Lucy Flower

There were several decisions made by the Supreme Court that formalized courts for juveniles, making them more like criminal courts. Formal hearings were required, juveniles who faced confinement were given the right to receive a notice of the charges being held against them, and also came along the right to be represented by an attorney. In the 1980’s the public noticed that juvenile crimes were rising and that the system was not effective. Soon states began implementing disciplinary laws, some which included a mandatory sentencing and automatically being sent to adult court for certain crimes committed.

The book, No Matter How Loud I Shout, takes an in-depth look at the juvenile court system in the state of California in the 1990s. Through a colorful narrative story the author, Edward Humes, paints of vivid picture of the how dysfunctional the system truly was. The main focus is on the various ways the system has failed many of the juveniles that it is intended to help. Peggy Beckstrand, the Deputy District Attorney, says it best “The first thing you learn about this place, is that nothing works.” (No Matter How Loud I Shout, 1996, p.31)

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

I’m going to speak on the introduction and also some of the procedures to the juvenile system in America in the early 1900’s, and also in today’s generation . When people think of the juvenile justice the first thing that comes to mind is probably all of the bad children that end up in jail or prison. When we forget that these are just children that can be helped in other ways: such as reformed schools, Big Brother programs, Boot camp, etc. In the early 19th century courts would punish and confine juveniles in large penitentiaries, not taking in consideration the psychological affect it would have on the juvenile: sleeping, having conversations, showering, fighting, eating amongst grown adult whom can easily manipulate these children

One hundred years ago, the Illinois legislature enacted the Illinois Juvenile Court Act (1899 Ill. Laws 132 et seq.), creating the first separate juvenile court. The policy debates raging around the country in this centennial year(1899), however, make it uncertain whether the traditional juvenile court will prevail. Early in the 19th century, juveniles were tried along with adults in criminal courts. In common law, children under

Today’s juvenile court system handles most cases involving those under the age of 18-year-old. This was not always the case and the ideal of a separate court system for adults and children is only about 100 years old. When looking at the differences that set juvenile courts apart, it is important to study the history and see how it developed over time.

But back in 1891, a bill was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly proposing a children’s court. The person most instrumental in introducing this bill was Timothy D. Hurley, president of the Catholic-controlled Chicago Visitation and Aid Society. The bill would give county courts the power to commit dependent children to any nonprofit child welfare organization incorporated under Illinois law (Tannenhaus, 2002). In addition, the bill proposed that county courts be empowered to commit to private child-saving organizations any child “being trained or allowed to be trained in vice and crime” (Platt, 2009, p. 123 – 124). Lucy Flower supported this bill because it would give judges more discretion in handling dependent cases (Tannenhaus, 2002).

Louise De Koven Bowen made several contributions toward bettering juvenile court for delinquents, giving women’s rights in Chicago, making sure youth had a positive environment to develop in, plus her association to the hull house and all of which contributed to why her legacy lives on not just back then but even today through all she did for the betterment of conditions for inner city youth.

Regardless of expansive help inside the scholastic, lawful, and social-work callings, the perfect regularly neglected to satisfy its guarantee. After some time, the adolescent equity framework in numerous states returned to the corrective approach it was intended to supplant. In spite of the fact that they were frequently called "preparing schools," the foundations were adolescent penitentiaries. What's more, the introduce that the court, by definition, was acting "to the greatest advantage of the kid" left youthful guilty parties without the rights ensured to grown-up criminal litigants. There were rehashed records of damaging practices. The length of confinement was regularly irrelevant to the seriousness of the offense. Adolescent hearings were generally mystery, with no composed transcripts and no privilege to advance. Minors were not given lawful guidance, there were no shields against self-implication, and guilty

The books offer an incisive insidious look of the country’s legal system that is locked out of the scrutiny of the public, and which offers no or little oversight of the judges, and which allowed sentencing of the children without any legal counsel. This opens the eyes of the public on the haunting and the twisted realities of the current American juvenile justice system.

It is necessary to begin this study with a look at the history of the juvenile justice system, because as mentioned above, the notion of childhood and adolescence as a distinct phase of human development, and thus deserving of special

At the end of the 19th Century, the U.S. made legal history when the world's first juvenile court opened in Chicago(Horwitz-Prisco). The court was founded on two basic principles. First, juveniles lacked the maturity to take responsibility for their actions the way adults could. Second, because their character was not yet fully developed, they could be rehabilitated more successfully than adult criminals. More than a century later, these principles remain the benchmarks of juvenile justice in the United States(Horowitz-Prisco).In recent years, however, a growing number of juvenile criminals are being tried as adults. In part this stems from public outrage against children who are committing violent crimes. Many young children in America are

In the early nineteenth century juveniles were treated the same as adults when it came to the legal system. We did not have separate courts or jails for juveniles and they would often receive the same punishments as adults that had committed crimes. “At the beginning of the

The rising viewpoint of the child savers was that of parens patriae which said that the state had an assenting duty to get involved and care for the less fortunate kids. In 1899, the first court devoted to hearing cases with juvenile delinquents was developed by the Illinois Legislature. The procedures in the juvenile court were much different from those of the criminal courts. The child would be accused of a crime they committed, but they were offered help, treatment, and direction (Myers, 2008). Juvenile hearings were held in private and the juvenile’s records were kept sealed to avoid the disgrace of a criminal conviction. Since the juvenile courts rejected punishment, they were allowed to have jurisdiction on things adult courts did not consider crimes. These offenses could be anything including truancy, disobedience, bad language, immorality, and vagrancy. Under parens patriae, the juvenile court was allowed to use wide range discretion to resolve the troubles of juvenile offenders and rejected the official procedures of the adult

The nation’s first juvenile court was established in 1899 as a part of the Juvenile Court Act. It was founded on three principles: juveniles are not ready to be held accountable for their actions, are not yet fully developed, and can rehabilitate easier than adults. In all but three states, anyone charged with committing a criminal act before his or her eighteenth birthday is considered a juvenile offender. Now more than ever, states and countries have begun to question the reliability of the juvenile court. Some believe the juvenile court system should be abolished because of its insufficient gain to the community. Others believe children are not fully capable to understand the degree of their actions and the consequences that come from them and believe that juvenile courts are a necessity in the court system.