In the second edition of the book titled 
The Cycle of Juvenile Justice, the late

Thomas J. Bernard and Megan Kurlychek
assert that there is a cyclical pattern

in juvenile justice, where the same 
sequence of policies has

been repeated over three times in the 
last two hundred years.

In fact, the authors argue that future 
policy changes regarding juvenile justice

can actually be predicted by closely 
examining the cycle.

The authors also argue that the 
behaviors that we describe as juvenile

delinquency today first appeared
in the United States in Western Europe

around 1800 and persist to this day. 
They attribute juvenile delinquency to

urbanization, industrialization, and the 
breakdown of traditional social controls.

The authors contend that since 1800 
there are numerous aspects of juvenile

delinquency, which have stayed the same.
For example, they assert that young

males have always committed more crime 
than members of other groups.

While the overall incidence and rate of 
crime may change, what remains

constant is that young people, especially 
young males, are disproportionally

involved in crime. In their book, Bernard 
and Kurlychek also point out that there

are special laws only juveniles are 
required to obey.

These laws are typically referred 
to as status offenses.

Status offenses have been around for 
over two hundred years.

Examples of status offenses, according 
to the authors include truancy,

running away from ones parents, 
underage drinking,

and refusing to obey ones parents. 
The authors contend that juveniles are

still required to obey special laws, 
even in those states which have

decriminalized status offenses. 
They assert that status offenders may be

redefined as criminal offenders so that 
they might be processed through

the juvenile courts. 
The authors argue that there have

been separate laws for juveniles for 
centuries in attempts to changes these

laws have only resulted in new laws or 
new approaches to control certain types

of behaviors in juveniles.
Bernard and Kurlychek also maintained

that for the last two hundred years,
juveniles for the most part, are often

punished less severely than adults.
They trace this back to the code of

Hammurabi, which was written over 
four thousand years ago.

Here juveniles were treated more 
leniently than adults.

Also, they examined Roman law with the
twelve tables, were there was absolute

immunity from punishment for children
below a certain age.

Today according to the authors, in most 
states within the U.S,

young offenders below the age of eighteen 
are sent to the juvenile court.

Nevertheless, there are states which 
have lowered the maximum age for

juvenile court jurisdiction. 
For example, in New York and in

North Carolina, if a juvenile is over 
fifteen years old he or she will

be tried in an adult court. 
Also, it is important to point out that

even if a juvenile commits a crime, 
if the offense is serious enough or if

he or she has committed multiple offenses 
the juvenile could be waived

to an adult court. 
And, in some states certain offenses,

which are very serious, such as murder 
may automatically be waived

to an adult court. 
In these cases, the defense attorney will

then try to get the case transferred back
to the juvenile court.

There are also other aspects of juvenile 
delinquency which have remained

unchanged for the last two hundred years.
The authors assert that older people

tend to believe that the current group 
of young people commit more frequent

and more serious crimes than
juveniles in the past.

They refer to this phenomenon as the 
myth of the good old days.

The authors assert that whether juvenile 
crime is high or low many people tend

to believe that it is worse than before.
Therefore, people always tend to

believe that we are right in the middle 
of or on the verge of a juvenile crime

wave, regardless of what the actual 
reality might be.

Bernard and Kurlychek also argue that 
many people blame juvenile justice

policies for the supposed juvenile crime 
wave as either being too lenient

or too harsh. 
This explains both the creation of the

first juvenile institution as well as the
development of the juvenile

justice system. 
For example, prior to 1825,

there was no juvenile institution. 
Instead, there were only adult facilities

to send juvenile offenders to.
So naturally, judges, juries,

and prosecutors wanted to avoid sending 
juvenile offenders to adult institutions.

As a result, many juveniles got off 
scot free.

People were very critical of this which 
eventually led to the creation of the

first juvenile institution in 
New York City in 1825.

The first juvenile court, in Chicago, also
emerged in a very similar manner.

It was established in 1899 because 
the adult courts were believed to be

too lenient with juveniles. 
As a result, of the creation of the

juvenile court system, more youths 
were subjected to the control and

supervision of the adult court system. 
It is worth mentioning again that the

author attribute juvenile delinquency 
to the transition from agricultural

societies to modern industrial societies.
In the United States and in

Western Europe the transition occurred 
at about the same time in the early 1800s.

Interestingly, when other nations made a 
similar transition, juvenile delinquency

also occurred. 
For example, as countries in Africa,

Asia, and Latin America underwent 
modernization during the

latter part of the 20th century, they too,
confronted the problem of

juvenile delinquency. 
Again, this is a phenomenon which no

country really experienced as a 
traditional agricultural society.

Population growth coupled with 
urbanization put juvenile offenders

into close contact with potential victims,
and immigration created culture conflict

which also led to crimes,
and industrialization increased the

number of movable goods which led to a 
significant spike in property crimes.

In the United States, the juvenile justice
system was created to capture young

underprivileged people and shape and mold
these individuals into productive people,

so that they would not steal the property
from the wealthy members of society.

The authors argue that universities and 
colleges were used to mold young people

from the middle and upper 
class segments of society.

While the juvenile justice system, 
on the other hand,

was used to mold young people from the 
lower classes who were deemed

to be the most dangerous. 
The first juvenile institution was created

in 1825 in New York by powerful 
protestant middle age men who had grown

up in quiet and orderly small towns. 
As America made its transformation from

a rural to an urban society, these men 
believed that young immigrant youths were

creating havoc in the cities. 
When youths were caught committing crimes,

they also noticed that judges and juries
often refused to convict them and it

would entail sending a young person 
to the penitentiary.

So as a result, youthful offenders often 
got off scot free.

These wealthy protestant men decided 
to build a juvenile institution which was

focused on reform rather that punishment.
When this facility was built, it even

took in juveniles who had not yet 
committed any crime.

Most of these juveniles were committed 
to this house of refuge until they were

twenty one years of age. 
Again, virtually all of the juveniles who

were cited within this institution 
were immigrants.

The children of Irish Catholics soon 
came to dominate the population inside

the house of refuge. 
Eventually, there was no more room

inside this institution. 
So youths were sent to work on farms

in the newly settled states such as Ohio,
Indiana, and Illinois.

These young immigrants were essentially
indentured servants until they

turned twenty one.
They were taken from their families

and either confined in a facility or 
placed in homes which were hundreds

of miles away and they were made 
to work for their keep.

The natural parents of these youths were 
not typically told of their

children’s whereabouts. 
In their book, Bernard and Kurlychek

point to an 1838 Pennsylvania Supreme 
Court case which they referred to

as the Case of Mary Ann Crouse. 
In this case, a girl was sent to a

Philadelphia house of refuge, even though
she had not committed a crime.

Her father argued that the state had 
no right to confine his daughter;

however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
rejected the father’s arguments and ruled

that it was legal to help Mary Ann because
of the state’s role as parens patriae.

This is a Latin phrase which means parent 
of the country.

The court held that the state had an 
obligation to take over as this

child’s parent. 
And because she was not being punished,

this child was not entitled to 
any due process protections.

This case essentially affirmed that 
children could be held in houses of

refuge until their twenty first birthday,
even if they had not committed

an actual crime. 
In 1868, thirty years later the Illinois

state Supreme Court ruled that a young 
juvenile who had committed no crime could

not be held in a reform school. 
The court concluded that the juvenile,

whose name was David O’Connell, 
was being punished rather than helped.

The court held that it was illegal to 
send poor children to reform schools

unless they had committed a 
felony offense.

It was not long after this decision that
reformers went looking for a new basis

to control poor immigrant children. 
Reformers always sought to expand state

power rather than limit it. 
So after the O’Connell decisions declared

that it was illegal to confine juveniles 
who had not committed a crime in

houses of refuge, social reformers created
the first juvenile court.

The juvenile court which had civil rather 
than criminal jurisdiction would be used

as a tool to control children who were 
deemed to be among the dangerous class

that threatened the status quo. 
Bernard and Kurlychek argue that while

the first juvenile institution had been 
founded by men, the first juvenile court

was largely the result 
of the work of women.

These women were the wives and daughters 
of prominent Chicago politicians

and businessmen. 
These women went to the city council

and state legislators and lobbied for 
major policy changes in the

handling of juveniles. 
After the O’Connell decision, these

reformers wanted to find a way to 
control poor immigrant juveniles,

even those who had not yet 
committed a crime.

And these reformers were able to 
accomplish their objective by removing

children from the jurisdiction of 
the adult criminal court and establishing

a juvenile court which was not 
criminal in nature.

Rather, the juvenile court was social 
welfare agency and children who had needs

of any kind could be brought into 
the juvenile court.

After the first juvenile court was 
established, the law provided court

workers with virtually unlimited power 
over poor children.

And because the juvenile court was a 
civil court rather than a criminal one,

young people brought within its 
jurisdiction did not enjoy

due process protections.
The juvenile court returned to handling

juvenile offenders as it had handled them
before the O’Connell decision.

It established a new basis for the old 
practice of sending poor children to rural

institutions for their own good, 
even if these children had not

committed an actual crime. 
As long as the case worker thought it was

in the best interest of the child it was, 
once again, no longer necessary for that

child to have committed an actual 
criminal offense.

The few due process safe guards that 
have been providing the juveniles under

the O’Connell decision were wiped out by 
the establishment of the new

juvenile court. 
This pattern would go uncontested

for the next seventy years.
It was not until the mid-1960s that

the U.S Supreme Court would make key
rulings which would provide juveniles

with important due process safeguards.