO THE SECRECY EMPLOYED BY THE JOINT COMMISSION WHICH WROTE THE STANDARDS.