Parens Patriae vs. the Get Tough Movement in Juvenile Justice
This paper examines two contrasting approaches to juvenile justice: the historical doctrine of parens patriae and the modern "get tough" movement. Tracing parens patriae from its fourteenth-century English origins through its adoption in American courts, the paper explains how the doctrine obligated the state to act as a guardian for children whose parents failed them. It then analyzes how political pressures in the late 1970s drove a punitive shift toward mandatory sentencing, secure confinement, and juvenile curfews — policies critics argue were shaped more by media sensationalism and electoral politics than by evidence about juvenile crime.
- Introduction: Framing question contrasting parens patriae and get tough
- The History of Parens Patriae: Origins and meaning of parens patriae doctrine
- The Get Tough Movement: Political drivers of punitive juvenile justice policies
- Policy Examples: New York and Juvenile Curfews: New York law and curfews as get tough measures
- Conclusion: Assessment of both approaches and future outlook
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper anchors its argument in a clear historical framework, tracing parens patriae from its medieval English origins before explaining how U.S. policy diverged from that tradition.
- It draws on multiple criminology textbooks and policy studies to support claims, giving the analysis academic grounding even at a short length.
- The contrast between the two philosophies — rehabilitative guardianship versus punitive politics — is stated directly and reinforced with a concrete state-level policy example (New York's Juvenile Offender Law).
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses comparative analysis, placing two policy philosophies side by side and showing how one replaced the other over time. By quoting authors who explicitly label the New York law "the antithesis of the parens patriae philosophy," the student allows authoritative sources to carry the evaluative weight of the argument rather than relying solely on personal assertion.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing question, then dedicates one section to the origins and meaning of parens patriae and a second section to the political and social forces behind the get tough movement. A third section applies both frameworks to concrete policy examples — mandatory sentencing in New York and juvenile curfews — before closing with a brief normative conclusion. The structure is straightforward and mirrors a classic compare-and-contrast essay format.
Introduction
How was the "get tough" movement different from the original parens patriae concept? This paper reviews both approaches to handling juvenile offenders — the rehabilitative tradition rooted in parens patriae and the punitive philosophy that came to dominate juvenile justice policy in the late twentieth century.
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 textbook Juvenile Delinquency: An Integrated Approach. Early in the fifteenth century, parens patriae cases — governed by what became known as "equity law" — were brought before courts in England. In time, parens patriae was imported to the United States, because many of the legal traditions adopted by American settlers derived from English law (Burfeind, 2011, p. 13).
Originally, the Latin phrase parens patriae meant "parent of the country." In England it granted "far-reaching power" to the King as the ultimate ruler and guardian of the nation and its people, serving primarily as a means to settle disputes involving property rights (Burfeind, p. 13). Alongside that authority, however, the King was obliged under parens patriae to give back — to assist vulnerable and dependent groups, including children.
As the doctrine relates to juvenile justice in the United States, parens patriae ultimately transitioned into the principle that courts had both the right and the duty to "exercise parental duties" when parents were absent or failing to provide adequate care for their children (Burfeind, p. 14). In practice, American policy became one of supervising, educating, and providing discipline for children and adolescents rather than simply punishing them.
The Get Tough Movement
A significant body of literature characterizes the "get tough" movement as a politically driven response to public anxiety over juvenile crime. In the late 1970s, according to authors Preston Elrod and Scott Ryder, the public grew increasingly frustrated with "serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders," and the "get tough" movement took hold (Elrod, 2011, p. 13). Politicians consequently pushed policymakers to impose "maximum terms of confinement" on serious juvenile offenders, making it easier for judges to determine the length and location of a juvenile's sentence (Elrod, p. 13).
These policies were driven more by "the politics of juvenile justice" than by empirical knowledge of juvenile crime or offenders. Elrod argues that public perception of juvenile offending has a greater impact on how society treats juvenile lawbreakers than the realities of juvenile crime itself (Elrod, p. 13). Moreover, societal responses to juvenile criminals are shaped not by sociological evidence but by the "political process" — a process that in turn is driven more by "sensational and distorted media accounts" than by the actual facts and conditions under which juvenile offenders live (Elrod, p. 13).
Conclusion
The juvenile justice system is unlikely to return fully to the parens patriae philosophy that once guided it. The "get tough" era shifted the focus from rehabilitation and guardianship to punishment and confinement, driven largely by political pressures and media-amplified public fear rather than by evidence about what reduces juvenile crime. Ideally, a system can be developed that is fair, just, and genuinely beneficial to society — one that balances accountability with the recognition that young offenders are still capable of rehabilitation.
Works Cited
Burfeind, J. W., and Bartusch, D. (2011). Juvenile Delinquency: An Integrated Approach. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Elrod, P., and Ryder, S. (2011). Juvenile Justice: A Social, Historical and Legal Perspective. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
McGarrell, E. F. (1988). Juvenile Correctional Reform: Two Decades of Policy and Procedural Change. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Siegel, L., and Welsh, B. (2010). Juvenile Delinquency: The Core. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.