Overview of the Juvenile Justice Process

1. Overview of the Juvenile Justice Process • Initial contact (police, parents, schools, DFS) • Discretion to make referral • Taken into custody arrest • Investigation • Diversion • Detention hearing • Pretrial procedures

2. Process • File a petition (indictment) • Adjudicatory hearing (trial) • Agree to a finding or deny petition • Adjustment (plea bargain) Adjudication (conviction) • Disposition (sentence) • Bifurcated process • Aftercare

3. Process • Commitment (incarceration, institutionalized) • Youth development center, training school (prison) • Residential facility (halfway house)

4. Current legislation • National advisory commission on criminal justice standards and goals (1973) • Emphasized: • Prevention • Diversion • Dispositional alternatives • Due process • Controlling the violent and chronic delinquent

5. Legislation • Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 • Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) • Removed juveniles from adult jails • Separation of status offenders and delinquents • Violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994

6. Police and Juveniles • Role conflicts: law enforce or service-oriented delinquency prevention • Arrests • 64% referred to juvenile court • 28% informally handled and released • 5% referred to criminal court • 2% referred to DFS

7. History • 19th century: increase in number of unemployed and homeless youths • Wickersham Commission, IACP advocated police reform • Delinquency control squads • Vollmer (Berkeley): prevention programs and juvenile aid bureaus, first organized special police services for youths

8. History • 1960s: increased tension between police and citizens • Civil unrest; police seen as oppressors • Increase in crime • Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) • Development of role in community awareness and crime prevention

9. History • Specialized programs for juveniles • Police athletic leagues • Project DARE • Community outreach (crime prevention, Weed & Seed • School resource officers • Gang control

10. Police and the law • Law of arrest the same for adults and juveniles • Probable cause • Misdemeanor: police must observe crime • Felony: probable cause • Otherwise must have a warrant • Police can “arrest” youths for status offenses such as truancy, running away and alcohol use

11. Police and the law • In loco parentis • Protective rather than punitive function • Once arrested, formal safeguards of the 4th and 5th amendment attach • 4th amendment standards of search and seizure have been determined to apply to juveniles

12. Police and the law (exceptions to the warrant requirement) • Same stop and frisk rule (Terry v. Ohio) • Search after a legal arrest in the immediate area of the subject’s control (Robinson v CA) • Automobile can be searched if there is probable cause • Consent to search • Abandoned property

13. Law and the police • Plain view doctrine • What about school officials? • Can school officials do searches and turn over what they find to police? • New Jersey v. T.L.O. • What should be the standard?

14. New Jersey v T.L.O. • Balance between the student’s right to privacy and school’s need to provide a safe environment • Teachers do not need to obtain a warrant before searching a student • Justified if violating the law OR violating school rules • Legality depends on reasonableness, rather than probable cause

15. New Jersey v TLO • Considerations are the scope of the search, age and sex of the student, and that behavior that prompted the search • An adult could not be searched by an agent of the government under this standard • This case is a balance between protections of adults and the needs of youths • In loco parentis

16. Veronia School district • Supreme Court allowed for suspicionless drug testing program for those in the athletics program • Would this case apply to youths who are not in such programs, i.e., random testing ? Not clear, has not be litigated

17. Custodial interrogations • Miranda v. AZ (1966) • In re Gault applied Miranda warnings to juveniles (1967) • Is a child’s waiver of those rights valid? • People v. Lara: whether juvenile can waive depends on the totality of the circumstances: • Age and other factors

18. Interrogations • People v Lara also said that other factors could be considered: education, knowledge, whether youth could consult with family or friends, method of interrogation, whether youth had refused previously to give statements • Validity of waiver to be determined on a case by case basis

19. Other cases on interrogations • Fare v. Michael: asking to speak to his probation officer not the same as asking for his attorney, statements were admissible • CA v Prysock: Miranda warning worded slightly differently (taped), court ruled that it was understandable to the juvenile • Many jurisdictions require attorney and/or parent, just to be sure

20. Police discretion and juveniles • Problem of discretion: need for flexibility, but it can be misused (can result in discrimination, especially against the poor and minority groups) • Considerable evidence that poor children and perceived and treated differently from middle class children

21. Studies of police discretion • More than ½ of police juvenile encounters are handled informally • Stationhouse detention • Factors affecting decision to handle formally/informally • Piliavin and Briar: other factors being equal, the demeanor of the juvenile

22. Studies of police discretion • Other factors: • Type and seriousness of offense • Wishes of the complaintant • Prior contacts • Race, sex and age • Perceived willingness of the parents to solve the problem

23. Discretion • Location • Police perception of community alternatives • Police department practices • Perceived community standards and norms • Racial bias? Mixed results • Police appear more likely to arrest minorities for more minor offenses, makes little difference for serious offenses

24. Discretion • African Americans more likely to be recommended for formal processing • However, greater involvement of minorities in offenses • Factors interact with others indicated above (perceived community standards, alternatives, etc.)

25. Police and gender bias • Paternalism, chivalry hypothesis • Police tend to be more lenient toward female delinquency, but treated them more harshly • Females more likely to be referred for status offenses • Inconclusive

26. Class bias • Youths growing up in poor areas had a significantly greater chance of having an arrest record than youths in other areas, regardless of the crime rates in these areas. • Might be a function of departmental policy to concentrate on certain areas

27. New directions: law enforcement • Field interrogations • Foot patrol and neighborhood storefront police stations • Community mobilization programs (block watch, weed and seed, Neighborhood Watch, neighborhood cleanups, etc) • Community policing

28. Should discretion be controlled? • Policies? • Recording of decisions? • Narrowing the scope of the juvenile code?

29. Other directions • Mentoring • Curfews • Afterschool programs • School resource officers