National Center for Policy Analysis

NCPA Fact Sheet On Juvenile Courts

---

• The first juvenile court was created in Chicago in 1899 and the idea quickly spread across the nation, sponsored by the same Progressive movement that had earlier produced probation, parole, the indeterminate sentence, and rehabilitation of criminals as reforms of the criminal justice system.

• The philosophy behind creation of the juvenile courts was individualized treatment by social workers and other professionals devoted to the child's best interests ("rule by experts").

• Juvenile courts handled 1.4 million delinquency cases in 1991 (the latest national statistics available), a 16 percent increase over 1987. A delinquency offense is defined as an act for which an adult can be prosecuted in criminal court (i.e., a violation of criminal law).

• Of all delinquency cases in juvenile courts in 1991, 103,600 were for violent Index crimes (murder, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery) and another 576,500 were for property Index crimes, including 148,700 burglaries.

• Between 1987 and 1991 juvenile murder cases rose 86 percent to 2,700 according to the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,(Juvenile Court Statistics 1991, May 1994).

• Law enforcement authorities refer about 85 percent of delinquency cases to the juvenile courts, while the remainder are referred by school authorities, welfare agencies, parents, probation officers and victims.

• About 60 percent of delinquency cases involve youths age 15 or younger.

• About half of the cases referred to juvenile courts are handled informally and the other half are formally handled through adjudication or tranfer hearings; more serious charges tend to be handled formally.

• In 1991 70 percent of burglary charges were handled formally but only 25 percent of shoplifting charges were.

• About 55 percent of juvenile crimes against the person and 67 percent of drug charges were handled formally.

• Among informally handled cases, juvenile courts dismissed about half, one quarter were placed in informal or voluntary probation and another quarter had a variety of other dispositions.

• Between 1987 and 1991 the number of cases handled formally increased 21 percent, more rapidly than all cases, while crimes against the person handled formally increased 44 percent.

• In formally adjudicated cases in the juvenile courts, 57 percent were placed on formal probation, 29 percent were placed in a residential facility, 4 percent were released or had their case dismissed, and the remaining 10 percent were ordered to pay restitution, pay a fine, participate in community service or submit to a treatment or counseling program.

• In 1991 only 9,700 or 1.5 percent of formally adjudicated delinquency cases were transferred from juvenile to criminal courts, but a 39 percent increase over 1987.

• In 1992 11,700 cases were transferred, a 21 percent jump over 1991 and 1.6 percent of delinquency cases formally handled, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention (How Juveniles Get to Criminal Court, October 1994).

• Only 15 percent of youth murder cases were transferred from juvenile to criminal court; 4 percent of forcible rape cases, 4 percent of drug law violations, 3 percent of robberies, 2 percent of aggravated assault cases, 2.3 percent of all offenses against the person and 1 percent of burglaries and car thefts were transferred to criminal court.

• An estimated 176,000 cases involving youths age 17 and younger were handled by the criminal courts because they were considered adults under State law.

• By the end of 1992 every state except Nebraska and New York allowed juvenile court judges to waive jurisdiction over a case and transfer it to criminal court, usually under specified age and offense restrictions.

• Thirteen states give prosecutors discretion to file in either criminal or juvenile court, subject to certain age and offense restrictions.

• Three states--Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina--limit the juvenile court's jurisdiction to youths age 15 years-old and younger while eight states--Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas--limit the juvenile court's jurisdiction to youths age 16 and under. Therefore, in 1991 11 states excluded 17 year-olds from the original jurisdiction of juvenile court.

• Twenty states exclude specified serious crimes from juvenile courts by statute, subject to age restrictions. North Carolina, for example, excludes juveniles age 14 and older who are charged with capital crimes from juvenile court jurisdiction. In Ohio, juveniles of any age are excluded if they have prior criminal convictions.

Source: Morgan O. Reynolds, director of the Criminal Justice Center, National Center for Policy Analysis.

CRIME WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES

Researchers suggest the juvenile justice system is part of the juvenile crime problem.

Each arrest is an opportunity to deter the educable and incarcerate the incorrigible, but the juvenile system reinforces the present-orientedness common to criminals of all ages by misleading youths into thinking there are no serious consequences to crime. "Initial low levels of punishment and gradual escalation desensitize subjects and make them less likely to respond," according to Peter W. Greenwood of the RAND Corporation. Begun in the Progressive era, the system views juvenile status as a defense against criminal responsibility.

• Youthful offenders are usually given a number of free rides or diversions before any serious punishment is meted out.

• When sentencing does take place, the courts are often barred from using previous arrests and convictions in deciding punishment.

• And since virtually every state seals or expunges juvenile records, offenders need not worry about prior convictions haunting them in the adult world.

Researchers suggest that it is important for youthful offenders to learn that criminality is a choice, since long-term patterns of violent criminal behavior begin during youth and grow in intensity.

• About one-third of all boys in the United States will be arrested before turning 18.

• Each successive arrest places them at a higher risk of being detained in the future, reaching a 90 percent probability for those with five or six arrests.

• These chronic offenders are the 6 percent of boys who account for more than 50 percent of all arrests, according to University of Pennsylvania criminologist Marvin Wolfgang.

Responding to the increasing number of violent crimes committed by juveniles, in 1994 alone 20 states lowered the age at which offenders may be tried as adults. But even in those states most youths are processed by the juvenile justice system, not tried as criminals, and juveniles cannot be kept passed their 25th birthday regardless of their crime.

Source: Nick Gillespie, "Arrested Development," Reason, December 1994, Reason Foundation, 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90034, (310) 391-2245.

FEW COURTS REQUIRE RESTITUTION

In some parts of the country, juvenile offenders are being required to compensate the victims of their crimes. The programs are called "juvenile restitution." In some cases youths make payments to victims directly, while in others they are ordered to participate in community service programs to earn money to make the payments.

Although all states currently allow local courts to order restitution, few actually do so.

• There are currently only 400 to 500 such programs across the country.

• Of the 3,000 juvenile court jurisdictions, 85% lack such programs.

However, the programs that do operate report some successes:

• Utah last year returned $700,000 to victims through restitution.

• Several counties in Florida operate highly successful "Project Payback" programs.

• One county in Georgia reports a 27% drop in recidivism among the restitution group in comparison with probationers.

Source: David B. Stires, "Beyond Crime and Punishment - Restitution," Wall Street Journal, September 20, 1995.

Most states have statutes that allow or even require that the criminal records of juvenile offenders be expunged -- either destroyed or sealed -- when the delinquent reaches a certain age. However, some states are considering changing their laws, and some experts agree the practice is counterproductive.

Wiping the slate clean imposes a number of costs on society, since juvenile offenders are four times more likely to become adult criminals than other youths.

• Since they don't know, judges can't consider defendants' violent crimes as juveniles when they come before the court as first-time adult offenders.

• It is very difficult to collect meaningful data about juvenile delinquents and evaluate crime-prevention and rehabilitation programs.

• Employers can't find out whether potential employees are prone to stealing or other criminal behaviors.

These laws also withhold information from the police, who use criminal records to identify suspects. This is an important consideration, since an increasing percentage of serious crime is committed by juveniles.

• According to FBI estimates, between 1983 and 1992 violent crime committed by juveniles increased 57 percent, making them the fastest growing segment among violent offenders.

• Murders and non-negligent manslaughter among juveniles jumped 128 percent, aggravated assault 95 percent and rape 25 percent.

• Studies show that juveniles account for up to 35 percent of all police contacts with males.

The laws expunging juvenile records were meant to keep teenagers from being stigmatized for life by minor offenses, but in many cases they have become a shield for youthful criminal careers.

Source: T. Markus Funk, "Young & Arrestless," Reason, February 1996.

RIGHTS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY

Social attitudes and welfare programs eased the way for unmarried, immature women to bear children with no father or other male authority in the home. The result is children who join gangs that stand in for families, where they learn violence as a way of life. Evidence of the social pathologies set in motion in the 1960s can be found in journalist Edward Humes's No Matter How Loud I Shout: A Year in the Life of Juvenile Court.

Reforms in the 1960s transformed the juvenile justice system:

• It had been based on the idea of parens patriae -- decision making by wise adults in the best interests of a minor.

• Now it gives juveniles all the protections of the adult criminal system -- legal representation, exclusionary rules and other due process requirements.

• However, it doesn't have the adults system's serious sanctions and still promises confidentially.

• The juvenile justice system is incapable of contending with the remorseless young armed robbers and killers of Los Angeles detailed in Humes's book. It fails to rescue those who can be salvaged or restrain those for whom it is too late.

Hard core repeat offenders are less than 10 percent of the nation's criminal young; yet the juvenile system focuses its attention and resources on them. Scholar John DiLulio and New York City Judge Judy Sheindlin (in her book, Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining) agree that intervention can save many younger children. For them, the best antidote to the alienation and lack of empathy typical of young criminals is an adult presence that tempers affection with firmness.

Source: Rita Kramer (author, At a Tender Age: Violent Youth and Juvenile Justice), "The Young and Lawless," Wall Street Journal, February 27, 1996.