Get Tough vs. Parens Patriae

Juvenile Justice How was the "get tough" movement different from the original parens patriae concept? This paper reviews both forms of punishment (or penalizing) when juveniles stray away from law-abiding behaviors. The history of parens patriae The system known as parens patriae was developed many centuries ago, beginning in the late fourteenth century, according to the book Juvenile Delinquency: An Integrated Approach.

And early in the fifteenth century parens patriae (the law that emerged from this concept was called "equity law") cases were brought before courts in England, and in time parens patriae was imported to the United States, because many legal traditions that settlers in the U.S. adopted were in fact from English law (Burfeind, 2011, 13).

What does parens patriae mean in Latin? Originally it meant "parent of the country," and in England it offered "far-reaching power" to the King of England, as the ultimate ruler and guardian of the country and its people. It was a way to settle disputes, mostly dealing with property rights, Burfeind writes (13). Along with his authority, the King was obliged under parens patriae to give back, to help vulnerable and dependent groups, including children.

As to how parens patriae relates to juvenile justice in the U.S., the doctrine ultimately transitioned into the idea that the courts had the right and duty to "exercise parental duties" when parents did not or were not providing for the care of the child (Burfeind, 14). So basically the policy in the United States became one of supervising, educating, and providing discipline for children (and adolescents are included) rather than simply punishing them.

The "get tough" movement Meanwhile, a certain body of the literature refers to the "get tough" movement as a way for politicians to make a point and go after votes of citizens who were tired of juvenile crime, gangs, and the use and sale of drugs. In the late 1970s, according to authors Preston Elrod and Scott Ryder, the public began to be fed up with "serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders," and the "get tough" movement thus had its start (Elrod, 2011).

Hence, politicians pushed policy makers into giving serious offending juveniles "maximum terms of confinement," which was easier for judges to make decisions about how much time or where a juvenile should serve, Elrod explains (13). These policies were more about "the politics of juvenile justice" than about the knowledge of juvenile crimes or juvenile offenders; Elrod asserts that the public "perception" of juvenile offending has a bigger impact on how society treats juvenile law-breakers than the realities of juvenile crime per se (13).

And moreover, responses to juvenile criminals are based not on sociological facts, but rather, on the "political process" -- and the political process (politicians talking tough to get votes) is based more on "sensational and distorted media accounts" than the raw facts and conditions under which juvenile criminals live (Elrod, 13). A good example of a "get tough" approach was launched in New York State under the Juvenile Offender Law.

It provided for "automatic placement in criminal court, long sentences, mandated secure confinement, low age jurisdiction," and an emphasis on protection of the community, its people and property (McGarrell, 1988). The author notes that the punishment meted out in New York State was "the antitheses of the parens patriae philosophy" (McGarrell, 178). In conclusion, another "get tough" approach by cities was to set up curfews for juveniles. But.