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...

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…