NCJ Number
165231
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 60 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1996) Pages: 8-15
Date Published
1996
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article discusses the deferred prosecution program for juvenile offenders developed by Conrad Printzlien, the Eastern District of New York's first probation officer.
Abstract
During his years with the district attorney's office and later as a probation officer, Chief Printzlien recognized the problems of young offenders who all too often were stigmatized by prosecution and conviction. There was no mechanism in the Federal system to distinguish the situational juvenile offender from the more serious juvenile offender who was resistant to rehabilitation. In 1936 Printzlien brought his concerns to the district attorney, Leo J. Hickley, and proposed an idea to divert situational juvenile offenders from the criminal justice system before arraignment. After being given approval to proceed, Printzlien had developed a plan to create a report for the prosecutor to use in determining whether prosecution was warranted or necessary. The plan would allow the probation officer to conduct a background investigation before prosecution. If the investigation disclosed that the juvenile had no prior record and came from a stable home, the district attorney's office could use such information, coupled with information submitted by the investigating agencies, to decide not to prosecute. In these cases, the prosecutor would hold the charges in abeyance for a specific time frame contingent on good behavior. If the juvenile did well on supervision, the case was closed. In the event supervision was unsatisfactory, the prosecutor would process the original complaint. This concept of deferred prosecution was implemented in Brooklyn and was later coined the "Brooklyn Plan" by other districts who implemented the program. Throughout the years since deferred prosecution was begun, many thousands of offenders have benefited from the diversion programs implemented in the district courts. These offenders often received specialized services that provided them with a full range of treatment interventions. The programs minimized the social, emotional, and economic disruption that is often experienced by offenders who face criminal prosecution. 13 references