NCJ Number
129402
Date Published
1990
Length
17 pages
Annotation
Federal initiatives and U.S. Supreme Court rulings concerning juvenile delinquency have had broad repercussions throughout the juvenile justice system.
Abstract
The legal status of juvenile misbehavior, child dependency and neglect, and child abuse was intensely debated long before the first juvenile court legislation was passed. The proper scope of State intervention in juvenile cases was rarely challenged, in part because juvenile courts occupied a position of low visibility compared to criminal courts. The juvenile court was predicated on the theory that State intervention could be justified by the diagnostic prediction of delinquent behavior. Personal characteristics of children served as the basis for court referral because they were predictive of future delinquent behavior. Failure of this approach, however, seriously undermined the juvenile court system. Powers of the juvenile court were also undermined by failures in what had been conceived as their basic mission. From the beginning, juvenile courts were in a poor position to treat delinquents and in no position to prevent delinquency. Despite the significance of various U.S. Supreme Court rulings on juvenile delinquency cases, the decisions have left key questions unanswered, particularly whether a delinquent is essentially a child or an offender. Little systematic attention has been paid to the impact of procedural court reform. Further, the extent to which juvenile courts are traditional or legalistic in their handling of juveniles has influenced what happens to delinquents to a greater extent than representation by counsel per se. 38 notes