The History of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice

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.