Criminal justice systems and contemporary practices

Criminal Justice

The problem of how to treat and processing juvenile offenders through the court system has been an issue before the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899. Before it was recognized that minors needed their own court system, they were processed through the adult court and often received harsh punishment. Separate juvenile courts became evident within all states by 1945. However, the juvenile court system was based upon the adult system and was one that consisted of medical and rehabilitative measures to correct unacceptable behavior. The original goals of the juvenile court were to investigate, diagnose, and prescribe treatment for offenders, not to adjudicate guilt or fix blame. With this philosophy came the doctrine of parent's patriae. Under this doctrine, the state would become an acting agent in place of the parent and act on behalf of the misbehaving juvenile.

Juvenile court proceedings were usually informal and the judge practiced the early philosophy of juvenile courts. That was to protect the juvenile while rehabilitating them. The youth would be placed in a reformatory and isolated from the bad influences that had influenced their decisions and life.

They were also taught to exhibit self- discipline and control. However, throughout the first part of the century, these institutions were often dangerous and unhealthy places where the state housed many delinquent, neglected, and abandoned children for indefinite periods. Problems found in these institutions were the lack of proper medical attention and care, food, and psychological treatment.

While many of these same problems exist today, there are also many attempts to improve the juvenile court system and separate offenders who are minors from their adult counterparts. Throughout the years, certain rights available to adults had not been made available to youth offenders. Instead, the court would act upon the juvenile's behalf and make decisions in place of the parent. Based on evidence and outcomes, the court would decide what was theoretically in the best interest of the child and what path should be taken to reform the delinquent. After much debate and recommendation, there have been many changes made within the juvenile court system. These changes include the right to counsel, notice requirements, and other due process guarantees that were not historically or formally available to juveniles. The underlying idea of the punishment given was that juveniles would receive the necessary guidance and management from representatives designated by the court.

Since this ideological concept is acceptable, the harsh reality of juvenile incarceration was as strict and devastating as a sentence for an adult. The 1960's brought about concern and many voiced opinions concerning the unconstitutional contradiction between the informality of the juvenile proceedings and the possible deprivation of liberty faced by a juvenile offender led to a series of court cases that would forever change the face of juvenile justice. With this concern came decisions made by the Supreme Court to extend necessary due process safeguards to juvenile offenders that only earlier been available for adult offenders.

This began the mark of the difference between the juvenile and adult court systems. The transition for juvenile courts continued into the 1980's. While rehabilitation was still an important goal, juvenile justice policy began to emphasize punishment and public safety. More responsibility was places upon the parents of minors and laws making parents responsible for their children's conduct were created and enforced. The increase in juvenile crime had lawmakers reconsider the ease of the juvenile court system and those minors participating in violent crimes where given more rights, but they also faced harder consequences.

The 1990's saw a continuation for new laws to be created and existing ones made harsher. Many states began to endorse new laws that were targeted toward holding juvenile offenders, especially those who exhibited violent, serious, or chronic behavior. These offenders were held more accountable for their actions. The new and stricter legislation became popular and made it easier for repeat violent juvenile offenders to be tried as adults. When the use of a firearm was involved, penalties for crimes committed with a weapon increased. This decision would only be made after a juvenile court determined if the crime and offender met the criteria set by the specified court and law.

With the changes brought about within the juvenile court system, the design and construction of more secure prison facilities had to be completed. Other programs were developed to bring about a harsh reality of circumstances to juveniles. These programs included juvenile boot camps, house arrest programs, day treatment centers, experimental wilderness camps, and enhanced probation sanctions occurred. For less serious and/or younger offenders, victim-offender mediation is becoming a popular option designed to encourage in the offender a sense of empathy for what the victim has suffered.

The United States Supreme Court has long been sensitive to the treatment of indigents in our criminal justice system as exhibited in the court case of Bearden v. Georgia. The defendants plead guilty to burglary and theft by receiving stolen property during his trial in the state of Georgia. However, the court, pursuant to the Georgia First Offender's Act, did not enter a judgment of guilt, and sentenced petitioner to probation on the condition that he pay a fine in the amount of $500 and $250 in restitution, with $100 payable that day, $100 the next day, and the $550 balance within four months. The petitioner borrowed money from his parents and paid the first $200, but about a month later he was laid off from his job. He had only a ninth-grade education and was unable to read, thus making his efforts to find additional work prove to be unsuccessful. Before the $550 balance due date, he notified his probation officer of the problem, and explained the situation. He explained that the payment would be made, but would be late. The State filed a petition to revoke petitioner's probation because he had not paid the balance. After the trial court and hearing, the probation was revoked and a conviction notices was entered. The defendant was then sentenced to prison for non-payment of the fine. The record of the hearing disclosed that petitioner had been unable to find employment and had no assets or income. The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's claim that imprisoning him for inability to pay the fine and make restitution violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Georgia Supreme Court denied review.