NCJ Number
61618
Journal
Juvenile and Family Court Journal Volume: 30 Issue: 3 Dated: (AUGUST 1979) Pages: 37-47
Date Published
1979
Length
11 pages
Annotation
FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, ESPECIALLY DURING THE 1960'S AND 1970'S IS DISCUSSED; JUDICIAL DECISIONS REGARDING JUVENILES AND CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS ARE EMPHASIZED.
Abstract
DATA COLLECTED OVER THESE YEARS INDICATE THAT JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IS A SERIOUS NATIONAL PROBLEM. SEVERAL PIECES OF SYMBOLIC LEGISLATION HAVE BEEN ENACTED IN AN ATTEMPT TO AMELIORATE THE SITUATION, BUT THE RECORD OF PROGRAM FUNDING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN SLUGGISH AND CHAOTIC. ONE OF THE FIRST 'PROTECTIVE' RESPONSES TO DEVIANT BEHAVIOR OF YOUTH WAS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE JUVENILE COURT IN 1899. WITHIN LATER YEARS, HOWEVER, CRITICS OF THE COURT ARGUED THAT THE HUMANITARIAN INTENTIONS OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED. IN ADDITION, THE TRADITIONAL JUVENILE COURT DOCTRINE HAS BEEN QUESTIONED IN SEVERAL U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. ONE CASE SIGNALING THIS REASSESSMENT WAS KENT V. UNITED STATES (1966). THE COURT RULED THAT WHEN DECIDING WHETHER A JUVENILE SHOULD BE TRIED IN ADULT COURT, THE JUVENILE COURT MUST CONDUCT A HEARING, PROVIDE THE JUVENILE'S LAWYER WITH RECORDS AND REPORTS ON HIS CLIENT, AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR ITS DECISION. THE 1967 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN IN RE GAULT AFFIRMED A JUVENILE'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND FAIR TREATMENT AS REQUIRED IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT. ASSURANCES OF DUE PROCESS WERE EXTENDED TO STUDENTS IN THE 1975 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN GROSS V. LOPEZ. ALTHOUGH THE FIRST CATEGORICAL FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CONTROL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL PASSAGE OF THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND YOUTH OFFENSES CONTROL ACT OF 1961, THE FEDERAL INTEREST IN IMPROVING CHILD WELFARE AND PREVENTING DELINQUENCY BEGAN IN THE EARLY 1900S'. A CONCENTRATED FEDERAL EFFORT IN PREVENTING AND CONTROLLING DELINQUENCY WAS SIGNALED BY THE 1974 ENACTMENT OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT. DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT ARE STILL THE SUBJECT OF CONTROVERSY. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY HAS COME FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION. THE MOST POSITIVE IMPACT OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION IS THE EMPHASIS ON DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION. FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT REMAINS CRUCIAL AND MUST, IN THE FUTURE, PROMOTE GREATER COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. FOOTNOTES AND A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. (LWM)