NCJ Number
139279
Journal
Pepperdine Law Review Volume: 18 Issue: 2 Dated: (1991) Pages: 389-415
Date Published
1991
Length
27 pages
Annotation
A review of the historical development of the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, culminating in the 1974 passage of the Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act, places this change in juvenile justice law within the larger context of reform in the administration of juvenile justice.
Abstract
The first American juvenile court, established at the end of the 19th century, followed two centuries of laws that had penalized juvenile delinquents. Common law held that children under age 7 lacked the ability to form criminal intent. Specialized institutions for delinquent youth, including State, industrial, and training schools, preceded the first juvenile court by almost 75 years. By 1870, 18 States had institutionalized youths for status offenses, either by constituting it as a criminal offense or by broadening the commitment grounds for noncriminal conduct. The Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899 brought cases of neglect, dependency, and delinquency under a single jurisdiction. As the number of juveniles courts rapidly increased and spread to many other States, they persisted in the belief that delinquency led to adult criminality, and they widened their net to include all children who violated any law or who were in some way neglected or endangered. However, by the 1960's, many critics held that the juvenile courts specialized in treatment without trial. Reform in the juvenile justice system was instigated by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and the Supreme Court. Further reforms arose during the 1970's from the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, revolutionary reform occurring in Massachusetts, and the labeling theory. The JJDP Act required States to provide for the deinstitutionalization of status offenders; in this area, the Act emphasized substantial compliance, valid court order, and de minimis exceptions. The public debate over the deinstitutionalization of status offenders today centers around several issues: whether status offenders receive necessary services without the intervention of the juvenile justice system, whether chronic status offenders should be removed from the system, and the appropriateness of the diversion of status offenders to mental health institutions. 126 notes