The lack of formal procedure and constitutional due process in the juvenile justice system – and the potential for significant deprivation of liberty of children through long periods of detention, even in juvenile institutions – was highlighted in the landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1967 In re Gault. In the Gault case, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the Constitution requires that juveniles accused of delinquency in juvenile courts have many of the same due process rights guaranteed to adults accused of a crime, including the right to counsel and the right to confront witnesses against them. According to Gault, the Supreme Court extended additional constitutional rights to minors, including the right to have allegations against them proven beyond any doubt and the right to double jeopardy. In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that minors are not entitled to jury trials in juvenile courts, but several states have chosen, judicially or legislatively, to grant minors the right to a jury trial. After this change to ensure trial in juvenile trials, an increase in juvenile delinquency rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s prompted legislators to adopt a “severe crime” policy that deprives some juveniles of juvenile justice of protection. States have adopted mechanisms to move juveniles from a juvenile criminal court to an adult criminal court for trial and punishment. In some cases, these new laws have imposed the harshest penalties on children – death and life without the possibility of parole. Many of the state`s new laws have also exposed minors to the dangers and potential abuses attributed to incarceration with adult offenders – much as they knew before the original juvenile court was established more than a century earlier. The Annie E. The Casey Foundation provides additional information on the demographics of the juvenile justice system.
The justice system provides specific services to youth with significant mental health and addiction issues, but the majority of youth are not eligible for these targeted programs and interventions. Butts et al. suggest that integrating positive youth development into the juvenile justice system would benefit minors accused of non-violent and less serious crimes. [39] The JJDP Act authorizes the OJJDP to provide each state with an annual grant to improve its juvenile justice system and support juvenile delinquency prevention programs. Restorative judicial practices have been introduced in schools with rates of force majeure or crime. This can catch the youth before they are included in the justice system and turn discipline into a learning opportunity. It promotes accountability, a supportive climate, appropriate listening and response, and contributes to the development of empathy for the abuser. The difference between student exclusion and restorative approaches is evident not only in the low recidivism rate, but also in the school climate. Using relationship-based restorative approaches, it prioritizes interpersonal connections that create a better overall community.
The underlying thesis of restorative practices is that “people are happier, more cooperative and more productive, and are more likely to make positive changes in their behavior when those in positions of authority do things with them rather than with them or for them.” [46] The Office for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) envisions a nation in which all children are free from crime and violence. Young people`s contact with the justice system should be rare, fair and beneficial. Juvenile justice has developed since 1899 and has changed considerably. Originally, the trial was informal – often nothing more than a conversation between the minor and the judge – and the accused was not represented by a lawyer. The proceedings were conducted behind closed doors with little public or community awareness of the functioning of the juvenile court or what happened to the children who appeared before it. Instead of locking young people with adults in prisons, juvenile courts have established a probation system and separate rehabilitation and treatment centres to provide supervision, guidance and education for minors. The large-scale implementation of PYD approaches in the juvenile justice system faces many challenges. Philosophically, however, the PYD framework resembles the ideals of the progressive era that shaped the creation of the first juvenile court.
As Butts, Mayer and Ruther describe: “The concepts underlying the PYD are similar to those that led to the founding of American juvenile justice more than a century ago. […] The organizers of the first juvenile courts saw the solution to crime in better schools, community organizations, public health measures and support for families. They believed that an improved social environment would encourage young people to adopt prosocial norms. [40] The integration of the PYD into juvenile justice is influenced by social learning theory and social control theory. Taken together, these theories suggest that “adolescents are less attracted to criminal behavior when they engage with others, learn useful skills, are rewarded for using those skills, maintain strong relationships, build connections, and earn respect from their communities.” [41] This contrasts sharply with the theories of deterrence and retaliation in the current justice system. Since 1975, the Juvenile Law Center has worked to ensure that young people involved in the juvenile justice system have strong and meaningful rights, access to education and developmental treatment, and the opportunity to become healthy and productive adults. The Juvenile Law Center works towards a world that affirms the unique and diverse qualities in youth development, ensures fair and equitable treatment, and guarantees opportunities for success in adulthood.