Bethel university ccj login

Chapter ObjeCtives After studying this chapter, you should be able to

• Describe how the middle and upper classes in the late 1800s viewed the poor and the working class

• Describe how the elite’s view of the poor and the working class influenced the types of social control mechanisms that were developed

• Describe who the “child savers” were and why they were interested in poor, wayward youths

• explain how the inability or unwillingness of criminal courts to deal with young offenders encouraged the development of the juvenile courts

• Describe the ways in which the social context of the late 1800s and early 1900s contributed to the development of the juvenile courts

• Describe the legal doctrine of parens patriae, and indicate how it was used as a justification for state intervention into family life

• explain why concern about the lack of due process in juvenile courts grew during the middle of the 1900s

• Describe the significance of Kent v. United States, In re Gault, In re Winship, and McKeiver v. Pennsylvania and how these cases influenced juvenile justice practice

Chapter Outline introduction

the social Context of the juvenile Court

the legal Context of the juvenile Court

the Operation of the early juvenile Courts

the legal reform Years

legal issues

Chapter summary

The Development of the Juvenile Court

chapter

5

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ introduction

This chapter examines the development of the juvenile court in the United States. It describes the social context influencing the creation of the first juvenile court, established in Chicago in 1899, and the rapid spread of juvenile courts to other jurisdictions. It explores the legal developments that formed the underlying basis of juvenile court practice. It also looks at early juvenile court operation and important landmark cases that have affected the operation and practices of contemporary juvenile courts and other juvenile justice agencies. The chapter closes with an examination of the extent to which important legal cases actually influence the practice of juvenile justice.

■ the social Context of the juvenile Court

The period from 1880 to 1920, referred to as the progressive era by historians, was a time of major change in the United States. The pace of industrialization, urbanization, and immigration quickened during this period, and the population became more diverse. The stream of Irish and German immigrants that had begun during the early 1800s trailed off at the end of the century, but they were replaced by Italians, Russians, Jews, Greeks, and other immigrants from

eastern and southern Europe—people who came from cul- tural backgrounds that were alien to native-born Americans.1

The dream of a better life drew many people to American cities during the Progressive Era. This dream, however, fre- quently remained unrealized. Wealth was becoming increas- ingly concentrated in the hands of business elites who sought to dominate economic life, workers were forced to work long hours in unsafe work settings for low wages and no ben- efits, and housing was often inadequate. Periodic economic depressions ruined many people financially and made life particularly difficult for the poor. Not surprisingly, urban areas faced many social problems, including poverty, labor unrest, alcoholism, disease, racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination, and crime.

progressive era A period in

American history, lasting roughly from 1890 to 1924, during

which a variety of economic, social, and political reforms and

reform movements occurred, including

women’s suffrage; trust busting; Pro- hibition; reduction in working hours;

elimination of child labor; adoption of

social welfare ben- efits; and the popular

voting measures of initiative, recall,

and referendum. The reforms were

primarily concerned with responding to popular unrest and

problems uncovered in the operation of

economic, social, and political institutions.

Key Concepts

review Questions

additional readings

Cases Cited

notes

Photo: Courtesy of Underwood & Underwood., Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

112 ChaPter 5 the Development of the Juvenile Court

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

FYi urban GrOwth was OnlY One impOrtant ChanGe DurinG the prOGressive era

the city of Chicago provides a good example of the changes experienced during the Progressive era. Between 1890 and 1910, the population of Chicago doubled, growing in those two decades from 1 million to 2 million people. Between 1880 and 1890, the number of factories nearly tripled. Furthermore, by 1889, nearly 70% of the inhabitants of the city were immigrants.2

FYi ameriCan histOrY is Full OF COnFliCtinG interests

the United States has seen several conflicts between opposing interests, often the wealthy and the poor. One of the earliest of these was Shays’s rebellion, which began in western Massachusetts during the summer of 1786. the uprising represented an attempt by debt-ridden farmers to seize courthouses in order to forestall foreclosure proceedings against them. In 1839, an anti-rent movement spread throughout New York’s hudson Valley; thousands of renters attempted to make their voices heard and to resist the efforts of wealthy landlords to collect rents and taxes from poor farmers. all through the later 1800s, workers engaged in strikes and other efforts in order to win better wages and improve working conditions. the conflict between workers and employ- ers sometimes turned violent. For example, the great railroad strikes of 1877, which involved approximately 100,000 strikers, resulted in 1,000 arrests and 100 deaths.3

In response to the growing problems in many communities, members of the middle and upper classes attempted to implement reforms to alleviate the worst conditions faced by the poorest citizens. Of course, poverty, labor unrest, alcoholism, and racial and ethnic prejudice were hardly new. However, as the size and diversity of the population increased, these problems had grown. By the end of the 1800s, workers’ movements had become more national in scope and were clearly seen as more threatening to political and economic elites. As a result, these elites sought to devise better mechanisms of control in order to protect their interests.4

FYi the prOGressive era was a time OF ChanGe

the Progressive era was characterized by a political revolt against the social and economic evils of the Indus- trial revolution and a belief that government intervention, even on a national scale, was necessary to remedy these evils. Politically, it began with a series of urban and state reform movements directed against corrupt and boss-ridden local governments.

the Progressive era was also characterized by the belief that american ingenuity and spirit could solve social problems and make life better for people. tremendous technological advances were taking place, includ- ing the development of the automobile, the airplane, moving pictures, the phonograph, and the electric light bulb, to name just a few. equally important, many americans believed that advances also could be made in social, political, and economic life.

The American Constitution: Its Origin and Development by a. h. Kelly and W. a. harbison describes the Progressives as follows: “Like the Jeffersonians of a century before, the Progressives had an abiding faith in the intelligence and good will of the american people. Fundamentally, their remedy for the failures of democracy was more democracy. Let the will of the people really reach into the Congress, the courts, the state legislatures, and america could then solve its problems.”5

the Social Context of the Juvenile Court 113

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Two problems that caused concern in the develop- ing urban areas were youth waywardness and crime. Thousands of indigent children roamed the streets in the larger cities,6 and many of these children engaged in immoral or illegal behavior that threatened the tran- quility of city life. Of course, criminal laws could be used to prosecute youths who committed crimes, but if the offenses were minor, the courts were often reluc- tant to do more than give the culprits a stern lecture. Furthermore, the laws were ineffective against those who had not committed crimes. As a result, reform-

ers sought to develop better ways of controlling youths—both those who committed crimes while they were young and those who were believed to be destined for adult criminal careers.

Those who led the reform effort, known as child savers, were primarily well-educated Protestant, middle-class women of Anglo-Saxon descent, but some were the daughters or wives of the most influential men in their community.7 They also tended to be conservative in their thinking. For example, they believed in traditional roles for women, and like other affluent people, they took for granted their natural superiority over the poor. From the child savers’ perspective, homemaking and child care were women’s primary responsibilities. However, because these traditional duties were performed in their own homes by servants, they had few outlets for their energies. Child saving provided a mechanism for these women to perform an important public service—the control and care of less fortunate children.8

FYi sOCial Darwinism inFluenCeD manY peOple’s thinKinG at this time

Social Darwinism was based on the belief that people’s position in life was a product of natural selection. thus, those who were wealthy believed that their wealth was a product of their natural superiority over those who were poor.

The child savers were informed by the latest thinking on adolescence, which saw adoles- cents as more like children than adults. Adolescence was seen as a problem period in the child’s development,9 a time when youths were subject to a variety of negative influences. Indeed, youths who engaged in crime were felt to suffer from poor parenting and weak morals and to be unusually susceptible to the temptations of the streets.10

Initially, the child savers sought to improve jail and reformatory conditions.11 However, their attention soon turned toward the development of more effective means of controlling the growing population of problem youths. Indeed, the primary focus of the child-saving movement was on extending government control over children through stricter supervision and improved legal mechanisms designed to regulate their behavior.12 In short, the child sav- ers felt that intrusion into the lives of children was necessary in order to prevent them from leading immoral and criminal lives—and, equally important, to protect the state and the interests of the wealthy.

Unlike earlier reformers, the child savers thought that the interventions needed to control and uplift children should be performed by government agencies, such as the police and courts, with the assistance of local charitable organizations. According to Julia Lathrop, an influential child saver in Chicago who later became head of the Federal Children’s Bureau:

There are at the present moment in the State of Illinois, especially in the city of Chicago, thou- sands of children in need of active intervention for their preservation from physical, mental and moral destruction. Such intervention is demanded, not only by sympathetic consideration for their

child savers A group of

reformers, mostly well- educated,

middle-class Protestant women

of Anglo-Saxon descent, who

had the time and resources to fight for improved conditions

for youths in jails and reformatories

and who eventually played an important

role in the creation of the juvenile

courts. On the posi- tive side, their work led to wider accep-

tance of adolescence as an important

developmental stage of life, and they cor-

rectly believed that the adult criminal justice system was

harmful to children or at best ineffec-

tive. On the negative side, their conser- vative ideas on the

family and their “noblesse oblige”

attitude toward the poor resulted in

reforms that focused more on the social control of children and the protection

of the interests of the wealthy than on attacking the

underlying causes of problem youth

behaviors.

Photo: Courtesy of hine, Lewis Wickes, 1874-1940, Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

114 ChaPter 5 the Development of the Juvenile Court

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

well-being, but also in the name of the commonwealth, for the preservation of the State. If the child is the material out of which men and women are made, the neglected child is the material out of which paupers and criminals are made.13

■ the legal Context of the juvenile Court

Although the social conditions that existed in urban areas led reformers to advocate for changes in how communities responded to youth crime and waywardness, the reformers also recognized that existing legal mechanisms for controlling and protecting children were inadequate. One immediate concern of the child savers was the placement of children in jail. For example, a study of the county jail system in Illinois in 1869 discovered 98 children younger than 16 years in 40 different jails. In Michigan, 377 boys and 100 girls younger than 18 years were placed in county jails in 1873; 182 boys and 29 girls were placed in jails in Ohio in 1871; and more than 2,000 youths, 231 of whom were younger than 15 years, were placed in jails in Massachusetts in 1870. The jailing of children was a common practice.14 However, as the Board of State Charities in Illinois noted, the county jails in the state contained cells that were “filthy and full of vermin,” and were “moral plague spots” where children were turned into “great criminals.”15

The child savers, who were concerned about the conditions children were exposed to in adult jails and lockups, condemned the fact that adult courts failed to mete out appropriate punishments for many of the transgressions of the young. Unless their offenses were severe, criminal court judges often treated youths leniently. From the child savers’ perspective, children either were treated too severely, by being placed in adult facilities where they were corrupted by older and more hardened offenders, or were let go without receiving any assistance.16 Thus, according to the child savers, children were neither controlled nor helped.

By the late 1800s, legal mechanisms for treating children separately from adults had been in existence for some time. For example, laws establishing the minimum age at which a child could be considered legally responsible for criminal behavior as well as age limits for place- ment in adult penitentiaries were enacted during the first half of the century.17 Moreover, the first special institution dealing with youths, the House of Refuge, was established in New York City in 1825, and these institutions spread to other jurisdictions.

The legal justification for state intervention in the lives of children was based on the doc- trine of parens patriae (the state as parent), which was given legal standing in an important case, Ex parte Crouse, in 1838. Mary Ann Crouse was committed to the Philadelphia House of Refuge by her mother, but against her father’s wishes. The father questioned Mary Ann’s placement, arguing that she was being punished without having committed a criminal offense. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Mary Ann’s placement was legal because the pur- pose of the house of refuge was to reform youths, not punish them; that formal due process protections afforded to adults in criminal trials were not necessary because Mary Ann was not being punished; and that when parents were unwilling or unable to protect their children, the state had a legal obligation to do so.18

The right of the state to intervene in the lives of children did not go unchallenged, however. In another important case, People v. Turner (1870), the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Daniel O’Connell, who was committed to the Chicago House of Refuge against his parents’ wishes, was being punished, not helped, by his placement. In some respects, this case was similar to Crouse. Daniel was institutionalized even though he had committed no criminal offense, and he was perceived to be in danger of becoming a pauper or criminal. In other respects, however, the two cases were decidedly different. Unlike the Crouse case, both parents had objected to Daniel’s placement, and, even more important, the court ruled that his placement was harm- ful, not helpful. Furthermore, the court decided that because placement in the house of refuge was actually a punishment, due process protections were necessary.19

parens patriae The obligation of the government to take responsibil- ity for the welfare of children. The doctrine of parens patriae recognizes the moral obligation of the government to take care of children when there is no family available or if the family is not suitable.

due process A course established for legal proceedings intended to ensure the protection of the private rights of the litigants. The essential elements of due process are

1. proper notice as to the nature of the legal proceedings,

2. a meaning- ful hearing in which the indi- vidual has an opportunity to be heard and/or defend him- or herself, and

3. the objectivity of the tribunal before which the proceedings take place.

the Legal Context of the Juvenile Court 115

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. 1592

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

People v. Turner was an important case because it was seen by reformers as an obstacle to their efforts to help and control youths. The Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in People v. Turner that required due process protections prior to youths’ placement, along with the increasing con- cern over the unwillingness of the criminal courts to sentence youths, led reformers in Chicago to consider other mechanisms by which their aims might be achieved. What they finally did was create the first juvenile court, which was established in Cook County (Chicago) in 1899.20

The juvenile court allowed reformers to achieve their goals of assisting and controlling children’s behavior without undue interference from the adult courts and without undue concern for the due process protections afforded adults. This was accomplished by setting up the court as a civil or chancery court intended to serve the “best interests” of children (as opposed to a criminal court, which focuses on the punishment of offenders). Because the new court was not a criminal court and its goal was not to punish but to help children, the need for formal due process protections was obviated.