The Family of the Juvenile Delinquent

Juvenile delinquency has historically been responded to by “de-familization” of the young offender; that is, removal to a training school or other institutional setting. The trend over the past two decades toward deinstitutionalization has meant that delinquent youngsters, who are now remaining in the context of their own communities and families, have been “re-familized.” This poses a major challenge for the juvenile justice system and community, who are stuck with the family but are not sure what to do about it. Little objective and systematic information is available concerning families of delinquents, either as an aggregate group or in individual cases. It is hypothesized that the families are as heterogeneous as are delinquent youngsters, but the juvenile justice system tends to scapegoat families and assumes they are all necessarily dysfunctional. A 10-point continuum of family functioning is proposed. It is suggested that families of delinquent youngsters are found at various points on this continuum: from the extremely impaired or criminogenic family, through the family that has serious problems but has something to offer its youngster if it receives effective help with those problems, to the family of average functioning that can serve as a major rehabilitative resource for the youngster.     

Juvenile diversion and the constitution

The juvenile justice system has been a product of interaction between legal and socio-medical forces since its inauguration near the end of the last century. While the socio-medical forces have, for the most part, been dominant over the years, concern for minimum legal standards has been a conspicuous part of the picture since the years 1966 to 1967. The result is serious attention to due process and fundamental fairness in court processing, and low tolerance for abridgement of such rights in the interests of attaining the social goal of rehabilitation. The question arises as to how early in the procedural chain for juveniles various due process rights should enter. Some have argued that important due process rights should be components in the process leading to probation, and even police, diversion. The central argument of this article is that broad directives regarding due process in diversion are inappropriate. Indeed, analysis of actual and potential losses of freedom associated with diversion decisions leads to the general conclusion that very few diversion programs require usual procedural rights. Moreover, a survey of case law indicates that there is little reason to expect that the procedural protections enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court so strongly in the 1960s will be extended by the courts to police (or probation) decisions on diversion in the 1980s.     

Juvenile offenders

LL.B., Leeds University 1955; LL.M., University of Singapore 1963.     

A Comparison of the Dispositions of Juvenile Offenders Certified as Adults with Juvenile Offenders Not Certified

Abstract In recent years, the transfer of juveniles to adult courts has been seen as one way of “getting tough” on juvenile crime. This study examined juvenile cases transferred to adult court, and compared them with a random sample of delinquents adjudicated in juvenile court for conduct that would constitute felonies if committed by an adult. The results indicated that juvenile cases transferred to adult court were far more likely to be pending and unresolved, as compared to the sample from the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, the results did not support the proposition that juveniles transferred to adult court would receive greater punishment than they could expect in juvenile court. Except for a small number of offenders, the prospect of transfer did not appear to provide a deterrent to crime.     

The Violent Female Juvenile Offender: An Ignored Minority Within the Juvenile Justice System

Little attention is given to the violent female adolescent. While there is no argument that males commit most of the violent crimes (both juveniles and adults), violent females may demand the attention of policy-makers and administrators. Historically there has been a lack of program offerings for these offenders. This article examines violent female adolescent offenders referred to the Clark County (Las Vegas, Nevada) Juvenile Court Services in two different years (1985 and 1988). This examination includes a review of programs and alternatives for these offenders and a review of what is currently being done by the juvenile justice system to accommodate this population. Dispositions and programmatic treatment offerings for violent adolescent males and females are compared. Recommendations are offered for the juvenile justice system for consideration.